- The Border Patrol will face consequences
- White Americans are becoming more racially conscious
- Joe Biden is losing the people who elected him president
- The Pentagon budget only grows larger as failure is rewarded
- Can you believe funding Israel's Iron Dome is even debatable?
- Conservatives are now giving lip service to the Great Replacement
- Capitol Hill remains Israeli occupied territory
- Tucker Carlson explicitly endorses the Great Replacement theory
- The Africanization of the public square continues in Richmond
- What is the point of New South conservatism?
The original article is here:
Hunter Wallace’s perfect rebuttal to the embedded video captions which are segments of Nick Fuentes’ America First show:
“There is no such thing as Trumpism.”
THIS here hit nicely with me that must be repeated:
We have a Gilded Age level of income inequality and an economy which doesn’t work anymore for the working class which is creating social instability. We have a military that is overstretched. We have a population drenched in modernism, cosmopolitanism and wokeness which has led to massive social dysfunction. We have a deracinated and atomized population which has lost touch with its own history.
Everyone should be reading Occidental Dissent on a regular basis. This is the best blog out there.
by Eric Striker
Many Americans are rightfully on guard when it comes to their Second Amendment rights. There is a whole subculture, lobby and multitude of groups dedicated to celebrating firearms, monitoring political attacks on gun rights and fighting against them.
On the other hand, another cherished freedom, the right to express your beliefs, has been totally ceded to Jewish dominated left-wing activist groups, like the ACLU.
Those ignorant of our nation’s history, and especially of Zionist mobilizations in the present, live with the comforting lie that free speech is an inviolable right.
Today, the Jewish community in the United States, which has wrongfully earned a reputation for harboring civil libertarian views, has been at war with the very concept of the First Amendment.
Whether it’s former CEO of the National Constitution Center Richard Stengel writing opinion pieces calling for hate speech laws, or Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League calling on Congress to act against “anti-Semitic” opinions on the internet, it’s clear that the Jewish community no longer respects this freedom and is working tirelessly to abolish it.
The cultural taboo against questioning the sanctity of the First Amendment have quickly been eroded since the election of Donald Trump. Today, panels discussing calling for limits on free speech are no longer exclusively populated by communist academics or blue-haired “SJWs,” but by actual Attorney Generals supposedly tasked with upholding civil liberties, like Josh Shapiro.
The ACLU, which won a free speech absolutist reputation after its army of largely Jewish lawyers defended brownshirt wearing “Nazis” in Skokie, today has abandoned this role and largely refuses to defend comparatively less controversial “hate speech” and political assembly after realizing nationalists are now a serious political force.
Looking at the history of First Amendment cultural and legal battles, the pattern becomes clear: the Jews claiming to be fighting for free speech only did so to create space for unpopular left-liberal movements in the 1960s and 70s. Today, the Jews and the left have been absorbed by the neo-liberal establishment and no longer has any movements challenging the status quo, so they have lost interest in defending the right for citizens to assemble to try and effect social change, which has been disastrous for today’s dissidents since all advocacy groups are in their hands.
Don’t Assume Anything About Your Rights
Whitney v. California, decided in 1927, is seen by some as one of the most important contemporary affirmations of the right to belong to dissident political organizations and contribute to the marketplace of ideas.
He ruled with the majority in overturning the prosecution of Anita Whitney, who had founded a communist organization labeled a criminal syndicate in California, much to the chagrin of Herbert Hoover. Brandeis, a Zionist activist, made this decision at a time when the distinctions between Zionism and the heavily Jewish communist movement were not so cut-and-dry.
In his opinion, the Jewish justice Louis Brandeis wrote passionately about the moral importance of the free exchange of ideas in a liberal democracy, winning him the reputation as a Jewish pioneer of civil liberties. He was one of the first judges to promote the idea that open debate allows good to triumph over evil.
But Brandeis’ reputation as a lover of free speech and ideological diversity is brought into question when looking at a later ruling by another Jewish Justice, Felix Frankfurter, who Brandeis closely mentored and for years used as a personal mouthpiece.
In 1952, Frankfurter established one of the first precedents for European-style “hate speech” laws in American history.
The case of Beauharnais v. Illinois was remarkably similar to Whitney v. California. A man in Chicago posted leaflets in his city bringing attention to black crime, and called on whites to join his political advocacy movement. The materials did not express any violent sentiments.
Frankfurter, authoring the opinion in the 5-4 ruling upholding Beauharnais’ conviction under Illinois hate speech statutes, declared that Beauharnais was guilty of “group-libel” against blacks by referring to their role in the increased crime rate, and that libel was not protected by the First Amendment.
“Hate speech” laws in Europe are premised on this same assertion, that generalizations about groups constitute “libel” and can thus be prosecuted.
What is most disturbing about Beauharnais v. Illinois is that the Supreme Court has yet to overturn it.
The closest precedent some legal scholars cite as overruling it was New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, where it is claimed that SCOTUS found in favor of free speech above libel law.
But here too, we find that the political nature of the dispute may have played a greater role than the principle of free speech itself.
In the case, the Jewish controlled New York Times ran an advertisement from of a pro-Martin Luther King organization making outlandish and slanderous claims against the police in Montgomery, Alabama. A recent article by the Los Angeles Review of Books meticulously documents how Jews were in charge of every nook and cranny of the “civil rights movement” as well.
L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner, decided to take them to court to clear his police department’s name. It was broadly accepted that many of the claims in the ad were false and he won his case in the Alabama state court, but later upon Supreme Court challenge it found that libel statutes did not apply to the white policemen because they could not prove “malice” in the printing of said lies.
Today, the free speech law and the political conditions of their application remains opaque. While this author believes conservative anti-environmentalism is absurd, the Supreme Court’s refusal to clarify the National Review’s right to give a subjective opinion in the Mann v. National Review defamation case last November suggests our higher courts don’t find our First Amendment to be as sacred as we once assumed.
In this case, a college professor is suing the National Review for libel over an opinion piece questioning his data on global warming. The National Review has so far spent millions of dollars defending itself over multiple years, often being dealt crushing defeats in lower courts. They have the support of many major think-tanks and big money over an issue far less “controversial” than race or Jewish power, and yet they still have been unable to find a court willing to unambiguously defend their right to weigh in on a hot-button political issue of the day.
Donald Trump’s executive order essentially banning students from engaging in criticism of Zionism on college campuses is another shocking attack on free speech. While some Jews will admit that it is unconstitutional, there has yet to be any significant legal challenge to it. Compare the lack of interest to the immediate court injunctions Donald Trump gets for even the most minor decrees on immigration enforcement.
Prominent voices in the Jewish community have now begun discussing the viability of using group-libel precedents in Beauharnais v. Illinois to persecute and prosecute “anti-Semites.” It is vital to begin preparing for legal onslaughts on this front on par with gun rights advocacy, especially as popular discontent against the neo-liberal order grows.
Zionist Frustration with Privatized Censorship
In the 1980s and 90s, Jewish organizations like Joseph Levin’s Southern Poverty Law Center pioneered “private” methods for suppressing pro-white or nationalist speech. The tactic was to use the broken civil court system strategically to bankrupt political organizations and leaders that they saw as posing a political threat to Jewish power.
In tandem with FBI surveillance and entrapment, along with media and corporate censorship, this tactic has long functioned to discourage political advocacy and lobbying by nationalist groups.
But what happens when there are too many people to sue and they by and large go out of their way to obey the law? Jewish organizations like the SPLC and ADL have been wildly successful in working with Jewish run corporations like Paypal, Google and Facebook to artificially reduce the number of political views, books and ideas the public can access.
Yet, the old playbook has not stopped the growth of interest in ideas they deem “hate” or “anti-Semitic,” as they are not addressing the egregious economic and social conditions, like globalization and the rise of competing nationalisms inside the United States (“identity politics”), that have predictably sparked the awakening of racial consciousness in white people, the only group banned from having these feelings despite being permanently besieged.
The Sociology of the First Amendment
A 2017 study by the Cato Institute polled people’s views on free speech across racial lines, finding that Jews were the most likely to favor restrictions on “hate speech” of any ethnic group.
Majorities across racial groups, to different degrees, opposed firing people from their jobs for believing blacks are genetically inferior (including 51% of blacks), along with a wide variety of other PC faux-pas. “Doxfiring,” the practice of causing people to lose their jobs for their political or social views is in other words highly unpopular.
Similarly, “punching Nazis” (the survey was taken months after the media campaign about Charlottesville) polled poorly among “Latinos” and blacks, with 80% and 73% stating that it was unacceptable, showing that the pervasiveness of this call to violence is not to protect minorities, but actually largely the product of Jews and wealthy left-wing whites occupying cultural chokepoints and creating a false impression. Individuals who identified as Republicans were more likely to support “punching a Nazi” than typical Democrats.
Even more interesting is the fact that blacks and “Latinos” polled wanted stronger regulations applied to sexual content, which Jewish liberals have historically conflated with free speech. Majorities in the same two groups showed disinterest and irritation at the very concept of political correctness.
In other words, Jews agitating for hate speech legislation in the name of protecting minorities are acting unilaterally and only using these other groups for cover in their war on whites, as was the case with the largely Jewish beginning of the NAACP.
When Jews are separated from whites in surveys, they show a preference for harsh and draconian restrictions on political speech, shattering the illusion of Jewish liberalism.
In a Knight’s Foundation poll, Jewish students were the most likely to support curtailing the First Amendment in the name of “inclusion,” with 65% saying so. White Christians held the polar opposite opinion across all denominations. 68% of students in general complained that the problem wasn’t hate speech, but campus officials policing speech, which 68% said they found to be suffocating.
83% of Gen Z students also answered that using violence to shut down a rally, speech or protest was never acceptable, contrary to what many in the media and elite promote.
While it is true that non-whites broadly have more mixed opinions on gun rights and free speech than white Gentiles, the people composing the brain trusts and money-power leading the war on our civil liberties is the same as the one which oppressed people in the Soviet Union and oppresses Palestinians today.
The universalist Jewish humanist is a work of fiction. America has a free speech emergency.
A number of figures in the alt-media and extreme-left movement have surprised their audiences by rationalizing the Trump administration’s Israeli-directed push towards war with Iran.
The consensus between high profile voices on the Zionist “far-right” and anarcho-neocon “far-left” in America and Britain reflect the party line in Israel, where even Amir Peretz of the ostensibly left-wing “opposition” Labor party hailed the Pentagon’s decision to assassinate Maj. General Qassem Soleimani by luring him to Iraq under the false pretense of peace negotiations.
Spencer Sunshine, a self-proclaimed anarchist and prominent voice in the American “antifa” scene who has been accused of Zionist entryism in the past, took to twitter to reiterate Sean Hannity’s script on the killing: that the Iranians brought it upon themselves by “antagonizing” America and “meddling” in Iraq. It speaks to the state of the modern coopted left that somebody like Sunshine can express the Israeli government’s line and still survive the scrutiny of his peers. Sunshine is very suspicious of anti-war sentiment due to the fact that Jews like Sheldon Adelson and Jared Kushner are responsible for our over-the-top Iran policy. He has spent much of his career fighting what he calls “left-wing anti-Semitism” (principled anti-Zionism).
Caroline Orr, another fanatical Jewish supporter of “antifa,” chastised “fellow” leftists for ignoring Soleimani’s supposed “slaughter” of Syrians during the fight to save the country from ISIS. After some pushback, Orr is backpedaling, but her initial approval shows the Jewish nexus between the virulent anti-white forces on the left and the appetite for war against Iran on the so-called right. She also has made a name for herself for promoting fake news about “Russiagate” and attacking anti-war presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.
While a branch of the left led by “tankies” (Workers World Party and Revolutionary Communist Party) behind the ANSWER coalition are adamantly against imperialism, many anarchists and “democratic socialists” support the CIA-led protest groups we have seen in recent months in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, which have largely subsided but were intended to purge pro-Iran political factions. These groups are meant to incite a civil war, so these left-wing voices basically support regime change as well, just not by a full US ground invasion.
The ANSWER coalition’s anti-war protests that erupted across America were small, showing that the left is not passionate about opposing this conflict. Figures like AOC and high ranking advisors in the Bernie Sanders campaign all attended the Zionist Dov Hikind’s march against black “anti-Semitism” yesterday, but not any of the anti-war rallies.
On the other side of the coin, Anne Marie Waters of the “For Britain” group has fully embraced an invasion of Iran. Waters, a remnant of the largely Jewish funded “counter-jihad” movement, does not bother to articulate what the West stands to gain from such a conflict. Her only argument is a neo-liberal desire to impose gay plutocracy on the unwilling Iranians so that Israel can safely continue its expansionist foreign policy.
Mike Cernovich, who made a name for himself in 2016 in part for his non-interventionist views on Syria, has been reduced to an Iraq-war era Toby Keith style jingo. He got so much pushback that he too was forced to “clarify” his opposition to war overnight.
Alex Jones of InfoWars has released a new conspiracy theory claiming that the Jews who control Donald Trump’s government had to set off a chain-reaction that will lead to a regional conflagration in order to prevent World War III. According to Jones, the Obama administration is responsible for tensions with Iran by engaging with diplomacy with the country instead of attacking it. His audience isn’t buying it. Over half of the reactions on his Bitchute video on the topic are negative.
Nick Fuentes of the Youtube show “America First” has also come under fire for recent statements on Telegram. While he prefaces his statements by saying he technically opposes a full war with Iran, he followed this by cheerleading threats by Zionists in Washington to bomb ancient Persian cultural sites, calls Iran a “degenerate Muslim shithole,” celebrates “America bullying ppl and throwing around missiles”, and comes to the defense of the “American-led” globalist military order, which Trump himself repeatedly criticized throughout his life and, as Tucker Carlson has said, won the presidency in large part by running against it.
The mealy-mouthed Charlie Kirk of TPUSA, a libertarian-Zionist think-tank Trump has recently adopted to engage in outreach for his 2020 campaign, tepidly approved of Washington’s hit on Soleimani, but has also come out in support of full military withdrawal from Iraq.
Any military entanglement with Iran polls very poorly in America.
The latest opinion research finds that almost 70% of Americans believe heightened tensions with Iran are entirely the fault of the Trump administration. Even after Trump and Mike Pompeo accused Iran of attacking the oil fields of “ally” Saudi Arabia on September 14th, 75% of Americans responded that a war with Iran was completely unwarranted.
While a vocal minority of people are eager to see explosions and dead Arabs at any cost, the majority of Americans understand that a war with Iran will not be like Afghanistan or Iraq. Public support is also not anywhere near where it was for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Such a conflict will be felt at home, either through Iranian sleeper cells attacking US targets, large numbers of dead American soldiers in the Middle East, or exploding food and gas prices. The argument that killing Soleimani has made Americans safer was widely mocked after the State Department put out a subsequent statement telling US citizens to get out of Iraq immediately.
White workers have no stake in this Israeli-dictated war. The current failure of the left and right to hold a full-throated line against the coming catastrophe is why a third position is needed now more than ever
by Eric Striker
Every year for the past decade, the $100 million dollar agribusiness lobby has gotten an amnesty bill on the Congressional agenda.
In a nation governed by reason, they would use this money to attract American workers with higher pay and benefits or develop new technology to do the farm work. Instead, they would rather cheat and cut corners by bribing politicians into passing the H.R. 5038 monstrosity, which both Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives happily did.
While neo-liberal “experts” like to claim amnesty is widely popular, House members approving this law decided to mask their stink. They were able to avoid personal accountability by utilizing a “voice vote.” This piece of legislation will get to the Senate as early as Spring 2020.
Some of the major “reforms” in this bill would outrage most Americans, but the broad swath of conservative media appears to be ignoring it outside of Tucker Carlson. An op-ed on Fox News by Ali Noori declared this amnesty a “Christmas miracle” and an “economic stimulus” for regions centered around agricultural production. Norman Adams, editor of a website called “Texas GOP Vote,” wrote an attack on Tucker Carlson’s critical segment for “misrepresenting” the bill, claiming that in fact more than 3/4 of Americans love mass immigration as long as they pay a fine and it’s made “legal” post-hoc.
But if the state of California, represented by the bill’s main sponsor Zoe Lofgren, is any clue, all it will do is export her home’s “Elysium” style two-tiered society of billionaires overseeing a third world plantation to the white majority Pacific Northwest and Idaho. Where will middle class people flee to then?
Reagan Amnesty Redux
Millions of supposed agricultural workers were amnestied by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. None of the punitive aspects of the bill were ever enforced.
Furthermore, the “cheap farm labor Americans don’t want to do” logic did not play out as expected either. The old trope applies to illegal immigrants as well: most of the recipients of 1986 amnesty green cards quit farm work and went off to compete with middle class Americans in building, manufacturing, and trucking/distribution. The standard of proof for receiving the benefits of this bill were also low, with anyone claiming to have ever worked on a farm getting in.
H.R. 5038 keeps all the bad parts of the original Reagan amnesty, but adds some new shocking caveats. The Democrats who voted overwhelmingly for this bill like to sell themselves as protectors of brown people and the poor, but the law anticipates mass post-green card turnover by mandating that farm workers spend an additional four years toiling in fields before qualifying for legalization.
In other words, the bill modernizes nothing. It keeps American agriculture stuck in the 18th century with 21st century indentured servitude, all while advanced nations like Japan and Norway use robots to pick their fruits and vegetables at a far more efficient rate than human hands.
Additionally, the bill will raise the visa ceiling for jobs in landscaping, hospitality, janitors, etc., jobs many Americans currently do and shouldn’t have to compete for, that have nothing to do with agricultural production.
The law was hardly debated in the House, aside from criticism by Representative Doug Collins. He pointed out that illegal aliens who have skipped deportation hearings, have engaged in Social Security fraud, and have DUI convictions can all be granted legal status. Additionally, public money will be set aside to provide illegal aliens with lawyers to straighten out their paper work.
How Many Do They Need?
According to some estimates, there are 2.5 million illegal aliens working in American agriculture. All of them and their families will be granted amnesty under this bill, but history suggests that America’s big farmers and dairymen will be back demanding more as soon as the law is put in place.
Agribusiness is already highly privileged, thanks to generous government subsidies and a “guest worker” system where many of the guests end up staying permanently. A debate is needed as to why this industry, flush with public money, feels entitled to import the entire male population of rural Mexico instead of compensating Americans for what the work actually costs.
Even the one crumb of immigration enforcement the GOP supporters of this bill are touting, mandatory e-verify, will only apply to agricultural work. The workers that do get turned away for farm jobs will simply occupy positions in unregulated sectors (which, after this bill, is all the others).
It is important that this bill go to the Senate before the 2020 election, so that the GOP votes it down or Trump vetoes it.
The irony of Democrats importing slaves for ruthless feudalistic exploitation and Republicans bringing in their future electoral rivals is not lost on them. They prefer personal enrichment over any principle of justice or nationalism.