[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
......unite right wing reactionaries against “the left” (don’t be so “divisive” as to “punch right”) and conquer (erstwhile White/ethnonational social systemic homeostasis)?
With Majorityrights having recently been taken off of the WN/news aggregate site formerly known as “the White Right Hub” and now the “Goebbels Report” after MR had the nerve to question the wisdom of their promoting “The Greatest Story Never Told” in the name of White morale and unity? as it features wholesale lies from Goebbels - e.g., that Poles killed 58,000 German civilians interwar - in order to “justify” invasion of Poland…the question comes into relief again:
What part is Regnery playing in promoting the socially disorganizing right wing identity among Whites in their reaction to affliction? and is a Germanic/Jewish element among Regnery using this to promote divide and conquer among Whites?
What begs these questions?
Following MR having called-out the White Right Hub for featuring this highly inaccurate and destructive propaganda, they did replace the feature (“Greatest Story Never Told”), with a headline of a Polish woman who had a child with a black, who then, typically, abandoned her.
This is quite Jewy. I cannot imagine mocking Germans for their mudsharks. And it casts suspicion on this spirit of unity that these right wingers claim to be promoting and how I am the one supposedly sowing discord.
Not long after, none other than Regnery’s pet, Richard Spencer, was being featured atop The Goebbels Report…
Regnery is apparently sponsoring much of the dubious right wing White identity - such as Richard Spencer’s NPI and Mike Enoch’s TRS.
Norvin tells me that a character going by the nom de plume of “Privada” is acting as a producer (gate-keeper) for those going on (what I’m guessing is) the Rengery approved circuit.
Regnery and Spencer, central umbrellas in the Regnery Tentosphere. Richard Thpenther thays, “If you’re not right on “the PQ” (Polish question), we’re going to purge you from thith movement” - (((Alternative Right))).
Regnery Publishing is a conservative book publisher based in Washington, D.C. An imprint of Salem Media Group, it is led by president Marji Ross. The company was founded by Henry Regnery in 1947.[3][4][5]
Regnery has published books by authors such as former Republican Party chairman Haley Barbour, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, columnist Michelle Malkin, Robert Spencer, pundit David Horowitz, Vice President Mike Pence and his family and Barbara Olson.
Again, Regnery is known to sponsor many right wing projects, including those that “White Nationalists” are involved in, apparently sponsoring TRS (see here, here and here as to why that’s particularly dubious) in addition to Spencer’s NPI (among the manifold dubiousness of that outfit, for example, here).
Below are samples from the most recent tweet to tweets not far down the line (even though some of the dates are old) from Regnery president, Marj Ross, indicating a kosher aesthetic.
Dave Sussman, Whiskey Politics
@DavidSussman
20 Dec 2018
.@Regnery inspires new authors! Learn how to get published, catch up on 2018’s best books & what’s upcoming in 2019 as Marji Ross joins me at #WhiskeyPolitics.
Produced by Praemonitus Communications @6foot2inhiheels.
@SebGorka @VP @AnnCoulter @YouTube
@shellieblum
9 Jun 2016
More
Replying to @MRossRegnery
@Regnery @oreillyfactor You did a great job! It’s nice 2 hear someone in the traditional Publishing World be authentic! #books
0 replies 2 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet 2 Like 1 Direct message
....
Marji Ross
@MRossRegnery
26 Apr 2016
More
Meeting with the incredibly talented and beautiful #Stacey Dash to plan the launch of her upcoming Regnery book!
Paul Gottfried, Gilad Atzmon and David Cole Stein are three ready examples of Jews who are taking the kind of right wing and philo-Germanic perspective that is characteristic of the Regnery circus (even if Stein and Atzmon are not published by Regnery, they are common as “the good Jews” among Regnery discourse-promotional circuits).
Buchanan, Gottfried and Spencer. Along with President Reagan, Buchanan is a descendant of (((Frank Meyers))) “fusionism” (Judeo-Christianity + Enlightenment objectivism), so too Paul Gottfried; and Gottfried, a German Jew, tends to see “the bad Jews as Slavic”; of high relevance, Gottfried’s fear of intersectionality against “The Left” had him call for damage control misdirection against a White Left ethnonational response to Jews in their ascendance to unprecedented hegemony circa 2008, calling for a Paleoconservatism 2.0, an Alternative Right, which Richard Spencer took up - a tentosphere of right wing reactionaries now usually being called “the dissident right” after Spencer and his Alt-Right brand name were predictably steered into destruction.
David Cole-Stein, adversary of “The Left”, supported early holocaust revisionist efforts, a proud German-Jew who detests Slavic Jews.
Atzmon, philo-Germanic, anti-Zionist
...offering some insider critique of Jewish power and influence
(probably as semi conscious damage control)
but otherwise basically a liberal.
I was deeply saddened to learn today of the death of French New Right philosopher and polemicist Guillaume Faye after a battle with cancer. Faye had been sick for some time, but he was so focused on writing what will now be his last book that he postponed seeing a doctor until it was complete. When he finally sought medical attention, he was diagnosed with stage four cancer. There is no stage five. Guillaume Faye gave his life for his work, and his work for Europe.
Faye, like New Rightists and White Nationalists in European societies around the globe, was motivated by a sense of danger: the reigning system — liberal, democratic, capitalist, egalitarian, globalist — has set the white race in all of its homelands on the path to extinction through declining birthrates and race replacement through immigration and miscegenation. If we are to survive, we must understand this system, critique it, and frame an alternative that will secure the survival and flourishing of our race. Then we need to figure out how we can actually implement these ideas.
I like Faye’s approach for a number of reasons.
First, Faye thinks big. He wants to take all of Europe back for Europeans. I completely agree with this aim. Furthermore, to secure the existence of Europe against the other races and power blocs, Faye envisions the creation of a vast “Eurosiberian” Imperium, stretching from Iceland to the Pacific, with a federated system of government and an autarkic economy. He believes that only such an imperium will be equal to the challenges posed by the other races in a world of burgeoning populations and shrinking resources. As I argue in my essay “Grandiose Nationalism,” I think that such ideas are neither necessary nor practical and they entail dangers of their own. But nobody can fault them for visionary boldness.
Second, Faye thinks racially. His answer to the question “Who are we?” is ultimately racial, not cultural, religious, or subracial: white people are a vast, extended family descending from the original inhabitants of Europe after the last Ice Age. There are, of course, cultural and subracial identities that are also worth preserving within a federated imperium, but not at the expense of the greater racial whole.
Third, Faye is not a Luddite, primitivist, or Hobbit. He values our heritage, but he is attracted less to external social and cultural forms than to the vital drives that created them and express themselves in them. He also wishes to do justice to European man’s Faustian drive toward exploration, adventure, science, and technology. His “archeofuturism” seeks to fuse vital, archaic, biologically-based values with modern science and technology.
Fourth, Faye turns the idea of collapse into something more than a deus ex machina, a kind of Rapture for racists. We know a priori that an unsustainable system cannot be sustained forever and that some sort of collapse is inevitable. But Faye provides a detailed and systematic and crushingly convincing analysis of how the present system may well expire from a convergence of catastrophes. Of course, we need to be ready when the collapse comes. We need a clear metapolitical framework and an organized, racially conscious community to step into the breach, or when the present system collapses, it will simply be replaced with a rebranded form of the same ethnocidal regime.
Fifth, Faye is a strong critic of Christianity as the primary fount of the moral universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism that are at the root of our decline.
The only really fundamental disagreement I have with Faye was on the Jewish question. His views are closer to those of Jared Taylor, whereas mine are closer to those of Kevin MacDonald.
I only met Faye once, at the 2006 American Renaissance conference, where we had a couple of enjoyable conversations. We corresponded occasionally before and after that meeting. One of my treasured possessions is a copy of Faye’s first book, Le Système à tuer les peuples (Copernic, 1981), which he had given to Savitri Devi. Unfortunately, he was never able to locate his brief correspondence with Savitri. Perhaps it will come to light in his papers, which should be carefully preserved. If European man has a future, it will be due in no small part to Faye’s works. He belongs to history now, and future European generations will look dimly upon us if we fail to conserve and carry on his legacy.
Counter-Currents will publish several memorial tributes to Faye in the coming days. In the meantime, I wish simply to draw your attention to many pieces by and about Faye at Counter-Currents.
By Guillaume Faye:
“Call to Young Europeans,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations: Czech, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish)
“The Cause of the Peoples?,” trans. Michael O’Meara
“The Conquest of Europe Begins,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
“Cosmopolis: The West as Nowhere,” trans. Greg Johnson
“From Dusk to Dawn,” trans. Michael O’Meara
“The Essence of Archaism,” trans. Irmin Vinson
“The Geopolitics of Ethnopolitics: The Concept of Eurosiberia,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech translation here)
“The Intentional Genocide of European Peoples?,” trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans. here)
Interview on Dominique Venner, trans. Greg Johnson (Spanish trans.)
Interview with Guillaume Faye
“The Islamic Conquest of Europe,” trans. Irmin Vinson
“Islamism is Less Dangerous than Islam,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Jihadist Carnage in Paris,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2, trans. Greg Johnson
“The Lesson of Carl Schmitt,” with Robert Steuckers, trans. Greg Johnson
“Macron: Artifact and Puppet,” trans. Guillaume Durocher
“Mars and Hephaestus: The Return of History,” trans. Greg Johnson (Russian translation here)
“The Migratory Invasion,” Part 1 (Spanish trans.), Part 2 (Spanish trans.), Part 3 (Spanish trans,), trans. Greg Johnson
“On the Essence of War,” trans. Greg Johnson
“On the Russian Annexation of Crimea,” trans. Greg Johnson (Czech trans.)
“People” (from Why We Fight)
“State and Society,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Ten Untimely Ideas,” trans. Michael O’Meara
“Traditionalism: This is the Enemy!,” trans. Greg Johnson
“Tribute to Dominique Venner,” trans. Greg Johnson (Translations Czech, Greek, Spanish)
“Trump: Revolution or Simulacrum?” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, trans. Guillaume Durocher
“Ukraine: Understanding the Russian Position,” trans. Greg Johnson
About Guillaume Faye:
Francis Alexander, “Toward Euro-Siberia” (Portuguese translation here)
F. Roger Devlin, “The Rectification of Names: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight”
F. Roger Devlin, “A Serious Case: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Jack Donovan, “‘Corporatism’ or Mercantilism?”
Ricardo Duchesne, “The European New Right and its Animus Against Western Civ”
Georges Feltin-Tracol, “Back to the Future: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Andrew Hamilton, “Pan-Nationalism”
Thomas Jackson, “Life After the Collapse: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
Greg Johnson, “Grandiose Nationalism” (Translations: French, German, Russian, Spanish)
Greg Johnson, “Project Septentrion: The Last Line of Defense” (French originals here)
Greg Johnson, “Review of Michael O’Meara’s Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe” (Czech translation here)
Greg Johnson, “Theory and Practice” (Translations: French, Polish)
Julian Langness, “Desired Storms: Guillaume Faye’s The Colonisation of Europe”
Robert Lind, “A Field Day for the Titanic Pessimist: A Review of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0”
Michael O’Meara, “Europe’s Enemy: Islam or America? Guillaume Faye’s Le coup d’Etat mondial”
Michael O’Meara, Foreword to Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism
Michael O’Meara, “Guillaume Faye and the Jews”
Michael O’Meara, “The New Jewish Question of Guillaume Faye”
Michael O’Meara, “Preparing for World War III: Guillaume Faye’s Avant-Guerre”
Michael O’Meara, “Sex and Derailment: Guillaume Faye’s Sexe et Devoiement”
Michael O’Meara, “The Transitional Program: Guillaume Faye’s Mon Programme”
Michael O’Meara, “The Widening Gyre: Guillaume Corvus’ La convergence des catastrophes”
Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism 2.0”
Christopher Pankhurst, “Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Deviance”
Michael Walker, “Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism”
A few hours ago, President Trump capitulated on the government shutdown, handing Schulosi and the open borders lobby a historic victory. He did so after it became clear that the GOP leadership were planning to override him. A few days before that, Rep. Steve King was stripped of all of his committee assignments by the GOP for speaking up on behalf of “Western Civilization.”
At every turn, it’s the GOP which proves to be our true opposition, with the Democrats and the Jewish community cashing in on the concessions, compromises, and capitulations of the nominal “white guy party.” Alex Linder explained this in his essay, “Attack the Conservatives”:
“The rise of nationalism is almost a mathematical function of the decline of conservatism.”
George Lincoln Rockwell put it even more pointedly:
“To hell with the right wing!”
I have lived this myself. Back in 2010, I orchestrated a statewide robocall campaign, set up a plausibly deniable front group, and hustled the hell out of dozens of state legislators to pass Senate Bill 590, an illegal immigration bill. It took a tremendous amount of effort to get the GOP majority to even bring it to a vote. They didn’t want to. Then after it passed, the GOP governor, Mitch Daniels, vetoed it. I pumped thousands of my own money into an even greater putsch to override the veto. And we achieved it; then the Secretary of State, also GOP, declared it unconstitutional, shelved it.
So what does Parrott conclude? More “unite the right against ‘the left’ is needed”....
Ibid.
Charlottesville was a mistake because it was too deep into enemy territory, but the mistake wasn’t street activism. In Pikeville, we had several locals join us, both before, during, and after the event. At the end of the event, even the locals who came out to oppose us turned on the antifa, chasing them back into their charter buses with “Blue Lives Matter!” chants.
[...]
Say what you want about the lawsuits and arrests, the combined forces of America’s east coast left all joined together in one place to physically destroy us, and were decisively defeated. We only lost Charlottesville after they ran home to their attorneys and politicians, a setback which we could be confronting head on instead of with our backs turned.
How were they decisively defeated? More casualties?
Ibid.
Mentorship
Mike Enoch at Pikeville ...
Those Whites who know what’s good for them and their people will really say to hell with the right, stop leading with their chin, uniting line formation with motley anti-social idiots and provocateurs and walking into enemy traps and fire. So long as you want to unite the right, you will be uniting with nuts and infiltrators who are fixated in what should be provisional a-social perspectives.
Unite the right = unite the anti-social = oxymoronic
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 22 September 2018 09:24.
Social Const….
Greg Johnson discusses his new book, “The White Nationalist Manifesto” with J.F. Gariepy.
I can recommend it only with caveat.
While he does lay out the case for Whites being genocided and recognizes the necessity for raising the perceived legitimacy and consciousness of the need for White Nationalism, he does not see the contradiction in his using social constructionism as an example of social theory antagonistic to that consciousness and practice.
He calls race being a social construct “an entirely bogus idea.” ...This is an expression of his middling (138) I.Q. He’s only smart enough to talk himself out of the eminent utility and truth of the concept.
Social Constructionism (proper) does not say that race, evolution and biological distinctions are not real. What it does, rather, is sensitize our attention to our social connection, indebtedness - which is true (not bogus) - consciousness of which provides for some agency and accountability (coherence and warrant too), at very least in determining how these things come to count.
You would not want to oppose this sensitization to social conscientiousness, agency and accountability (coherence and warrant) if you are looking to build consciousness and conscientiousness of White Nationalism.
Similarly, you would not want to be arguing against THE Left, as he does, given its general enculturation of union type organization, loyalty and compassion to the full group, including those on the margins, full group advocacy against elite and rank and file betrayal, if you want to raise consciousness and loyal adherents to White Nationalism.
Greg Johnson. Typical Right Winger ...with a lisp and a better than average I.Q., which is good, but maybe not good enough.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 21 September 2017 06:24.
The key difference is that we are Left Ethnonationalists, therefore Not imperialists, not supremacists, with no aim of genocide or its denial; thus, if our organizational meetings were infiltrated the only possible complaint would be that we wanted separatism and sovereignty; we do not want “them” to be part of our government and governing; do not want them imposed upon us; and if they refuse our wish for separatism and sovereignty, then they are revealed as the imperialists, supremacists, the exploitative, the slave masters.
“Anti-fascist activist goes undercover with ‘alt right’ to expose movement’s rapid European expansion.”
Hope Not Hate report reveals how the group is breathing new life into once dormant far-right and racist groups around the world. A toxic mix of antisemitism, Islamophobia and sexism is revealed at the heart of the “alt-right” movement, following an investigation by an openly-gay anti-fascist activist that sheds new light on the far-right’s rising influence over political parties on both sides of the Atlantic.
Members of the group were caught discussing “gassing Jews” and killing their left-wing opponents after Hope Not Hate conducted a major study of white supremacists in the US and Europe.
The exposé reveals how the “alt-right” is breathing new life into once dormant far-right and racist groups around the world, uniting them under one international movement.
It uncovers the infiltration of the “alt-right” in the UK, with Sheffield-born blogger Paul Joseph Watson among those using their online following to reach audiences the traditional far-right has until now been unable to muster.
As a general principle The Independent avoids using the term “alt-right”, on the basis it is a euphemism employed to disguise racist aims.
The report says a second, “moderate” wing – dubbed the “alt-light” – has become increasingly influential on right-wing politics in Britain, pushing Ukip and others into ever-more hard-line territory.
Authors of the study The International Alternative Right: From Charlottesville to the White House also claim to have found links between the hard-right network and the Trump administration.
Speaking of his experiences infiltrating the network of white supremacists, Patrik Hermansson said: “For almost a year I’ve been at the heart of a world of extreme racism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, esoteric Nazi rituals and wild conspiracy theories.
“What I found was a movement that sometimes glorifies Nazi Germany, openly supports genocidal ideas and is unrelentingly racist, sexist and homophobic.”
Mr Hermansson said he first gained access to the movement after joining the far-right “think tank” London Forum, having claimed to have come to the UK as a disillusioned Swede curious about the “alt-right” and inspired by Brexit.
He was then introduced to other groups, including the Extremists Club and the Traditional Britain Group, which aims to “preserve the ancient traditions, peoples and beliefs” of the UK.
He said: “In this world, Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories are commonplace, so much so that a whole group exists to cater specifically for them.
“I spent endless mind-numbing hours at meetings of the [conspiracy theorist group] Keep Talking, listening to speakers deny climate change, debate whether 9/11 was a false flag attack or if an ill-defined ‘they’ sold birth certificates on the stock market. Trestle tables at the edge of the hall were adorned with Holocaust denial books.”
The label “alt-right” was first adopted by white supremacist Richard Spencer, but was brought to mainstream attention by individuals with a larger social media presence such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich.
Among many other colourful characters, Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments
include two protectionist and anti-China hardliners, Robert Lighthizer
and Peter Navarro, who sit at the helm of US trade and industry policy.
That decision confirms a belligerent change of tack in Sino–American
economic relations. But what are the implications for Australia?
A number of monetary economists, including
Saul Eslake, have warned that a potential escalation to a full-blown
China–US trade war poses the single biggest economic threat to Australia.
That position argues that the already struggling global economy can’t
face a superpower trade war, likely to be triggered by the Trump
administration at the monetary level, when the RMB/USD exchange rate
will reach the unprecedented level of 7 to 1 (it’s currently sitting at
around 6.9). Furthermore, a falling Chinese currency combined with
protectionist measures in the US will dampen the Chinese economy by way
of reduced volumes of exports and higher interest rates that will
spread across the Asia–Pacific. According to such reasoning, that could
have negative impacts for Australia’s economy; prices for iron ore,
coal and natural gas could possibly drop—we’ll know by the middle of
the year.
However, it’s questionable that such crisis would be
detrimental to Australia. In fact, focusing on monetary dynamics alone
fails to capture the role of industrial production and regulatory
arrangements in the global supply chain.
On the contrary, after triangulating the trade and
industrial data of the US, China and Australia and considering the
current trade regulatory framework, there are substantial reasons to
argue that Australia is well placed to fill the gaps left by a wrecked
US–China trade relationship at the best of its industrial capacity.
Australia is indeed one of a handful of countries to have solid free
trade agreements in place with both the US and China.
Australia’s rocks and crops economy—in particular the
growing productivity potential of its agricultural and mining sectors—is strong enough to
rise above global monetary tensions and falling commodity prices,
thanks to rising export volumes to both the US and China. It appears
that the harder the two superpowers use their trade relations as
leverage in their strategic competition, the harder they’ll need to
look for other sources to sustain their industrial production levels
and corporate supply chain.
In a trade war scenario, the possible initial hiccups in the
global supply chain will likely be short-lived. In fact, let’s consider
that about half of US imports are estimated to be made of intra-firm trade, and that
protectionist measures from abroad tend to have insignificant effects
on the production input of Chinese State-owned firms.
Thus, multinational corporations are proven to be particularly adept at
quickly replacing the flows of
their industrial production and distribution, as is shown by history.
In other words, in the event of a Sino–American crisis, the
major trading actors in both countries will be able and willing to
promptly move their business somewhere else.
Thanks to the existing spaghetti bowl of international
economic partnerships, Australia is in prime position to be this
“somewhere else” for both countries. In fact, Australia is the second
largest economy and Sino–American trading partner of the only six
countries that have in place free trade agreements with both the US and China, including South Korea,
Singapore, Chile, Peru and Costa Rica.
The liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade is a significant case
study for Australia in this instance. Australia is the world’s second largest LNG exporter, and
is set to become the first by 2020. It exports more than $16 billion a
year of LNG and by 2020 the LNG industry is expected to contribute $65 billion
to the Australian economy, equating to 3.5% of its GDP. 2016 saw the start of LNG exports from the US
and an unprecedented boost of Chinese imports. In a trade war scenario,
the US would be locked out of China’s thriving market and thus
LNG prices would rise even higher than they already have. With sharply rising production capacity,
Australia needs to expand and diversify its customer base to keep the lion’s share of the global LNG market.
China’s response to Trump’s trade policy is set to dampen the rise of a
strong emerging competitor of
Australia’s highly lucrative LNG industry, and thus open up new
commercial frontiers.
The LNG example clearly shows that Australia’s economy would
benefit from a contained US–China trade crisis. Nevertheless, should
that trade crisis escalate beyond the economy, Australia’s luck may run
out.
The Chinese leadership doesn’t hide the fact that promoting
international economic integration outside of the US control serves the
purpose of carving greater geopolitical autonomy and
flexibility in the global decision-making processes. Beside
Trump’s trade policy, Xi Jinping’s diplomatic strategy may also speed
up the end of the US–China detente initiated by Nixon and Kissinger in
the 1970s. It remains to be seen whether China will also
pursue hard-line policies to push the US outside of the Asia–Pacific.
In that instance, Australia would be caught between a rock and
a hard place.
If the US–China trade war were to escalate to the
geopolitical level, the American order in the Asia–Pacific would enter
uncharted waters. For one thing, such an unsavoury development may
compel Australia to make a clear choice between trading with China and
preserving America’s security patronage.
Giovanni Di Lieto lectures International Trade Law
at Monash University.
One of the most interesting things about all this is that
while Australia is going to be compelled to make that choice, the
choice has essentially already been made through the pattern
of trade relationships which Australian politicians have chosen to
cultivate.
The only way that Australia would choose the United States in
that scenario, would be if Australians decided that they would like to
deliberately take a massive economic dive so that they can ‘Make
America Great Again’ even though that is not their country, and so that
they can avoid being called ‘anti-White’ by the legions of anonymous
Alt-Right trolls roaming around on Twitter using Robert Whitacker’s
‘mantra’ on anyone who won’t support the geostrategic and geoeconomic
intertests of the United States, the Russian Federation, and Exxonmobil
specifically.
Given that we know that Australians don’t care about America
or Russia more than they care about the economic prosperity of their
own country, the outcome is already baked into the cake. AFR
carried an article last year which can be used to forecast what is
likely to happen, and I’ll quote it in full here now:
It has lifted living standards, grown Australia’s economy
and created thousands of jobs.
While it is becoming more popular to denounce globalisation
and flirt with protectionism, we cannot turn our back on free trade.
Australia’s economy has withstood global challenges and
recorded 25 years of continuous growth because we’re open to the world.
Since Australia’s trade barriers came down, we’ve
reaped the rewards.
Trade liberalisation has lifted the income of
households by around $4500 a year and boosted the country’s gross
domestic product by 2.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent, creating thousands of
jobs.
One in five jobs now involve trade-related activities. This
will grow as liberalised trade gives our producers, manufacturers and
services providers better access to billions of consumers across the
globe, not just the 24 million who call Australia home.
However, not everyone sees the value of free trade. Some see
it, and the forces of globalisation, as a threat to their standard of
living, rather than an opportunity to improve it.
When it comes to free trade, we often hear about the bad but
not the good.
The nature of news means the factory closing gets more
coverage than the one opening.
Chances are you heard about the Ford plant closing, but not
the $800 million Boeing has invested in Australia and the 1200 people
who work at their Port Melbourne facility.
You may have heard about Cubbie Station, but not heard that
its purchase staved off bankruptcy, and has since seen millions of
dollars invested in upgrades of water-saving infrastructure, a doubling
of contractors, more workers, and of course, money put into the local
economy supporting jobs and local businesses.
Key to attracting investment, jobs
The free trade agreements the Coalition
concluded with the North Asian powerhouse economies of China, Japan and
Korea are key to attracting investment and creating more local jobs.
The Weilong Grape Wine Company has said the China-Australia
Free Trade Agreement is the reason it’s planning to build a new plant
in Mildura.
This is a story being played out across the country.
Businesses large and small, rural and urban,
are taking advantage of the preferential market access the FTAs offer
Aussie businesses into the giant, growing markets of North Asia.
Australian Honey Products is building a new factory in
Tasmania to meet the demand the trifecta of FTAs has created.
Owner Lindsay Bourke says the free trade agreements have
been “wonderful” for his business. “We know that we are going
to grow and it’s enabled us to employ more people, more local
people,” he said.
It is the same story for NSW skincare manufacturer Cherub
Rubs, who will have to double the size of their factory. “The free
trade agreements with China and Korea really mean an expansion, which
means new Australian jobs manufacturing high-quality products,” said
Cherub CEO John Lamont.
It is easy to see why the three North Asian FTAs are
forecast to create 7,900 jobs this year, according to modelling
conducted by the Centre for International Economics.
Australia has a good story when it comes to free trade. In
the past three years, net exports accounted for more than half of
Australia’s GDP growth.
Exports remain central to sustaining growth
and economic prosperity. Last year exports delivered $316 billion to
our economy, representing around 19 per cent of GDP.
This underscores the importance of free trade
and why it is a key element of the Turnbull Government’s national
economic plan.
The Coalition is pursuing an ambitious trade
agenda, and more free trade agreements, to ensure our economy keeps
growing and creating new jobs.
On Friday I arrive in Peru for the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Ministerial Meeting.
Free trade will be at front of everyone’s mind.
With the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
looking grim, my ministerial counterparts and I will work to conclude a
study on the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), which sets
out agreed actions towards a future free trade zone.
We will also work to finalise a services road map, which
will help grow Australian services exports in key markets including
education, finance and logistics.
More to be done
The Coalition has achieved a lot when it comes to free
trade, but there is more to do.
Momentum is building for concluding a free trade agreement
with Indonesia, work towards launching free trade agreement
negotiations with the European Union continues, we’ve
established a working group with the United Kingdom that will scope out
the parameters of a future ambitious and comprehensive Australia-UK FTA
and we’re continuing to negotiate the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP), which brings together 16 countries that account for
almost half of the world’s population.
The Turnbull government will continue to pursue an ambitious
free trade agenda to keep our economy growing and creating more jobs.
Meanwhile Opposition Leader Bill Shorten continues to build
the case for Labor’s embrace of more protectionist policies, claiming
he will learn the lessons of the US election where it featured heavily.
What Labor doesn’t say though is that by adopting a closed
economy mindset, they will close off the investment and jobs flowing
from free trade. They’re saying no to Boeing’s $800 million investment
in Australia and the Cubbie Station improvements; they’re saying no to
businesses like Cherub Rubs and Australian Honey Products building new
factories and the many local jobs they will create.
Steven Ciobo is the Minister for Trade, Tourism
and Investment
What’s not to love about all this?
I really think I love Anglo-Saxons. This is going to be fun,
isn’t it?
When Mr. Ciobo spoke of ‘a working group with the
United Kingdom that will scope out the parameters of a future ambitious
and comprehensive Australia-UK FTA’, he was not joking. That
is happening and it is likely going to be another
window that the UK will have into the formation of both RCEP and FTAAP,
even though technically the UK is not physically in the Indo-Asian
region.
I have also written an article today called, ‘US
Government to build American competitiveness atop socio-economic
retrogression and misery.’ It’s crucial to understand that
time is of the essence, since the Americans are at the present moment
in relative disarray compared to the rest of us. The Americans have not
yet tamed and pacified the various economic actors in their own
country, they are still working on that, and they also have yet to form
a coherent internationalist counter-narrative to the one that is being
enunciated by the governments of Britain, Australia, New Zealand,
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and so on.
Some of you may be mystified by that statement. What do I mean
that the Americans don’t have a coherent ‘internationalist
counter-narrative’? I mean that while they are capable of explaining
and rationalising their own position as a narrowly ‘America first’
position in a way that is pleasing to Americans,
they are not able to export that view to regular
people anywhere else in a way that would induce
any other European-demography country to comply with America’s
geoeconomic interests.
After all, if the Alt-Right people are going to careen all
over the internet essentially screaming, “put America first ahead of
your own country’s interests or be accused of White genocide”, and
alternately equally absurdly, “you’re an evil Russophobe who supports
White genocide if you invested in BP instead of Exxon”, then they
should not expect that they are going to win the sympathy of anyone who
is neither American nor Russian.
I want to say to British people, to Australians, to New
Zealanders, to Canadians, Commonwealth citizens in general, that you
know, it’s been a long time since you’ve taken your own side.
This coming phase is going to be a time when it will become possible to
do precisely that.
The time is fast approaching when it will be possible to
choose neither America nor Russia. You’ll be able
to finally choose yourselves and your own geoeconomic interests, and
you’ll be able to choose to trade and associate with whoever else in
the world you want to trade and associate with.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 09 February 2017 16:17.
Together back in the 80s, when Carl Icahn was showing Donald Trump the ropes of “corporate-take-over”, such as his plunder of TWA.
The Carl Icahn episode that pilfered the corporate culture of the once bustling American town—Lancaster, Ohio—is highly instructive of itself. It provides a lesson in its farther implications, however, as it set in motion transformations of that corporate culture which effected a perverse irony of its residents becoming Trump voters, seeking a return to their corporate culture as it had been - implicitly White - oblivious to the fact that they are hoping to do this through Trump, whose appointed gate-keeper is Carl Icahn - the very man who plundered Lancaster’s corporate culture and set in motion its transformative demise, with devastating impact upon the now rust-belt town and its people (nearly all White).
(((NPR))) doesn’t provide a transcript of portions which refer to Carl Icahn, e.g.
13:10: Dave Davies: “When did outside financial interests first pose a challenge to the management of Anchor Hocking, this giant of a company?
Brian Alexander: The first time was Carl Icahn.
It is meaningful that the relatively brief episode of Carl Icahn’s corporate raid on Anchor-Hocking did not merely lead to a limited financial downturn following the large (what amounts to) bribe that he levied against the company in order to get rid of him, but it had implicative force which transformed even the subsequent non-Jewish corporate culture, creating a new corporate culture - a new context, if you will. That is the kind of thing that the serious ethno-nationalist will want to examine further.
Brian Alexander: It’s the 1980’s, Carl Icahn has just begun his career of what became known at the time as “green mailing.”
Dave Davies: “Corporate raiding”, “corporate take-overs.”
Alexander: “Corporate raiding”, saying now I’ve just bought 5% of your stock. I want a seat on the board. You’re running your company in a lousy way; and so I’m going to come and make all sorts of trouble for you, but you know, if you want to buy me out, at a profit, at a premium, well maybe I’ll go away; and so that’s exactly what happened with Carl Icahn.
Carl Icahn bought over 5% of the stock of Anchor Hocking, agitated the board, saying you need to make some different decisions, you could be returning more share-holder value and was eventually bought off at what I calculate to be about a three million dollar profit to Carl Icahn.
That episode did not last long, but I argue that it changed Anchor Hocking forever, from then on.
NPR host Dave Davies: We heard a lot in the presidential campaign about anger and frustration among working class voters in America’s heartland. Today we’re going to focus on one factory town in central Ohio that was once a bustling center of industry and employment, but is now beset by low wages, unemployment and social decay.
Lancaster, Ohio isn’t just a research subject for our guest Brian Alexander, it’s his hometown.
His new book tells the story of the company that was once Lancaster’s largest employer - Anchor-Hocking Glass Company was a Fortune 500 company with its headquarters in the town. The company provided jobs, civic leadership and community pride. It’s decline Alexander argues isn’t just a product of increased competition and changing markets, he says the firm was undone by Wall Street investors who had little knowledge of the company and little interest in anything besides short-term profit.
Regnery and Spencer, central umbrellas in the Regnery Tentosphere. Richard Thpenther thays, “If you’re not right on “the PQ” (Polish question), we’re going to purge you from thith movement” - (((Alternative Right))).
Social Const….
Together back in the 80s, when Carl Icahn was showing Donald Trump the ropes of “corporate-take-over”, such as his plunder of TWA.
Far right