Donald Trump

Trump in West Palm Beach

/42 Comments/in , /by


Donald Trump’s West Palm Beach speech has gotten a lot of attention (see Lawrence Murray’s comments, at The Right Stuff). There does seem to be a ramping up of tone apparent here — a sense that this election is an apocalyptic moment, as indeed it is. Trump understands, as the Alt Right has been saying, that the establishment is corrupt from top to bottom, that we live in a sham democracy, a sham republic:

This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged. This is reality, you know it, they know it, I know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it.

As Angelo Codevilla noted, “Because Republicans largely agree with Democrats that they need not take seriously the founders’ Constitution, today’s American regime is now what Max Weber had called the Tsarist regime on the eve of the Revolution: ‘fake constitutionalism.’”

Trump is aware of the special role of the media:

The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.

As we have emphasized repeatedly on TOO, the media indictment is always fundamentally a moral indictment, as in Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.” Media messages in favor of massive immigration and the displacement of traditional populations have typically been couched in moral terms. If you oppose the transformation of European societies by immigration, you are a bad person. It’s not just that you are mistaken about the practical effects of massive non-White migration in terms of a decline in social cohesion, increase in social conflict, crime, terrorism, etc., you are morally evil. It’s so simple that there’s no need to get into the social science research. Read more

Will the Alt Right take over the Republican Party?

/61 Comments/in , , , /by

Hillary Clinton’s Reno speech had plenty of ridiculous moments. The claim that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is behind the Alt Right is laughable, but one shouldn’t ignore its obvious pandering to neocons, many of whom are shilling for Hillary or, like Robert Kagan, are actually advising her on foreign policy. The rest of the neocons are staying with the Republicans for now, hoping she wins and that they can pick up the pieces.

If you want hostility with Russia, Hillary’s your candidate, as the always hilarious Hillary PR Team noted on Twitter:

In case you missed the speech, here is a 1½ minute version, with a special appearance from Pepe.

What I want to focus on is her (slightly less ridiculous) statement, “The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump Campaign represents a landmark achievement for the ‘Alt-Right.’ A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.”

Would that it were so. Breitbart is not the Alt Right. There are certainly some linkages, made possible by fuzzy definitions of the Alt Right which provide irresistible opportunities for politicians like Clinton to smear Trump. But we do not read on Breitbart the full-throated identitarian, explicitly White, race realist, and Judaeo-critical ideas that are the true hallmark of the Alt Right.

So what are the prospects for the Alt Right really taking over the Republican Party? First, perhaps the most important contribution of Trump’s candidacy, win or lose, is that he has destroyed the traditional Republican Party. The GOP, “dependent on a neocon media and foreign policy establishment and with a big business, pro-Israel donor base, is dead—and, in my view, it can’t be resuscitated.” This was a party completely out of touch with its base. Trump accomplished a hostile takeover, and it’s no surprise that the elites who have run the party, are not on board with this revolution. Read more

The Lying Press looks Inward

/22 Comments/in , , /by
Fact

Articles from one day, August 16, in the Washington Post daily email. Included are all articles related to the election. There were no articles with Hillary in the headline included in the email.

There has been some introspection among a few mainstream journalists, who have stepped back and asked themselves, have we gone over the top in our media campaign against Donald Trump? We should be cautious in attributing this to integrity, something we haven’t seen too much of in the media.  But every now and again we get some nuggets of truth, even from the least likely sources; ironically, those whose job it is to bring us the truth: journalists.

As one of the self-reflective articles from The Week points out, there is apparently a collective decision on behalf of the media that “any pretense of covering the campaign dispassionately deserves to be thrown out the window.”  I would suggest that this is provoked by the prospect of Trump representing the interests of Whites, who thus far have been content to be exploited as a tax-cow for the benefit of foreign and domestic parasites. The anti-Trump media offensive was described on Fash the Nation recently as a “saturation bombing,” which is an apt metaphor, as this feels like a war.

It has come to the point where one questions whether we actually have a democracy if public opinion is molded with such a heavy hand, and with such sinister coordination. Rush Limbaugh, who for whatever his limitations, is quite deft at parsing media bias, opined about the campaign, “It is one-sided like we’ve never seen before, and I don’t know how to overcome it.” I had a friend from work text me this summer asking if Trump were dropping out of the race (one of the disinformation campaigns from Clinton/media), which confirmed that these smears are all too effective.  We may seethe at the transparent agenda, but ordinary working people who don’t care too much about politics likely take what they see on TV at face value, and that is a little concerning to say the least.   Read more

Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump (5): Would Trump’s Defeat Be Blamed On Jews?

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

donaldtrumpataipac

Posted at Vdare.com

See previous articles in this series.

Almost exactly a year ago, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow raised the question of whether America’s Jewish groups would turn on Donald Trump (who after all has Jewish grandchildren and a lifetime of Jewish business associates) with the hysteria they employed against Patrick J. Buchanan. I have been tracking the matter ever since and the answer is now in: yes—clearly triggered by visceral reaction against Trump’s nationalist acceptance speech in Cleveland and outright panic at his subsequent poll lead (July 25-29 according to the Real Clear Politics average). I suspect, however, that we have crossed a watershed and that, regardless of the results of this election, this will not end well for them.

Before the convention, Wall Street Journal Deputy Editorial Page Editor Bret Stephens [Email him] said with astonishing arrogance: “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents—this kind of ethnic quote, ‘conservatism,’ or populism be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party, the Republican voters will forever learn their lesson…” WSJ‘s Bret Stephens: Trump Must Lose So Badly That the GOP Voters ‘Learn Their Lesson’, by Sam Reisman, Mediaite, May 29 2016.

Just on Friday, Paul Krugman [Email him] writing in the New York Times continued the now-widespread theme: any expression of ethnic identity by America’s whites, no matter how implicit, was “bigoted” and “white nationalist”:

Recently Avik Roy, a leading Republican health-policy expert, had the personal and moral courage to admit what liberals (and political scientists) have been saying for years: “In reality, the gravitational center of the Republican Party is white nationalism.”

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that top Republicans were or are personally bigoted—but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they were willing to curry favor with bigots in the service of tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation. Remember, Mitt Romney eagerly accepted a Trump endorsement in 2012, knowing full well that he was welcoming a racist conspiracy theorist into his camp.

All that has happened this year is a move of those white nationalists from part of the supporting cast to a starring role.

Pieces of Silver, August 12, 2016 (links in original)

Read more

Donald Trump in Cleveland: Nationalism, Populism, and the Rise of the Alt Right

/100 Comments/in , , /by

Going into Donald Trump’s acceptance speech I thought he would pivot, as they say, from some of the positions that most annoy the New York Times et al. Far from it. It was all there. Build the Wall, no immigration from countries associated with terrorism (okay, he didn’t say ‘Muslims’, but it was an obvious proxy), immigration for the benefit of Americans (rather than, it is implied, as a moral imperative — which almost automatically implies a drastic decrease in legal immigration), crime by illegal immigrants (complete with poignant stories about the victims), the insanity of US refugee policy given the problem of Muslim terrorism and the inability to vet refugees — and in particular Hillary’s proposal to vastly increase the numbers. And that’s just immigration.

I also loved that he didn’t back away from detailing Hillary’s crimes—the email scandal, the lying about the email scandal, the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments associated with terrorism and human rights abuses while she was Secretary of State, with the crowd chanting “Lock her up.” The mainstream media is particularly piqued to think that the RNC delegates would act so uncharitably toward their darling (the LATimes called it a “lynch mob.” But just how much politeness does someone who has taken corruption at the highest levels of government to heights never seen in my lifetime (and I’m an old guy) deserve? Read more

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

/49 Comments/in , /by

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.

Read more

Donald Trump, Judge Curiel, and (((Mean Tweets))): The Reality of Ethnic Identification in Multicultural America

/44 Comments/in , , /by

Strong ethnic identifications for non-Whites remain controversial in multi-cultural America. On the cuckservative right, such identifications are half-heartedly condemned because they like to imagine that an ideal America should be blind to ethnicity as a way of justifying their non-opposition to massive non-White immigration (“after all, they’re just like us”) and their own lack of identification as Whites — even though this is a sure-fire recipe for White oblivion in the long run.

The intellectual gyrations on the left are even more laughable: They encourage non-Whites to have strong ethnic identifications and to organize to pursue their interests. In fact, such identifications are the key to success in a wide range of fields, certainly including academia, the law, and politics, and there are plenty of well-paying jobs running ethnic activist organizations. Being known as an ethnic activist and being a member of ethnic activist organizations are keys to advancement. For the MSM and the rest of the left, seeing things from an ethnic perspective is a positive virtue for non-Whites. So it’s not surprising  that, as Peter Brimelow notes, Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment was not sufficient to derail her appointment to the Supreme Court and indeed was applauded by the elite media. So making decisions based on ethnic identity is just fine.

Read more