Counter-Currents
2,017 words
“Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises,” Trump boasted in a speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned Democrats for allowing “the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party” and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again. They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump’s failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given Mexico’s dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico a “one-year warning” before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish a twenty-five percent tariff on cars entering the US instead.
Trump’s failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance.
Trump’s empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.)
The past two years have seen a surge in illegal immigration without precedent in the past decade. Since late December, the Department of Homeland Security has released 125,565 illegal aliens into the country. In the past two weeks alone, 6,000 have been admitted. According to current projections, 2019 will witness around 500,000 to 775,000 border crossings. Additionally, about 630,000 illegal aliens will be added to the population after having overstayed their visas. By the end of the year, more than one million illegal aliens will have been added to the population:
These projections put the number of illegal aliens added to the U.S. population at around one to 1.5 million, on top of the 11 to 22 million illegal aliens who are already living across the country. This finding does not factor in the illegal aliens who will be deported, die over the next year, or leave the U.S. of their own will. As DHS data has revealed, once border crossers and illegal aliens are released into the country, the overwhelming majority are never deported.
In February, Trump signed a bill allowing the DHS secretary to add another 69,320 spots to the current H-2B cap of 66,000. On March 29, DHS began this process by announcing that it would issue an additional 30,000 H-2B visas this year. The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the US and work in non-agricultural occupations. Unlike the H-1B program, a Bachelor’s degree is not required; most H-2B workers are employed in construction, maintenance, landscaping, and so on. The demographic most affected by the expansion of the H-2B program will be unemployed working-class Americans. This flies in the face of Trump’s promise to protect American workers and stop importing foreigners.
Trump has indicated that he has plans to expand the H-1B visa program as well. “We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.,” he said in a tweet in January.
Trump’s betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to “enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages”) is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings.
Trump has been working on legal immigration with Jared Kushner, who has quietly been crafting a plan to grant citizenship to more “low- and high-skilled workers, as well as permanent and temporary workers” (so, just about everyone). Kushner’s plan proves the folly of the typical Republican line that legal immigration is fine and that only illegal immigration should be opposed. Under his plan, thousands of illegal aliens will become “legal” with the stroke of a pen.
There is a paucity of anti-immigration hardliners in Trump’s inner circle (though Stephen Miller is a notable exception). Trump has surrounded himself with moderates: the Kushners, Mick Mulvaney, Alex Acosta, and others. There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined.
The new DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who was appointed yesterday following Kirstjen Nielsen’s resignation, is a middle-of-the-road law enforcement official who served under Obama and Bush and is responsible for the revival of the “catch-and-release” policy, whereby illegal aliens are released upon being apprehended. It was reported last week that Trump was thinking of appointing either Kris Kobach or Ken Cuccinelli to a position of prominence (as an “immigration czar”), but this appears to have been another lie.
Trump’s failure to deliver on his promises cannot be chalked up to congressional obstruction. Congress. As Kobach said in a recent interview, “It’s not like we’re powerless and it’s not like we have to wait for Congress to do something. . . . No, we can actually solve the immediate crisis without Congress acting.” Solving the border crisis would simply demand “leadership in the executive branch willing to act decisively.” Kobach recently outlined an intelligent three-point plan that Trump could implement:
- Publish the final version of the regulation that would supersede the Flores Settlement. The initial regulation was published by the Department of Homeland Security in September 2018. DHS could have published the final regulation in December. Inexplicably, DHS has dragged its feet. Finalizing that regulation would allow the United States to detain entire families together, and it would stop illegal aliens from exploiting children as get-out-of-jail free cards.
- Set up processing centers at the border to house the migrants and hold the hearings in one place. The Department of Justice should deploy dozens of immigration judges to hear the asylum claims at the border without releasing the migrants into the country. FEMA already owns thousands of travel trailers and mobile homes that it has used to address past hurricane disasters. Instead of selling them (which FEMA is currently doing), FEMA should ship them to the processing centers to provide comfortable housing for the migrants. In addition, a fleet of passenger planes should deployed to the processing centers. Anyone who fails in his or her asylum claim, or who is not seeking asylum and is inadmissible, should be flown home immediately. It would be possible to fly most migrants home within a few weeks of their arrival. Word would get out quickly in their home countries that entry into the United States is not as easy as advertised. The incentive to join future caravans would dissipate quickly.
- Publish a proposed Treasury regulation that prohibits the sending home of remittances by people who cannot document lawful presence in the United States. This will hit Mexico in the pocketbook: Mexico typically brings in well over $20 billion a year in remittances, raking in more than $26 billion in 2017. Then, tell the government of Mexico that we will finalize the Treasury regulation unless they do two things to help us address the border crisis: (1) Mexico immediately signs a “safe third country agreement” similar to our agreement with Canada. This would require asylum applicants to file their asylum application in the first safe country they set foot in (so applicants in the caravans from Central America would have to seek asylum in Mexico, rather than Canada); and (2) Mexico chips in $5 billion to help us build the wall. The threat of ending remittances from illegal aliens is a far more powerful one than threatening to close the border. Ending such remittances doesn’t hurt the U.S. economy; indeed, it helps the economy by making it more likely that such capital will be spent and circulate in our own country. We can follow through easily if Mexico doesn’t cooperate.
It would not be all that difficult for Trump to implement these proposals. Kobach still has faith in Trump, but his assessment of him appears increasingly to be too generous. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America’s demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives. At the same time, he wants to maintain the illusion that he cares about his base. As Ann Coulter has put it, “He’s like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you’ve made a brilliant choice . . . now here’s your salmon.” Nearly everything Trump has done in the name of restricting immigration has turned out to be an empty gesture and mere theatrics: threatening to close the border, offering protections to “Dreamers” in exchange for funding for the ever-elusive wall, threatening to end the “anchor baby” phenomenon with an executive order (which never came to pass), cutting off aid to Central American countries, claiming that he will appoint an “immigration czar” (and then proceeding to appoint McAleenan instead of Kobach as DHS secretary), and on and on.
While Trump has failed to keep the promises that got him elected, he has fulfilled a number of major promises that he made to Israel and the Jewish community.
First, he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that the move would only cost $200,000, but in reality it will end up being more than $20 million. The construction of the embassy also led to a series of bloody protests; it is located in East Jerusalem, which is generally acknowledged to be Palestinian territory.
Second, he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu claimed on Israeli TV that Israel was responsible for convincing him to exit the deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. (Both Trump and Netanyahu falsely alleged that Iran lied about the extent of its nuclear program; meanwhile, Israel’s large arsenal of chemical and biological weapons has escaped mention.)
Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation.
Fourth, he recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights (in defiance of the rest of the world, which recognizes the Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation). Trump’s Golan Heights proclamation was issued on March 21 and was celebrated by Israel.
Trump’s track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no “Plan,” no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better.
29 comments
Perhaps, Trump has bought the second term in office by bending his knee to the Chosenite Establishment. The amount of obsequiousness on display is nauseating.
I thank heavens that my culture (Persian) will never have to grovel at the feet of the Chosenites. One folk one culture and it is NON-negotiable.
I hope White Christians regain self-respect and that vitality that for millennia had been their hallmark.
It is interesting to observe another race’s awareness of the jews. What was your red pill moment; when did you become “Jew woke?” Do you know others like you?
Are you being serious? All the Middle Eastern peoples are far more “woke” on these issues than anyplace in the Western world, for obvious reasons (of which Trump is giving us yet another example today).
We have been culturally and racially homogeneous for so long that it is a given that our blood is inextricably linked to our soil. We never had to ‘justify’ this stance to any other antithetical entity nor had to apologize for our disposition. Since we do not live in fantasy, therefore, we are red-pilled by default.
Iran(as the name suggests) is for Aryans (of Zoroastrian and Islamic heritage), period.
I do not hate Jews, I just love our people.
Add to this speech the things he could have done, things he had said he would do…
We haven’t been betrayed. We were played.
Listen to that speech and read the comments.
With whom has he spent his entire adult life working and exchanging favors with?
His grandchildren are going to be members of or will marry into what group?
His loyalties and self-interests have never been with us.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l1EUXSboCn4
Still too soon to know what’s gonna go down in 2020.
However, I’m likely going to register as Democrat to vote for either Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang in the primaries.
And Trump’s launching of missiles into Syria, concomitant with the uninvited presence of
U. S. troops in that country. Speaking of which, one hears no further news of his vaunted withdrawal of said troops. The billions being shoveled to Israel is hideous, but I don’t regret cutting funds to the Palestinians…We should gut funding to everyone, especially the bribes to Egypt to smooth that country’s relations with Israel.
I think this article is a bit unjust. Just a bit.
1. Had Hillary won, we would be attempting to stop an amnesty for millions. Instead we have a wall being started and we are complaining about raising the H-2B visa cap. Compared to the dark days of George W. Bush, this is really big progress.
2. Had Hillary won, we’d likely have a hot war with the Russians. Instead ISIS is defeated. Additionally, there are few troops in Syria rather than several divisions. Trump is not pushing for another war.
Managing the US-Mexico border is a more complex endeavor than just sealing it like a ziplock bag. All fresh fruit and vegetables which are available in the winter must come from the Southern Hemisphere. Additionally, there was likely some deal cut between the US and Mexico that allows for the year long delay. Mexicans don’t like Central Americans caravanning through their countries either. In short, this is a tricky problem, it’s a sub-lethal war that is made more complex because the trade network must be protected, and it isn’t in America’s best interest to see Mexico and Central America impoverished and in chaos. Plus, this is the first time the DHS and any White House has seriously considered the problem of unarmed, impoverished Green Marchers moving into the US, it looks bad now but we’ll turn the corner.
Trump and Israel is a different story. The thing with Israel is that the existence of the Jewish State in the Middle East outside of something like a contained reservation for unarmed Jews is a tremendous wrong. However, there has never been a change to the situation that President Truman described in the 1940s. Truman had constituents that are highly motivated to support Israel, while there is no effective counter-force. Same thing today. Remember, the Palestinians don’t really do all that much for us. But, yes I do see your point about promises to Jews being fulfilled, with promises to whites being slowly met at best.
The article attempts to hold Trump up to his own promises, not to whatever Hillary might have done. So given how he was basically useless to his base, it couldn’t be fairer.
Second, a hot war with Russia is VERY a far fetched, no matter who’s in the White House. Not the type of thing one casually mentions if he expects to be taken seriously.
“All fresh fruit and vegetables which are available in the winter must come from the Southern Hemisphere.”
You think a wall would have kept “fresh fruit and vegetables” out of the country?
This is ridiculous. Why would you buy fruit and veggies from Mexico if you didn’t have to?
For really perishable products it can make sense to import from Southern Hemisphere countries like Australia in the north’s off-season. And vice versa.
Gives you a fresh option when you’d otherwise be eating frozen or canned product.
But a lot of trade isn’t about counter-seasonality, it’s about getting cheaper product from countries where labour is much cheaper and there are no environmental laws. This is where tariffs should kick in, IMO. If importers are prepared to screw their ethnic kin for the sake of a dollar, they can pay the state a dollar instead.
.
1. Had Hillary won, we would be attempting to stop an amnesty for millions.
When we voted for Trump, the notion that Jared Kushner would be overseeing foreign policy and sub-US immigration was a worst case scenario, a nightmare chirped by paranoiacs. But as soon as Trump got in, false flags were blamed on Assad twice, and brazenly championed by Kushner. But the smarter of Trump’s base made our disgust public, so Kushner fell back, only to stealthly zap away at potential challengers.
By 2019, Kushner is widely credited with tightening policy with Saudi Arabia and his “home” state of Israel against Iran, but also with the flood of illegals and “legal” immigrants pouring in. What exactly is Kushner’s power level? He’s already exhausted us by 2019. It’s that high. Kushner is the enemy we don’t know. Hillary is the enemy we do.
To tens of millions of white American Conservatives, Kushner is a non-issue. This is dangerous. Tragic. Hillary winning would have catalyzed them into a formidable opposition.
Instead we have a wall being started
Here’s another major point of contention in 2019. I do not agree the Wall has been “started.” Doesn’t this speak volumes? We can’t agree that a massive physical man made barrier is under substantial construction. This is the parlor game Trump is intentionally playing. He created the Wall in our minds during the campaign, using his elite psychological semantics. And now he’s created the impression that it exists and is being fulfilled. He’s David Copperfield. And if Trump wins in 2020, guess what? He doesn’t have to build anything. He can just blame Democrats, and I’m sure new scandals on the Left and Right will distract the lemmings long enough. Maybe he’ll tweet a couple jpegs every six months of a 200-foot section of barrier in an unidentified border area, like quarters to a bum. In the meantime, take a stroll in your local Walmart and try to guess where 70% of the goblina zombies are originally from.
2. Had Hillary won, we’d likely have a hot war with the Russians. Instead ISIS is defeated.
This is true. Instead we’ve wasted an entire term on nothing but a curious BS scandal involving Russia that both sides are way too eager to play into on television. Russiagate has ironically allowed Trump to coast for four years. Time flies. He’s boasted of progress with North Korea. Better here than Hillary? Perhaps. But what has he accomplished? Photo ops with Kim. Tweets about friendship.
Additionally, there are few troops in Syria rather than several divisions. Trump is not pushing for another war.
If Trump wins 2020, the entire second term will be spent on the final destabilization of Iran for Netanyahu’s Israel. The only wildcard here is Putin. When Trump exists office, Netanyahu will be the most powerful and arrogant he’s even been. In hindsight, I’d like to see Hillary bully Putin. I’d like to see this all pop off sooner than later. Trump is a placeholder of emotional feels for whites just as Obama was for blacks and libtards. They both are shifting the Middle East in Israel’s favor, and for our MIC, which is now so flush with tax money, you see 30yo grunts in military towns partying like rappers with freshly paved driveways of SUVs and boats.
I did not vote for Trump for an air pocket scented with desperate conpitulations. I voted for the Wall being started and completed by 2021 latest. I voted for troops finally leaving MENA for home. I voted for a secure 2A. I voted for an admin of recognizable faces in Trump’s high cabinet that excluded Kushner. I voted for America First, not Israel First. Fool me once but not twice. Trump is virtual reality for Baby Boomers. If Hillary won, we’d get a cold shower of reality across the board.
This is very well-put.
Well, you have to ask the question, is zio cuck Trump better than Hillary would have been?
It looks like he’s coasting to re-election because he has the rock solid support of the fundamentalist philosemitic Christian zionists, who believe he will protect them from secular humanism, cake queers, tranny bathroom rights, legalised infanticide—and will protect G-d’s Chosen pipple.
Meanwhile the freak show of Democratic hopefuls displays the impossibility of their forming a ticket which can interest, let alone energise, all the diverse and competing groups within the Progressive/POC/LGBTXYZ/Green/Wetback Coalition.
We’ve been conditioned over many decades to see politics-as-usual as a contest between two major parties. In the US, it’s Republicans and Democrats. In the UK, it’s the Tories and Labour. In Australia, the LNP coalition vs Labor.
In all of these countries, the actual effect of electing one major party over the other is vanishingly small. They use different rhetoric, but time and again they deliver more of the same. The media support the illusion of real democracy by talking up the very minor points of difference between the two main parties, but on issues of any substance they’re in lockstep agreement.
I believe that our greatest mistake is thinking that ‘democracy’ – as it currently exists – gives people any real kind of say about the society they live in. It doesn’t. The truth is that all Western nation-states have effectively had single party rule since the late 1960’s.
So what’s the nature of this consensus state pretending to offer policy choice? It gives both the Left and Right of the late 20th century what they most wanted. The mainstream right gets neo-classical economics and an environment favourable to business over working people. It sacrifices its traditional values. The mainstream left gets progressive (sic) social policy and diversity. It sacrifices the interests of its native working classes.
The new consensus is the iron fist of neo-classical economics wrapped in the rainbow velvet glove of ‘diversity, inclusion and tolerance’. The elements of this consensus work well together – open borders and mass immigration keep wages low and also make our communities ‘vibrant’.
National populism – as it is evolving – offers the very opposite of the new consensus. It offers communitarian economic policy and traditional values.
But IMO there’s no point in hoping that either of the ‘main’ parties in Western nations will adopt national populist positions. They are the government. Both of them.
The opposition – missing for decades – is just starting to reappear.
I agree with most of this, but not all. Many of the heroic fighters against the immigration invasion – Enoch Powell and Jean-Marie le Pen {neither of whom was as extreme on racial apartheid as I am, incidentally} come to mind – were also strong defenders of private property rights and the free enterprise economy, as I am, too. “National Populism” in the USA is a totally losing strategy. TOTALLY. It might be barely acceptable in a unified ethnostate (maybe and barely) – though maybe and barely not. That’s a complex question (“what is the appropriate form of political economy under conditions of racial/ethnonational homogeneity?”).
But in multiracial USA, national populism would be just another excuse to milk Middle American taxpayers to support yet more legions of parasites (including some number of lazy-ass – and often progressive voting – Whites).
“National populism – as it is evolving – offers the very opposite of the new consensus. It offers communitarian economic policy and traditional values.”
This is totally untenable. Am I going to have to break out my back issues of Chronicles to explain this? Communitarian economic policy never really works. Look at the pre-Diversity Invasion failure of even Scandinavian “social[ist] democracy”. It failed for the same reasons that harder forms of socialism failed, albeit less spectacularly (because it is less comprehensively anti-capitalist). Misallocation of capital; political rent-seeking; lack of incentives for long range financial investment; social programs parasitism … the list is endless.
It’s really too bad that – in the minds of today’s nationalists – correct free market understanding has been indelibly linked to and tainted by the frequent BUT NOT NECESSARY conjunction between economic liberty and political and racial globalism. Yes, the Wall Street Journal supports free enterprise and open borders. But the one has nothing to do with the other. Traditional conservatives (going back to Burke) are both free enterprisers AND (at least implicitly, and again from Burke on) anti-diversitists. Most White Americans pre-new Deal were both White supremacists and propertarian capitalists. What do you see as the contradiction between capitalism and anti-immigrationism (I see none)?
The ONLY justification for “national populism” (particularly in the USA today) is in this limited sense: the overall population has been so leftist-brainwashed (ie, BOTH diversitist and socialist indoctrinated) that any candidate running as my kind of “pure conservative” (pro-Christian/trad. moralist, pro-White nationalist, pro-Constitutionalist, pro-capitalist) could not get elected (this is also in part due to how so much of even White America has been roped into Federal/socialist program dependency). If, therefore, by “communitarian economic policy ” you mean support for shoring up Social Security and Medicare (which, for the moment and through my projected lifetime, disproportionately impact White Americans) but otherwise restoring/defending Constitutionally limited government, private property rights, and the capitalist economy, then you would be correct that advocacy for that must be a part of any viable rightist agenda.
But if by “communitarian economic policy ” you mean a much larger socialist/parasite state, stealing yet more money from the dwindling bourgeoisie / private sector in order to fund {briefly, pre-“communitarian economic policy”-generated economic collapse} yet more “free stuff” for (disproportionately nonwhite) bums and dirtbags, then I suggest you have little understanding either of political economy or of the social and political psychology of modal White and especially Republican White America. Nationalists will make their best gains by rallying a majority of White (and even some nonwhite) Americans around an agenda of halting illegal immigration, and radically reducing legal immigration. That would have the effect of a) actually doing something to help White Americans economically AND racially, while b) insofar as immigration is a comprehensive “bad” for White and for conservative America, unifying all true wings of the American Right – while isolating and end-running the faux-Right neoliberals and neocons (something Trump has already started, if unintentionally and in embryo only).
I look forward to Greg Johnson’s review of Yang’s UBI book to expose more fully the errors, political as well as economic, of nationalists aligning themselves with socialists and “welfarians”.
Polling data indicate that Republican voters are significantly to the Left of Republican legislators and pundits. who have been programmed by libertarian free-market ideology to be out of touch with their constituency. You are just repeating the common sense of the out of touch.
Greg Johnson says:
“Polling data indicate that Republican voters are significantly to the Left of Republican legislators and pundits. who have been programmed by libertarian free-market ideology to be out of touch with their constituency. You are just repeating the common sense of the out of touch.”
[By “Left” I take you to mean “socialist” (I think they are to the Right – nationalist/conservative – on immigration, controlling crime, and a foreign policy of America First).]
I doubt that very heavily. I’d like to see the sources of that data, and especially their originating methodologies. How does one weigh, say, support for a $15 minimum wage vs rejection of a proposed measure to enact a higher state level tax on second homes? Which is more indicative of “Left” and/or “Right”?
Of course, let’s say it’s all valid. That means next to nothing. First, vast numbers of Americans have been brainwashed by their Marxist schools into rejecting the ONLY system of economic arrangements that has ever lifted billions out of poverty (oh, and which built the West and esp the USA, and is responsible for the modern West’s technological power, which alone prevents our conquest and annihilation by our racial enemies). No doubt, some Republicans have also been brainwashed, whereas pundits should be expected to know better.
Second, the state-level voting data just on socialist-progressivist economic/welfare initiatives does not bear out your thesis. If it did, we would see huge lurches to the economic Left on state ballots. Do we? Not to my knowledge. Over the past 6 years (since Obama’s reelection), all sorts of socialist/economic leftist ballot props, for state income taxes or tax increases, new rent control laws, $15 minimum wage, state “single payer” healthcare, etc., have failed (and yes some have won, though mostly in “blue” states, where one would expect them to). If Republican voters were to the economic Left of GOP politicians (I think it’s just the opposite), the states would be reflecting that – “red” states most of all (the “blue” states already being heavily leftist). Do they?
Please note: Trump did NOT run as an “economic populist”, but rather, as a civic nationalist who wisely promised to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to renegotiate bad trade deals. He was called a “populist” because he properly criticized economic globalization (which I do as well). Opposing globalization is hardly tantamount to wanting more socialist parasitism and misallocation of capital in American life.
Trump promised to repeal Obamacare. He gave some hints about supporting deregulation (the great mostly unsung triumph of this Admin). He talked about business tax reduction. He did not propose any type of leftist economic agenda.
@Lord Shang.
I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree. The pre-invasion Scandinavian socialist failure you deride produced the highest national standards of living on the planet. It worked – where Russian and other communist systems did not – because it built around a homogeneous nation that had a culture of productivity.
As I constantly say to socialists, socialism only works (but works very well) in high trust, culturally homogenous societies.
As a nationalist, I’ve come to realise that the standard left and right package deals are both shallow and flawed.
What I support is the the best elements of both. Nationalism and socialism go together naturally in exactly the same way as their polar opposite- globalism and capitalism – do. Globalist capitalism is the single biggest threat to our survival as white nations, IMO. Unfortunately it’s what reigns unfettered in our countries today.
Thanks for your extensive response. I don’t agree, but I respect your passion and hope that you can employ it in the service of your people.
.
Capitalism is like Bigfoot. One can occasionally glimpse it in the forest. Classical econimics keep Bigfoot company there in the forest. No one knows what “neo-liberalism” is but the idea seems to be that if the minutest relief from regulation or taxation is afforded to any citizen, that is the signal for rapacious hyenas to launch the nation into an orgy of anarchy and depradation where individual citizens are just vaporized. A glutted, hornswoggled, distorted, over-regulated economy that is a cash cow for politicians and the plaything of bureaucrats is the new gold standard. Any retreat from that is “neo-liberalism” and nothing less than an embrace of satansim.
Something else to ponder about Trump, for those still harboring the illusion he is playing 4-D chess, is three things that Jeff Sessions did.
1) Sessions (as well as Trump) immediately after the election and not taking office, said that the Trump admin. would not be filing charges against Hillary Clinton for the email scandal and the Secrets Act violations therein. This is something the Deep State/Swamp/Establishment would like to have happen.
2) Sessions did not take control of the Russia collusion fiasco and say the special prosecutor is mandated by the statute law that invented the office to be used only for violations of federal law. SO, name that law or no investigation of said alleged collusion. Instead, Sessions recused himself and let the next guy down, Rosenstein who was probably in on the take down of Trump, to handle the issue and he promptly set up Mueller to be spec. pros. This is something the Deep State/Swamp/Establishment would like to have happen.
3) Sessions, to some good degree, did start deporting the illegals in this country like the gang members. This is something the Deep State/Swamp/Establishment would NOT like to have happen.
See the common thread running through each?
Sessions does two things the Establishment want/desire, and Trump doesn’t pressure him to resign. Sessions does the one thing the Establishment wants/desires, Trump pressures him to resign. This is mystifying to someone (who voted for Trump for White people’s interests) on the outside, looking in.
In terms of Realpolitik it makes sense for supporters of a ‘maximal’ Zionist program to give tacit backing to Trump. If Netanyahu heading up Likud is re-elected there is a good chance that Israel could annex West Bank areas C and B with little US opposition or even presidential backing. That would set up a slow ethnic cleanse of the remaining Territories by means of expanding settlements and perhaps financial incentives for arabs to emigrate.
The prize is very great: Israel would gain strategic depth and ‘better’ long term demographics. One could even contemplate a reocupation of Sinai if Egypt were to collapse into the Islamist chaos that has humbled other neighbours of the Jewish State.
Trump has probably figured that at this point in his trajectory, the rewards of a philo-Zionist strategy exceed those of pandering to the white working class ‘base’ that propelled him into office. Let the Democrats make the mistake of becoming the antisemitic — or at least Zionist-skeptic party — Ilhan Omar and Beto O’Rourke are already taking them down that road out of solidarity ofr the ‘oppressed’ . It’s not an exact analogy, but how has that stance worked out for the British Labour Party?
Israeli society is hurtling towards a civil-war. The ultra-orthodox will soon outnumber the sodomite secular Zionists. Ashkenazis and Westernised elite have been losing ground for some time. These ultras are not particularly fond of the Israeli secular laws and anything that reduces the holy land to a glorified Middle Eastern Monte Carlo. I think Arabs within Israel proper and on the disputed territories are just biding time. They will eventually move in to square things up with the Jews.
In the coming years, Israel may have two options. Either to persist with democracy charade to keep the flow of extortion money it receives from servile gentile governments and risk a deadly societal cauldron or take the Kahanist road and disenfranchise the almost 22% Arab citizenry and cleanse the biblical lands of their presence.
It’s Torah Vs Ashkenazi democracy.
I look forward to additional intelligent essays on Trump’s betrayal of “us.” I definitely lost friendships, damaged my then career, and more over my support of Trump. Is there anyone who will hate him more now than us ex-Trump supporters?
But what is the alternative? I live in a totally Blue State, where my vote doesn’t matter. So I will alas again vote rightist third party (as I’ve done in every election from 1988-2012; I voted for Reagan and Trump). Trump’s uselessness has not merited my affirmational vote.
But I still hope he wins. His policies have been very good for the economy (though much less so than they could have been, had he and the GOP been braver). He has NOT pushed for any “path to citizenship”. He is not supporting “reparations for slavery”. He withdrew from the awful Paris Climate Accord. His deregulatory measures have been excellent. His judges and Justices have been better than either Bush’s, and 100x better than any from any Democrat. He has not launched any new big spending programs or initiatives. He was willing to repeal Obamacare, but was betrayed. He has not gone to war with Iran. His trade policies have started slightly reining in China. He has not signed on to any nasty UN-globalist treaties.
Yes, most of this is negative, but look what he’s had to work with in Congress. Trump’s ineffective, but each and every Democrat is a menace to national security and survival.
The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere.
More likely, they’ll just provide more people with the funds to immigrate.
Who the hell wants foreign aid going to the Palestinians?
There are some comments here about the supposed necessity of obtaining fruit & vegetables from Mexico and other warm climates, especially in the winter.
I (the first 16 years of my life), my parents (most of their lives), and my grandparents and their ancestors going back to the dawn of time did not have fresh grown vegetables in the winter, and they all lived in really cold or somewhat cold 4-season climates.
Yet no one died of TB or anything else that is associated with lack of fresh vegetables. Indeed, they were all hardworking farmers. We/they stored home-grown root and similar vegetables in the root cellar or cold room; and lacto-fermented a wide variety of vegetables (ie, made pickles including sauerkraut, a Vitamin C food). Fruit was sometimes pickled as well. Some apples last a good while, 3 months or so if kept in a cool place, though we did not do that.
The push for everyone to buy 20 lb of fresh-from-Mexico or California vegetables should be viewed with suspicion. At least by me it is.
No, we don’t need lettuce, spinach, avocados, cucumbers, tomatoes, oranges and grapefruit from late fall to next summer. We can grow and store all the produce needed over here. But bitching about the price of Mexican vegetables is more fun, I guess.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment