Donald Trump as Zionist

/65 Comments/in , /by

Given the record of frosty relations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama’s parting shot at Israel comes as no surprise. After years of standing up for Israel at the UN Security Council, the US has abstained from a resolution that, among other things, “reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” The resolution was framed by the US as intended to salvage the last vestiges of hope for a two-state solution in a situation where, as US UN Ambassador Samantha Power noted in her speech following the vote, there are 590,000 Israelis living on the West Bank. She also noted that Israel’s Netanyahu’s claim to still be pursuing a two-state solution contradicts his stated policy of being the most pro-settlement government in Israel’s history.

As a hard leftist, Obama, like other Social Justice Warriors, could not possibly support Israel’s ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and oppression of the Palestinians in good conscience. The same thing has happened with other parties of the left, notably the Labour Party in the UK. In taking this position, Obama is out of step with the predominantly Jewish donor class of the Democrats and with Democrat politicians, many of whom condemned the resolution, likely with the understanding that they must still deal with AIPAC if they want to be reelected. But it is unlikely that his action will be condemned by a very substantial percentage of the Democrat Party’s base —  only a bare majority of Democrats favor Israel (53%), compared to 23% for Palestinians.

The fact that Obama did this a month before leaving office is a powerful statement of the power of the Israel Lobby and pro-Israel sentiment in American politics. It would have been suicide for him to have done this prior to the 2012 election.

Donald Trump is in a much different position. After the vote, Trump tweeted:

Should this position disturb those of us on the Alt Right who see Trump as a president who would carve out an America First foreign policy, turn back the immigration onslaught, and fashion a nationalist trade policy? I think not, for the following reasons. Read more

The Real Obama Legacy, Part 1: Foreign Policy

/20 Comments/in , /by

obama-foreign-policy

How will Obama be viewed historically? The obvious answer is: in two completely different ways. First, he is now, has been, and will be remembered as one of our greatest, most consequential presidents … by the far left “Mainstream” Media who have uncritically supported him all along. According to a recent CNN broadcast, Obama’s leading accomplishments are “comprehensive healthcare, the rescue of the global economy, the historic deal with Iran to halt that nation’s march towards a nuclear weapon, the global climate change agreements, the appointment of two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, and his moves on social issues such as marriage equality for gay Americans, equal pay legislation, criminal justice reform, and more.”

The second answer is not so generous. We have decided to present our evaluation in a three-part series covering:

  1. Foreign Policy
  2. Economic Legacy
  3. Race Relations

Part 1 focuses on some of the key failures of Obama’s foreign policy that led to the Trump victory in November, principally the passivity of his policy in the Middle East and his championing of the globalist cause of open borders.

Part 1: Foreign Policy

Those who would claim that Obama is one of our greatest presidents are the same folks who have been selling the story that Trump is the new Hitler. Presumably, they believe that in February 2017 Trump will begin rounding up 6 million Muslims and sending them to camps to be executed, much like the US did after Pearl Harbor with Japanese-Americans. What? We did not send 6 million Japanese-Americans to death camps in California? Mea culpa, but it’s hard to keep pace with the revisionist propaganda being taught in our schools and colleges. Read more

Planting America: State-Sponsored Demographic Change and the Precedent of Ulster

/26 Comments/in /by

immigration-2010

Author’s note: 90% of this was written before the election. Yes, I know you all think President Trump is going to make everything bad go away. I have something on how he can start to do that here. If he does permanently move the United States towards White nationalism, this article describes 1965-2016. If he doesn’t, we shall have to struggle through the ongoing consequences of that period all the more.

You think you live in a free country. The United States is some unique and historically transcendent place, where out of nothing arose a great and powerful country without precedent or parallel. Your rights and liberties are more precious to you than any other people on earth and no government is more respectful of those innate possessions than your own. In terms of politics, the United States of America has never experienced the dark episodes of wicked and oppressive governance that have plagued other nations. It can’t, because it is exceptional. Your government is elected, so it would be impossible for it to do anything so terrible and destructive to its own constituents as, say, forcibly and permanently displacing them in the name of utopian goals. We have nothing to learn from the past except that we are better than it. We are a proposition nation of ideas, not one of heritage and history.

This is the whig mindset that leads many otherwise smart people to reject concepts like occupation government or the White genocide meme at face value. Detractors frame these as conspiracy theories, which mentally associates them with all sorts of crankery. Admittedly, the Alt-Right takes a bit of poetic license in describing these phenomena at times, but rhetoric aside, they express important truths.

The first of these truths is that of hostile governance—most Americans do disapprove of Congress, but does that indicate its malevolence? This is a relative question of course, for if one believes the government acts against his interests, then that government is seen as adversarial at best and a mortal enemy at worst. And if this government is so egregiously against the majority of the population, despite its claims to be an instrument and representation of the people, then it follows that some anti-majoritarian clique must be occupying it rather than rightfully possessing it. Occupation government is quite simply rule by a hostile elite pursuing interests contrary to those governed. And hostile elites pursuing interests contrary to those of their charges have been around for a long time.

This then carries over to the second “conspiracy.” I prefer the term White minoritization, though I understand where promoters of the White genocide meme are coming from. If every year you went into a forest, cut down an evergreen tree, and planted two oak saplings, is that deforestation? Is it evergreen genocide? Well no, right? Won’t the forest be bigger (and better) in the future? This is the root of the tension over the meme—replacement masks destruction. There are more trees in the forest than ever before, but is it in the best interest of an evergreen forest to be replaced with an oak one? Possibly for the owner of the land, but certainly not for the evergreen trees. They get wiped out. The owner has his own agenda regarding the kind of forest he wants, one totally different from what would be in the Darwinian interest of the evergreens.

 

Read more

All Publicity Is Good Publicity, Even for the Alt Right

/15 Comments/in /by

The Alt Right currently holds a symbiotic relationship with the mainstream press: they are both interested and repelled by us; we are repelled by them, yet interested in the communicative power that their platform affords us.  With the Alt Right’s rise from relative obscurity to international notoriety in six months, this is worth exploring.  Could it be that quoting leading Alt Right figures gives them “permission” to explore ideas which they, in their heart of hearts, know to be true?  Or is their coverage of us more akin to gaping at a car accident: “Behold these unacceptable views.”  In fact, I would argue that there has been a spate of reasonably fair reportage.

The adage proves true: all press is good press.  Just be sure they spell our name right: “Alt Right” — not “white supremacy” or any other term from the past.  These labels are perhaps applicable to less sophisticated expressions of White identity that may indeed persist to this day, but hardly describe our factually and scientifically based worldview.

The AP issued a writers’ guideline in which they insisted that Alt Right be put in scare quotes and modified by “white supremacist” and other terms that have connotations which are simply not reflective of our personal aesthetic.  Other left-wing news outlets refuse to use the term at all because it “sanitizes” our truly awful beliefs. Yet some of the most liberal papers have explicitly stated that they will continue to use the term. The Guardian admirably affirmed that it would continue to use “Alt Right”:

It was agreed that the use of “Alt Right” should not be banned because it exists as a term that is used in the world and it is the media’s job to describe and reflect the world as it is.  That said, it should reflect the world—including the Alt Right—accurately, hence the requirement for a description to be used at first mention.

The first part of that statement in particular shows a surprisingly sober view of the media’s role vis-à-vis the Alt Right, and the media’s role more broadly.  Also in this vein, The NY Times explains why “white supremacist” actually does not describe us very well: “The word implies a claim to superiority,” which most on the Alt Right do really make a point of claiming. They admit, “There is no catchall term for them.” They continue to parse the word “racist” as it applies to our movement in a thoughtful way, rather than as an adjective which is self-referencing and discussion-ending. We can hardly say that is unjust, when they are so careful as to confer with the Alt Right members themselves as to what our label should be. Read more

The Myth of the Right-Wing Extremist

/31 Comments/in , /by

Neither man nor angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible
John Milton, Paradise Lost

The Anglosphere stands transfixed by an elusive bogeyman: ‘right-wing extremism.’ And more than any other nation at the present time, the United Kingdom seems to be in the grip of a media-engineered moral panic bordering on paranoid hysteria. This same country, it should be recalled, banned Richard Spencer in June because he had the temerity to advocate for the founding of a White nation on lines similar to those of the State of Israel. Spencer also dared to suggest an ideal of racial self-improvement. In the view of the British Home Office, then under the authority of Theresa May (now Prime Minister), if Spencer continued making such suggestions on British soil it would not be “conducive to the public good.” Furthermore, and without any self-awareness of its own hyperbolic unreason, the same department claimed that Spencer’s positions amounted to the “fomenting” of “serious criminal acts,” “terrorist acts,” and “inter-community violence in the UK.” Spencer, according to this narrative, is an ‘extremist.’

Given such an assessment, one might expect that the aftermath of an average NPI conference would be a veritable war zone. One imagines minorities fleeing the disintegrating streets of Washington D.C., pursued by radicalized and frenzied militants in trendy three piece suits. All, presumably, against a cacophony of explosions and the distant drone of an Aryan war chant.

Like many forms of madness, this strain of political dementia has its darkly humorous aspects. However, the political and cultural expressions of this socially-engineered panic are no laughing matter. In many cases, the legislative actions undertaken in such contexts are oppressive, tyrannical, and a dire threat to our most cherished freedoms. The myth of the ‘right-wing extremist’ is ultimately a rather calculated tool, regularly employed with the sole aim of stifling White voices. Read more

The big chill on free speech hits Britain

/100 Comments/in , , , /by

It is a fair bet that any ‘media reform’ welcomed by Dr Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, will be bad news for the defenders of free speech. So it is with his reaction to the British government’s groundbreaking new definition of anti-Semitism.

Kantor said:

We welcome the UK’s landmark decision to define anti-Semitism, particularly in the face of rising attacks against Jews. We must now look towards other European governments to follow the example set by the UK.

He is referring to the British government’s decision to adopt a “legally binding definition” which will be used by police forces, councils, universities and public bodies. This ratchets the law sharply in the direction of making Jews a legally protected group and placing them beyond criticism. It would certainly sharply curtail academic and journalistic discussion of Jewish group behaviour.

For if the ethnic agendas of this very powerful and ethnocentric group cannot be discussed, it would effectively end legitimate academic and journalistic inquiry on the matter. It would certainly curtail discussion of all unflattering examples of Jewish group behaviour such as those outlined in the Culture of Critique.

The definition drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition (IHRA) is broadly the same one contained in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that quietly went through the US senate. The aim seems to be to create a global standard on stifling free speech about Jewish power.

The definition itself is so open-ended as to be meaningless. Read more

Torah Study with Richard Spencer

/30 Comments/in , /by

Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute has emerged as the new media villain du jour, replacing the post formerly held by David Duke in the public imagination. Recently I watched an exchange between him and Hillel Rabbi Matt Rosenberg during the Q&A portion of a talk Spencer gave at Texas A&M University.

Rabbi Rosenberg starts by saying “You come here with a message of radical exclusion. My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion and love, love as embodied by Torah. Will you sit down with me, and study Torah, and learn love?” he continues.

As a thought experiment I’d like to imagine that at this point Spencer said “Yes. I will study Torah with you Rabbi.” The two of them find a quiet corner somewhere on the Aggie campus, and sit down together.

I thought they might begin with a brief discussion of Hebrew relations with the Amalekites, a nomadic people of Israel descended from Esau, whom the Torah instructs Jews to utterly destroy:

It shall be that when the Lord, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven. Do not forget it. (Deuteronomy 25: 19)

Elsewhere: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass” (Samuel I, 15:3).

All of the Amelakites  — men, women, children, babies, and even livestock — are to be slaughtered. Radical, and in its own way, quite inclusive. Read more