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

/83 Comments/in , /by

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

Une victoire historique, possiblement révolutionnaire !

/in , /by
 De Blanche Europe; Tradution de l’article de The Occidental Observer.

C’est une victoire extraordinaire. Les étoiles étaient alignées. Tout d’abord, que Trump parvienne à être nommé candidat républicain. Puis il se retrouve face à la candidate la plus corrompue, la moins charismatique de l’Histoire (je pense que Joe Biden aurait battu Trump, et peut-être même Bernie Sanders l’aurait fait) à un moment où les Américains veulent naturellement du changement après 8 années d’Obama.

Fondamentaleent, c’est une victoire des Américains Blancs contre les élites oligarchiques, hostiles, qui ont dirigé ce pays depuis des décennies. Trump a réussi une prise de contrôle du parti républicain et a gagné sans le soutien ou seulement avec le soutien tiède etvacillant de l’essentiel des élites du GOP.

En mai 2015, j’étais très découragé par nos perspectives. Il ne semblait simplement pas que nous pouvions briser le consensus des élites dominants toutes les positions supérieures – et la supériorité morale perçue – des États-Unis, dont les médias (journaux, télévision, et le monde cinématographique d’Hollywood), le monde universitaire, la politique, Wall Street, et les PDG des grandes entreprises. Nous étions systématiquement exclus et il était évident que les autorités constitués n’allaient pas laisser l’Alt-Right obtenir un siège à la table.

Quand Trump a annoncé sa candidature, c’était difficile à prendre sérieusement, mais ses commentaires sur l’immigration, le nationalisme américain, le politiquement correct et le commerce ont certainement touché une corde sensible. Ma réaction immédiate (en) (au 10 juillet 2015), cependant, était qu’il avait deux choses en sa faveur qui étaient absolument uniques – c’est une célebrité et il est très, très riche. Une telle personne est dans une position pour être entendue ; il ne peutpas être exclu des médias et il n’a pas besoin de l’argent de la classe corrompue des donateurs. En fait, les médias, avides d’audience, lui ont donné des opportunités innombrables pour diffuser son message. Quiconque dans l’Alt-Right aurait pu dire exactement les mêmes choses, mais nous parlerions dans nos placards.

Read more

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

/48 Comments/in , /by

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

Donald Trump’s Argument For America

/in /by

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

/26 Comments/in /by

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 Winding–Refn‘s 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

America’s Inglorious Tradition of Election Fraud: Any End in Sight? Part 3

/9 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 2

Pathological Horrors.  The popular and electoral landslide for which Nixon yearned had always eluded him.[1]  In 1972, he ran for re-election against Senator George McGovern from Sout Dakota.  According to journalist Stewart Alsop, Nixon did not regard his opponent as a homme sérieux — a man  to be taken seriously.[2]

McGovern had been Nixon’s opponent of choice for the 1972 race.[3]  The South Dakotan did not disappoint; he was obviously short on personal charisma, and the lack of skill with which he managed his campaign was just as evident.  He accepted the Democratic nomination during the wee hours of the morning and so most Americans did not hear his acceptance address.[4]  A short time after becoming the Democratic nominee he was also compelled to find another running mate, when it was revealed that Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri had previously undergone electro-shock treatments for depression.[5]

Helping McGovern blaze a path to the nomination meant that Nixon’s re-election committee had to torpedo the campaign of the Democratic frontrunner, Senator Edmund G. Muskie of Maine, who enjoyed a reputation for calm and deliberate decision-making.  Donald Segretti, a low-level functionary in Nixon’s campaign, played “dirty tricks” on the Senator as he was vying for a primary victory in New Hampshire.  Segretti fabricated a letter, which purported to be written by Muskie to the Manchester Union Leader, referring to Canadian-Americans as “Cannocks” [sic].[6]  Segretti also fraudulently sent  the newspaper a second letter, which contained vicious slanders against Muskie’s wife.  Exhausted and overcome with emotion, the Senator unleashed a bitter, self-destructive attack against William Loeb, the owner of the newspaper. The diatribe ended Muskie’s presidential aspirations.[7]

Another Nixon operative was sent to Chappaquiddick Island to pose as a reporter in order to secure incriminating information against Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Nixon believed Kennedy might still attempt to run for the presidency although most considered the Senator’s dream shattered by the scandal of Mary Jo Kopeckne’s having drowned while a passenger in his vehicle.[8]

Nixon’s reprehensible actions against Democratic opponents were hardly necessary for his re-election.[9] His actions did, however, give new meaning to the term “overkill.”  His operatives also, in an infamous act of intrigue, burglarized the opposition’s campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, in Washington, D.C.[10]  The subsequent cover-up, orchestrated by Nixon and his closest aids, resulted eventually in the revelation of the “White House horrors,”[11] which included but were not limited to the payment of “hush money,”[12] the offer of clemency to a Watergate burglar,[13] the plan to murder a journalist,[14] other covert break-ins and plots of break-ins,[15] the use of prostitutes to compromise Democratic politicians,[16] the utilization of the Internal Revenue Service against the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,[17] and the discovery of a White House “Enemies List.”[18]

Although Nixon was re-elected in 1972, he faced certain impeachment in the House of Representatives when his actions were made public. Instead of being impeached and standing trial, he resigned the presidency in disgrace in 1974.[19] Read more

America’s Inglorious Tradition of Election Fraud: Any End in Sight? Part 2

/6 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1

Political “Nobility” in South Texas.  Truman was not the first, nor would he be the last, beneficiary of a corrupt election, propelling him to the supreme prize in American politics. Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas followed closely behind him.

The man from the hill country was elected to Congress in 1937,[1] a few years after Truman’s Senatorial debut.  The young Texan, driven by overweening ambition, ruthlessly vied for a Senate seat in 1941.[2]  His opponent was the irrepressible buffoon, Governor W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel,[3] of whom lobbyists and party functionaries desperately desired to rid themselves and the state.[4]  His ignorance had proved both adamantine and insurmountable as he threatened to wreak havoc upon the state’s lucrative beer and liquor interests and also proposed increasing pensions that caused oil, sulphur, and natural gas titans to fear their industries would suffer additional taxation.[5]  How better, they quietly asked themselves, to accomplish the goal of banishing him from Texas politics than by promoting him to the Senate?[6]

Because of the embarrassment and chaos following in O’Daniel’s wake, as well as the sensitive toes the governor happened to be stepping on, Johnson enjoyed the electoral support of the most influential person in South Texas politics.  He was George B. Parr, the ”Duke of Duval.”[7] Parr was an Anglo who had grown up in San Diego, Texas, having learned to speak Spanish at the same time he had English.[8]  He had been nurtured in raw political power, and had not only inherited from, but also fortified, expanded, and enriched the political fiefdom of his father Archie, who had served as a senator in the Texas legislature for 20 years.[9]  Both father and son played the role of old-style Mexican patrόnes[10] in Duval county, and did so with consummate skill.

All the Parr-manipulated votes were counted in Johnson’s favor, plus the suspiciously lopsided returns which Johnson’s campaign organization had bought in San Antonio and its outlying areas, were reported early.  As a result of this tactical error in timing, the subsequent counts from various precincts in East Texas could be, and were, conveniently skewed to give O’Daniel the margin necessary for a last-minute statewide victory.[11] Read more