I’m sure everyone agrees it will be interesting to see how long this lasts.

President Trump rode a populist backlash against the political establishment into the White House. The president of Goldman Sachs is the last person on earth we expected to find at his side much less pushing out the very people who we identify with the most in his administration:

“For years now, pundits have been tantalized by the notion that Donald Trump would make an historic pivot, roll back his most chaotic ideas, and return to the comfortably narrow range of political debate. During the campaign, Trump always frustrated this triumph of hope over experience. But in the last several days, Trump has actually pivoted.

It’s just that he’s pivoted into Jeb Bush. …

It would not be out of place to see Jeb Bush endorse every single one of these positions. They reflect the stodgy business Republicanism America has come to expect since the 1980s. We’ve already seen an extreme focus on the core Republican ideas of deregulation and tax cuts. Now we can add in Cohn-ism, which reveres globalization, puts the US market into a bidding war to achieve geopolitical outcomes, hands out gifts to financial interests and multinationals, and keeps the global pecking order stable, with the United States firmly in imperial control. Please clap. …

Let’s learn a little about our new president, Gary Cohn. He was the guy who ran Goldman’s mortgage department, turning it into an enormous trading operation that fueled the housing bubble. He was the guy who then bet against the housing market without disclosing that to investors, illegally ripping their faces off for profit. He was the guy who exported deceptive finance schemes to Greece, facilitating their decade of depression. He’s now putting that disregard for anyone not in an Italian suit to work for you. If you liked Goldman Sachs pulling the strings in Washington, you’re going to love it when they’re actually running the show directly. …”

As we enter the Globalist Gary era, Trump’s “America First” base will begin to melt away faster than an ice cream cone in July under the Alabama sun:

“As power struggles and ideological battles engulfed the White House, an unlikely player is exercising new influence on the direction of President Trump’s administration.

Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, is capitalizing on his new position as director of Trump’s National Economic Council to push a centrist vision and court bipartisan support on some of Trump’s top agenda items such as tax reform and a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. …

In a White House short on experienced personnel, Cohn has found an edge by hiring two dozen policy experts, most with government experience. His team produced detailed proposals on overhauling the tax code, rebuilding infrastructure, cutting back financial regulations and restructuring international trade deals. He is widely considered a future candidate to be chief of staff. …”

Cohn’s stature among the top advisers is notable because he is one of the few who played no role in the campaign…”

I was ticked off when the news broke in December that Gary Cohn was being appointed director of the National Economic Council. Even then, I never imagined him sidelining Steve Bannon in less than three months or the ludicrous notion that he could be “a future candidate to be chief of staff.”

We didn’t vote for Jared Kushner or Gary Cohn. For some reason, we never heard much about these two individuals during the campaign. In fact, this is what we were told in October at the depths of Trump’s campaign in the aftermath of the release of the Access Hollywood tape:

“For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true existential threat like they haven’t seen before.

It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.

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. …”

The future of our civilization was on the line. Nov. 8 was going to be our “Independence Day.”

In his darkest moment, we all rallied to Trump to stop these “international banks” and “global financial powers.” He ended up winning the election in a shocking upset victory because so many people who had given up on the system responded to his appeal. Are you telling me the result of that was to empower Globalist Gary and moderate New York business interests?

  • Diversity Heretic

    It’s Goldman Sachs’s world. We just live in it.

  • Ike35

    Well at least we won’t have to listen to anymore “let’s wait and see” talk in our circle anymore. That ship has sailed off and struck an iceberg. I’m wondering what Hillary would’ve done differently? Probably not much at this point. Probably would’ve started bombing Syria a month earlier, that’s about it.

    • Jarod

      You’re forgetting her plans for mass immigration, Merkel style.

      • Ike35

        Oh I haven’t forgotten, don’t worry. But I think that’ll be the next thing he reneges on. He certainly hasn’t done anything to stop or even slow the inflow of rapefugees.

      • You mean like this?

        The Daily Caller, ‘Trump Is Resettling Syrian Refugees At A Much Quicker Pace Than Obama’, 12 Apr 2017 (emphasis added):

        President Donald Trump called Syrian refugees a “great Trojan horse” during the 2016 campaign, but his administration has resettled them in a quicker pace than President Barack Obama did.

        Since Trump was inaugurated, 1,401 Syrian refugees have been
        resettled, State Department figures as of Wednesday reveal. This is more
        than double the 625 Syrian refugees resettled under President Obama in
        the same time frame last year.

        The president has admitted about a third fewer refugees from all nations than Obama’s State Department did in this time span, as he has resettled 10,565 refugees so far and Obama resettled 14,841. Syrian refugees, however, were a particular focus of President Trump’s when he was running for office.

        Now you could say that this is because the courts halted his executive orders which where designed to prevent that. However, there are people who believe that Trump deliberately wrote his EO in a way that would make it easy to strike down, because he wants to insulate himself from the blame for the next terrorist attack on US soil, and reap the political gains of being able to blame the judicial branch:

        Lawfare Blog, ‘Does Trump Want to Lose the EO Battle in Court? Or is McGahn Simply Ineffectual (or Worse)?’, 06 Feb 2017 (emphasis added):

        […]

        One person who must bear responsibility for the awful rollout of the EO is White House Counsel Donald McGahn. The White House Counsel is charged with (among other things) ensuring proper inter-agency coordination on important legal policies and with protecting the President from legal fallout. McGahn should have anticipated and corrected in advance the many foreseeable problems with the manner in which the EO was rolled out. And he should have advised the President after his first anti-Robart tweet, and after the other more aggressive ones, that the tweets were hurting the President’s legal cause.

        If McGahn did not do these things, he is incompetent, and perhaps we can attribute impulsive incompetence to the President. But if McGahn did do these things—if he tried to put the brakes on the EO, and if he warned his client about the adverse impact of his tweets—then he has shockingly little influence with the President and within the White House (i.e. he is ineffectual). And if McGahn is ineffectual as opposed to just incompetent—if he did, in other words, warn the President about the impact of his tweets and was ignored—then that lends credence to the suspicion that Trump knows the consequences of his actions and wants to lose in court, with the most plausible explanation being that he is planning for after the next attack.

        In such a scenario, which is probably inevitable at this stage, large sections of Trump’s overly-credulous base who are presently feeling despondent about his interventionist actions in Syria, will suddenly begin supporting him again because it will appear that he is very strong on the immigration issue while the ‘corrupt establishment judges’ were weak and made America less safe.

        This kind of paradoxical government with paradoxical outcomes, is what makes the Trump administration so interesting in an academic sense, and at the same time, so hilariously disgusting.

  • Pickle von Tickle™
    • Krafty Wurker

      Stephen Schwarzman is a real piece of work too.

  • Pickle von Tickle™

    What a disgusting (((creature))). Like a Madagascar hissing cockroach.

  • davidex

    I was interested to read Edward Luce in the UK’s Financial Times urging Trump to retain the advice and guidance of Steve Bannon. https://www.ft.com/content/43edc082-1df3-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c

  • NeoCon Don must be dismantled piece by piece. Everything he says has to be used against him. If he happens to keep his word on some issues during the process of us picking him apart, then I think we should consider it a gift of atonement for his duplicity. We should argue that the only way to get anything from forked-tongue NeoCon Don is to oppose him every step of the way, no matter what he says or does. It sure seemed to work for for the NeverTrumpers, NeoCons and all those who didn’t support him, didn’t it?

  • Yehudah Finkelstein

    Hand rubbing intenisifies!

  • Gary Cohn was actually mentioned several times during the campaign as being on Trump’s list of ‘people that Trump likes’. It’s just that the Alt-Right section of Trump’s voting base deliberately chose to ignore this. Trump’s base also deepened the denialism by vociferously tarring anyone who raised these issues as “anti-White”.

    “Anti-White” became the new “anti-Semitic”, in both function and — as you are all finally now willing to admit — in content as well.

    • the Alt-Right section of Trump’s voting base deliberately chose to ignore this.

      In the world I live in, we call that a tacit tactical position to take when all other options lead to an even more unpredictable and unfavorable outcome. Some people did choose to ignore the writing on the wall for whatever reason. What those exact reasons are only they can tell you. But your assertion that anyone and everyone was being tarred with “anti-White” is a convenient distortion of reality, because the main people that were really being targeted were/are the people that have always been anti-White or pushing for policies that, in some way, promote the anti-White world we now live in, whether they be Leftists or NeoCons.

      Some of us, like myself, were trying to warn people about what should be expected to happen once Trump officially took office. I did choose to ignore aspects of Trump only up until a time when it became more advantageous to not ignore them and more forcefully push them into the spotlight.

      You hate America. You hate White people. You hate the idea of anti-White being used as a negative connotation and motivator in the same way that anti-Semitic has always been used. We get it. Now go spit and spew on some non-White or not-so-White websites where they’ll appreciate your sagely advice and rhetoric.

      • Looks like someone got triggered by that. In the midst of you non-ironically calling me anti-American as though I give a damn about your flag, you did manage to give this amazing quote:

        I did choose to ignore aspects of Trump only up until a time when it
        became more advantageous to not ignore them and more forcefully push
        them into the spotlight.

        So, you admit that you did choose, deliberately, to ignore the American Zionist creatures that comprised the Trump team, ‘until it became more advantageous to not ignore them’.

        In other words, you waited until after the damage was done and the creatures were installed in office, to then turn around salvage your political reputation by pretending to have been opposed to it.

        You hate the idea of anti-White being used as a negative connotation and motivator in the same way that anti-Semitic has always been used.

        Correct, I do hate the fact that the term ‘anti-White’ has been used to provide defence for an entirely Zionist agenda. I hate the fact that ‘anti-White’ literally became interchangeable with ‘anti-Semitic’. I hate the fact that I was called ‘anti-White’ because I opposed the rise of an administration that contained Cohn, Mnuchin, Kushner and etc.

        We get it. Now go spit and spew on some non-White or not-so-White websites where they’ll appreciate your sagely advice and rhetoric.

        And so you admit that non-White and not-so-White websites probably do more to oppose American Zionism by accident, that you ‘pro-White’ people managed to accomplish in your — now admittedly fake — attempts to oppose American Zionism on purpose.

        • Triggered just like you were triggered when White people started firing back with anti-White accusations?

          What was so amazing about my quote when you put it in the context where it was placed? Yes, you stammering moron, I did choose to ignore negative aspects of Trump during the election. I’ve said that since day one. I’ve said the gains the pro-White sphere would realize would come from the energy and rhetoric that built him up into a force that went against the Left-Right paradigm, not necessarily his policies he pushed for once he got into office.

          In other words, you waited until after the damage was done and the creatures were installed in office, to then turn around and salvage your political reputation by pretending to have been opposed to it

          Perfect example of why I don’t take anti-White stooges like you seriously. You claim to know everything White people should NOT be doing and will go into fine detail explaining this, but leave gigantic holes of reason and logic when it comes to precisely what White people should be doing. The “creatures” were going to be installed into the office no matter who was elected. It really didn’t matter. But go ahead and explain to all of the pro-White people here what exactly it was we should have been doing and who exactly we should have been supporting.

          Are you so dense that you don’t already know the reason why many pro-White people supported Trump? Or are you just being a convenient contrarian in order to take a swipe at White people for finally rallying around the idea of Nationalism and race to a slightly less degree? I think it’s the latter.

          You’re anti-American.
          You’re anti-White.

          Why would any sane pro-White person listen to you?

          • Such an emotional response you’ve delivered there, and one ticks all the communications boxes for the demography you’re appealing to, but so little of actual substance in it. I will give you some credit for deploying the Whitaker-style ending, though. Calling me anti-American and then anti-White on two separate lines at the end as though these are synonyms. I can imagine that you actually put some thought into that presentation. It almost makes it look like you derived that conclusion from something other than your own imagination.

            The place where you fell down was on the part where you called me a ‘stooge’. It is not specified as to who you think I’m a stooge for. Any reader will quickly conclude that it’s just empty rhetoric. The other mistake you made was to refer to me as a ‘stammering moron’, since most readers can clearly see that my responses have been clean and calm, and that I make pretty efficient use of the English language as a weapon.

            But enough with the meta stuff. I’ll address your actual content.

            Content-wise you’re basically telling me that all of this which you people have done was “not necessarily” about policy, but was in fact about “energy and rhetoric”. It’s funny how Americans do that. How do you quantify “energy and rhetoric”? I can’t. It’s almost as though you had deliberately wished to move the criteria on which you would be judged into a realm that is unquantifiable, because then it becomes impossible to really know anything. Very convenient for you. In your view, I’m not allowed to judge your performance on what actually has happened, instead you demand that I should judge you on how excited White Americans allegedly felt.

            And of course you think that anyone who disagrees with you should be characterised as ‘anti-White’.

            Once upon a time, ‘anti-White’ was a term that described ‘the promotion of policy actions or strategies that are deliberately designed to deprive people of European descent of the ability to sustain their existence, with intent to destroy that ethnic group in whole or in part’.

            These days ‘anti-White’ seems to instead mean ‘someone who did not support the American Alt-Right’s literal meme candidate in the 2016 US Presidential Election’.

          • I was going to respond and slice your comment apart, but then I realized you’ve given me all the proof I need to show just how much BS an anti-White can fit into a statement, without actually saying anything relevant to the requests or questions posed to them.

            How’s this for Content-wise avoidance:

            But go ahead and explain to all of the pro-White people here what exactly it was we should have been doing and who exactly we should have been supporting.

            I’ve asked you before. Why am I still having to ask you now? Any day now.

          • You mean you were totally going to respond and slice my comment apart, but you can’t. I’m anti-American (as of recently) and anti-Zionist (since always). That does not mean that I am ‘anti-White’.

            Regarding ‘any day now’, I’ve repeatedly described what White Americans ‘should have done’, in the full knowledge that you are not going to do it. Because you guys are very bad at all of this.

            On 31 Jan 2016, I wrote:

            Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘Donald Trump stares into the abyss in Iowa as it stares into him. And also you.’, 31 Jan 2016 (emphasis added):

            […] It is said that economic power precedes political power. Where does economic power come from? Not strictly from an abundance of wealth, but rather, from controlled scarcity. For example, if I had control of all water in a country, my power over its governance would be unrivalled. But if everyone could create disparate water-fountains everywhere without my permission, then my power would vanish almost immediately. The same logic applies to political movements, if they are to have any power in the material world at all, then they have to be able to make credible bargains [and threats].

            In the context of American ethno-nationalist movement figures who claim to appreciate the merits of National Socialism or some variant of it, which kind of economic power should they be aiming to control? They should be aiming to control the one thing which is in abundance everywhere. The people’s labour power. Most people in the United States have only their labour power that they can either choose to give to an employer or withhold from an employer, and any movement that were to gain the ability to switch labour on or off at will and at mass, would be one of the most powerful lobbies in the United States. Given that labour union density in the United States hovers around a pathetic figure like 10%, it is not like there is much competition in that realm from the liberals or anyone else.

            Despite this, year after year Americans do nothing other than wait for the next white saviour to descend and save them, while paradoxically festooning their websites with the symbols of a labour movement that actually emerged as a ‘workers party’ from the ground up and not from the top down. […]

            Behind the scenes I had been trying to subtly promote this view for several years, before I decided to start writing directly at your White demography using Majorityrights.com in May 2015 as the platform. They are the only White ethnonationalist site that was willing to allow me to do that. Because it’s British and not American, which always helps.

            In the timespan between January 2016 and now, I repeatedly have tried to leverage that credential so as to spark a conversation with Americans about the need to create a labour movement which could feasibly hold a US President to account in the aftermath of any election.

            That concept was basically rejected by certain Alt-Right opinion leaders who intimated privately to me that “Americans don’t want that”, and even, “You are selling a reheated Fabian Socialism with some mild White racial flavouring”. One person even hysterically and randomly accused me of being an intelligence asset of a certain Southeast Asian state, and refused to talk to me. And so on. Those individuals know who they are.

            Americans didn’t want to hear some acerbic British-Asian bitch (in other words, me) telling them that fashy memes and spicy tweets are not going to be capable of bringing an American president to heel. Americans didn’t want to hear people like me telling them that only a credible and organised threat to withdraw labour power en masse from critical industries, would give you a real place at the table when power convenes a meeting for negotiations and the crafting of policy.

            By the time 18 Nov 2016 came around, with nothing on that front having arisen in any form, I had concluded:

            Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘Alt-Right or Alt-Lite? It’s worse than you think.’, 18 Nov 2016 (emphasis added):

            […] However, Americans are apparently too lazy to take a national syndicalist path, so that didn’t happen and of course isn’t happening. In fact, it’s unlikely to ever happen, because the specific social and economic conditions in the US almost guarantee that it won’t happen.

            So, yes, fam. Content-wise, I have always had you guys covered on ‘suggesting solutions’. You just didn’t care to listen.

            I later brought some harsh criticism as well. Here:

            Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘Donald Trump authorises reckless airstrikes against the legitimate government of Syria.’, 07 Apr 2017 (emphasis added):

            […] I have a friend who happens to be a Hazara from Afghanistan. She actually wept on the night that Donald Trump was elected, because she understood that everything would become even more difficult for everyone from now on.

            I’m sure that the Trump supporters would have ridiculed and laughed at her tears and devalued her viewpoint because she is ‘non-White and a woman’. Much like how when I spent 12 months sternly warning White Nationalists about the fact that Trump is a Mossad and FSB asset, my assessment was largely ignored because I am ‘non-White and a woman’.

            After the events of this Thursday, I wonder if American White Nationalists still think that any of this is funny. Because really, it’s not.

            In 2016 the global resistance against Zionism was fraught, as it has been since 1945, but there were positions that we had secured and some of them were stealth positions that were effectively anti-Zionist positions even though they were not explicitly framed as such. Globally speaking, things were manageable.

            Enter Trump and the absolutely pathetic Alt-Right movement of complete geostrategic flunkies. Rather than assist the peoples who have been struggling against Zionism for generations, [the Alt-Right] instead literally joined the Zionists and fought against us all.

            Rather than taking a global perspective and choosing carefully where to intervene and generating a political movement at the local level to build up a party structure to accomplish those ends, they instead went with the clownish approach of ‘let Trump be Trump’ and ‘Make America Great Again’, even though America is literally the problem.

            Rather than developing a philosophy of meaning and action that would allow them to fight efficiently against the Zionist lobby either overtly or at some level of abstraction, they instead promoted Stephen K. Bannon whose media outfit Breitbart was sponsored by Israel in the first place, and whose philosophical outlook came from the Neoreactionary Mencius Moldbug, whose real name is Curtis Yarvin, a [person of Levantine heritage] and a Zionist.

            Rather than talking about how Zionists have been able to inject their policy preferences into American foreign policy and thus piggyback on the most effective military power in the world, they instead wasted endless amounts of time screaming about Asian businesspeople and Mexican farm labourers. […]

            And now the Alt-Right are still upset with me even though I was right about everything. Which I guess is the one thing that never changes.

          • Kumiko and her views have been a subject of criticism at the blog EGI Notes:

            http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-raving-madness-of-silk-road-white.html

          • And I swiftly responded at that time, here: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/britain_as_a_pacific_trading_power_in_the_21st_century_04032017#c151954

            EGI Notes is run by Ted Sallis, and he has a bizarre anti-Asian worldview that causes him to see a conspiracy behind everything I write. He even believes that my support for Brexit was a sign of me being supposedly ‘anti-White’. And that my desire to prevent an Iran war, is a feature of my ‘anti-Whiteness’.

            As I said at that time:

            Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century.’, 07 Mar 2017:

            Taken to its logical conclusion, if I point out what [a certain Levantine group’s] diaspora and the Zionist lobby more generally are doing to move you close to a ridiculous war in Iran or elsewhere in Asia, that is—according to Sallis—a mere distraction, and you would have to be the worst kind of NS to actually be ensnared by my evil NS rhetoric.

            I guess if Trump decides to send your children to die in Iran within the next 8 years or so, Sallis would see that as a totally logical extension of the civilisational rivalry between Europeans and Asians, and any attempts by me to point out that Israel is actually behind it would be classified by him as but a mere ‘distraction’ or ‘smokescreen’, which is of course designed by me to protect Central Asian population groups (of which Iranians are a member) from being harmed by Europeans.

            I don’t really need to explain or describe the mindset behind that viewpoint, right?

          • Bizarre anti-Asian worldviews should be a forgone conclusion when you have Asians going to pro-White sites to ridicule White people for not allowing their views to be shaped by Asian fetishists. Of course you’ll think they’re bizarre—you’re Asian. Or you at least claim to be.

          • Or in other words, in your view, your bizarre anti-Asian responses to everything I say, is an inevitable phenomenon because I’ve been pushing anti-Zionist talking points, anti-Zionist strategies, and anti-Zionist narratives so hard that it has somehow hurt your feelings, and that has caused some of you to react by attacking my race. It’s a really transparent deflection.

            Let’s call it ‘Argmentum ad Asiatica‘. Whenever I signal against Israel, some of you quite strangely will respond by signalling against Asia and professing that I have hurt your feelings.

            The only question that remains to be answered is: Why do my anti-Zionist views hurt your feelings so, so much?

          • You’re anti-White. Once you’ve crossed that threshold, all the pretense of anti-Zionism goes out the window.

          • You seriously wrote this:

            You’re anti-White. Once you’ve crossed that threshold, all the pretense of anti-Zionism goes out the window.

            Hahahah. Interesting tautology and contradiction in one. It was established earlier that your definition of ‘anti-White’ is ‘someone who does not support Donald Trump’s administration’.

            However, Trump is an ardent Zionist surrounded by Zionists who is being breifed by the Mossad ( http://thehill.com/policy/international/310948-mossad-chief-met-with-trump-team ) and is the head of what is basically a ‘Zionist Occupied Government’ ( http://thehill.com/policy/international/311972-trump-stay-strong-israel-my-inauguration-is-approaching ) in full.

            Therefore your assertion could actually be rendered as this absurdity: “In order to be anti-Zionist you have to support American Zionism”. An absolutely absurd statement.

            To make it funnier, I’m sure that — for example — Bashar Al-Assad, Hassan Nasrallah, Hassan Rouhani, and Ali Reza Tavassoli (if he were still alive), would simply find your logic to be mindblowing. All of them have managed to be anti-American and anti-Israeli at the same time and would be very surprised to hear that you think it’s impossible.

          • No, it was your assertion that everyone on the Alt-Right accuses people of being anti-White for not supporting Trump. Don’t try to attach your rhetoric to me. I’ve come across many people who didn’t support Trump. I wouldn’t necessarily call them anti-White for that alone.

            But you’re still anti-White. Hiding it behind an Asian screen name and a facade of anti-Zionist rhetoric doesn’t change that. I’m here on an Alt-Right site where you are trying your best to ridicule White people. I’m not on some Asian fetishist site trying to convert you. One of us seems to need the other more than they are willing to admit. One of us goes out of their way to avoid the things they claim to dislike. How many guesses do you need to figure out who’s who?

          • I don’t even know how precisely to begin responding to that, because it doesn’t make any sense. You are not even being consistent with your own rhetoric.

            Sort this out: Is my Asian ethnic origin an overt element of the alleged ‘anti-Whiteness’ that you are accusing me of, or is it an asset that I’m using to cloak my alleged ‘anti-Whiteness’ behind? Decide which one you are going with and stick to it.

            Also, what ‘fetishism’ are you talking about? How does sex even come into this? I get that the Alt-Right is a very male space and that some people out there have ‘yellow fever’ which is weird, but when I come here that is not an indication that I like you. Nor could I even hypothetically exploit ‘yellow fever’ to get my way on anything in a cynical fashion, given that you do not like Asian people anyway. On top of that, I’m a racial separatist, in the sense that I support self-segregation of neighbourhoods. So what are you actually talking about?

            Oh, and also, your definition of ‘anti-White’ has changed again. Now it seems to mean: “Hurting a White person’s feelings through the use of ridicule during an argument.” This is obviously nonsense, you might as well say that any attempt by a non-White person to argue with you about anything, is an expression of genocidal intent toward Whites. It’s crybaby nonsense which you are deftly using as an attempt to escape from the argument. Just stop.

          • First things first.

            Where was it established earlier that my definition of ‘anti-White’ is ‘someone who does not support Donald Trump’s administration? Show me the quote where I stated that or even insinuated it.

            My assertion that you are just another anti-White really has nothing to do with you *supposedly* being Asian. It has everything to do with your comments in the past where you’ve sidestepped very direct questions about your motivations for haranguing pro-White people on pro-White websites. You are seeking out pro-White people to attack when most are going out of their way to avoid you. One comment you were essentially saying that you didn’t know what was going to happen to White people in the USA, but that their/our displacement and destitution was necessary for some kind of global equalization that was sure to happen as a result. White Americans are relegated to Third-World status…. the World Wins! Yippy!

            But that’s not really how the world works. Those with money, power and influence would be able to insulate themselves from the implosion and would then be even more likely to shape the landscape in their image.

            But let’s pretend that you get your wish for a destitute White America that quickly extinguishes itself as a global power. What does a Kumiko-realized future for the West look like? More specifically, how would a Kumiko-realized future affect White people? Do we continue with the fantasy of thriving multiracial societies being attainable, but opt for more of a yellow-tinted future rather than the dookie brown we’re now being forced to accept?

            How many Kumikos will White Western nations be forced to accept? Will there be a Kumiko quota. Will we still be evil White racists if we only accept 1 million Kumikos when there are 1 million more knocking on the door?

            If you want to be looked at as sage and savior and continue to attack pro-Whites, then I want specifics.

          • I must have really hit a nerve with you, you’re pulling out everything including the kitchen sink to throw at me now. I’ll break down your post and respond to each item under the appropriate headings.

            Sowing division about ‘other threads!’

            It has everything to do with your comments in the past where you’ve sidestepped very direct questions about your motivations for haranguing pro-White people on pro-White websites. You are seeking out pro-White people to attack when most are going out of their way to avoid you.

            Yeah, how about no. If I’m making comments that you don’t like on other sites that are equipped with Disqus, and you know this because I (quite openly and happily) do not hide my Disqus history because I have nothing hide, then you should really go to those threads and challenge me directly if you think I’ve sidestepped anything.

            I am probably the most open person in the ethnonationalist circles. If you challenge me anywhere on Disqus, I’ll almost always respond.

            What I don’t do however, is argue second-hand about what I said in other threads on the basis of your deliberate attempts to mischaracterise what I’ve said in those threads. If anyone wants to know what I really said over at Morgoth’s Review, in which I harangued no-one, they are free to go and read those threads.

            Also, I did not harangue Morgoth. I am also not an enemy of Morgoth. He is in my address book literally under the category of “British nationalists”. I had an amicable Disqus conversation with him about Sven Longshanks’ and Subal’s recent podcast, in which I strongly disagreed with Sven’s viewpoint.

            Your attempt to play divide and conquer between myself and Morgoth is not going to work. I’m happy to openly or semi-openly work with him on messaging in all areas on which we agree, and I have respectful dialogue when there are disagreements.

            Actionable element: Here is the thread, anyone who wants to look at it can actually look at it – https://disqus.com/home/discussion/morgothsreview/morgoths_review_ss_britannia_red_lines_in_syria/#comment-3253915465

            In it you will see that I give 13 properly-considered and integrated reasons why attacking Iran would be a really bad idea. Morgoth responds by coming to agreement with me on the fact that Britain should not attack Iran.

            Why do you find that outcome to be offensive? Again, it still remains a mystery to me as to why you, Mister Celestial, find it so hurtful and so offensive that I am going around all over the place equipping people with the anti-Zionist knowledge and outlook that is actually needed.

            Sowing doubts where there are none

            My assertion that you are just another anti-White really has nothing to do with you *supposedly* being Asian.

            Oh, interesting, the word “supposedly” is in that sentence as though there is some doubt about who you are talking to. How strange, given that it’s a publicly known fact that I’m Asian, given that you yourself have been referring to me in that way throughout this argument, and every single White Nationalist figure that I’ve interviewed or met knows that I’m Asian because it’s completely obvious and I make no effort to hide it.

            There is no secret. To imply that there is some uncertainty about anything on that front, is a ridiculous and childish tactic which is frequently used by the Israeli hasbarists when they encounter someone who has some level of social status above that of an anonymous commenter.

            Now, I’m not actually saying that you are an Israeli hasbarist who has been trolling me this whole time, but I’m saying that you have been acting very much like one, and this latest stunt from you is again very similar to their modus operandi. It’s disappointing to see it happen here.

            By questioning my identity, you are seeking to cast doubt on the reality of this conversation so as to equalise the relative status difference between us. It’s an absurd tactic which will never work, and it only highlights that you are insecure about the way that your anonymity and your attempts to divert away from the subject of Zionism over and over again, makes you look slightly suspicious.

            I actually accept that you are a White American, which is what you are claiming to be, even though there is precisely zero proof of it. I have to proceed on that basis even though you look totally shady as hell. There is nothing else that I can do, other than to ask you to dox yourself, which would be unreasonable.

            Yet you are here non-ironically trying to cast doubt onto whether I am really the Asian woman who writes at Majorityrights.com, despite the fact that there is actual evidence everywhere which shows that I am indeed who I claim to be, and that there was never a question about that.

            Actionable element: If anyone actually has any doubts, just say the word and I’ll get myself into a Majorityrights mini-podcast and give a shoutout in which I will refer to this thread and the contents thereof. I only jump into comments sections to get an idea of the arguments that are out there anyway, so I’ll be using some of the stuff from here for something at some point. Perhaps I could trawl my contact list and arrange it so that it’s done in the presence of a bunch of White Nationalist figures on the line (who do not always agree with me on everything, but who know that the annoyance I bring is fully flesh and blood) who can say “She is not a robot.” It would be absolutely hilarious and would reinvigorate the recently-neglected podcast section.

            I could even invite you, Celestial Time to call in and then you can insult me directly in the flesh. I’m not even joking. If you really have doubts, say the word and it can happen this Sunday.

            Simply absurd questions

            How many Kumikos will White Western nations be forced to accept?

            Zero, obviously. The purpose of Brexit as described by the British government and by Theresa May herself, and by the dark state ( https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-immigration-benefits-report-cabinet-office-brexit-sabotaged-a7669181.html ) is to take control of the borders so that the British government has control of all migration policies. That is going to be achieved.

            Britain will not be forced to accept any migrants.

            And regarding myself I will, someday — once my professional reasons for being here have drawn to an end — take a permanent vacation to the infamous Casino Zone in Hong Kong or in Macau SAR ( http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20170302 ), but that is some ways off.

            Anyone who actually reads Majorityrights knows what my views are. Nothing that I’m saying here is being said for the first time.

            Actionable element: Read The Independent’s report about the leaked dossier on precisely that subject.

            ‘Everything is so vague!’

            I want specifics.

            Well, you can just read the articles and comments that I’ve written. My views on America are not hard to find, since I keep writing them down. Sometimes I will even go to arcane levels of detail, so detailed that it almost looks shady (Random example, me actually responding on why I think Richard Nixon was actually pretty decent for his time: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/us_government_to_build_atop_socio_economic_retrogression_12032017#c152014 ).

            I’m always specific where it is possible to be. Even when that makes me look ‘insensitive’ or ‘evil’.

            Actionable element: Alternately, if you feel so strongly about this and you really think I’m being evasive, put in a request for a podcast and I’ll seriously bring you on and let you try to ‘grill’ me on Sunday. It can even be moderated if you want. Be careful though, I won’t be easy.

          • Diversion & Deflection 101:

            Avoid answering direct questions and requests when asked to provide them by giving answers and responses to questions and requests that were never asked.

            Why is it so difficult for you to answer a few very simple and direct questions and requests without trying to send me to other websites and tell me you’ve already answered the questions? If you see a question mark without a heavy dose of sarcasm, then you should go ahead and assume they were not meant to be rhetorical questions.

            I don’t know who or what a Morgoth is. I do know that you whine about the Alt-Right, but come to an Alt-Right website(mostly American, I might add) to chastise and harangue people who consider themselves part of the Alt-Right. You continually try to plug another website, daring/begging people to go there. How desperate does one have to be for an audience to fish in an place where they’ve stated “you are quite right that we have nothing in common, because we are enemies — militarily, economically, and socially.” <—This was a rhetorical question. I omitted the question mark so there would be no confusion on your part.

            My favorite quote of yours so far has been

            What is the White American Working Class™ (aka, the cancer) going to do?

            You are most definitely anti-White. Hiding it behind a facade of anti-Zionism is just a convenient way for you to attack White people, believing you’ve put them in a position where you can say that since they oppose you, they must be pro-Zionist.

            Frankly, you’re the Zionist when I’m around. You have no real relevance in this world. You’re a biological interloper. You more than likely have no relevance in your world, because you wouldn’t be here if you did. The only cancer(s) afflicting the West right now are the abundance of non-Whites and anti-Whites who don’t support, and would never support, a fully autonomous White ethnostate where racial pedigrees and a strict racial threshold to control population would be the norm. Doesn’t really matter if they’re Jewish or black or MS-13 gang members or Asian women desperate for attention and an audience. You’re not my people. And you most certainly are not my people when you make a habit of attacking some of the only White people speaking up for White people.

          • Diversion and Deflection 101 is not what I am doing, since I’ve answered all of your questions, including the ones you didn’t ask, but it serves as the perfect heading for your own response because that’s basically what you are doing. There are only two parts of your response which are worth responding to this time, the rest is squid-ink:

            You are most definitely anti-White. Hiding it behind a facade of anti-Zionism is just a convenient way for you to attack White people, believing you’ve put them in a position where you can say that since they oppose you, they must be pro-Zionist.

            No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not become true. The fact remains that your continued insistence that in this context ‘being anti-Zionist is a front for being anti-White’, reveals more about you than you are willing to admit.

            Your defence of Trump’s entire American Zionist cabinet is cleverly hidden behind the implication “You’re anti-White if you won’t support the them”. Except it’s not actually very clever, given that it’s just a retooled version of yelling “You’re an anti-Semite!” I could not care less about your fake crybaby tears.

            Your entire interaction with me can be seen as a session in which I presented to you the fact that Donald Trump is an American Zionist surrounded by American Zionists, and your completely fact-free emotional response was to hand-wring over and over again about how offended you are on behalf of all White people, because you allege that facts and tough provocative rhetoric are making White people uncomfortable.

            Hiding behind White emotional entitlement and faux offence-taking at everything I write in the direction of any White person, is part of the strategy that people in your camp use when you are finding ways to defend your Zionist partners. The context of this entire conversation shows that you are obliquely defending Gary Cohn and company. Or do you think that everyone has forgotten what thread we are in or how this conversation started?

            The only person who is insulting White people here is in fact you, because when you presume to speak for all White people in that way, you are only portraying White people as being so fragile and so cucked that they cannot withstand seeing some polite but acidic criticism of an anti-Zionist nature from me directed toward another member of their own ethnic group. I do not believe that all White people are like you, and that is why I continue to remain engaged in the conversation.

            The reason that my responses presently have more upvotes than yours is probably because the readers do not believe that you speak for all White people. The rest of your comment was just your attempt to disguise that fact.

            You’re not my people.

            Indeed, I am definitely not of your people. That’s absolutely obvious, and that’s the only thing you’ve been correct about in this entire conversation.

          • I should have called Diversion & Deflection 101 something a little more appropriate, like Diversion, Deflection & Obfuscation 101.

            You absolutely DO NOT answer direct questions. You dance around and avoid answering specifics by using a wall of verbose content and a steady stream of conjecture and vagueness. You are presented with examples of your own writing as proof of your anti-White attitudes. You then carry on as if you never said anything or that your own words aren’t relevant to your current arguments.

            Do you understand brevity? Do you understand the concept of simple questions only needing simple answers? Prove it.

            You stated earlier that my position was that someone who does not support Trump has to be anti-White. I responded with a simple request:

            First things first.

            Where was it established earlier that my definition of ‘anti-White’ is ‘someone who does not support Donald Trump’s administration? Show me the quote where I stated that or even insinuated it.

            Have you found my quote where I said this to you or anyone else? Were you wrong? Did you have me confused with someone else?

            Once we can establish a workable framework where you can actually answer a question, and answer it without going on a tangent, then I’ll address your other erroneous claims where you pretend to be specific with vague claims of “credible bargains” and “labour power” being workable tactics that White Americans can use.

          • For clarity, I’ll break this into two parts:

            1 of 2: The scrollbar will suffice

            You stated earlier that my position was that someone who does not support Trump has to be anti-White.

            I don’t have to ‘prove’ anything to you. You’re basically doing that ridiculous tactic where if you are losing the argument, you’ll suddenly call foul on everything that happened previously and ask me to revisit it again.

            The scrollbar is the vehicle of truth.

            Anyone who wants to get a handle on your position can simply scroll up and see how you started out by saying that you “tactically” support the Trump administration despite knowing that it is Zionist, because you cherish the “energy” that supposedly results from it. They can then look at the fact that you claimed that my anti-Zionism is a feature of that fact that I am — according to you — ‘anti-White’, and then they can put two and two together and get four.

            Just because you haven’t done us all the service of writing it out in a single clean quote, does not mean that it’s impossible for someone to figure out what your angle is by reading the conversation as it has gone so far.

            The whole reason that you and I are even having this conversation in which you’ve accused me of being ‘anti-White’, is because of the fact that I am constantly writing harsh criticisms of the Trump administration and its supporters. I would not have been on your radar otherwise. You know it, I know it, all the onlookers know it, why bother pretending it is anything else?

            2 of 2: ‘Vague!’

            […] you pretend to be specific with vague claims of “credible bargains” and “labour power” being workable tactics that White Americans can use.

            There is no pretence here, given that I’m not inventing some new concept, I’m promoting a concept which is pretty widely understood.

            Guild Socialism and National Syndicalism are basically the same thing. There are plenty of historical cases of the strategy being used in the Spanish context due to the activist work of Onesimo Redondo Ortega and Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, as well as Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. It was really progressive. That is, prior to Francisco Franco coming along and taking over everything and ruining it all as traditionalists tend to do. Going ‘traditionalist’ is like going ‘full retard’ — never go traditionalist.

            Documents describing specifically how Guild Socialism is actualised are accessible in the British context, and thus in English language and tailored to the particular historical and cultural mores of the general Anglo-Saxon social space, because of the writings of G.D.H. Cole, William Morris, and S.G. Hobson.

            I don’t really have to be specific myself, I’m just some girl learning from other people’s ideas and then repackaging them. Ink has been spilled on this issue more than a century ago. I know that you already know this, but I still had to get it on the record anyway.

            For example, G.D.H. Cole’s ‘Guild Socialism Re-stated’ pg 20 & 21 ( https://archive.org/stream/guildsocialismre00coleuoft#page/20/mode/2up ) and S.G. Hobson’s ‘National Guilds and the State’ pg 110 & 111 ( https://archive.org/stream/nationalguildsst00hobs#page/110/mode/2up ), give an immediate taste as to what direction these people were thinking in.

            You act as though using labour politics is some kind of ‘unworkable’ concept. No. You guys did ask for total change because you thought both parties were unacceptable, right?

            Conclusion:
            The fact that you wanted total change but then you selected a Zionist New York billionaire and chanted “Let Trump be Trump”, is actually the single most unworkable thing ever, and that’s putting it kindly.

            It is also completely stunning that despite having considerable influence in the media space, not a single Alt-Right personality sought to actually popularise the idea of forming national guilds/cooperatives as a counterbalance to American capitalist power, despite the fact that the memetic content of ‘White working class’ was actually vacant and waiting to be filled by something.

            Eventually it was filled by something. It was filled by Donald Trump’s anti-Asian and anti-Hispanic distraction rhetoric, which was largely developed by Steven Miller. Miller is a person of Levantine extraction, because it’s the Trump administration, so of course it would be like that.

          • You’re completely trolling this website now. I didn’t ask for clarity, I asked for brevity and a simple request for you to show me a quote of mine where your assertion can be shown to be true. You can’t even do that one little simple thing. You made the accusation and seem to have hinged your entire psychotic rant on a premise that you can’t even be bothered to try to prove.

            Want another example of your unhinged psychosis?

            The fact that you wanted total change but then you selected a Zionist New York billionaire and chanted “Let Trump be Trump”, is actually the single most unworkable thing ever, and that’s putting it kindly.

            Since it’s a fact, then you should have no problem showing me the quote where I’ve ever said I thought Trump was going to bring about total change, or ever said “Let Trump be Trump,” or that I’ve ever said anything other than my belief that Trump was/is nothing more than a tool to be used to break down the establishment. Go ahead, Kumiko, impress me and everyone else with a simple quote. You can make me look like a liar with a single sentence. Throw it in my face. I’m a glutton for punishment. I’m begging you to do it. Can you do that? After your last comment, I’m not very confident that you can.

            You are anti-White. I’m 100% convinced of this. I even quoted one of your anti-White jabs where you, the British-Asian, come here, an Alt-Right website, just so you can call the Alt-Right idiots and call White working class Americans a cancer. Anti-Zionist means very little to me as a pro-White person. Some of the biggest anti-White people I’ve ever come across have also been staunchly anti-Zionist. You don’t get carte blanche to belittle White people just because you claim to be anti-Zionist.

          • Now you are retreating into pop psychology, and accusing me of ‘trolling’, while you are pompously asking me for ‘brevity’ so that the argument will be easier for you. I am not going to give you that, because I don’t have to constrain my responses to the conditions that you’ve laid out.

            ‘Unhinged psychosis’ was a creative one though. Usually people just yell ‘sociopathy’ (eg, Stefan Molyneux sees the whole world through that prism, the antagonism between ‘neurotypicals’ and ‘sociopaths’) when things aren’t going their way.

            Cutting through all that though, let’s start here:

            Anti-Zionist means very little to me as a pro-White person. Some of the biggest anti-White people I’ve ever come across have also been staunchly anti-Zionist.

            What’s interesting about this new turn from you is that you now finally are willing to admit that my anti-Zionism is real and not ‘a facade’ as you baselessly alleged earlier on in this conversation when you were basically trying to troll me.

            So thanks for finally acknowledging that I am indeed an ardent anti-Zionist.

            Unfortunately you’re still claiming that I’m ‘anti-White’ though. Now here’s the thing. Some readers may be wondering how my promotion of Guild Socialism has anything to do with White Americans, or how it has anything to do with the people of Levantine extraction in diaspora in America.

            It should be obvious, even if is not explicitly stated, what the effect of that tendency would be. Most skilled workers of consequence in the United States are White. On the other hand ‘the 1%’ in the United States is mostly of Levantine extraction.

            In other words, the ideas that I’ve been trying to sell to the Americans have been implicitly anti-Semitic in effect, and implicitly pro-White all along.

            But you call me ‘anti-White’ because I take a high-handed and slightly aggressive tone of voice in arguments with White Americans who oppose my perspective. My high-handed tone of voice, was enough for you to claim that I am ‘anti-White’. Or as you put it:

            You don’t get carte blanche to belittle White people just because you claim to be anti-Zionist.

            Hypothetical: Even if your ridiculous claim were correct, and even if that were basically the definition of what ‘anti-White’ means, White Americans are not the only White people in the world.

            What you are doing is basically the 1700s-era equivalent of saying that if I praise Lord North and General Cornwallis and the British Army, while sticking out my tongue and making rude faces at George Washington and the Continental Army, this makes me ‘anti-White’.

            That is perfectly ridiculous. And you know it’s ridiculous, yet you continue to persist with it. If the Americans do something that I think is stupid, and I insult them for it, their hurt feelings are not a sign of my ‘anti-Whiteness’.

          • You’re trolling because you can’t answer a simple question and request after you’ve made the accusation that I’ve said something that I did not.

            Of course, you know this, that’s why it’s trolling.

          • Except I did answer it. You’re just pretending that I didn’t.

            And after all this time, you still didn’t respond to the fact that I fully satisfied your original challenge to me ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/altright-com/meet_globalist_gary/#comment-3256176405 ), and you simply chose not to answer it. It’s been almost 48 hours.

            Everything that has happened on this intervening sub-thread has been your attempt to divert away from that, and now you have the actual gall to non-ironically accuse me of being evasive.

          • Nope. You sure didn’t answer. You can prove it by responding with a simple quote of mine that I asked you to provide. You’ve avoided it for how many comments now?

            Like I said, you avoid direct questions. You made an accusation that you obviously can’t be bothered to try to prove, so you pretend like you didn’t say it or say that you don’t have to prove it. Classic troll.

          • I totally answered it. Anyone reading the thread can see that I answered it without allowing you to define the parameters for what counts as valid proof. The fact that I don’t answer within the parameters that are convenient for you is not indicative of ‘trolling’, but rather is indicative of the fact that I am savvy enough to prevent you from controlling the whole discourse.

            If that makes me a ‘classic troll’, then it just means that all women and all political activists and all lobbyists are by their very natures ‘trolls’, since that’s where this dubious skillset is actually stemming from.

            I’m not going to budge, so you might as well call it a day.

            I’ve provided genuinely proper information, I’ve sourced all of my claims, and I’ve provided quotations where I shouldn’t have even had to, and I’ve remained engaged throughout, while you spent most of the time hysterically calling me ‘anti-White’ and trying to tone-police me. Anyone can see that. Your attempt to claim that I am ‘trolling’ now, is absurd, and any onlooker would reasonably perceive it as really being a declaration of ‘giving-up’ on your part.

          • You’re a fraud, Kumiko. You know you avoided the request. You can’t find any quotes of mine that back up your assertions, because they don’t exist. I’ve never said what you claim I’ve said. But you continue to claim that I’ve said it, while continuing to avoid a very simple request for you to show me the quote where I said it. That’s a troll.

          • Maybe you should just get some sleep, you almost sound like you need it. A lot of people have been unable to actually win arguments against me.

            The world is not going to end just because I’ve quite intelligently not allowed you to define the parameters of how I should make my side of the argument.

            It just means I did in fact manage to catch you in a position that you don’t like, and now I’m not going to let you slide out of it with ye olde classic “okay but it doesn’t count unless you can fetch me a quote where I literally said it word for word” absurdist autistic escape hatch.

            Just give up already.

          • About 118 words this time, and not a single sentence showing my quote you believe exists. You haven’t even attempted to answer inside of any parameters, not just my supposed parameters.

          • I never said that there was ‘a quote’. You claimed that I needed to have a seamless quote in order to establish what your viewpoint was. I rejected those parameters, and instead composited your viewpoint from the stances you had taken across several of your responses to me, and then from there I pivoted into criticising you on that basis.

            I’m good at doing that, and so I did that.

            Again, just quit while you’re behind. Utilising triple-bracketed lawyer tactics against me is not going to work. Instead it just looks weird.

          • Your exact words:

            It was established earlier that your definition of ‘anti-White’ is ‘someone who does not support Donald Trump’s administration’.

            How is it my definition when I’ve never said that or even insinuated it? I’ve even made it very clear in the past that anyone putting any real kind of faith in Trump will be very disappointed in him.

            Then you said:

            The fact that you wanted total change but then you selected a Zionist New York billionaire and chanted “Let Trump be Trump”, is actually the single most unworkable thing ever, and that’s putting it kindly.

            How can you establish that I’ve wanted that when I’ve never stated anything like that?

          • I merely used the same method that you had used when you tried to establish that I am ‘anti-White’, even though there is no specific quote where I say “I am anti-White”. Where’s the quote for that? It doesn’t exist.

            Except the difference is that I based my assessment of your stance on things that you actually said in this conversation (for example, you said at the beginning of this conversation that you supported Donald Trump “tactically” – tactical support is, objectively speaking a type of support), whereas you based your assessment of my stance on literally nothing whatsoever.

          • Nope, you sure didn’t use the same method. It’s established(the real kind of established, not your kind of established) that you come to Alt-Right/pro-White websites to harass and harangue. I even provided one of your more splendid quotes where you call White people cancer. I have a pretty solid footing to make my accusations. You don’t.

            So now you’re going to try to link “tactical support” to “anyone who doesn’t support Donald Trump is anti-White” as proof of your accusation? Logic and reason just aren’t on your side.

          • Yep, now you’ve brought two ridiculous paragraphs out. The first one is a deliberate and bold-faced distortion, and the second paragraph doesn’t even attempt to make sense.

            Again, just give up. You established literally nothing, and now you are just wasting my time.

          • So what you’re saying is that I’m like a cancer?

          • mancinblack

            Morgoth as in “If Trump goes full retard and blows up half the planet it’s already well documented that the Alt-Right didn’t support him” Morgoth? shame about articles like this then, really…..
            http://nwioqeqkdf.blogspot.com/2016/11/join-big-push.html#more

          • Pretty much, some of the articles that appear over there are basically disastrous, and contradict each other. And his response to the disaster was also disastrous.

            The areas where they are making obvious mistakes are the ones where I’m calculating they’ll be open to being influenced to change, since the errors are transparent and he is not emotionally wedded to America. There is a chance that he will come to see things our way eventually.

            So really the ‘respectful dialogue’ that I’m talking about is just a case of ‘sticking close to Morgoth’s venue and remaining engaged with them, can provide opportunities to re-shape their view of events and thus cause them to re-shape their worldview’.

          • MR is not a pro-White site. It is an anti-White, pro-Asian site

            100% accurate assessment.

            He/She/It/They use anti-Zionist talking points to mask their true intentions.

        • Eugen

          It sounds to me like he accepted Trump for what he is and supported him as long as he damaged the anti-white agenda with his campaign rhetoric.

          Which is the reasonable thing to do. Just like holding Trump to his promises.

          PS: If you hate the expression anti-white you’re most likely anti-white. No need to over-think it.

    • MylesStandish

      The Drumpf debacle sure uncovered the morons and foreign agents within looks huwhite to me nationalism. Forget Cohn, Kushner, Sater, Greenblatt, Mnuchin, Ari Emmanuel and the scores of other miscreants – Drumpf himself is not even a real American. None of his grandparents were born here; he’s an anchor baby. He has a Yiddish accent and casually uses Yiddish dialect. His Yiddish immigrant grandfather was a pimp and saloon keeper. He is trash and a low-rent conman, everyone knows that. Well, almost everyone. The shameless, greasy e-celebs of the alt-right somehow missed it, and their poor, deluded hillbilly followers were led astray – led into treason to America. Just because someone looks “huwhite” doesn’t mean anything. We real Americans have more in common with our Mexican neighbors than these huwhite-looking foreigners and their infernal war-mongering and israeli-style police state.

      This guy, for example, may look huwhite to these poor suckers, but he will never, EVER be a true American. http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/thumb/1484/56/1484566466960s.jpg

    • Siberian

      “Trump’s base also deepened the denialism by vociferously tarring anyone who raised these issues as ‘anti-White’.”

      Case in point: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/radixjournal/the_napoleon_of_the_current_year_91/#comment-2982424372 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/733e53c3b691e5d4306f76f9dc910ef942393889470b1a34ab08af511b77aade.png

      • ThomasER916

        Hillary is much worse than Trump. You’re a total fucking retard if you believe otherwise.

  • Trump also said over and over that “America must start winning again,”
    AND “we must rebuild our military.” Those of us who read between the
    lines instead of little essays by the Supreme Dark Lord on the God
    Emperor knew what an American businessman meant by that: buy Raytheon,
    McDonnell-Douglas-Boeing, Goodrich, Pratt & Whitney, etc, as we were about to have a bonanza in
    military-industrial equities. And we are.

    You have leeway domestically but you cannot change foreign policy too
    much. Trump always had an ugly American militaristic side. Tillerson
    is precisely the type of man he hangs out with. Trump’s basically a
    bully who will allow us to operate with less persecution, and he’s a symbol against the worst of the Left. That’s it. The best take on what has happened
    that I’ve heard/read was Sven Longshanks of the Daily Traditionalist.
    Stop placing your hopes in some billionaire atheist. This is our fight,
    not his. Consider Trump a golf playing dad who looks the other way when
    your friends get too Fashy.

  • J.j. Cintia

    The system cannot be reformed. Civil War II is now inevitable. All of you have to face facts, these idiots are just parasites. THEY CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT A HOST.

  • ))) Depeche Europa (((

    We in the Alt-Right knew that Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner were at the heart of the Trump Campaign…….

    We knew that Trump kept talking about Carl Icahn……..

    Trump was going to ‘Bring in the KIllers’ to make his Trade Deals (Globalist Gary?)………

    Stephen Miller didn’t seem to be a Globalist Neocon…….

    The Speeches he wrote for Trump seemed to be Populist Nationalism………

    Carl Icahn seemed to be down with MAGA……

    There were plenty of Jeews who were down with MAGA……….at least it seemed so……..

    Then, the Relentless Beating from the Media in Collusion with Graham/McCain/Deep State……..

    …..with the Russian Bigfoot Conspiracy………

    Then, the Relentless Beating of Trump and his entire Administration for the last 6 Months by the MSM……

    …….and Left……..with regards to the Most Neurotic Iota……..

    Then, Ivanka Wept while watching CNN and the Questionable Sarin Syrian Chemical Attack…….

    And Trump Bombed………..

    And Bannon was pushed Aside…….

    And Zakaria, Kristol, Shapiro, Boot, and Krauthammer CELEBRATED!!

    And the Alt-Right/Light was like Huh???……..

    And the Alt-Right/Light REBELLED…….

    And NOW??

    Blow everything to Pieces??

    Sit back and see what happens??

    Or allow the Alt-Right to Evolve and Mature in their Politicking??

  • Max Payne