Our Elites Care Less about Economics than Allegiance to Our Glorious Multicultural Future

Hubert Collins

For all the talk of the middle class, the working class, the elite, fair shares, and globalization, this year’s election has shown how little economics matters. Partisans of each school of economic thought have stopped quibbling with one another and suddenly have come to agree with about one thing: stopping Donald Trump. A sort of circling of the wagons has occurred in which the Keynesians, the supply-siders, the Marxists, and the socialists have taken a rest from shooting at one another in order to eviscerate the Donald. As it turns out, they all don’t hate each other nearly as much as one would’ve guessed a year ago.

Paul Krugman, the welfare-state advocating court economist of the New York Times seems to have gotten the ball rolling last fall when he wrote a column called “Trump is Right on Economics.” Therein, Dr. Krugman ridiculed Jeb Bush (remember him?) for having attacked Mr. Trump for advocating higher taxes on the wealthy instead of attacking his racism. Dr. Krugman wrote in his typical acerbic tone:

Mr. Bush hasn’t focused on what’s truly vicious and absurd — viciously absurd? — about Mr. Trump’s platform, his implicit racism and his insistence that he would somehow round up 11 million undocumented immigrants and remove them from our soil. Instead, Mr. Bush has chosen to attack Mr. Trump as a false conservative, a proposition that is supposedly demonstrated by his deviations from current Republican economic orthodoxy: his willingness to raise taxes on the rich, his positive words about universal health care. And that tells you a lot about the dire state of the G.O.P. For the issues the Bush campaign is using to attack its unexpected nemesis are precisely the issues on which Mr. Trump happens to be right, and the Republican establishment has been proved utterly wrong.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

The Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren made similar comments a few days later. She applauded Mr. Trump’s stance on higher taxes for the rich, but quickly followed her comment up by saying his stance on immigration made it impossible for her to support him. Indeed, it isn’t just that liberals won’t vote for him either, they are absolutely apoplectic about his very existence. An editor at Vox, Emmett Rensin, openly advocated violence against Trump supporters. Vox is even relatively centrist in comparison to the fashionable Marxist publications out there like Jacobin Magazine, which regularly attacks Vox from the left, and declared the shutdown of a Chicago Trump rally to be a defense of “democracy.”

But just as the hate for Mr. Trump increases as one heads further and further left, so does the natural alignment with his economic policies. Leftist economists have often attacked what they view as corporate, anti-worker, free trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP for twenty-five years. But if the man who opposes those deals and promises to overturn them doesn’t pledge allegiance to our glorious multicultural future and Gang-of-Eight-type comprehensive immigration reform, they will vote for the wife of the man who brought us NAFTA, and spew as much hate and bile at her opponent as they can.

Take Tom Hayden for example, a hero of the New Left (once married to Jane Fonda, no less) and professional hard-left activist and author. He put together the Zapatista Reader, a collection of essays admiring and explaining the Zapatista rebels in southern Mexico who are the darlings of leftist academics. The Zapatistas exploded onto the global scene in 1994 because of their opposition to NAFTA, declaring the trade bill to be “death.” But today, he writes essays for the Nation about why he is voting for Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders — to create a united left against Mr. Trump. Plenty of other leftist intellectuals share this contradiction. Thomas Frank is still a frequent critic of NAFTA, even a dozen years after its passage, but calls Mr. Trump a “bigot of… pungent vileness.” Chris Hedges is the same way. He hates the Clintons and he hates NAFTA, but he hates Mr. Trump even more.

But leftists aren’t the only ones in a contradictory bind over their hatred for Mr. Trump. Numerous Republicans have now not only declared themselves “#NeverTrump” but have also declared their intention to vote for, or at least hope for the victory of, Hillary Clinton come November. Why?

Let’s take a look first at Bret Stephens, the fanatically pro-Israel op-ed columnist for the Wall Street Journal whose main problems with Trump are his use of the phrase “America First,” “the Republican descent into populism,” and especially Trump’s failure to vigorously defend the anti-White status quo (Trump’s “conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism.”).  But it’s always good strategy to dress up these fears with other criticisms so that the ethnic agenda remains a bit submerged. In his column “Hillary: The Conservative Hope,” he says:

Where’s the evidence that, as president, Mr. Trump will endorse conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare, social, judicial or foreign policy, much less personal comportment?

In a void, Mr. Stephens might have a point. But just a cursory glance at the records of the last two Republican nominees for president make it much harder to take Mr. Stephens seriously. Mitt Romney was openly and proudly pro-choice when he was still stuck in Massachusetts, but of course became pro-life come his run for the nomination. Likewise, when he was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he favored single-payer healthcare, before going on to rail against “Obamacare” in 2012. But then after he lost that election, he has said the program under his governorship was the model for Obamacare. In the last six years, Conservatism Inc. has talked endlessly about the evils of Obamacare, with its taxes, regulations, overreach, etc., and the GOP still nominated the bill’s godfather.

Pedaling back another four years, we get John McCain. Social conservatives have never been able to stand him, having seen him as a sell out since the 1990s, and they’re still attacking his lukewarm pro-life stances these days. On economics, Senator McCain supported the enormous 2008 bailout, the Toxic Asset Relief Program, and campaign finance reform. The last Republican president, George W. Bush, of course supported all the same 2008 government interventions in the economy as well — he oversaw them. He also raised tariffs on steel, expanded medicare, and increased the size of the Department of Education.

For all the chatter of FOX News hosts and all the data of Heritage Foundation policy papers, Republican electoral figures rarely achieve, and often don’t even bother advocating for, shrinking government, lowering taxes, or abolishing abortion. Mr. Trump is nothing new in this regard. Just like any and every other Republican, aside from outliers like Ron Paul, there is no reason to believe that as president he’d make the federal government go back down to pre-FDR levels, or even pre-Ronald Reagan levels. It is hard to believe that GOP-supporting pundits and journalists, like Bret Stephens, are completely blind to this—indeed, Stephens’ ethnic commitments appear to be a far better explanation of his views on Trump than his commitment to “conservative values.” Yet there are plenty of Republican partisans like Mr. Stephens who cannot and will not play ball with the nominee; George Will and Erick Erickson being among the most prominent.

So if Republican intellectuals are always compromising their free market and small government ideology to support electable candidates, and leftists have plenty to admire in Mr. Trump’s positions, why do both sides hate him so?

Because Donald Trump represents hope for White people, for Middle American Radicals, for the historic American nation. Because he gives Whites something to believe in, because he thinks that Whites should be proud of who they are and of who their ancestors were. Mr. Trump thinks America’s a fine place and as such, he thinks its borders should be well-defined and protected.

Those beliefs are the opposites of our cultural elite, the purveyors and upholders of our culture of critique. Their world view isn’t so much a different one to Mr. Trump’s. It is the foil to it. Our sociologists and TV talking heads are fueled much more by their drive to deconstruct a tangible world they loathe than any constructive impulse to build a utopia, or even a castle in the sky. Marxists don’t love the labor theory of value more than they hate the traditional people and culture of the United States. Gender theorists and the feminist left don’t love LGBTQ people more than they hate White people who are opposed to yet more Muslim immigration and all that goes along with that (rape, terrorism, female genital mutilation, oppression of women, murder of homosexuals). Union organizers and liberal pundits don’t love the working class more than they hate White people (if they did, they would oppose immigration of cheap non-White labor). As Gregory Hood once said, “the war on Whites is all they have.” Despite all the obfuscation, it’s really all about race.

Meanwhile, our Republican-leaning economic elite knows Mr. Trump to be bad for business. Stock traders and capital investors are safer in a world where people are content to do nothing more than watch Game of Thrones after a double shift at Wal-Mart. The boys on Wall Street can get rich with trade deals that bankrupt the country while creating enormous demands for social services for the losers in this game. But they’ll keep playing the game as long as most people are reasonably content and distracted — and that was exactly the plan until Trump entered the race and exposed the raw anger of so many White Americans. Contentment and distraction meant not having a sense of history or pride, but Trump, with his “America First” campaign has ended all that. Whites who want to be yeomen or pioneers like their ancestors instead of clerks and cubicle rats — cogs in the system — are just as dangerous to the economic order of Davos Man as Black Panthers — so the GOP slanders them both.

Karl Marx didn’t hold the interests of Whites first and foremost anymore than Milton Friedman did. Or John Maynard Keynes for that matter. Thomas Carlyle claimed economics to be a “dismal science” unworthy of serious consideration, and it is no coincidence that the man who said that was a White advocate. So forget the numbers, and remember the genes.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

49 Comments to "Our Elites Care Less about Economics than Allegiance to Our Glorious Multicultural Future"

  1. July 14, 2016 - 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Gingrich is a cockroach. He serves the Jews, and since Jews peddle the cult of ‘white guilt’, he sucks up to Negroes too.

    How did white elites become such pathetic stooges? Even after the deaths of innocent white cops, this is what we get from white elites. They never stand up for whiteness even though Jews do nothing but stand for Jewishness and blacks do nothing but stand for blackness.

    Think of the 1950s and 1960s.

    Back then, before gaining total supremacy in all elite areas of American Power, Jews faced Wasps who were above them and blacks who were below them.
    Even though Jews feared black crime, they knew they could always move away from it. Just make enough money and move to a better neighborhood with few or no blacks. Jews could flee from blacks but not from whites, especially Wasps, because the white elites possessed what Jews wanted.

    For Jews to get what they wanted, they had to deal with whites at the upper echelons. Jews could climb above the blacks in the ghetto but had to climb into bastions of white elite power. Jews merely needed to take flight from blacks, but they had to take the fight to the Wasps in order to be King of the Hill.

    So, the main Jewish struggle was against white elite power to gain dominance over big industries and big institutions. Jews thought it would be an epic struggle, but as it happened, the deracinated Country-Club-ized Wasps gave up the fight all too easily and became pathetic collaborator ‘cucks’ of the Jews.

    One reason for the sudden collapse of White Elite Power was Jewish control of the academia and media totally demoralized White Power and White Prestige. For white elites to keep their privilege, they had to appear repentant for their historical ‘sins’.

    Today, Jews keep peddling the cult of ‘white guilt’ not so much to gain power/dominance, which is firmly in their hands, but to secure it for all time lest the white masses realize that the white elites are more than willing to sacrifice white mass interests to keep their own privilege as ‘cucks’ of their Jewish Globalist masters.

    For most of American History, white masses took it as axiomatic that white elites were looking out for them, and this had indeed been the case.

    But, white masses had been kept in the dark about the Elite Revolution — a revolution that happened quietly within halls of power — whereupon Wasps surrendered prestige and dominance to the Jews in both Liberalism and Conservatism. Disney is a good example of how a once proud Wasp-held company passed into the hands of what are essentially Jewish kiddie-pornographers. It’s like a sports team keeping the same name and symbols but having a new owner and entirely new coaching staff.

    As such, white elites went from representing the white masses to serving Jewish Globalists. Look what the likes of Tony Blair, David Cameron, and the Clintons must do in order to keep their white elite ‘cuck’ privilege. Like all collaborators, white elites can only keep privilege as ‘cucks’. They don’t represent their own people but serve the Jewish Globalist masters above them.

    The Donald Trump Campaign exposed the nature of the Silent Elite Revolution. The huge discrepancy between white masses supporting Trump and white ‘cuckservative’ elites trying to reassure their Jewish bosses that they have things under control is hilarious to behold.

    • July 15, 2016 - 12:10 pm | Permalink

      Andrea Ostrov Letania
      I think that your comment is very good. Thank you for it.
      Go on. “Weiter so!”

  2. John's Gravatar John
    July 11, 2016 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

    I recorded a very interesting program on RT a couple of days ago. Check out what the former German finance minister, Oskar Lafontaine, says starting at the 6:30 and 8:05 marks in the video. It really is astonishing. And of course it’s due to Jewish players such as Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin etc.


  3. mich kun's Gravatar mich kun
    July 10, 2016 - 12:21 pm | Permalink

    All the talk of ‘racism’ misses the point.

    In fact, we are all ‘racists’. It is impossible not to be because we have eyes, ears, and flesh. We were designed to notice things, and humans notice differences. It was part of evolution, to notice differences.

    The real difference isn’t between ‘racists’ and ‘non-racists’ or ‘anti-racists’.

    It is between c-racists and d-racists.

    C-racist is a candid racist who is candid and honest about his awareness of the existence of races and racial differences.

    D-racist is a dishonest(or disingenuous)racist who comes up with all sorts of rationalizations, evasions, and deceptions to mask or obfuscate what he really sees, feels, and thinks while he pretends to be ‘progressive’, ironically often by championing the blatant racism of other peoples. So, while it is wrong to ‘virulently white’, it’s okay to be virulently Jewish in NY, virulently Cubano in Miami, virulently brown in LA, and virulently black in Detroit or Baltimore.

    D-racism can be conscious or subconscious(because so many people have been raised to reject the notion of race altogether and to see whites and only whites as the source of all evil — they think dealing with ‘white problem’ will be a cure-all since whites are the sole evil while other races are naturally good. It’s like a communist thinking the economy will prosper only if the capitalists are gotten rid of because Marxism blames all evil on the bourgeoisie. Of course, the economy gets even worse without the presence of evil capitalists, so communists end up calling each other ‘capitalist roaders’ to explain the worsening economy.) Incidentally, d-racists are too stupid to realize that PC is racist against whites. Radical Justice has blinded them to reality. Their morality is high on the nihilism of preening righteousness.

    Racism can be based on truth or falsehood. There are correct racial theories and false racial theories. The theory that whites are faster than blacks is false. The theory that blacks are faster than whites is true. Jesse Owens destroyed the false Aryan theory and established the true black theory that blacks can run faster. His feat didn’t prove racial equality but black superiority in sprinting. But d-racists only focus on the discrediting of the Aryan theory, as if that proves all races are equal. If a beagle claims it can run faster than a greyhound and loses, does it mean all dogs are equal? No, it means greyhounds are superior in speed. False racism has been replaced by true racism.

    A theory that Eskimos are smarter than Jews is false. A theory that Jews are smarter than Eskimos is true. Perhaps, to c-racists and d-racists, we can add another category: the f-racists or false racists who peddle false racial theories. D-racists(who pretend to be anti-racists) claim to have disproved racism by discrediting the false racists. But they never disproved the c-racists who notice REAL existing racial differences.

    F-racist says beagles are faster than greyhounds.

    D-racist says all dogs are equal because the greyhound beat the beagle and discredited the beale theory of superiority.

    C-racist says greyhounds are faster and superior in speed to beagles.

    C-racism is the only truth.

    When we look at how people respond to sports, music, crime, residence, academics, justice, sex, policing, etc, everyone seems to notice racial differences on some level.

    C-racists admit as much. D-racists deny that they do even though they do.

    Look at yuppie Liberal Gentropolis. It is because Jews and Asians are smarter than there are more of them than blacks in those areas.

    Look at the NBA, and blacks dominate because blacks are bigger, faster, and stronger.

    Much of interracist sex is black male and white female because white women find Negroes to be superior studs.

    Look at gentrification carried out out by affluent urban ‘progressives’. It is essentially about pushing blacks out to make safe spaces for bobo yuppies and hipsters who went to good colleges and/or have generous trusts from grandparents.

    Jews are smarter and control US policy to favor Israelis over Palestinians. Jewish ‘progressives’ or progs seem to have no problem with this Foreign Policy racism that prioritizes Jews over Palestinians.

    And on an on.

    ‘Racism’ is something far more complicated than saying the n-word. Ism means belief or consciousness, and it is impossible not to notice racial differences and be affected by it.

    Even when you prefer another race more than your own, you are being ‘racist’.

    When a white woman prefers a negro man and when a white boy wants to be like a black rapper, they are acting on premise that black race is superior to the white race is fuc*ing and fighting(and acting unruly).

    So, it’s really about c-racists and d-raciats.

    I notice racial differences that are the product of 100,000 yrs of human evolution, and I see how they affect society.

    After all, the main reason for black aggression isn’t history but biology. Blacks are more muscular and have more aggressive temperaments. I grew up in an integrated community, and black boys tended to see white boys as flabby and slow weakling wussies easy to pick and beat up. (That was the main reason for white flight in which Jewish liberals took part. Jews are the biggest d-racists around, always denouncing white gentiles as ‘racist’ while doing everything to seek safe space from the tougher and more aggressive blacks. After all, NY made a comeback by getting very tough on black crime. But it never got tagged as ‘city of hate’ or ‘city of greed’ because NY owns the national media that serves as its publicity machine.)

    Needless to say, I’m a c-racist or race-ist.

    Ism means belief or consciousness, and I believe in the existence of race and racial differences.

    Finally, c-racists must be wary of f-racists for providing easy fodder for d-racists. F-racists, by peddling bogus race theories, make it easy for d-racists to disprove their claims and then assert that they destroyed ALL ‘racist’ theories.

    But disproving a false race-ist theory does NOT mean that you disproved true ones as well.
    It’s like disproving a false chemistry theory doesn’t mean you disproved chemistry itself.

    • John's Gravatar John
      July 10, 2016 - 9:01 pm | Permalink

      “Look at the NBA, and blacks dominate because blacks are bigger, faster, and stronger.”

      If I reject that statement, am I a D-racist or an F-racist? Before you answer, please point out the black champion here:


      They may be faster (I read that they have more fast-twitch muscle fiber) but I do not believe that they are stronger.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      July 11, 2016 - 2:44 am | Permalink

      Right, but why have you changed your moniker Andrea Ostrov Letania? You didn’t do that at Alternative Right, The Western Cultural Revolution. Or are you a different person and a plagiarist?

      (Mod Note: Good catch, Franklin. This will be the third sock for the same IP address in the last few months.)

  4. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    July 10, 2016 - 7:34 am | Permalink

    “Elizabeth Warren made similar comments a few days later. She applauded Mr. Trump’s stance on higher taxes for the rich, but quickly followed her comment up by saying his stance on immigration made it impossible for her to support him.”

    She’s a fraud. She knows the impoverishment of White people was mainly a result of the third-world invasion, and not so much of rich people growing richer. (Of course there are other reasons too, like the robotization of factory work, and the growth of parasitic economic activities). She’s working to destroy the lives of the very people she claims she defends.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      July 11, 2016 - 2:47 am | Permalink

      Well she is a (“one drop”) Indian, so she feels no solidarity with Whites.

  5. July 10, 2016 - 2:21 am | Permalink

    I’ve been browsing online more than three
    hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It’s pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made good
    content as you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before. http://www.yahoo.net

  6. Jeff's Gravatar Jeff
    July 8, 2016 - 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Anglo Saxon:

    There is a huge misconception about Russia among some. Where I live-in Germany- Putin is fully supported by the ‘Linke’ communists, the Green party and the Social Democrats.

    Eastern Europeans are 100% pro-Nato bc they are scared to hell of Russia – they have been invaded and massacred too oft to forget the hell they went through.

    Russian imperialism, like American imperialism, Christianity, Islam, is a mighty engine of miscegenation, an engine that has been chugging away since the Middle Ages.

    Like the First Rome, and the Second Rome, the Third Rome is not a nation, is a machine that liquidates every nation it captures. Russian imperialism is not an alternative to globalisation, but just another form of it. Russia is not the future of the White race, but one of its graveyards.

    Real nationalists should sympathize first and foremost with all captive and oppressed peoples who wish to free themselves of that machine and its master, Putin.

    The traditional enforcers of Russian imperialism have been the cossacks-there are 10 mio. of them in Russia, they are the true Khazars.

    I’m not even starting on Putin now, a gangster dressed up as a head of state. Russian media,
    like in North Korea or Cuba, is totally controlled by the dictator in charge. Btw where do you get your information about Russia?

    Russia is hell!

    • Ro's Gravatar Ro
      July 8, 2016 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

      You are simple brain washed.
      If you’re an American, buy a couple books of European history, published before 1980, starting with the Stone Age, study them and then you can start fo speak of First Rome. Second Rome, etc, which are, by the way, initially and foremost a religious concept put forward in the Middle Ages by Byzantines.
      They are not real political concepts.
      The history and situations in the whole Europe, which goes from the Atlantic
      to the Urals and from the Artic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, are so complex, different, distint, variable, changing and above all subtle, etc, you cannot even imagine. And living in Germany, in the Germany of today with its Government and media does not help at all.
      And the Khazars: no serious scholar is really convinced who they were, and I doubt a lot they were the antecedents of the Cossacks.
      The Russia of today is much more ethnically homogeneous of the USA, and surely much more so than the Russian Empire and the USSR.
      Eastern Europe: they were invaded by the Soviet Army courtesy of UK and USA, but centuries before, the Poles invided part of present Russia, owned vast parts of present Ukraine, while Lithuania was much greater than today, encompassing parts of the other Baltic States, and again part of today Ukraine. Hungary owned part of the Balkanic peninsula, and no Slovakia ever existed, it was Hungary.

    • July 8, 2016 - 4:02 pm | Permalink

      Russia started its land empire at about the time of Elizabeth I. It included (from memory) about two dozen countries, areas, or whatever. It had a tradition of considerable civilisation. You seem to be confusing the USSR (Jew run) with ‘Mother Russia’. The only people with a living memory of massacres etc must be victims of the USSR, WW2 etc. You’re just another fanatic of the sort the US produces through media control.

      • Tudor's Gravatar Tudor
        July 10, 2016 - 4:23 am | Permalink

        The Russian Empire first occupied a part of Moldova, between Prut and Dniester, in 1812. They claimed that they took that territory (baptized Bessarabia, today Republic of Moldova) from the Otomans after a war but Moldova was never a part of Ottoman Empire.
        On that territory at 1810 there were 327,199 Moldovans/Romanians with less that 5% minorities. After 1812 this changed drasticly; many peasant crossed on the right bank of the Prut in Moldova being afraid of serfdom, many foreigners (germans, ucrainians, bulgarians/gagauz, russians, jews and s.o.) were encouraged to settle down (free land, tax excemptions, no military obligations and s.o.).
        Based on russian census:
        – 1817 Total: 482,630, Romanians: 419,240 or 85%, Jews: 19,130 (3,000 în 1810, 1% ) or 4.2 %.
        – 1852 Total: 914,679, (!)Moldovans: 600,000 or 66.4%, Jews: 78,216 or 8.6%
        – 1862 Total: 1,003,499, Moldovans: 515,927 or 51.44%, Jews: 95,927 or 9.56%
        – 1897 Total: 1,935,412, Moldovans: 920,919 or 47.58%, Jews: 228,168 or 11.79%
        Thank you, Imperial Russia!

    • July 8, 2016 - 10:22 pm | Permalink

      I understand where you are coming from @Jeff, but you are sadly [badly] mistaken. You are using the words “Putin’s Russia” where you should be using the words … “The Jewish USSR”.

      If you could dig a little deeper, you might discover that Putin and his allies actually saved Russia from dissolution following its staged economic + resource degradation (pillaging) by the Jewish Neocons (and their US Allies) … who were given licences to proceed by the crypto-Jew Yeltsin.

      I fully endorse the intelligent responses of both @Ro [July 8, 2016 – 2:58 pm] and Rerevisionist [July 8, 2016 – 4:02 pm]

      The singular problem in this world is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      That is to say, the USA’s take over by an alliance of ‘Jewish’ interests and ‘Goy Globalist’ interests … probably led by the Rothschild Cabal.

      It is your vast North American (and Canadian) resources that have been hijacked in order to impose on this world an agenda spelled out in the Tanakh (an agenda that is then justified by the utter garbage written in the Talmud).

      If you cannot understand this level of simple arithmetic then you will surely remain part of the problem … and no part of the solution.

    • July 8, 2016 - 10:31 pm | Permalink

      @ ‘Jeff’ — [mod: please remove the other version – to make it clear who this is addressed to! – thanks] Russia started its land empire at about the time of Elizabeth I. It included (from memory) about two dozen countries, areas, or whatever. It had a tradition of considerable civilisation. You seem to be confusing the USSR (Jew run) with ‘Mother Russia’. The only people with a living memory of massacres etc must be victims of the USSR, WW2 etc. You’re just another fanatic of the sort the US produces through media control.

    • PaleoAtlantid's Gravatar PaleoAtlantid
      July 9, 2016 - 3:34 am | Permalink

      We need much more discussion of Russia and its real objectives, not those we would like or think we can discern. As regards the Baltics, Poland and Hungary, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. (((American Imperium))) would like to multiculturalize and miscegenate them, but the “Third Rome” wants them as a buffer between it and the Kalergi State of ‘Eurabia’.

    • July 9, 2016 - 3:58 am | Permalink

      @Jeff … with all these complex issues (due to the never ending Israel/UK/US policy of full-on deception) you really have to learn how to do your homework.

      Presumably, this is what some of the more experienced TOO Commenters are doing here on behalf of those who just don’t have the educational knack, or the drive to act like autonomous adults.

      I am sure you have the knack and maturity, it’s just that your energies and curiosity have taken you in the wrong direction due to propaganda.

      Earlier this year, in January 2016, one such academic investigation concluded that the sniper event at {Ukraine’s} Maidan Square was in fact a ‘false flag’ event which was used to create a false public perception of events and usher in a shift in political power in that country. Canadian political science professor Dr. Ivan Katchanovski of Ottawa University concluded that … “This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power,” wrote Katchanovski in his study, called ‘The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine.’



    • July 10, 2016 - 6:06 am | Permalink

      Thanks Jeff for your comments! I’ve saved them here.

    • Passer by's Gravatar Passer by
      July 10, 2016 - 11:29 am | Permalink

      Some of the information you posted, Jeff, is false. The former communists from Linke support Russia due to their old ties, but the German Greens are strongly anti-russian. Do not expect parties with lots of jews, feminists or gays to be pro-russian. This is simply not going to happen.

      The Left in Europe today is against Putin, and the most left wing countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, are very anti-russian, more anti-russian that almost anyone else.

      What is interesting is that Scandinavians hate russians not due to internal ethnic nationalism. Scandinavians hate russians (and embrace Obama and H. Clinton, for example according to various polls in Europe, H. Clinton gets 92 percent support in Sweden), because the russians rejected leftism and liberalism.

      Meanwhile Putin supports France’s Le Pen and right wing Front National, including with money. While Marine Le Pen supports Putin and demands the lifting of anti-russian sanctions.

      You made other mistakes as well: there are countries in Eastern Europe who are pro-russian, such as Serbia, Bulgaria, Armenia, Greece, Hungary, Cyprus. While Poland, for exampe, is anti-russian, its current right wing government is attacked by western left-wing media calling it “Putinism with a Polish face” due to its strong nationalism and conservatism.

      The Left in Europe and the US hate Russia and Putin due to several reasons:
      1. Due to his position on gays (banning gay propaganda among minors).
      2. Due to the fact that Russia cracks down on feminists (see Pussy Riot saga).
      3. Due to the fact that Russia supports traditionalism, Orthodox Christianity, attempts to raise its birth rate, and tries to limit abortion.

      4. Because Russia took almost zero refugees from Syria.

      Right now, the biggest haters of Russia are among the western left, and there are many, many jews expressing hatred of Russia. I don’t think that it is a coincidence that Putin was called “a new Hitler” by many western elites.

      People Who Compared Putin To Hitler

      While Russia has too much diversity for my liking, and too much immigration from the former Soviet Union, their current thinking is way better than that of their western counterparts.

      I judge this by Russia’s position on the refugee crysis.

      “Russia’s immigration chief lashes out at Europe over migration”

      “Practicing family reunification and offering refugees generous benefits without integrating them into the labor market, the EU did not expect that such a great number of people would claim these rights. This was clearly a mistake. The policy of multiculturalism has failed.”

      Romodanovsky accuses EU leaders of willfully ignoring the “differences in culture, religious traditions, and customs.”

      “Note the defiant behavior of refugees and their growing claims and demands. What happened in Germany on New Year’s Eve is a striking example of this,” said the official, referring to the mass sex assaults in Cologne perpetrated largely by members of ethnic minorities during that holiday.”

      “People in Europe are getting restless. The economic situation is difficult as it is, unemployment is high, and yet their governments have to support immigrants from Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, northern Africa, and provide them with housing and jobs.”


    • Passer by's Gravatar Passer by
      July 10, 2016 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

      And, btw, Putin expressed tacit support for Trump, while Trump recently sent his advisor to Moscow. And has close relations with Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

      I do not see how this could possibly be a bad thing.

      So you will also need to explain why Putin supports people like Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, and Marine Le Pen, while they, in turn, want closer relations with him.

    • John's Gravatar John
      July 10, 2016 - 9:19 pm | Permalink

      Should an (ethnic) German go to war against Russia and possibly give his life to save the Ukraine or even Poland? I say hell no and I support Putin and Russia in this dispute with NATO.

      Regarding “Russian aggression”.

      Before the reunification of Germany in 1990, all the occupying powers (US, Britain, Soviet Union) agreed that only German troops would be stationed as far east as the former East Germany. Non-German NATO troops would only be allowed to be stationed in West Germany. In 2004, NATO moved right up to Russia’s border.


      Two weeks before the democratically elected Ukrainian leader was forced to flee, the BBC posted the transcript (“Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call”) of a telephone conversation that the Russians had intercepted where assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, discuss whom they are going to place in power in the Ukraine.


      There is also video on the web of Gunter Verheugen, the former Vice-President of the European Commission, saying that he believed that there was a long standing plan to organize “regime change” in the Ukraine.


      From a Yahoo news article:

      “Today the Ukrainian navy consists of only 6,000 servicemen, down dramatically from the 14,000 it boasted in 2013. Of the 8,000 sailors who served in Crimea only 2,000 chose Ukraine. Most of the others opted to join the Russian side.”


      From the Global Research web site:

      “Rapoza noted that a June 2014 Gallup poll, which was sponsored by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, found that 82.8 percent of Crimeans said the March 16 referendum on secession reflected the views of the Crimean people. In the poll, when asked if joining Russia would improve their lives, 73.9 percent said yes and only 5.5 percent said no.

      “A February 2015 poll by German polling firm GfK found similar results. When Crimeans were asked ‘do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea,’ 93 percent gave a positive response, with 82 percent saying, ‘yes, definitely.’ Only 2 percent said no, with the remainder unsure or not answering.”


      Britain and Canada criticized the 1983 US invasion of Grenada and the United Nations General Assembly condemned the invasion as “a flagrant violation of international law” by a vote of 108 in favor to 9, with 27 abstentions. The United Nations Security Council considered a similar resolution, which was supported by 11 nations but vetoed by the US.

  7. Armor's Gravatar Armor
    July 8, 2016 - 11:27 am | Permalink

    “Meanwhile, our Republican-leaning economic elite knows Mr. Trump to be bad for business. (…) The boys on Wall Street can get rich with trade deals that bankrupt the country while creating enormous demands for social services for the losers in this game.”

    Trump wouldn’t be bad for business. Only few people can get rich by selling out the country, and it cannot be a long term activity. Most investors are necessarily losing money due to the third-world invasion and the destruction of White people and of the industrial base. And that is even more proof that it’s all about the war on Whites. The stupid religion of free trade is bad both for the poor and the rich.

    Bret Stephens: “Where’s the evidence that, as president, Mr. Trump will endorse conservative ideas on tax, trade, regulation, welfare, social, judicial or foreign policy…”

    Trump has common sense opinions. Even under pressure from the media and from his own party, he keeps his common sense. It is part of his personality, and I think it goes together with a conservative outlook. In fact, he calls himself a “common-sense conservative”. It’s unlikely his personality will change suddenly when he gets in the White House. Actually, he is already pushing the mood of the country in a conservative direction even before he’s been elected. By contrast, Bret Stephens is a phony conservative who supports race replacement for White people.

  8. July 8, 2016 - 1:16 am | Permalink
  9. Fenria's Gravatar Fenria
    July 7, 2016 - 9:02 pm | Permalink

    why do both sides hate him so?
    Because Donald Trump represents hope for White people

    This right here. This is the 100% truth, laid bare and plain. Because a man has come along who might just be able to reverse the anti white agenda in this country and walk it back in such a way that will allow white people to reclaim themselves. That is the evil of all evils to the agenda setters and their lackeys. That is the one thing they will all join forces to try and stop.

    • July 8, 2016 - 9:37 pm | Permalink

      “In Gefahr und großer Not
      bringt der Mittelweg den Tod.”

      A German sentence saying: In the situation of death-danger you must choose one side. If you do not dare to make this decision, but stay in the middle, than you surely will die. If you choose one side and do this wholeheartly, than you have a chance to survive. — So it is with this election in the USA: The whites should support Donald Trump with the whole heart and all their power, und they should not be disturbed by some minor parts which might be not 100% all right.

  10. Jeff's Gravatar Jeff
    July 7, 2016 - 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Western nations are becoming exactly like Russia or Mexico: A corrupt oligarchy at the top, a mongrel underclass at the bottom.

    • July 7, 2016 - 8:37 pm | Permalink

      I heard the phrase ‘a mestizo Europe’ in about 1996. (But I don’t think Russia has a mongrel underclass)

    • July 8, 2016 - 6:26 am | Permalink

      @Jeff … who told you Russia has a corrupt oligarchy at the top? CNN? Look … stop pretending you are ever going to see a government on this planet that isn’t corrupt somewhere, and at some level. Don’t lose sight of the limits of “human nature”. Modern Russia maintains a political system that is far more accountable than both China … AND … the United States of America (post 9/11 and post DHS).

      The reason you don’t see Russia outperforming the USA is because the USA has mastered the art of 24×7 cuddliness, sugar-coating, and other “appeals to Femo emotions”. America has become one big lie-spewing machine. She’s been that way for longer than most White Americans would wish to admit.

      In short, you are a matriarchy, and half your country (especially the northeastern states) will be wiped out if Hillary Clinton does become POTUS and then starts a hot war with Russia. Ergo, over half the world will end up dead too.

      Russian nationals have prevented a nuclear exchange (with the USA) on TWO occasions already. How many more times is America’s ‘Elite’ going to play poker with humanity as chips?

      • July 8, 2016 - 12:43 pm | Permalink

        Anglo-Saxon, with respect, you haven’t given nuclear scepticism the respect it deserves. Nuke Lies examines this issue, which has been kept out of discussion by the Jewish media, for easily-understood reasons. I’m not saying conventional weapons, with electronic targeting and timing, are fun. But ‘half the world dead’ is fantasy.

  11. Thorgrun's Gravatar Thorgrun
    July 7, 2016 - 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Today at the Congressional Hearings, Representative Clay asked the FBI Director if he was aware of the White Genocide postings and if the FBI is aware. The Director claimed no knowledge, so Rep.Clay went on to suggest they be watched, etc. Just proves again, don’t complain or organize, resist or you will be made a target, right there in Congressional Testimony. A threat? Yes. I am of the opinion that Homeland Security was not set up for Muslim terrorism, no, it was created to keep the dispossessed cowed.

  12. FKA Max's Gravatar FKA Max
    July 7, 2016 - 11:56 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Mr. Collins.

    So forget the numbers, and remember the genes.

    I don’t completely agree with the very pro-Nordic ideology of the following writer, but he makes a very interesting point here, similar to yours:

    The Jewish Slave Morality has recently in the last two centuries given birth to the Political Ideology of Marxism, which is merely an expression of the inferior’s contempt for the superior, embodied in Slave Morality.

    The entire spectrum of politics, the entire spectrum of ideology, is nothing more but the conflict between these two contrary primal moral valuations.

    These polar moral valuations can and must be seen from a biological point of view, the battle between superior and inferior, the battle between race and race, species and species. Today, since the great Biological & Eugenical movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and National Socialist government in Germany biological knowledge for us supersedes politics. Genetic drives of inferior people doing things to increase their competitiveness, in the war for speciation (who will be the humanity of the future), is the explanation for everything in politics that is left of the ‘far right wing’. Politics is an illusion, that covers up the war between races.


    I think Donald Trump’s position is very similar to that of William Vaile:

    On the issue of immigration Vaile said: “Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

    What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

    We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.”[5] -Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922


    I also wanted to defend Keynes. Most (((Keynesians))) are not true Keynesians. In the later decades of his life Keynes was very skeptical of free-trade and globalization:

    I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel–these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.

    For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years.


    Also he was a staunch eugenicist:

    Keynes was a proponent of eugenics. He served as director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. As late as 1946, shortly before his death, Keynes declared eugenics to be “the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.”[166]


    And he was not particularly fond of Jews, and knew about the dark side of their nature. This is also, I presume, why he wanted Jews to have their own state – so that Europe could get rid of Jews peacefully (he was a pacifist) – because he was supportive of the Zionist cause:

    Keynes sometimes explained the mass murder that took place during the first years of communist Russia on a racial basis, as part of the “Russian and Jewish nature”, rather than as a result of the communist rule. After a trip to Russia, he wrote in his Short View of Russia that there is “beastliness on the Russian and Jewish natures when, as now, they are allied together”.


    How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values. – Keynes, John Maynard (1931). Essays in Persuasion.

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      July 7, 2016 - 4:11 pm | Permalink

      Excellent defense of the old bugger. Some of JMK’s ideas were adapted by British fascist and German national socialist economists. He is traduced as an irresponsible “inflationist” by “free”-traders who have not realized that the world is very different from the gas-lit drawing-rooms of David Ricardo or even Adam Smith, and with a few notable exceptions cannot see anything wrong with fractional reserve lending or Soros-style speculation, on which I would like to add a little footnote: the billionaire David Harding put £3.5 million into the EU Remain campaign but his hedge fund made £828 million from currency swings after the Brexit vote.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        July 7, 2016 - 5:58 pm | Permalink

        In fairness to Adam Smith, he referred to the “political economy”, understanding that political decisions shaped the direction of the economy.

      • Lapp1987's Gravatar Lapp1987
        July 7, 2016 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

        re: Harding – doesn’t that echo somewhat Jacob Schiff and his $20mio gold ‘investment’ in Russia, seed capital for the 1917 Revolution … perhaps also for that matter the (in)famously unresolved 911 airline stock shorts?

        Here’s a UK politician who took an interest in sound money: John Tyndall — his talk on ‘Economic Nationalism or the Global Economy’



        Hardly any MPs turned out for the HoC debate on Money Creation and Society in 2014. Now, post-Brexit Referendum, Remainer Theresa May seems likely to be voted by her Party’s MPs as next PM to replace Remainer David Cameron. Yet MPs write to the Press claiming to be ‘intimidated’?!

    • July 7, 2016 - 4:19 pm | Permalink

      Keynes seems to have been unaware of the Federal Reserve (1913), or of the near-certainty it was used to promote war between whites. This is odd, because he was primarily interested in finance: his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (as the title shows) says nothing much of any use on raw materials, construction, practicalities etc. And his earlier book on the ‘Great War’, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, looks at the Treaty of Versailles (he was there) with well-known pen portraits of Lloyd George, Clemenceau et al, but says nothing on Jewish financiers. As far as I recall, anyway — maybe he discreetly wrote about Jews in coded polite form. Perhaps he wasn’t allowed to write of such things, as Britain after WW1 had desperate financial problems, though of course less so that Germany and Russia. Keynes must have known of this — he negotiated much of it. He looks to me like just another useful idiot. And after WW2, with Bretton Woods etc, he was known to dislike the idea that the great financiers should pay no tax. Another conspiracy idea:- he died suddenly amid angry debates. I think he may have been murdered, like Forrestal.

      For what it’s worth, here’s my article on Keynes and the World bank. I’d love to think Keynes was a great economist, helping understand depressions and recoveries, But I can’t believe it.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        July 9, 2016 - 7:16 pm | Permalink

        Hayek was talking to Keynes whilst on his death bed: “Oh Hayek, I wasn’t advocating any principles for all time. I just wanted to inflate out of the depression!”

        To inflate out of the depression which was caused by the jewish inflationism of the Federal Reserve [roaring twenties bubble]. The General Theory was just another excuse for monetary quackery- Keynes was probably on the payroll of the “bankers”.

        The thirties- so-called Red Decade- was actually the jew decade. JWO mostly installed by 1937. . .

  13. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    July 7, 2016 - 9:05 am | Permalink

    The priority of the political establishment (whether on the “Left” or on the “Right”) is multiculturalism (euphemism for White Genocide), and that explains all their contradictions. Capitalists rather risk losing capital and socialists rather betray the working class, than risk an end to their stealth White Genocide Project. But of course they can’t openly say so, except of accusing Trump of “racism”. Even the feminists rather let Muslims grope and rape white women or “groom” little white girls for prostitution, than proposing the “racist” idea of stopping all Muslim immigration, let alone reversing it.

    It becomes more and more clear what the real subject of the political debate is : the survival of the white race, but neither the establishment (nor Trump) have reached the stage of openly saying so. One wonders what would happen if a candidate would openly profess that his aim is to save the white race. He would of course be decried as a “racist”, but wouldn’t his opponents not be exposed for all to see as the proponents of white genocide that they really are?

    • July 7, 2016 - 2:31 pm | Permalink

      …the real subject of the political debate is: the survival of the white race, …”
      Of course that is the main point. Everything has to be tested and judged by using the queston: Is this good for our survival: Yes or no? — By acting this way, we cannot be fooled easily. The simpleness of this test-question is of great value for our survival. — At the start you need some training: Please go into the bath room, where you are alone: Than you ask: “Is is good for us, if we Germans let 2 million Arabs and Negroes come in our country? Do I want this? Have I ordered this? Do I like multikulti so much that I want our own folk being destructed by multikulti?” — You speak the questions loudly and than you answer loudly: ” I do not want it. I do not like it. I did not have ordered it”. — You repeat this several times and than you have the sentences, the words, the way to speak within your memory, ready-to-use. And the next time in public with other persons you can use the newly trained ability and the words and sentences come loud and clear.

  14. Close Call's Gravatar Close Call
    July 7, 2016 - 9:04 am | Permalink

    Blacks are the perfect example of a group of people whose hatred of whites surpasses even their love for themselves. Immigration from Mexico is killing blacks, and forcing them onto the welfare rolls, but they welcome their brown brothers with open arms.

    There is a McDonald’s in my town which used to be staffed by all blacks, and gradually over the last 15 years has become entirely Mexican. It is a much more pleasant place to be now – the bathrooms are clean, the workers are friendlier and the food looks more appetizing. Blacks simply cannot compete with Mestizos, and are being pushed completely out of the economy.

    But alas they hate whites, and are more concerned about turning us into a minority than in feeding themselves and taking care of their families.

    • Don's Gravatar Don
      July 7, 2016 - 7:53 pm | Permalink

      Wow. What a great observation. Black pathological hatred of WHITE people is incomprehensible. They’d rather go down on a sinking ship than help save it and share it with WHITE people. They’re going to be extinct in the US before WHITE people. Mexicans will tolerate WHITES. They will NOT tolerate Negroids.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      July 7, 2016 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

      and are being pushed completely out of the economy. . .”

      They are great spenders, and as Lord Keynes asserted, economies run on spending. The economy would collapse without mud spending, which is why we must never get rid of them.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        July 8, 2016 - 5:05 pm | Permalink

        Quite so. The centrality of “animal spirits” to his theory of economic cycles reinforces that very point.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          July 10, 2016 - 11:28 am | Permalink

          @Trenchant: Is your “parsimonious” connection a thing of the past? Please renew contact; I appear to be under troll attack.

      • July 8, 2016 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

        @T.J. – economies run on spending – please someone find an elegant way to get rid of the absurd idea that ‘mud spending is essential’. Please.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          July 9, 2016 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

          What? An Englishman that doesn’t get irony? Ha! Keynesianism richly deserves ridicule from those who suffer its policies.

      • Armor's Gravatar Armor
        July 10, 2016 - 7:29 am | Permalink

        “The economy would collapse without mud spending”

        That’s what we are told by Jewish progressive economists. Moreover, as we are told by Jewish conservative economists, the economy would collapse just as fast if we stopped moving the factories to China in accordance with the principle of free trade.

        It’s nice to have Jewish economists on both sides of the political spectrum speaking up for our economic interests.

        • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
          July 11, 2016 - 12:36 am | Permalink

          Criticism of outsourcing should include the unsound international monetary system which allows for deliberate currency undervaluation (Asia)/overvaluation (USA). Money prices, not just production considerations, inform the decision to go offshore.

Comments are closed.