Two Cheers For Trump Advisor Mike Anton—He Has The Right Enemies

A major London bookmaker, Ladbrokes, has given odds of 11–10 that Trump will resign or be impeached — almost even money. Of course, this is not in the least surprising given that Trump is loathed by the entire Establishment, Left to Right and is now being victimized by “Deep State” operatives in the intelligence community installed by previous administrations.

In the grand scheme of things, Trump is something of a miracle. In his case, an oligarchic system designed to pick candidates who would continue what is in effect a bipartisan campaign against the Historic American Nation failed, spectacularly.

Much of the recent hysteria has focused on three high-level Presidential advisers to the president: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Mike Anton.

Anton, now the senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, has given the clearest indication of his attitudes. Written under the pseudonym of “Publius Decius Mus” (a Roman consul who sacrificed his life for the success of his troops) his September 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election” is in tune with Alt Right themes—with some important exceptions,.

Anton’s essay caused a stir on the Right, but it was pretty much ignored by the Left until he was unmasked by The Weekly Standard on February 2 [Decius Mus Unmasked] because of his usefulness in smearing the Trump administration. Since then, it’s been hysterical condemnation.

beautifullosersFundamentally, Anton claimed that Conservatism Inc. had completely failed because it refused to acknowledge that the long-term effects of importing a Third World population would be the end of conservatism. Conservatives Inc. types are “beautiful losers,” as Sam Francis described them — garnering huge sums of money but quite content with their sinecures while the movement as a whole is “headed off a cliff…The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation.”

Conservatives, according to Anton, are

the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Neocon and Conservative Inc. hostility toward Trump was that it was obvious to everyone what a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean—as Anton said, it would be

pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most ‘advanced’ Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.”

Read more

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, as applied in the Trump era

Mainstream media, Hollywood, Academia and the Regressive Left in general have adopted Saul Alinsky’s infamous “Rules for Radicals.” If you know what the “rules” are, you can better predict what’s coming from these Left Wing saboteurs.  Keep in mind that these days the Enemy referred to in the “Rules” is the Trump administration, particularly the President, his top advisers, the press secretary and cabinet members. Out on the street the category of Enemy can be expanded to “anybody who disagrees with you.”

Here’s a quick look at some of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Exhibit A here are the Saturday Night Live sketches ridiculing Trump (Alec Baldwin) and Press Secretary Sean Spicer (Melissa McCarthy) that have resulted in a ratings bonanza for a show that was otherwise fading from view.

Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump on SNL

Read more

Philip Weiss: “Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it’s never a scandal”

From “Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it’s never a scandal,” by Philip Weiss.

There are two large exceptions to the Russian conspiracy. The first is that it is good policy for the United States to be talking to Russia. If Clinton were president today, there might be dogfights over Damascus. Her gang was all for regime change in Syria, and for confrontation over the Ukraine. That’s bad policy. I’m glad they’re not running the show– though they are certainly running this story. Before you get too upset about Russia winking at the sanctions, the scandal that brought down Michael Flynn, please recall that in 2012, President Obama sent secret signals to Iran to ignore congressional sanctions, we’ll be talking to you once I’m reelected. …

Which brings up the second exception. Israel tried to interfere in that 2012 election, as Chris Matthews sensibly reminded his audience recently: Benjamin Netanyahu tried to help Mitt Romney beat Obama. Sheldon Adelson held a fundraiser in Jerusalem for Romney.

Netanyahu didn’t stop there. After Romney lost, Netanyahu came to Congress to tell the Congress to reject President Obama’s nuclear deal. That was an unprecedented interference of a foreign leader in our policy-making, enabled by the Israel lobby; but there were never any investigations about that. Subsequently Chuck Schumer said he was torn between a Jewish interest and the American interest, before voting against the president, and he paid no political/reputational price for it; while President Obama said that it would be an “abrogation” of his constitutional duty if he considered Israel’s interest ahead of the U.S.; for which Obama was called an anti-semite.

Throughout those negotiations, Obama could never address the fact that Israel has nukes. This lie is honored by the press, in a way that it would never honor Trump’s lies. And the manner in which Israel got nukes, including thefts from an American company with the complicity of the White House, is only investigated by peripheral figures.

The Israeli interference in our politics is the conspiracy in plain sight that no one in the media talks about because they’re too implicated themselves. The two top executives at the largest media company, Comcast, are pro-Israel; one of them, David Cohen, raised money for the Israeli army. Netanyahu’s speeches to Congress were written by Gary Ginsberg, an executive at another media company, Time Warner, but hey, that’s not an issue. Four New York Times reporters have had children serve in the Israeli army. One of them is columnist David Brooks, who says that he gets gooey-eyed when he visits Israel. He is one of several Zionists with columns at the Times. Tom Friedman justified the Iraq War because suicide bombers were going into Tel Aviv pizza parlors. (Huh?) Yesterday Martin Indyk said on National Public Radio that Jared Kushner’s strong Jewish background was an asset for his being a Middle East mediator, a job that Aaron David Miller, who also has a strong Jewish background, defined as being Israel’s lawyer. Indyk, himself a mediator, started a pro-Israel thinktank with Haim Saban, an Israeli-American who was Clinton’s biggest funder and who lately smeared Keith Ellison at a giant gathering at Brookings, which he also helps fund, as “clearly an anti-semite” and “anti-Israel;” and Jake Tapper of CNN moved on to the next question, presumably because smearing a public official in that manner is not news. Saban is also chummy with Jeffrey Goldberg, one of whose qualifications for being the best journalist in his generation, according to the Atlantic’s publisher, is that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces, because he felt that America was unsafe for Jews. One of Goldberg’s first hires as editor at the Atlantic is Julia Ioffe, who hates Russia, and who told a synagogue audience last year after she was attacked as a Jew by Trump supporters: “Personally I was kind of glad to see the outpouring of antisemitism” because people had forgotten that Jews and Israel are the “underdog.” At another NY synagogue, believing that he was speaking off the record, Dennis Ross, the longtime White House “mediator” of the peace process, said that American Jews must be “advocates” for Israel, not for Palestinians. Again, not a scandal. But when Rashid Khalidi, who wrote a book about the U.S. being imbalanced in the peace process, warned that neoconservatives would “infest” the Trump administration, he was smeared up and down as an anti-semite.

 

Cowboy Kali Yuga: A Review of “Hell or High Water”

Neo-Westerns are the rough terrain that remain untamed and unclaimed by the heebs. Political Correctness does not sell here. Any feminist watching one would go into conniptions from their “toxic masculinity.” The men have guns and the women have curves. No one trusts the bank and everybody owes.

Hell or High Water is a tale of poor Southern White folks — Texans to be specific — suffering at the hands of usurious banksters who want to seize the land these people raised their kids on as the shylock’s pound of flesh. It’s not the protagonists that I’m referring to as “these people.” It’s the supporting cast. This is a film that excels at capturing the atmosphere of a place passing through the sieve of time. The quality of character that made the land, its sky above, and the people between so very great are being filtered out by modernity. The modern world is robbing Texas towns of their soul and the soil of its blood. In Hell or High Water we see the sovereign Lone Star demoted to one more vassal state in Weimerica.

I’ll tell it to you straight.: We’ve got us here a story you’ve all heard before. Two cow-pokes-turned-bank-robbers. Two Texas Rangers trying to out-think and out-maneuver them into the reach of the long arm of the law. That said, the story could take place over a century and a half ago. But this is a tale of the here and now in the dismal financial fallout of Obama’s America — and the desperation of much of White America.

Spoiler Alert: The following contains a lot of plot summary. The movie is highly recommended, but you might want to see it first.

Two masked bandits approach a branch of the Texas Midlands Bank. As the audience will later learn, Midlands Bank issued what is known as a reverse mortgage, where the bank loans a homeowner (usually elderly) enough money to keep the house until they die. Then the bank repossesses the house. It’s an offer sometimes made to a person who can no longer afford their home, or is living on valuable land unbeknownst to them. It won’t take much surfing on YouTube to uncover how many financial advisers warn their clients not to agree to such a loan. The mother of these bank robbers has passed away, so now Toby and Tanner Howard (played by Chris Pine and Ben Foster, respectively) have only a few days left to pay the debt before the bank forecloses on the property. Toby is divorced, with two sons who are not impressed with their father and his inability to pay child support.

Graffiti on the rear of the bank reads “3 TOURS IN IRAQ BUT NO BAILOUT FOR PEOPLE LIKE US.” The writing on the wall sets the populist tone for the film. If Texas Midlands Bank does not exist to safeguard the interests of Texans, why should it be allowed to exist? Their only interest seems to be capitalism for the sake of capitalism. Read more

Obey Your Ethnic Masters: A Simple Message for Stale Pale Folk

I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of infallibility and the promise of certain knowledge. Singer Neil Young keeps on searching for a heart of gold. I keep on searching for certainty. Or rather: I search for more of it, because there is an infallible system of certain knowledge. It’s called mathematics and I think it’s mankind’s greatest intellectual achievement. Among much else, mathematicians can say with absolute certainty that prime numbers never run out and that we can never square a circle with straight-edge and compass.

The Infallible Tyrant

But here’s a curious thing: mathematicians don’t claim infallibility. Except that it’s not curious. Mathematicians don’t need to claim it: they have an objective way to prove their ideas. “Infallibility” is an ideological claim, an assertion of power and dominance (actual or desired), not something that a true system of knowledge ever needs to wield. As Bertrand Russell pointed out: “Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.”

What’s true of theology is also true of politics. Here is Leszek Kołakowski, the great Polish philosopher and intellectual historian, in Main Currents of Marxism (1978):

A particularly blatant example of aggressive Stalinism was the ideological invasion of the natural sciences. … [I]f we take a panoramic view of the history of those years we may perceive a certain gradation of ideological pressure, corresponding roughly to the hierarchy of the sciences established by Comte and Engels. Pressure was almost zero in mathematics, fairly strong in cosmology and physics, stronger still in the biological sciences, and all-powerful in the social and human sciences. (Op. cit., Vol. III, “The Breakdown,” ch. 4, “The Crystallization of Marxism-Leninism after the Second World War,” pp. 131 and 139)

Stalinism was aggressive because it claimed infallibility, as Kołokowski notes: “When the party is identified with the state and the apparatus of power, and when it achieves perfect unity in the shape of a one-man tyranny, doctrine becomes a matter of state and the tyrant is proclaimed infallible. … Lenin had always been right [and] the Bolshevik party was and had always been infallible” (Op. cit., pp. 4 and 93). Marxism is, in effect, the marriage of politics and religion, mixing the psychology of the latter with the secular concerns of the former. Where Christianity has an infallible Magisterium or an infallible pope, Marxism has an infallible dialectic and a succession of infallible leaders. Read more

European or Ethnic Identity?

Ethnic Nations of Europe. Click here for an enlarged version.

In light of the mass migrations of non-Europeans to Europe we must redefine the notion of the political. The notion of the political is eternal, although its wording, alongside its political conceptualization, takes on different names in different time periods. We must also clarify the meaning of political concepts, such as the concept of “multicuturalism”, “identity”, “nationality”, as well as the meaning of the more atavistic communal concepts of “race” Or “ethnicity”. My main point is that various European national identities should from now on play a secondary role. I argue that our first priority should be to what is sometimes conveniently referred to as our common biocultural identity, or to put it in different words, the salvaging of our common and collective heredity as represented by the broader family of interrelated European peoples.

A Few Starting Points…

In our so-called “multicultural system”, where millions of people from hundreds of different nationalities live side by side, we should clearly draw the line between individual or particular national identity and this broader “familial” identity as described above, or better yet, between our national awareness and our European awareness. These two concepts are not always synonymous, although they often overlap. For example a Flemish national cannot be a Walloon national – just as a South Tyrolean nationalist must not be denied freedom to show his German roots to his Italian nationalist colleague.

In America, during the period of the state building process, the role of a generalized ethno-religious identity (often referred to by the abbreviated term: WASP) played a much stronger role than in Europe. By way of contrast, still very popular among the American fringe right is the expression “White Nationalist”, although the term “nationalist” has a different meaning in America than in Europe. The genesis of White American nationalism has had little in common with traditional ethnic and culture-bound nationalism of diverse European peoples living in Europe. In the English language there is also no corresponding word for the German word “Volk” or “völkisch” or the word “narod” in Slavic languages — words which are awkwardly translated with the noun “nation” or by the adjective “national” or “ethnic” into the standard modern English language. This national consciousness, or better yet national awareness in the traditional European sense, has played a minor role in America. Until recently national consciousness in Europe was built primarily on the basis of a common language, a common sense of history and a common destiny, i.e. preconditions that had taken a different turn among early European descended Americans of the early eighteenth century. Read more

Sully, the Movie

Think about the last time you walked through an American airport, particularly one that is heavily domestic. Who were the pilots in uniform you saw strolling down the corridors pulling their leather flight bags?

I’ll wager the vast majority were White males. That would make sense, since unlike most other professions today, piloting airplanes in America has remained in

A Nice White Flight Crew; Airport (1970)

the vicinity of 95% White male. This must gall liberals, social engineers, and other SJW’s, for these groups dream of a world of equality, that is, one in which White males are purged, eliminated, or at least relegated to humiliating positions of impotence.

And last year, comes the one hundred percent traditional film Sully (also called Sully: Miracle on the Hudson in some markets; see here for the official trailer). This movie flies in the face of endless promotion of non-White diversity and “vibrancy,” it goes against all that Hillary and her vast entourage represented, and it supports the reality that it is White males who built the public manifestations of Western civilization and to a large degree keep it going.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, who is in his mid-eighties, this film is a story of White America through and through. Sully is played by “Everyman” actor Tom Hanks, the first officer is played by Aaron Eckhart, and most of the supporting cast is White as well. Best of all, this is a story of uninterrupted heroism, as the two White pilots make split-second decisions that result in the survival of all 155 people aboard the plane that cold January day. Read more