In case anyone is wondering:

Stephens was born in New York City,[4] the son of Xenia and Charles J. Stephens, a former vice president of General Products, a chemical company in Mexico.[5][6] His parents were both secular Jews. His paternal grandfather had changed the family surname from Ehrlich to Stephens (after poet James Stephens).[7] He was raised in Mexico City, where his father was born and worked. In his adolescence, he attended boarding school at Middlesex School in Massachusetts. After his graduation, Stephens studied political philosophy at the University of Chicago. He earned a master’s degree in comparative politics[8] from the London School of Economics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Stephens

darker antipathies

I think (((Mr Stephens))) has no idea how deep voter ‘antipathy’ toward the Washington political Establishment and its enablers actually runs — and how wide it is.

alleged sex tape

That reminds me of the ongoing Rolling Stone court case, where per the magazine’s lawyer “We do believe that something bad happened to Jackie,” he told the court. But “we have no idea what it was.”.

Perhaps it depends on some kind of nuanced definition of “sex tape”.

These people sure know how to circle the wagons — I’ll give them that.

Last ditch tribal call to arms. Only shofar is missing.

Bret Stephens writes:
American Jews shouldn’t have to re-live the 1930s

….

Too easy.

Having sex on tape is not enough for connnoisseurs. Standards. https://t.co/H2FgrA3BAq

— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) September 30, 2016

And this paranoid nonsense gets published in the WSJ. I suspect that this rot started some time ago under the editorial reign of Bob Bartley.

His parents were both secular Jews. His paternal grandfather had changed the family surname from Ehrlich to Stephens (after poet James Stephens).

Bret Stephens, October 11th, 2016: “We Jewish conservatives can take pride in not being silent [on Trump].”

In his own words.

Thanks @Yair_Rosenberg for the shout-out. We Jewish conservatives can take pride in not being silent. https://t.co/0kakxt6xeT via @tabletmag

— Bret Stephens (@BretStephensNYT) October 11, 2016

I think Jews or people with significant Jewish antecedents like Bret Stephens need to admit that many of them are internationalists or humanists at their core. I don’t think it’s anti-semetic to say that and in this they aren’t alone. Many new immigrant groups don’t have any particular connection to America it’s a place to live realitively easy and make some money to them.

The more people like Bret deny this the more of a backlash they’ll receive. There are millions of people who can’t pick up and move to Israel or India if things get sticky here. This is their land their ancestors have fought or lived through all or most of its important wars.

To that point Trump is scheduled to speak at Gettysburg tomorrow and make some big positive speech forward. It’s amusing to watch the Trump hating media baffled about this move when it’s clear as day what he’s trying to do.

Why Gettysburg? Well — Abe Lincoln, and unity, and sacrifice, and the war. Let's just say this conference call was short on specifics. (2/2)

— Ashley Parker (@AshleyRParker) October 22, 2016

while Mr. Trump has found public occasion to praise both Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad

Bashar Assad has done little more than offer lip service against Israel. He withdrew from Lebanon, and was willing to cooperate with the US for rendition (torture). As far as Syria goes, any of the competitors in the rebellion are unlikely to be as neutral as Assad has been.

Saddam was a horrible leader, I agree, but the solution should have been a coup, not an invasion.

Meanwhile, John McCain has found public occassion to praise Al-Nusra.

For the record. The self-righteous anti-nationalist elitist Bret Stephens is not the same (not at all) as the editor of the nationalist journal Amerika.org, one Brett Stevens. (Twitter). (Unz.com archive.)

Same name, just about, but almost political mirror images of one other. (Note that the nationalist Brett Stevens’ family had the name much, much earlier.)

The GOP’s conversion to being a powerfully pro-Israel and philo-Semitic party is a relatively recent development. No law dictates that it is destined to be a lasting one.

To put it bluntly, the above is exceedingly inflammatory.

When the crux of your editorial is that some are insane for believing in the Grand Unified Theory of the eeevil Jews, it doesn’t help when you admit to a conspiracy, unless you are rubbing our nose in it.

I don’t see why it is so incendiary to wish that we had a Middle East policy similar to that of Russia. I am not instinctually Anti-Israel, but we are being pushed into the rock (Neocons) and a hard place (1488s).

If a Jewish writer wants to call themselves a “conservative” in America, they need to support conserving America’s historic demographic and religious majority. If they cannot find the moral fiber to do that, they need to move to Israel.

So Hillary is better than Trump because she called for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are no threat whatever to America. She said this “in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches” – and yet the people who say there’s a clandestine alliance of financiers and politicians are haters!

OT comment.

Peggy Noonan’s WSJ column this week includes this: “[Trump] was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world.”

No mention from Ms. Noonan of who the ‘they’ is who say that.

https://www.google.com/#q=imagine+a+sane+donald+trump

[linked to get around WSJ paywall]

That’s why it’s utterly unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton.

How about on the theory that Hillary wants to bring millions of Muslims into the USA and raise taxes on Jews to fund giveaways to NAMs?

I don’t really have a problem with Hillary’s Israel policy, it is her America policy where I take issue.

I want a wall built around the civilized world and the barbarians kept out.

On the tax/migrants issue, Breitbart has a great investigative journalism series on one of the areas where tax/migrant issues intersect: the massive number of refugees who have TB, a disease that has been nearly eradicated among white Americans, but who are now being put at massive risk by third world migrants who have both standard TB and multi-drug resistant TB, or MDR TB.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/13/two-hundred-ninety-six-refugees-diagnosed-active-tuberculosis-minnesota/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/14/27-percent-tennessee-refugees-test-positive-tb/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/30/migrants-bring-multi-drug-resistant-tb-wisconsin/

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/05/31/syrian-refugees-spreading-flesh-eating-disease-polio-measles-tuberculosis-hepatitis/

Twenty cases of MDR TB, all foreign-born, were diagnosed in Wisconsin over the eight year period between 2005 and 2012, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Every single one of these cases was a third world migrant! Once they are here, if we don’t expel them, we have to treat them to protect ourselves. The cost is about $150,000 per case. Just another way these dull-normal Muslim masses are harming taxpaying Americans.

My God. Why won’t the jews just leave us alone?

I’m curious to what degree this is common asking powerful journalists.

I haven’t met Stephens recently but I did have a dinner with him and mutual friends a few years back.

He was very shy and uncomfortable in a small social gathering.

So much so that it’s my mission memory of the event. He seemed incredibly awkward and out of place among people.

It’s no secret that many influencers aren’t social people. I wonder how much that influences their sky-is-falling monomaniacal commentary on things.

For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race.” (and the British)

“ I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh

Here’s a 5 min video distilling the great Palm Beech speech on the globalist political establishment. Worth watching as well as listening.

(via CTH)

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/21/stunning-donald-trump-speech-the-crossroads-in-our-history-video-and-transcript/

Bob Bartley was a big open borders guy. IIRC, he proposed “There shall be open borders” as a Constitutional amendment.

I remember Robert Reich mopping the floor with Bartley in a debate on Bartley’s own show (the WSJ editorial thing now on Fox, then on PBS).

Yeah, fighting against Assad doesn’t make sense from a Zionist perspective. Or from an American perspective. I can’t tell from the Stephens column if he understands that or not. It’s possible he does, but it is running with it anyway for some reason. Maybe the same reason Hillary has it in for Assad.

But let us not ignore that Stephens is deeply uncertain about the conservative Jews. Will they follow Trump or will they follow Stephens? In France, there is a stratum of Jews which has consistently voted for Le Pen – for the last decade, I’d say.
On the other hand, Jewish media are as good as American media in general to keep dissidents mute. So every alternative media would do a good work in giving the dissident Jews a voice. This includes the historical dissident Jews: Jewish Republicans, Jewish supporters of “America First”, of McCarthy etc.

The GOP’s conversion to being a powerfully pro-Israel and philo-Semitic party is a relatively recent development. No law dictates that it is destined to be a lasting one.

Actually if the UK is any indication, it is the Democrats who will eventually cease to be “pro-Israel and philo-Semitic.”

UK politics have been pretty interesting lately. Labour is in collapse mode right now because while most of its senior leadership is pro-Jewish, its membership is heavily minority and far-left whites who hate themselves, and they installed the Jeremy Coburn, an anti-semite-friendly humorless old Marxist, as party leader.

The elites and long-time party regulars in the party hated him from the beginning, but the hate grew over time and they attempted a coup, which failed when Coburn won the new party member election. At this point, no Jew or friend of Jews will do anything to support Labour anymore.

Meanwhile, the Teresa May has been gaining support as UKIP also is melting down along with Labour and its support going to her. She has been a pleasant surprise as PM, rejecting various schemes to ignore the Brexit vote, and is so popular that polls show if she called a snap election the results would be something like 485 Tory MPs to 135 Labour MPs. She is currently about as popular as Thatcher was at Thatcher’s absolute peak.

He’s REALLY getting hammered in the comments. I read about the first 50, almost all negative, some from former admirers.

On Trump issues the WSJ readers generally split and argue with each other. I’ve no doubt if I read all 1200, I’d find some of that, but uniformity in this first fifty was really something.

So Hillary is better than Trump because she called for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are no threat whatever to America. She said this “in one of her leaked Goldman Sachs speeches” – and yet the people who say there’s a clandestine alliance of financiers and politicians are haters!

Well Stephans couldn’t find anything positive about Hillary in terms of foreign policy except for her threat to bomb the snot out of Iran(which wouldn’t probably drag in Russia and China).

As for the people who point out the unholy alliance between the political class and the bankers, why yes they are haters because they expose that the republic and rule of law is dead. The elites don’t like being exposed. If enough people believe that we have a oligarch running the show, then the people will start withdrawing their consent to be governed and the whole sham goes boom. This is their worry.

BTW that’s always been the difference between the USSR and USA. The oligarchs here convinced the masses(with the help of the MSM which they own) they still had a say in things, so the U.S. never had to invest in a massive and dysfunctional police state like the Soviets. The people here policed themselves into servitude to the elites thinking we still had a Constitutional Republic that was by and for the people.

It’s the best kind of servitude where the shackles are invisible.

I think Jews or people with significant Jewish antecedents like Bret Stephens need to admit that many of them are internationalists or humanists at their core.

That Bret Stephens reads The Daily Stormer is perfect for both of them. They fuel each other, which is unfortunate for American nationalists. Because there are talented Jews on the nationalist side (Mickey Kaus, Stephen Miller, Jared Kirshner, etc.) and there are talented gentiles on the globalist side (Bret Stephens’s boss Paul Gigot, the Clintons, Lionel Barber of the FT, etc.), and there are also plenty of nationalist-sympathetic gentiles who would be turned off by the Daily Stormer crowd.

Stephens knows that, of course, which is probably why he wrote the column. Action-reaction. Good for him and Daily Stormer; bad for most Trump supporters.

He’s REALLY getting hammered in the comments.

For ten years, or so, now, it’s been this way, hasn’t it.

The commentariat on prestige media articles like this has always been several steps to the “nationalistic right” of the author.

Someone, I think Richard Spencer or one of the people around him, quipped that the Trump Movement is “the comment section rising up and taking over,” pushing to the margins the elite and its semi-sophisticated goons who write all the fluffy articles and such that reinforce our political consensus of righteous dispossession.

I think its possible to imagine that if 9/11 had been prevented, with no Iraq/Afghan wars either, that Syria and Israel could have reached a peace agreement. Bashar was quite eager to style himself as a Western oriented reformer in his early days. I believe the Arabists had a saying “No war without Egypt, no peace without Syria”

Mr Stephen’s deepest fear is to be exposed for the fraud that he is as a pundit and journalist. His whole life he’s been pampered and trained to be a good “conservative” lap-dog to our globalist elites, and now the narrative comes crashing down.
There’s also real fear of losing his job, as his masters could fire him for failing to stop Trump and his populist movement.

It’s inevitable that the Left will turn on Israel. Just as the Left has turned on whites because ‘white privilege’ is the only possible acceptable explanation for black failure and black aggression, so the aggression and failure of Islam can only be explained as being the fault of Israel. The alternative–blaming Islamic culture and societies for the mess they are in–is just too much for them to contemplate.

As the numbers of Muslims in the West continues to grow, you can expect the anti-Israel rhetoric to be ramped up the worse the Muslims behave, just as whites are blamed the worse blacks behave.

Lawrence Auster’s first law of minority-majority relations comes into play here.

“They meet in secret.”

Interesting that he starts off with this image, because the real, age-old conspiracy is way beyond needing secret meetings…

Jewish children are clearly raised to automatically distrust (and feel contempt for) all gentiles, but to disguise that distrust and contempt, expecting and approving other Jews’ always projecting misleading, self-serving narratives.

Is there any Jewish tradition of esoteric historical truth-telling, say currently in Israel?

Somewhat OT:

Ever the pessimist, I’m preparing myself mentally and emotionally for life in a world where Hillary Clinton has her trembling finger on the nuclear button.

The best mental preparation, I have found, is to think about all of the jerks I know who are supporting Hillary. Some of the nastiest people I have ever had the misfortune of knowing are ardently on her side. I figure that these people have diseased souls – at some fundamental human level, they’re irretrievably, irreparably broken. If I can categorize their presidential preference as an especially-putrid example of the vile excrement spewed by their defective minds, then at least I can put a seemingly-inexplicable phenomenon – who could stand to vote for such a person? – into a context that I can understand.

(Yes, I’m sure there are some folks with truly lovely souls who plan to vote for Hillary. Hopefully they’re merely delusional, and have no inkling of what is to come. God bless ‘em.)

Every so often, I run into a guy who used to be my boss. He was – and still is – a condescending prick who treated me like I was dog shit.

Whenever we had meetings, he always insisted on sitting in a particular chair. If the chair was not at the head of the table, he expected one of his minions – usually me – to get up and move the chair for him. (I was neither an intern nor a secretary.) The thing is that he would never *ask*, in so many words, for the chair to be moved. He would tap his designated chair-mover of the moment – again, usually me – on the shoulder and say,”Excuse me, but this is not going to work.” (Evidently, he expected us to translate “This is not going to work” into “Move my chair for me, you lowly peon.”) He would never debase himself by saying “Please” or “Thank you.” To this day, I doubt that he ever learned my name – he never addressed me with it.

This guy was awfully prissy. We underlings had to swipe our ID cards and go through the turnstiles to get into the building, but he always had the security guard buzz him in through the wheelchair door. He expected the door to open perfectly on time, right as he strode toward it, so that he wouldn’t have to stop walking, even for a second. (But it couldn’t open too soon – that would tempt the serfs to sneak through, wouldn’t it?)

One morning, the guard was speaking to someone and didn’t see the boss walk into the lobby. The boss snapped his fingers several times and barked, “EXCUSE ME! THE DOOR!” The guard immediately opened the door, and was rewarded for his quick efforts with a glare that could have melted the tacky plastic plants scattered throughout the building.

That security guard left the company not too long afterward. We never learned if he quit or was fired for having the audacity to make the boss wait two seconds for the wheelchair door to open.

(All bosses are assholes, I know. I once had another boss who always forced me to move his chair for him, as if I were his indentured servant or something. But he, at least, addressed me by my name, and gave me explicit instructions.)

As I said, I still see Mr. Prissy occasionally, at a restaurant that we both seem to frequent. I always say hello to him. He always mumbles an inaudible noise, smiles awkwardly – there is often a hint of “I’m humoring an overly-friendly but harmless mentally-retarded person” in his expression – half-nods his head, and shuffles away from me as fast as he can. (I am not worthy of conversing with him, I guess. Maybe I have cooties.)

The other day, I commented that I was listening to a loud-mouthed New Yorker bash Trump and praise Obama to the heavens. Well, that was my former boss. Having to sit through his lengthy diatribe brought me almost to the point of post-traumatic stress disorder. (Having to hear it while eating lunch almost brought on an acute case of a gastrointestinal disorder.)

The world is too small. Life is too short. But we’re likely to go Over the Hill in a few weeks, so we’d better get ready for it. And the best way to do that is by rationalizing it somehow.

My rationalization is, “Nastiness begets nastiness. There are lots of nasty folks in this world, and they’re looking to vote for someone who’s on their same wavelength. Too bad, so sad, but that’s the way it is.”

“unwise for politically conservative Jews to make common cause with Mr. Trump, on the theory that he’d be a tougher customer in the Middle East than Mrs. Clinton”

The WSJ should sack Mr Stephens for reheating ancient anti-Semitic tropes about dual loyalty.

“no Jew or friend of Jews will do anything to support Labour anymore”

Not quite IMHO. The Blairite tendency, which includes most Labour MPs of whatever heritage, is digging in for a long war against Corbyn. They have the chair or two powerful committees, which are elected by MP vote, in Hilary Benn (well right of his father) and Yvonne Cooper.

I’d agree that Corbyn’s private office ain’t getting funded by any City bigwigs or merchant banks, nor will Corbyn supporters find well-rewarded consultancy jobs (as happened to many Blairites in the opposition years), public appointments or cushy charity gigs (the former Danish PM and wife of a Blairite MP is head of Save The Children, in which capacity she called the other day for the US to create a no-fly area over Aleppo).

This post has certainly brought on a lot of (((introspection))) – sorry, but I always wanted to use the brackets before they go the way of Pepe, and we need to start wearing t-shirts saying “je suis (((…)))”.
It’s complicated. To paraphrase Steve’s line ‘it’s always 1939 for some people.’
The stuff on the UK is interesting. Proximity plus diversity clarifies the mind and help people realise that it’s The Current Year.

The “code words” and “dog whistles” are telling us we have to support both unlimited immigration and the Hillary-Obama agitation for war against Russia or be labeled anti-Semitic. Did I get it right?

Breitbart…American Jews shouldn’t have to re-live the 1930s

lol

I kinda doubt the Kushners are “nationalists”. Jared’s just loyal to his father-in-law, as he should be.

If it walks like a duck…

It would be nice if our superiors were as half as averse to blatantly anti-white rhetoric as they are to rhetoric that sounds even remotely anti-Jewish (no matter how shrouded).

Perhaps there is a connection here I’m missing…

We’re in historically familiar territory. Joe McCarthy inveighed against Communists in control of the State Department.

I think that battle has been won. We now have a State Department and Foreign Policy establishment that has fired up Cold War 3. And Hillary wants to heat it up.

Makes Trump a Pinko fellow traveler.

We can’t have that.

Well I do think that Anne Coulter would make a really hot looking high priestess.

What happened to American Jews in the 1930′s that they ‘shouldn’t have to relive’? The New Deal? The New York World’s Fair? The “Jewish Seat” on the Supreme Court?

The title for this column is taken from the 2004 Philip Roth novel that imagines what might have been for America if Lindbergh had defeated Franklin Roosevelt for the presidency in 1940, signed neutrality pacts with Germany and Japan and initiated a re-education campaign for recalcitrant American Jews.

For my money, an America run by Charles Lindbergh would have been a far better America.

Once again, just as in the 1920s and 30s, the Rothschild’s international extortion racket is crumbling, and they are facing both a peasant rebellion from within, as well as the rise of peer-competitors (Russia & China) from without. Their only hope, then as now, is total war.

If Hellary wins the election, start digging your bomb shelters, people.

McCarthy wasn’t an anti-Semite. For him Communist ideology wasn’t a Jewish proclivity but something that could strike anyone of any social background at any time, sort of like tuberculosis in the 19th century.

Is there a Jewish equivalent of “The Talk”, about gentiles ( of which famously Derbyshire wrote a white version)?

They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.

Yeah, put that way, it is a pretty good summation.

He uses the old rhetorical trick of adding an irrelevant and exaggerated anachronistic quote to try to discredit the accurate present picture:

“A conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.”

It doesn’t “dwarf any previous venture” in history. It’s how things usually work in the corrupt third world, and increasingly will work in the increasingly corrupt first world, thanks to corruptors like Stephens.

“fighting against Assad doesn’t make sense from a Zionist perspective. Or from an American perspective.” – I am sure it must make sense from somebody’s perspective.

Damn it Stan, was the job that important to lose so much dignity?

What did Dr. Johnson say about patriotism? Something about “the last refuge of scoundrels”?

Add “racism” and “anti-Semitism” to the list.

That Bret Stephens reads The Daily Stormer is perfect for both of them. They fuel each other, which is unfortunate for American nationalists. Because there are talented Jews on the nationalist side (Mickey Kaus, Stephen Miller, Jared Kirshner, etc.) and there are talented gentiles on the globalist side (Bret Stephens’s boss Paul Gigot, the Clintons, Lionel Barber of the FT, etc.), and there are also plenty of nationalist-sympathetic gentiles who would be turned off by the Daily Stormer crowd.

Stephens knows that, of course, which is probably why he wrote the column. Action-reaction. Good for him and Daily Stormer; bad for most Trump supporters.

Jared Kushner.

Miller and Kushner are directly part of the campaign so they don’t really count. There are much bigger forces backing Trump– Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, Williamsburg Hasidim, et al. and billionaires Carl Icahn, Stephen Feinberg, Steven Mnuchin, John Paulson, et al. If not for Savage and Drudge, Trump wouldn’t have been able to keep this election close. And if not for Savage, Trump’s winning political philosophy wouldn’t exist. Savage has pounded home the ‘borders, language, culture’ theme for decades and Trump is a self-confessed regular listener to Savage’s radio show. Trump has a very basic and singular plan and intends to use the best business skills to get it done. He’s not vexed with highfalutin political, economic, and historical theories and for anyone (like Stephens) to argue that Trump has some sophisticated crypto-fascist plot in mind– and they simultaneous say he’s a shallow-minded clown– is beyond ludicrous. But we’ve seen the MSM tie the bowl of Skittles analogy by Trump Jr. to Jospeh Goebbels’ racist philosophy, so any unhinged and disconnected attack is fair game in this election.

Btw, I think if Trump wins he can only do so much to merely slow the crumbling of America as we know it. I don’t see much chance of America not looking like Brazil in 10-15 years (sans an economic superpower up north to prop it up– esp. the globalist elites).

It always amazes me how open Jews like Stephens are about asking the question: Is it good for the Jews.

You would think that they might worry a bit about other groups noticing and starting to ask the same question themselves. The fact that these other groups haven’t done so for at least 50 years doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future.

Then again, as smart as they are, Jews have a nasty habit of overplaying their hand.

The WSJ should sack Mr Stephens for reheating ancient anti-Semitic tropes about dual loyalty.

Worse, I don’t think he even suggested dual loyalty. As they say, that’d be an improvement.

Jewish children are clearly raised to automatically distrust (and feel contempt for) all gentiles, but to disguise that distrust and contempt, expecting and approving other Jews’ always projecting misleading, self-serving narratives.

Examples of how they are raised to distrust and feel contempt for all Gentiles? And to disguise those sentiments?

He uses the old rhetorical trick of adding an irrelevant and exaggerated anachronistic quote to try to discredit the accurate present picture

How is it exaggerated?

To paraphrase Steve’s line ‘it’s always 1939 for some people.’

Or 1933.

Where Stephens goes wrong is proposing that it is a conspiracy in any strict sense – it’s conducted in the open and there is ample evidence for each and every element of it. Hillary’s open borders for the Americas and common market speech isn’t extraordinary in a way because it’s what they’re already doing in fact.

So in effect he’s just describing something readily observable and then proposing like the Great OZ behind the curtain that we all ignore what our eyes can see.

They have the chair or two powerful committees, which are elected by MP vote, in Hilary Benn (well right of his father) and Yvonne Cooper.

Both are non-Gentiles?

Power means the right of paranoia

Stalin accused his victims of paranoia

To that point Trump is scheduled to speak at Gettysburg tomorrow and make some big positive speech forward. It’s amusing to watch the Trump hating media baffled about this move when it’s clear as day what he’s trying to do.

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people ”

versus

government of the people, by the plutocrats (elected by foreigners and the fringes), for the plutocrats and their allies

And now we have Donald Trump versus what Laura Ingraham calls “the globalist cabal”—the latest enemy from without, within. In a speech Thursday in West Palm Beach the GOP presidential nominee painted a picture of a “global power structure” centered around Hillary Clinton that aims to “plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty” while stepping on the necks of American workers with open borders and ruinous trade deals.

While Stephens is warning off the readers of the WSJ from falling for right-populist anti-globalist and conspiracy rhetoric (which he indicates carries anti-Semitic tropes), it is worth recalling that the left is replete with conspiracy rhetoric regarding “the Ruling Class”, “Imperialism”, “the Patriarchy”, “systemic racism”, “rape culture”, “gun culture”, widespread “homophobia”, and on and on. Was Bernie Sanders’ bashing of Wall Street, the Bankers, and the 1% also dog whistling anti-Semitic tropes?

BTW, am I alone in considering Stephen’s conflating of Stormfront with the Alt Right (no matter that Stormfront may be happy to do it themselves) an exercise in tarring folks like Steve or Derb with the 1488 brush? Are HBD or immigration criticism gateway drugs to Neo-Nazism? I’d be interested in Steve’s take on this.

Yup.

That’s Stephen Kinnock’s missus.
Neil’s brat.
Plum EU jobs, plum ‘charity’ jobs, plum City jobs, plum political jobs.
Pork with gravy with plum sauce., to mix metaphors – not kosher, but nice.

‘Corbyn’ .
No hint of the James Coburns, more sanctimonious high school geography teacher.

WRONG in EVERY way to say “Jewish” … But RIGHT IN EVERY WAY TO SAY UPPER CLASS.

This cannot be emphasized enough. To the extent that the Commentariat is Jewish, that is merely a function of them also being Upper Class.

Its like the correlation between ice cream sales in Chicago with murders. Eating a cone of Double Pistachio does not cause murders, rather hot weather causes people to be out in the streets. Shooting each other or eating ice cream.

Upper Class people are ENTIRELY like Hillary. They have a “secret position” and a public one. Going back to the noble lie, that the Platonic idealists encompassed, or Orwell’s Inner Party, the contradiction between public idiot pieties that are are flat out false and wrong in every respect and secret reality has been too much. They are cracking up.

But Stephens words could be repeated, almost word for word, by Hillary. Or Jeb Bush. Or Mitt Romney. People born and raised in the Upper Class. Howard Stern is a liberal guy, but he’s both working class and a man without a private secret set of beliefs (much like Trump there) and a phony set of public ones.

Muslim immigration in ANY degree is bad for Jews. For Catholics (see Father Hamel in Normandy). For Christians generally. It is GOOD for the Upper Class. They get to see proxy thugs making their eternal enemies, the lower classes, suffer. They get to prance around like Lindsay Lohan, who wants you to know that Islam is “awesome” and she loves the Koran, and is in Turkey wearing a head scarf planning to marry some millionaire attached to Erdogan.

Look at Simon Kuper of the FT. He’s as Upper Class as it gets. Yes, Jewish. That’s not the important part. Its the massive upper class family connections to power and influence that got him as a no talent dullard hired at the FT. He lives in Paris, and finds things wonderful. Because he lives in a guarded, wealthy enclave not a working class or even middle class place filled with assaulting Muslims and Africans. The guy has moved around a lot: Rhodesia, South Africa, the Netherlands, UK, France.

And what does that spell? M-O-N-E-Y. It takes money, and a whole lot of it, to move around like that. I could not afford it and I make OK money.

We have a global Western Upper Class. It is infected with Calvinist Doctrines of the Saved (Upper Class) and damned (the rest of us), pre-ordained by Fate or something. It is further made worse by feminism and the massive disinvestment in genetic and financial assets (kids and property) by upper class women who tend to the Lindsay Lohan side rather than the proper Matriarch obsessed with her kids advancement and holding on to the estate.

[Hint: Lots and lots of Third World Muslims, Africans, and Latin Americans are bad for property holders, like Trump; but no risk at all to the financial global mobile oligarchs like Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. Its easy to seize Trump Towers, they can't be moved. Try seizing Zuckerberg's globally mobile stock.]

For various reasons, I think UKIP are here to stay. Anyway, we need them to ‘police’ the brexit and stop any backsliding.

Lately many forces have been talking UKIP down and ‘confidently’ predicting their demise.
They are doing this because it suits their purposes.

Exactly. For real life cases see France and the U.K. (It’s worse in France, might be related to the apparent higher percent Muslim (a state secret in France for some bizarre reason).

Anyway, one of the silly pieces of legislation the late unlamented David Cameron passed (he slipped out of parliament’s back entrance like a nasty smell, yesterday) was the ‘Fixed Term Parliaments Act’ which prevents sitting PMs from calling General Elections to ‘play the advantage’ but rather forces them to sit out the full five years.
No doubt the Act was conceived in a fit of pique following New Labour’s dominance of politics 15 years ago.
Now, it seems foolish and regrettable.

Would it make him feel better if we started saying, “We are against the globalist cabal, except the Jews.”?

American Jews shouldn’t have to re-live the 1930s . . .

Maybe the (((globalist elite))) should have been more careful about creating a Weimar America if they wanted not to relive the 1930s.

That certainly comes as a surprise to me. In my experience, becoming an “influencer” is almost completely about being “social” (the rest is about where you went to school). It’s certainly not talent that makes the opinion shaper.

“We do believe that something bad happened to Jackie,” he told the court. But “we have no idea what it was.”

psssst…….running into Sabrina Rubin Erdely…..that was the “Bad Thing” the happened to Jackie.

Now, why in the Hell would hearing about a “global power structure” that aims “to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty make that writer think of “the Jews”? It doesn’t even make sense! How can just 2% of the population have any such influence? Only some Nazi could think such a thing. Man alive!

Bret Stephens has indeed had a stellar career and I wonder if his trajectory is due to his less sparkling stuff getting through irrespective of merit. He needs to run his stuff by someone with the Jew-to Jew confidence and authority to reign him in. I think the European gentiles-as-irrational-persecutors angle dissuades non Jewish higher editorial staff from being more critical of such pieces. As a result of (what I’m presuming has been) a hands-off on Stephens’s white-gentile-persecutors stuff he went further each time. But now the establishment that is virtually 100 percent against Trump is encouraging such pieces and Stevens is happy to oblige.

He thinks the biggest problem facing Israel is Iranian nuclear weapons, and a nuclear threat from Hillary is the answer. No, it’s the Arabs in the West Bank, and Hillary articulating the elite’s settled policy has publicly said they will have to be given the West bank for a (another) Palestinian state. Trump as president would let Israel solve that problem (why right wing Jews support him), but I suppose Stephens’s career would not go so well if he stopped being a tool of the US establishment in their house magazine.

“For Charles Lindbergh it was ‘war agitators,’ notably those of ‘the Jewish race.’”

Shut up, a-hole. One paragraph in, and I know not to pay attention to anything you say.

By the way, you’d think they’d catch on and stop justifying Lindbergh by relentlessly hounding him, decade after decade, for daring to mention Jewish influence. It’s almost as if he was right, or something.

OMG, listen to that Nazi! I can’t even. Wow, just wow. Let’s defame him for 80 years.

“I think Jews or people with significant Jewish antecedents like Bret Stephens need to admit that many of them are internationalists… at their core…

…they aren’t alone. Many new immigrant groups don’t have any particular connection to America…

…The more people like Bret deny this the more of a backlash they’ll receive.”

Yes, one of the good things about the current American Open Society is, given a little time, you get to see how people actually are, not what they say about who they are.

So, according to Stephens, the subject of discussion is never the real subject–it’s always a cover for what everybody’s really thinking about: the Jews. To discuss immigration is really to discuss the Jews. To discuss trade policy–it’s clearly just about the Jews. American political corruption: Jews again. Media bias: Jews. Increasing plutocratic power: the Jews and always the Jews.

The paranoia on display is embarrassing. Or is this wild speculation and accusation a manifestation of guilt? Of having been caught out pushing the Culture Critique a little too far, too fast?

Somewhat OT:

Did anyone see Woody Allen’s latest flick, Cafe Society? Jesse Eisenberg just does a Woody Allen impression the whole time, and it’s fantastic.

You don’t think he’s a jewish nationalist?

“Bashar Assad has done little more than offer lip service against Israel. He withdrew from Lebanon, and was willing to cooperate with the US for rendition (torture).”

Incidently Assad and Syria were on the US side during the Gulf War and part of the US Coalition of the Gulf War that liberated Kuwait.

Of course, Assad, an enemy of Saddam, might have wanted to assure a seat at the table if there was a possibility of Iraq being carved up.

Interestingly, Syria may have been willing to attack Iraq by itself over Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait:

Gulf War, background:

“…In early July 1990, Iraq complained about Kuwait’s behavior… not respecting their quota, and openly threatened to take military action. On the 23rd, the CIA reported that Iraq had moved 30,000 troops to the Iraq-Kuwait border…

…Saddam believed an anti-Iraq conspiracy was developing… Iraq’s rival Syria had arranged a visit to Egypt…

…Upon review by the Secretary of Defense, it was found that Syria indeed planned a strike against Iraq in the coming days.…

…Baker traveled to Syria to discuss its role in the crisis with its President Hafez Assad. Assad had a deep personal enmity towards Saddam, which was defined by the fact that “Saddam had been trying to kill him [Assad] for years”…

…Assad… impressed with Baker’s diplomatic initiative to visit Damascus (relations had been severed since the 1983 bombing of US Marine barracks in Beirut), Assad agreed to pledge up to 100,000 Syrian troops to the coalition effort. This was a vital step in ensuring Arab states were represented in the coalition…”

We have always been at war with Oceania, we were at war with Oceania before we were at war with Oceania. Always remember that. We are an eternal enemy of Assad, he is pure evil, worse than a thousand Hitlers, we can’t possible share the same planet with him. Everyone knows these things.

Re: Mr. Stephens seems to have had a pretty kick-ass career

Yes, by carefully avoiding in any way anything resembling independent thought or original research.

These are the words of a political hack parroting the party line.

Unfortunately, this is increasingly how one succeeds in the present climate.

It’s no longer the republic of letters; it’s the cartel of letters.

It makes a lot of sense from an Israeli perspective.

“Hi, Maury. This is Bubbe. I was just calling to remind you that if you marry that shiksa, you’ll be on your honeymoon and your mother and I will be sitting shiva. So think about that before you throw your life away. I’ll repeat this message every twenty minutes until you dump her.”

Maury doesn’t have the nerve to block his Bubbe. He lets her calls go to voicemail.

Off-topic, but I see Common [sic] Cause is celebrating the fact that over 200 million Americans are now registered to vote in comparison to the 146 million people who were registered for the 2008 election.

Question: is this dead people and illegal immigrants being registered by the Democrats or disaffected white people coming out to vote for Trump?

I guess we’ll know in just over two weeks…

Is there a reason that Stephens spells “complete” as “compleat”? Is he just trying to be twee?

And just to make sure that we don’t get any wrong ideas about people from a particular tribe having an undue amount of power over us, a well-connected, influential member of that tribe lectures us from his position at one of the country’s most prestigious and influential media outlets.

Message received – nothing to see here.

Mood Affiliation + Victimhood Culture + High IQ Aptitude at Ex Post Rationalization

In the past 6 months we’ve really seen some incredible mental gymnastics justifying why “no, no, no, this is why Trump will actually persecute *my group* the most.” I’m actually kind of sad we only have a few more weeks of this election.

I feel like state of the art has nearly reached the point where authors make these conclusions while entirely foregoing any actual specific references to Trump at all. The field of formal logic may actually lose out on some potential breakthroughs when election mania is over.

Being on Trump’s secret genoice list has become a pretty trendy marker of status in America’s more cosmopolitan corners. Particularly so as his currently abysmal poll numbers make said persecution nearly hypothetical at this point.

Because it does not “dwarf any previous venture”, as mentioned.

BTW, shouldn’t you change your handle to “Questionator”?

“WRONG in EVERY way to say “Jewish” … But RIGHT IN EVERY WAY TO SAY UPPER CLASS.”

One can almost see the spittle spewing out of Whiskey’s mouth has he furiously pounds away on his keyboard IN ALL CAPS!!!!!

We get it Whiskey – how you born fightin’ “scots-irish” guys just can’t bear to see poor down-trodden underdogs defamed. It must all be the work of those WASP Harvard grads who control Hollywood.

But let us not ignore that Stephens is deeply uncertain about the conservative Jews.

How many “conservative Jews” are there really? From where I’m standing the Jewish shadow government is getting pretty long in the tooth and for the most part are exactly the same people who egged on the Iraq war 15 years ago. They aren’t looking like they have too many successors and the best they can muster are such intellectual heavyweights as Jamie Kirchick and Ben Shapiro. I suspect that Stepehens, much like the Brezhnev-era Politburo, sees the cold abyss ahead of him and wants to do all he can until them.

I almost mentioned this as an exception to my statement, but you are right that if someone invested their whole career in Labour, they are not going to suddenly abandon it because of Corbyn, and instead will plot to get rid of him in the long run. (Might be a very long time, it is obvious he will never be PM, yet his supporters don’t care and their share of the party keeps growing).

There will be a devastating loss of financial and volunteer support among the ranks. Labour has managed the neat trick of simultaneously losing over the past two years a large part of its WWC and upscale supporters.

If it sounds as if Stephens is off his rocker, that could be because he is. Perhaps not known to the diaspora of white collar knowledge workers and sensitive types nodding their heads along to this scary campfire tale/Reichstag-porn, he’s distinguished himself at various times for anti-social pointless rancor even among his fellow New York editorial attack dogs (I think at some level this must be his objective). Imagine Ted Cruz but without the aw-shucks tweak. Mostly he seems to pick fights & lose them with “media reporters” — strange for a guy who babbles so much about strategy and leadership brio… Though a pre-Murdoch employee at the WSJ, as the bio shows he’s spent his entire working life in the News Corp archipelago.

Didn’t Monica Lewinsky have a master’s from the LSE?

Has anyone here seen this Trump-bashing commercial? I saw it while flipping through the football games earlier this afternoon.

It seems it’s been out for a while, but today was the first time I saw it. The two Trump-bashing commercials that get the most airtime around here are a) the one with the depressed-looking teenage girls and b) the one with the children. “Oh, my, Trump is setting such an awful example! Think of the children!”

Anyway … when I saw the “Silo” commercial, I could not restrain myself. I began screaming, “Hillary’s the fucking warmonger! She wants to go to war with Russia! If Hillary gets elected, we’re going to have a nuclear war with Russia! This is bullshit!”

I had to turn off the TV. I know I shouldn’t let these things get to me – everything in the media is 100% 24/7 anti-Trump – but that one commercial really pissed me off.

Hillary is the one who wants to bomb the living daylights out of half the world, not Trump.

Thanks for mentioning the act limiting snap elections. Oddly, there is UK press speculation about it. I guess the idea is that the law still allows it under two circumstances:

1. Two-thirds vote in favor
2. Vote of no-confidence.

For #2, May is very popular, but she could have a vote of no confidence in bad faith to get a snap election.

For #1, basically every party would gain or break even in a snap election at the expense of Labour. Labour, however, currently has more than 1/3 of Commons, just barely. And I don’t think Labour MPs hate him so much they would want to see 40% of them lose their seats to pointlessly spite him.

Finally, couldn’t she just have a majority vote to repeal the law?

Because they believe the utter nonsense that they are “God’s chosen people.” Any ethnic group that believes that about themselves can justify anything.

That is why they feel no shame in constantly writing about what is best for the Jews, but if a white person ponders what might be best for the very people who fought to create this once great nation, that person is smeared as a hateful bigot.

I’m ashamed to say that I can barely read the news these last couple months. It just puts me in a a horrible mood. Almost every headline about the election is an attack on Trump or his supporters, and they’re quite often dishonest/disingenuous.

That tweet from Yglesias about packs of people being allowed to beat up Jews and minorities is the epitome. It’s actually respectable these days to believe that Trump would end the rule of law in the United States.

I’m certainly still voting for Trump. Part of the point of the relentless news cycle is to depress his supporters. I’ve just had to go dark from mainstream media sites and social media for a couple of months. I recommend it to others.

re: the blondie Danish ex-PM who’s married to the MP and currently making quango mischief — as I understand, she grew up in a haute-middle-class but suburban (read: non-activist) household, then got inspired in college by the idea of an international-progressive boot stamping on deplorables’ faces forever; later came a TV drama show depicting a “strong” female head of state, thus laying the groundwork for trying an approximation of that in real life. Anyway it vaguely reminds me of what’s going on in a different country.

French police continue to deal with the immigrant crime wave and assaults on the gendarmes. Striking and other ways of trying to communicate with the press and the public continue. What is curious, or not, is the lack of reporting on the issues in the US press. That could be due to a twofer: ongoing anti-French sentiment after their resistance to the Iraq/WMD fiasco (remember Freedom Fries!) and the inconvenient narrative about some of members of the peaceful families seeking a better life (cue kid on beach, or in rubble, or anywhere).

When will Houllebecq have another book published!

He normally writes like that. i.e. ominous/hallucinatory with a sort of sullen-televangelist flavor

For example, this bizarro-classic of B.S. artistry from June 2010, “Afghanistan: Eyes Wide Shut” (can read via Google News if the link hits WSJ paywall):

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703964104575335103325554236

“Perhaps the job-secure Gen. Petraeus could press the administration to stop talking about withdrawal schedules and start using the word ‘victory’ with frequency and conviction. Or perhaps the general could, in his usual politic way, speak that way himself. Doing so would reassure our remaining Afghan friends and deter importuning outsiders. It might steady the unsteady Mr. Karzai. Above all, it would persuade the Afghans whose support we need that they won’t soon find themselves on the wrong end of a Taliban firing squad for having once sided with us.”

I’d note that not one person on the National Review masthead or “Fox News All-Star Panel” was extolling such delusional prospects for Afghanistan at the time. The neo-futurismo Johns Hopkins keyboard commandos had taken to dumping on Rumsfeld while touting the wonder-working power of surge-king Petraeus– OOPS…

The Blairites aka anti-Corbynites include people of all faiths (and ethnicities), as I said in my comment. But it’s rare (in fact I can’t think of one – can anyone?) to find Jewish Labour MPs supporting Corbyn.

My point to Lot was that I don’t see mass Jewish abandonment of Labour. The struggle against Corbyn will be an internal Labour Party fight. There won’t be a devastating loss of volunteer support cos of all the new members (although many are Millennnials more used to retweets than pushing leaflets through doors), but there will be a hit as big donors withhold donations.

> [T]here is ample evidence for each and every element of it.

FTA:

> Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit.

You’re overselling your case. There is no firm evidence that banks and the media explicitly collaborate in any way. If it that was the case, we’d see a good degree of unusually inter-tangled business ties. It’s not like publicly traded multi-billion companies don’t have extensive records of their ownership and management. We’d expect to see major Keiretsu-style cross-holdings, or at least major common shareholders. We’d also expect to see it be quite common for executives from one sector to move to another. Wake me up when Lloyd Blankfein is named the next editor of the NYT. Overall banking and media are not anymore inter-tangled than any other random pair of industries in the US economy.

Yes, bankers and members of the media do often share quite common political opinions. At least when normalized to the median American. But that’s because each industry is disproportionately made up of wealthy, educated, coastal professionals. The same political opinions are widely held by pretty much every other cosmopolitan, educated, coastal professional. Regardless of whether they’re bankers, journalists, professors, doctors, lawyers or software engineers.

The reality is far more depressing than the conspiracy fantasies. If there was a cabal using their vast resources to manipulate public opinion, victory seems quite achievable. Stage a political uprising, a la Trump, and expose and castrate the few maestros at the top. Instead political trends ebb and flow in ways that are no more centrally orchestrated than high fashion. The march of political leftism is driven by the distributed cultural consensus of millions. Absent direct occupation and political re-education of New York, San Francisco and LA (a la the post-war occupation of Germany), there’s no silver bullet here.

But Stephens words could be repeated, almost word for word, by Hillary. Or Jeb Bush. Or Mitt Romney. People born and raised in the Upper Class.

First, there is no question that the piece is more effective because it comes from a Jew. No politician actually has ever explicitly said anything like that because none would dare make such majority-as-proto-nazi accusations openly and moreover it would not be very convincing unless they were Jewish. Jeb went no further than saying the ways Mexicans were better. I think that like Erderly, being Jewish means Stephens gets far more leeway, from non Jews at least.

Also, in this case he is a hit man of the establishment with a licence for extremism in the defence of it, but not just another part of it. The non Jewish elite want Jews writing like that about Trump’s potential voters (non elite whites).Stephens had written such stuff before Trump, though not as extreme in its distrust and loathing of the majority non elite. I think many Jews would be likely to advise Stevens to tone it down, but that he is Jewish and writing such an attack piece is probably not a coincidence. Stephens’s function is to be an ideological Pittsburgh Phil, which he is temperamentally suited for. He enjoys his work.

In the 50s, smoking out Soviet communists was a ‘plot against America’.

Today, working for peace with Russia(no longer communist) is a ‘plot against America’.

Agreed. Pretty breathtakingly brazen. It suggests to me an incredible level of arrogance and contempt for the livelihood of others.

In fairness, there are quite a few conspiracy theorists on the populist right, and some of them do have crazy views on some issues. I know a working class Australian Trump supporter who believes the world is flat and the moon landings never happened. This stuff is pretty embarrassing for those of us on the populist right who do have sensible opinions.

However, the Clintonite neoliberals have kind of undermined their credibility on conspiracy theories with their desperate claims about Trump being in league with Russia (evidence please). You can’t complain about conspiracy theorists being unfit for government when you’re in the process of making up your own conspiracy theories.

It’s also amusing that Trump and his supporters apparently fail to realize that going to Gettysburg right before the election as a relative underdog also calls to mind Pickett’s Charge.

Actually, he referred to the “Daily Stormer”, which I–and I dare say most alt-Righters–have never heard of. And yes it was another dirty little rhetorical trick.

On the other hand, he scored a bit of an own-goal by saying a Trump presidency would have Pat Buchanan as an intellectual godfather and Ann Coulter as high priestess. What’s not to like?

It isn’t like his most loyal aide had a comically Jewish name like Roy Cohn either.

So, Hillary’s the “real conservative” because she’s willing to bomb Iran and Syria…

Stay away! It’s actually a piece of crap, with mixed —at best— reviews. Eisenberg has zero charisma —in this and in everything else that I’ve seen with him in a leading role— and there is zero sexual magnetism between him and his main love object, played by the equally uncharismatic Kristen Stewart.

The Eisenberg character is such a beta nebbish, the weakest plot construct is that somehow after being his hotshot Hollywood agent uncle’s —played OK by an almost unrecognizable Steve Carrell— go-fer, he somehow evolves into the role of successfully fronting running a mobbed-up NY nightclub founded and more or less still commanded by his psycho killer brother (who somehow or other is equally unbelievably converted to Catholicism before finally getting The Chair at Sing Sing).

On the other hand, Blake Lively was pretty good, although what she saw in the Eisenberg character escapes me (she marries him and settles into blissful motherhood). Liveley’s really at the top of her form, though, in the Shallows, where she goes mano-a-mano with a great white shark. Go see that instead. Trust me.

I’m not a Woody Allen hater, and thought that while Midnight in Paris was at least as execrable at Cafe Society (the Allen character there being played —bizarrely— by Owen Wilson), Blue Jasmine was a brilliant film by a director at the absolute top of his form. Fantastic cast, fantastic performances; especially by Cate Blanchett, who’s almost always great (although assuredly not so in the last Indiana Jones rehash, which is truly an embarrassing POS for all involved).

Can’t quite understand, why Tennessee Williams got no screen credits at all, IIRC, since Blue Jasmine was only a thinly re-written adaptation of A Streetcar Named Desire (in which, Blanchett also played the lead in a recent revival).

Well, see, it’s the paranoid anti-Semites who are bringing it all on. The paranoid anti-Semites obsess about the Jews, prompting the Jews to obsess about the … Jews. But the very notion that Jews are worth obsessing about is nothing more than a paranoid anti-Semitic fantasy. So the goyim are to blame for Jewish self-obsession – and everything else.

In other words, we goyim should go off and play football, or work on our pickup trucks, or do whatever it is we’re supposed to be doing, while the Jews … do nothing that the goyim need to worry about. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

Hey, Dancing with the Stars is on!

Manifestation of guilt

Done.

It may as well be. The white nationalists have almost completely taken over the Alt-Right.

They could’ve opposed the international left under a big tent with numerous allies, but through chauvinism and general offensiveness the white men have decided to go it alone. It won’t end well.

“But Stephens words could be repeated, almost word for word, by Hillary. Or Jeb Bush. Or Mitt Romney.”

Or any number of other gentile politicians who depend on wealthy Jews for campaign contributions and political support.

Yeah, what point was it that you were making again?

“It may as well be. The white nationalists have almost completely taken over the Alt-Right.”

The “Alt-Right” is and has always been white nationalists. It was created by them. You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions about what it is.

“It’s also amusing that Trump and his supporters apparently fail to realize that going to Gettysburg right before the election as a relative underdog also calls to mind Pickett’s Charge.” Lee wasn’t the underdog at Gettysburg.

For Jews to relive the 1930s wouldn’t it all start off with the top dogs being murdered by their master, a psychopathic Communist tyrant, himself the leader of the very cause to which they had devoted their entire adult lives?

He notes that Hillary had called for bombing Iran’s nuclear sites.Is this an indication of anything besides her congenital stupidity??

The “Alt-Right” is and has always been white nationalists. It was created by them. You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions about what it is.

Not true. The Alt Right are American nationalists, first and foremost.

It may as well be. The white nationalists have almost completely taken over the Alt-Right.

You are hallucinating. Neither Ricky Vaughn nor Heartiste nor Vendetta nor Pax Dickinson nor Mike Cernovich nor Steve Sailer are white nationalists.

“What did Dr. Johnson say about patriotism? Something about “the last refuge of scoundrels”?

Add “racism” and “anti-Semitism” to the list”

This is a very widely misused and misunderstood quote. It is not meant as a bad reflection on patriotism that scoundrels use it as a refuge. In fact, it can be seen to have quite the reverse implication: scoundrels do not naturally gravitate towards patriotism as a refuge because scoundrels are not patriotic, thus it is their last refuge when all other preferred options are exhausted.

Stephens is a typical overeducated rich spoiled brat who has never gotten his hands dirty, has no experience outside the elitist bubble and simply as doesn’t know dick about anything that matters. Whether Trump wins or loses the one good outcome is his species is about to go extinct. Good luck getting anyone to pay for such nonsense. Get thee to your neocon think tank to babble days on end about free markets and enterprise zones, though who will pay for such expertise after this.

Conservatism at it’s core if it’s about anything is about conserving something that matters. America, perhaps?

The reality is far more depressing than the conspiracy fantasies. If there was a cabal using their vast resources to manipulate public opinion, victory seems quite achievable. Stage a political uprising, a la Trump, and expose and castrate the few maestros at the top. Instead political trends ebb and flow in ways that are no more centrally orchestrated than high fashion. The march of political leftism is driven by the distributed cultural consensus of millions.

Agreed.

How much of the public perception is a result of media distortion?

Right-wing whack jobs’ conspiracy theories are written off as right-wing whack jobs (and proof positive the right-wing is filled with whack jobs).

Clintonite neoliberal conspiracy claims of Trump being in league with Russia are given the time of day, and considered, even if speculative, as a possibility.

Interesting nuance that I wasn’t aware of. Thanks for clarifying for us.

“Liveley’s really at the top of her form, though, in the Shallows, where she goes mano-a-mano with a great white shark. Go see that instead. Trust me.”

I turned Shallows off after about 45 minutes I was so bored, and Blake Lively is not that hot. YMMV.

Trump’s also been a frequent guest on Savage’s show.

Savage and Hannity deserve respect for being ahead of the curve on Trumpism.

Marries his teen stepdaughter? Molests another stepdaughter? Alienates his own son?

Hear, hear! Well said.

The “something bad” that happened to Jackie is that she began her descent into schizophrenia.

Who to blame?

Who to blame?

It’s almost as if money in terms of government spending doesn’t mean anything anymore.

Nope. Assad and his father before him gave us nearly 50 years of (relative) quiet. Initially, the Syrian rebels (whoever they were) claimed that they were fighting the Assad regime for being too soft on Israel.

doesn’t know dick

Yes, but he and the other Trump-bashing cucks know how to handle one when it’s dangling in front of them, don’t they?

Someone – it was either here or on Heartiste (I don’t comment there, but I do lurk every now and then) – posted a series of photos showing that Teddy Roosevelt’s male descendants have grown less rugged-looking and more effete with each passing generation. The latest one has a definite case of gay face. The poster’s implication was that our estrogen-polluted environment has produced a banner crop of low-testosterone men who are only too happy to vote for Hillary.

Interesting Post.

Nope. Assad and his father before him gave us nearly 50 years of (relative) quiet.

If only Israel’s objective were relative quiet.

For my money, an America run by Charles Lindbergh would have been a far better America.

Agree.

That’s to be expected from Savage, but Hannity absolutely surprised me.

The Un-Interesting Post is the one in Washington that keeps shilling for Hillary.

The New York one is pretty boring these days, as well, although it has punchier headlines. “Headless Body in Topless Bar” is an all-time classic, although my personal favorite is “Ike Beats Tina to Death” – i.e., Ike died before Tina.

We need to start working on our contemptuous nicknames for the Pantsuit Wearer, don’t we? Shillary … Shrillary … BluePillary … the Pillsbillary Doughillary Womyn.

(Womyn is marked as incorrect, with a red line underneath … they won’t let that stand, Steve. You’d better update the spelling checker.)

Mr. Water-of-Life, is correct. It’s elites vs whatever they’re currently calling the rest of us (white trash, deplorables, irredeemables, etc). The U.S. has a rich history of elite fruitcakes (see Transcendentalism). Certainly, the train-of-state was off-the-tracks when the 18th amendment was ratified (maybe not quite the result of an elitist movement but not very far from one either). Elitism is not a “new thing” but it is, perhaps, allowed to grow strong in a well regulated society.

Yeah, I know this is at the intellectual level of Marco Rubio but it’s been a long day and a fool speaks when he’s got to say something…

A minor irony: Stephens’ old boss, circa 2002 @ the Jerusalem Post would have been then Hollinger CEO, Conrad Black, now a notable Trump supporter. The overarching tragedy of Stephens’ smear is his total lack of self awareness. He lacks any sense of noblesse oblige or empathy towards the base of the GOP, or towards the working class whites who have suffered the most through 30 yrs of ‘Invade the World, Invite the World’ policy. There was a great opportunity to co-opt a degree of nationalism into the big GOP tent after Bush I, but when the neocons had total control of GOP leadership & media by the late 90s, they were too greedy, & wouldn’t compromise. I had thought most would have a change of heart after the 2015 middle eastern migrant crisis, but only a few have seen the error of their old ways. The psychology of previous investment remains too great.

Astute.

TR: “Bully”
HRC: “Bitchy”

** Shooting each other or eating ice cream **

Why does it have to be either/or?

That was indeed striking.

TR was a sickly child but one who sought out physical challenges once able.

TR No. V looks like a bespoke dildo salesman.

There must be something to this.

“Not true. The Alt Right are American nationalists, first and foremost.”

That’s not my take on it. Whom do you consider to be “Alt-Right”?

“purports”

Even @NPR had to cover the @PVeritas_Action videos! Must have been tough for them to do. https://t.co/uFOiAK1XOW

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 22, 2016

“That’s to be expected from Savage, but Hannity absolutely surprised me.”

After the election in 2012, Hannity jumped on board the “we alienated the hispanics – we need to reach out to them” bandwagon and, as a result, his ratings dropped precipitously, just as Megyn Kelly’s ratings have dipped sharply since she came to be perceived as anti-Trump. Hannity’s viewership must differ in some from that of O’Reilly – perhaps it’s younger. I have heard that the median age of an O’Reilly viewer is about 70. Maybe old folks like him because he speaks with exagerated s-l-o-w-n-e-s-s and c-l-a-r-i-t-y, as if he’s speaking to an audience in an old folks home, which – to a large extent – he is.

“Yes, but he and the other Trump-bashing cucks know how to handle one when it’s dangling in front of them, don’t they?”

Stephens isn’t a cuck. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why.

Now if one of us Deplorables was to write that it is Jews leading the NeverTrump movement, we would be declared dangerous anti-Semites. But it seems to be fine for Jews to brag about it whether in Jewish publications or mainstream media.

No, it’s that American nationalism (or any nationalism other than Zionism) is a dealbreaker for neocons. They are in the business of Zionism. Therefore any other nationalism is a rival, a threat.

Is Conrad Black someone who thinks he is jewish?