Featured Articles

After the Amazing Election, What Now?

In this amazing election the American people voted against globalism and the Washington, New York, and Hollywood establishment with all the drama and suspense of the recent British Brexit vote.  Or as one Brit put it, “We do Brexit and the F***ing Americans have to do it bigger.” If it had been a referendum on globalism, free trade and open borders I have no doubt that the numbers would have been much more extreme. Now, with the full measure of political power the Republicans have achieved in this election, you can bet there will be more rollbacks than Walmart ever dreamed, starting with all the executive orders, Obamacare, the Iran giveaway, etc.

Given all the forces arrayed against Trump (Washington elites in both parties, mainstream media at home and abroad, New York and Hollywood media elites, Academia, etc.) one must ask, how the heck did he win? Exit poll data collected by Edison Research for the National Election Pool revealed that Clinton drew the bulk of her support from the motley crew that constitutes the Democratic base: Blacks (88%), Liberals (84%), GLBT community (78%) & Jews (71%); and to a lesser degree, Hispanics (65%) and urban residents (59%).
Read more

Anti-Semitism as Political Assassination: The Smearing of Steve Bannon

The corporate media would have us believe that President-Elect Trump’s newly appointed Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen K Bannon is a raging anti-Semite, and “white supremacist.” Though best known now for his role in the Trump campaign, Bannon is a former US Naval officer, Goldman Sachs banker, director of Earth-science research at Biosphere 2, film producer, and chairman of Breitbart News. Over the last 24 hours he has been subjected to a well-orchestrated crescendo of op-eds and tweets attacking his character and political views.

For instance, Esquire’s resident hysteric Charles Pierce would have us believe that “The hiring of Steve Bannon as a WH policy advisor is exactly the same as hiring David Duke.”

Meanwhile, the Daily News’ chief fabulist-in-training Shaun King purports to explain how “Donald Trump is using Steve Bannon to turn the GOP into the new KKK.”

And deservedly obscure presidential candidate Evan McMullin asks “Will any national level GOP leaders condemn @realDonaldTrump’s appointment of anti-Semite Steve Bannon to senior White House role?”

Others using the anti-Semitism slur include Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald, Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, US Senator Ron Wyden, Slate, Salon, Forward, and a cast of thousands more piling on. Many are Jewish, though not all.

As an American Jew, I am completely horrified at this reprehensible smear campaign. It is shameful. Sadly, it is the norm. The media know that the charge of anti-Semitism is tremendously damaging. If they get away with using this on Bannon, I fear they will continue using it towards many others associated with the Trump administration. They go low. Period. Read more

Trump won because of White people: Dance with the one who brought you

trumpvictory

In certain times, there is a surreal feeling of “being a part of history,” which is perhaps to say, we are living in a time period of dynamic change.  However unthinkable for the left it may be, Trump has been elected. We can add this to Brexit and other “unthinkable” events to come. To contemplate the details of what this may entail, such as the selection of cabinet members and policy priorities, which do indeed include “building that wall,” has something of a Christmas morning feeling—everyday.

To paraphrase an article from Die Welt, in Western Democracies, the status quo seems stable, and it is not generally considered possible for “extremes” to transpire.  But that is what we have seen, however we may want to quibble about what exactly is “extreme.”  Can Donald Trump, or the Alt-Right for that matter, be considered “extreme” after that electoral show of consent?  Regardless, when there is an endless back and forth between stultifying, uncourageous Republicans and the frankly anti-White agenda of the Democrats, “extreme” does not carry such a negative connotation, but instead implies a kind of deliverance.

We have been locked in a middle-class complaisance, and that is precisely why societies such as ours “are often surprised by the foreseeable and obvious.”   And alas, though it may be “unspeakable” to liberals, and though he was the object of such ridicule in our media, Trump is now “the most powerful man in the world,” as Die Welt puts it, perhaps with some apprehension.  Just let that sink in.

Explanatory Factors

Trump’s appeal may have been equally a reaction to Black Lives Matter protests as to immigration.  According to exit polls, 74 percent of Trump voters feel that Blacks are treated fairly by the criminal justice system, which by definition means that these voters are not sympathetic to BLM.  Overall, half of White voters (Democrats and Republicans) opined that Blacks are treated fairly by police.  Likely most of us will have anecdotal evidence that our non-Alt-Right family members and acquaintances were not amused by BLM.  Trump voters were especially unamused.

Of Trump supporters, 86 percent favor building the wall on the southern border, compared to less than half of all voters (54 percent oppose, 41 percent favor).  So antipathy towards both BLM and immigration can be said to have catapulted Trump to the presidency, in part by turning off mainstream middle-class White people, who are normally content with the status-quo.  Moderates may not want a wall per se, but they also may not complain too loudly when it’s being built.  And again, Trump’s actual voters want it built—unequivocally.

While losing some steam amongst college-educated Whites, Trump won the White working class by 39 points, an increase from Romney’s 26 point spread.  Ultimately, there is no simple narrative that emerges; Trump increased White support in different key swing states from different rural and suburban demographics in order to dominate the electoral college.  I won’t pretend to be Nate Silver, so let’s just say he won because of White people.

“Among his supporters,” opines Thomas Friedman on Real Time with Bill Maher, “this was 80 percent about race, and the other 20 percent was about race.”  Good then, let’s accept the premise of liberals and draw the necessary conclusions.  If Trump triumphed on the basis of race issues, he now has a mandate on immigration, law and order, the wall, etc.

For the NYTimes David Brooks holding forth on PBS, Trump voters are “just going with their gene pool,” a rather bald statement that Trump voters are voting their ethnic interests. After the election, Brooks predicted that the country would be split into two factions, with one faction advocating ethnic separatism, what many on the Alt Right are already advocating. Would that it were so.

Nixon became known to history as the “law and order” candidate, which accurately characterized his proclivities vis-à-vis crime.  Trump, on the other hand, to leave no doubt, self-identified as the “law and order” candidate.  As liberals will complain, and as the alt-right will readily admit, “law and order” is understood as to mean that we will not tolerate Black violence and civil unrest.  Trump’s support, therefore, was premised on his intolerance for the very violence which his election has provoked (once again) from Blacks and other malcontent minorities, in the protests following his victory, which continue as I write this.

It is ironic that Blacks report feeling “scared” at the prospect of the Trump presidency, while they are in fact the progenitors of violence, and so far as I know, Trump never made any negative statements explicitly about Blacks.  Their violence and disorder has indeed “scared” the rest of civil society, contributing to Trump’s election.  Perhaps Blacks are expressing their fear by attacking innocent Whites, in this inverted reality.  How can we assuage these sensitive Blacks’ sense of fear?  Shall we become human punching bags?

You Can’t Always Get What You Want

If there is one thing that minorities have learned over the last eight years, it is that they get what they want, and Whites (perhaps as a natural corollary) do not.  Hence the indignation following this surprise victory.  Some journalists noted with amusement that Trump often played the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” at his campaign rallies.  I hypothesized that Trump liked the song for its beautiful choral section, which has a celestial quality that built anticipation for his arrival on stage.  Surely he paid little heed to the message of the lyrics, which discordantly seemed to suggest he was voters’ second choice.  But now it all makes sense.  I suggest that for our “underprivileged” people of color, it’s time you learned: you can’t always get what you want.

Not only is the POC attitude of entitlement and aggrievement ridiculous, it is also presumptuous.  Trump haters assume that whomever they happen to be speaking to at that moment shares their hatred for Trump and all that he represents — the liberal bubble that we see over and over again in big cities and universities.  Many of us who do not go about their day in a MAGA hat, and appear to be otherwise in step with the mainstream of American society, will often be confused with one who has accepted the anti-Trump bias of pop-culture, which is what all “educated” people after all must believe.  They seem to take for granted that as a White person, your chief goal is to champion their causes, what they believe to be important.  I’m afraid that no longer interests us, and we have instead decided to look to our own welfare.

Of course, minorities’ presumptuous attitude is the result of decades of a cultural Marxist program in the media and education, from which it seems only recently some Whites have begun to break away, however tentatively.  Not submitting to minorities’ racial-group interests at our own expense is equated with base racism in this formula.  Clearly even the bourgeoisie have become weary of these recriminations.  And the White working class is beyond weary of this crap.

Dance with the One Who Brought You

While the MSM claims that the onus is now on Trump to reach out to those who didn’t vote for him; i.e., Blacks, Hispanics, it would seem that he was given a mandate to serve the interests of those who did vote for him.  By this I mean the 86 percent of his supporters who want that wall.  So far, judging by his statements to the media, those he has chosen to keep in his inner circle, and those he has promoted in his cabinet, it is fair to say that Trump is staying true to his roots, while perhaps making some accommodations in order to ensure his agenda becomes a reality.

As for the POC, 8 percent of African Americans voted for Trump, after all that attention; and frankly, pandering.  Are we supposed to be excited that Trump increased Hispanic support from 27 percent in 2012 to 29 percent?  In a sense, these groups are not his constituents.  But we can take some comfort in how flummoxed establishment Republicans must be by the fact that Trump did better with their precious minority groups than Romney and McCain.  Surely they must be nursing a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Yes, President-elect Trump must represent all Americans in the abstract; but let’s take the MSM at face value: If Trump’s candidacy was always a stealth pro-White Identity project, then it follows logically that he would now carry that project through, and enact the policies which mobilized that base, and put him in the Oval Office.

Contact Malcolm Jaggers

Folk-Right Versus Multiculturalism

To most Westerners today, the words ‘nation’, ‘nationality’ and ‘law’ seem only to mean the state, citizenship and legislation enacted by the state. But there are other meanings to these words, which were their primary and even sole meanings in the past. The nation was once the ethnic group, the tribe at large — nationality being one’s ethnicity. Likewise, in Europe the law was once the customs of the kin-group. So how is it that kinship is not only ignored by Western states as the criterion for citizenship but is even unheard of to most? And is there a future for the original understanding of these words?

Historically, nations (in the truest sense of the word) decided personhood and rights-exercising ability based on their being a member of the kin group, not according to whomever the state decided was welcome to citizenship of that nation. Ricardo Duchesne (whose work has often been discussed on TOO) rightly points out that even the rise of Western nation-states, including the US, was not based on civic nationalism, noting their ‘White-only’ immigration policies. He writes,

The nations of Europe were not mere “inventions” or functional requirements of modernity, but were factually rooted in the past, in common myths of descent, a shared history, and a distinctive cultural tradition. While the rise of modern industry and modern bureaucracies allowed for the materialization of nation states in Europe, these nations were primordially based on a population with a collective sense of kinship.

Aliens have always been granted special rules, notably, being treated according to the law of their own people; this wasn’t because they had the wrong passport, but because they were simply not of one’s nation. Many today will presume this was just ancient tribalism, fueled by irrational xenophobia. However, as Duchesne notes, modern liberal democracy of the West denies the biological impulse to protect one’s own and mistakenly assumes that this denial and even the individualistic, classical liberal ideals of the West, are shared by all the peoples of the world:

Humans are social animals with a natural impulse to identify themselves collectively in terms of ethnic, cultural and racial markers. But today Europeans have wrongly attributed their unique inclination for states with liberal constitutions to non-Europeans. They have forgotten that liberal states were created by a particular people with a particular individualist heritage, beliefs, and religious orientations… They don’t want to admit openly that all liberal states were created violently by a people with a sense of peoplehood laying sovereign rights over an exclusive territory against other people competing for the same territory. They don’t want to admit that the members of the competing outgroups are potential enemies rather than abstract individuals seeking a universal state that guarantees happiness and security for all regardless of racial and religious identity.

Read more

Reaction to Trump’s election: Pride, narcissism, and (over)privilege at the BBC

You might think that after a disaster as humiliating as the election of Donald Trump that our anointed elites would take this opportunity for a bit of humility — that this would be an opportunity for introspection and some soul-searching self-reflection.

Well, the good news is that you would be wrong. For this would involve a level of self-awareness far beyond our narcissistic elites.  All around they are demonstrating a complete inability to understand the forces behind their humiliation at the hands of a man they dismissed as a joke from day one and whose demise they predicted every inch of the way.

This self-deception was wonderfully on display in an immediate post-election edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Newsnight, broadcast to the nation the day after and including a number of American interviewees. In a specially extended version of the show, programme editor Ian Katz dispatched Emily Maitlis, Mark Urban and David Grossman to find answers on the day after the result.

In both London and Washington a stellar line up of the finest brains from the media and the academy were assembled to help them chew it over.

Entertainingly, the vanity, narcissism and entitlement of the BBC presenter-ocracy was fully on view, proud and undented. To the accompaniment of the Beatles tune “Fool on the Hill” anchor Emily Maitlis could barely contain her rage and sputtered about how “a game show host and someone who owned a beauty pageant” could become president.

Populism, uprising, nationalism versus globalism; as with former President Bush’s puzzlement over “the vision thing,” they seemed to be able to mouth the words but comprehension was lacking. Read more

Trump and the Jews, #6: Ramping up the hate (and paranoia) as we approach the finish line

With precious little time left to go in the election, it seems like Jewish angst is ramping up, although of course, not all Jews see Donald Trump as a disaster (see previous articles in this series). Here’s a typical Trump rally as imagined by New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait.

Much of the recent furor concerns Trump’s final ad, a 2-minute masterpiece of populist rhetoric that depicts a “global power structure” that is “bleeding America dry” with horrible trade deals that enrich elites and open the gates to mass immigration. Activist Jews watching it focused on the people depicted as behind this globalist takeover: George Soros, Janet Yellen, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman of Goldman Sachs, with the implication that Clinton is their minion. As he noted in his famous West Palm Beach speech which also triggered activist Jews and cucks like Rick Wilson:

The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure. We’ve seen this first hand in the WikiLeaks documents, in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends and her donors.

This was enormously triggering for the ADL which tweeted:


Read more

Crash-Bang-Wallop! White Caravans and Bare Knuckle Brawlers from the Shire to the East End

guvnor

Review of The Guv’nor (2016)

“Though he is not of the age group, he is one of the old school in principle. Also, he is definitely a positive thinker, yet without it becoming a task in life. He always keeps his word and values his friends. He chooses his company carefully so that he only has good people around him. He also has the unusual combination of brains as well as brawn. My friend Lenny does not give up easily. He is a legend in his own lifetime and he become a legend on his own merit. Above all, he is a man.”
– Notorious East London Gangster Reggie Kray, on now deceased underground boxing legend Lenny McLean.

Since the dim red dawn of man the aspiring young from every economic class have sought to distinguish themselves through ritual combat. Whether pauper or prince, the blood you let and the blood you lose are the currency for masculinity.

The Guv’nor (2016) is a feature length documentary film about the life and times of Lenny McLean, told from the perspective of his son Jamie. It is a directorial debut for Paul Van Carter, who’d previously worked as a miscellaneous crew member for Nicholas WindingRefns Bronson (2008) — the story of another English underground boxer that the United Kingdom could not tame.

It is a story (((many))) would rather not have told. The story of a devil-may-care White warrior. Of a man who refuses to validate himself to the world and the status quo of polite British society. There has been a resurgence of interest for combat sports among the White youth of the West since Tyler Durden showed us the way to Paper Street Soap Factory. Lenny McLean was a twentieth-century gladiator who rubbed elbows with London’s most notorious, produced what is arguably one of the best autobiographies any fighting man has ever authored, and in the twilight of his life was immortalized by Guy Ritchie in Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Few possess the requisite combination of courage and charisma to fight their way up from nothing and stand tall on the silver screen. Fewer still would lay their soul bare through an intimate portrait of their life shared in the pages of a best seller.

Men like that are dangerous. It’s not that they can break your jaw. It’s that these are White men who will shatter your illusions. Read more