Thursday, November 10, 2016

885 Deplorables 1 Banksters 0

Deplorables 1 Banksters 0

Newsletter published on 10 November 2016

From: "Israel Shamir [shamireaders]"
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 21:24:37 +0200
Subject: [shamireaders] Congrats, folks! by Israel Shamir

Congratulations, Folks!

Israel Shamir

November 9, 2016

What could be better than waking up in time to witness the last few
minutes of the historic race between the Champion of Deplorables and the
Best Friend of Banksters, and to see Trump emerging victorious! Thank
you, Lord, for allowing me to see these scenes at all and especially in
sunny Jerusalem where I am now, and thank you, our American friends, for
achieving this victory. You were not scared when they called you "racist
rednecks", you did not despair when the CNN said (yesterday) that
Clinton had a 96% chance of winning. You did not sat down with a bottle
of beer, you still went to the booths and voted, God bless you.

And thank you those who voted against Trump. Ex-Pres. Bush said he did
not vote for Trump – why, this news made my day! I am so happy that we
do not owe anything, not a single vote in the victory, to the warring
Bushmen. It would be embarrassing to find oneself in the same camp as
the Butcher of Iraq. John McCain tried to knife Trump, didn’t endorse
him – this is also good news. The FBI boss submitted to pressure and
supported Clinton instead of adhering to the law: good riddance!

God bless you, my colleagues and editors of the truly great independent
American media, Ron Unz of, Jeffrey St Clair of Counterpunch,
Justin Raimondo of! By attacking the corrupted mainstream
media, you preserved the dignity and the meaning of our profession, you
delivered analysis and opinions to the thinking working men of America.

God bless you, Julian Assange of Wikileaks, in the windowless room in
the Ecuadorian embassy in London! You did so much by publishing the
documents nobody dared to touch. Without you, the American people would
not know of the evil stratagems in the DNC, of the Podesta plots. You
unmasked their plans. These discoveries will provide much material to
tomorrow’s media. Let President Donald Trump pardon Julian, for all he
did, he did for us, in the great battle against the evil globalizers.
And while he’s at it, let him pardon Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning,
let them go home in honour.

Today, mankind has avoided a great danger. We peered into the abyss of
Armageddon and quickly moved away. Now the world can fix its many
problems. The Middle East wars will soon be over. With defeat of the
Daesh Queen Hillary, the fanatic rebels will leave Aleppo for their
bases in the Arabian desert and allow Syrians to rebuild their beautiful
land. Let Saudis feed and house the ISIS gangs, perhaps they will be
useful camel riders. There is enough space in Saudi Arabia for all the
jihadis, let them go there and stay there.

Friendship with Russia will disarm the other source of danger, Eastern
Europe. The NATO warmongers will retire to cultivate cucumbers. Estonia
will be safe, actually, safer without American tanks. The world does not
need so many weapons of mass destruction; the funds can be spent on
something better, like affordable medical care for the average
Americans. Or indeed infrastructure, as Trump mentioned.

Minority politics did not work. The women, the white women of America
gave their votes to Trump, despite being ordered to march with the
sisterhood of Madeleine Albright. US citizens of Mexican origin knew
they are being used by people who do not care for them: and they did not
bother to go and vote for Clinton.

What about the Jews? I’ll surprise you: despite many dark hints to the
contrary, Israelis were happy with Trump’s victory. The US citizens
living in Israel voted for Trump. Religious Jews (in Israel and in the
US) voted for Trump. There was a hysterical scream in the Jewish liberal
camp, among the gay parade Jews, or among financial Jews, but this is a
small though voluble part of Jewish population.

Indeed Hillary propaganda warriors claimed that all the Jews support
Clinton and are afraid of Trump. But not every Jewish woman is called
Janet Yellen; not every Jewish man is George Soros (who is very
unpopular in Israel) or the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein.
Conservative and observant Jews did not like the push against gender
normalcy that seems to be the favorite topic for Clinton camp.

Trump’s idea of a border wall is already a success in Israel: such a
wall has been built between Israel and Egypt’s Sinai. Before the wall
was built, tens of thousands of African job-seekers flooded Israel;
since the wall has been completed about one hundred plucky persons made
it. The liberals in Israel demanded to provide full rights to the
refugees from Eritrea and Sudan, who were housed in the poor Jewish
neighborhoods. There was a lot of aggravation, and the wall solved it all.

In short, the claim for "all the Jews" has been as false as the claim
for "all the women". One can expect that the Jews will produce a new
community leadership instead of the old one that had been tainted with
hatred to working class whites and to the Christian church. It is
possible: Jews are very flexible, and they usually know the difference
between what they want and what they can get.

The Palestinians I meet these days in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Ramallah
do not regret the Fall of the House of Clinton. They have gotten nothing
from the Democratic Presidents. They were obedient to AIPAC and quick to
veto every pro-Palestinian resolution. Is there a possible solution for
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Yes, this is called One State
Solution. Let Israel absorb all Palestinian territories and populations,
give them equal rights, as the Americans did to their minorities.
Provided the equal rights campaign in the US had been very popular with
American Jews, surely they will love to repeat it in Israel, too.

The Russians are flabbergasted with Trump’s victory. Yes, many of them
hoped and prayed for Trump, but practically all Russians I know of were
damn sure that Clinton would win despite the popular vote. After being
manipulated for years, the Russians had lost their belief in democratic
process. They were certain that the banks, the Pentagon, the Supreme
Court and the media will force Clinton’s election through. My friends in
the Russian pro-Kremlin media did not believe that in the US, people’s
will may prevail over the Masters of Discourse. Ye of small faith, I
told them, everything can happen if we want it. Now they learned that
not everything is "sxvacheno" (agreed and decided in advance).

Trump’s victory is the great triumph of democracy, the next after the
Brexit. Twice within one year, the people of England and America proved
they can achieve what they want, even if the globalizing elites of
bankers and media will stand against them. We can hope that the
elections in Europe will follow this new pattern of true democracy,
instead of the fake one practiced recently. France may be first to get
her Trump, Marine Le Pen.

If Clinton had won, there would be more transgender toilets, more
immigrants and more wars. Not much fun. Now we are entering the whole
new world of new ideas and deeds. There are hundreds of suggestions ripe
to be implemented. Donald Trump can borrow a leaf from Kennedy’s book
and immediately start a nation-wide discussion of what can be done.
Trump can harness the energy of the masses like has not been done for a
century. And yesterday’s betrayed Sandernistas can take a prominent
place in this transformation.

The interesting – and dangerous – part begins right now, after the
election. The New York Times has already proposed: "Trump can be a good
president. He just needs to forget most of what he said on the campaign
trail." What is good for the New York Times is bad for Trump’s voters
and supporters. We hope Trump will avoid the danger of being co-opted by
the people who besmirched him yesterday. Let him implement his ideas.
And let us help him to lead us into a better and newer world.

Israel Shamir can be reached at

This article was first published at The Unz Review.

884 Marine Le Pen next. White working-class rage

Marine Le Pen next.  White working-class rage

Newsletter published on 9 November 2016

(1) The (Rothschild) Economist contemplates a Le Pen Victory
(2) Le Pen congratulates Trump
(3) French Elite doubles its efforts to stop Marine Le Pen
(4) Farage Offers to be Trump's Ambassador to the EU

(1) The (Rothschild) Economist contemplates a Le Pen Victory

Does Donald Trump’s victory presage a win for Marine Le Pen? It remains
improbable. But it would be unwise to rule it out

Nov 9th 2016

What might be the knock-on effect in Europe of Donald Trump’s victory?
The next big democracy to vote after America is France, which holds its
presidential election next spring. Could Marine Le Pen, leader of the
populist National Front (FN), be elected president?

Before the American result, the question seemed absurd. Polls have
suggested for months that she would do well enough to secure one of the
two second-round places at voting next April. This in itself would be a
victory of sorts, repeating the achievement of her father, Jean-Marie Le
Pen, in 2002. But no polls have indicated that she could beat the
centre-right candidate likely to face her.

Now, the unthinkable has become conceivable. There was no disguising the
delight in Paris at the FN headquarters. A jubilant Ms Le Pen, who had
argued that a Trump victory would be good for France, congratulated the
American president-elect and praised the "free" American people. Her
lieutenant and party strategist, Florian Philippot, summed up the mood
at the FN: "Their world is collapsing; ours is being built." Even Mr Le
Pen, who has fallen out with his daughter, tweeted: "Today the United
States, tomorrow France!"

Certainly, the parallels between Ms Le Pen and Mr Trump are striking.
Both trade on simplified truths and build politics on rejection and
nostalgia. They have both reinvented themselves as anti-establishment
outsiders, who stand up for people forgotten by the system and scorned
by the elite. They speak to the same white working-class rage, use
similar vocabulary, and thrive each time the establishment sneers at
them. Drawing her own personal strength from the old industrial and
mining towns of northern France, which once voted Communist, Ms Le Pen
is now the favourite politician among French working-class voters.

Their policy instincts are similar too. Mr Trump and Ms Le Pen are both
protectionists and nationalists, supportive of Brexit and sympathetic to
Russia. The FN has borrowed money from a Russian bank with links to the
Kremlin, and Ms Le Pen has long admired Vladimir Putin. Pro-Europeans in
Paris are particularly concerned at the prospect of an alliance between
Mr Trump, Mr Putin and Ms Le Pen, bent on dividing the European Union
and undermining the old order. After the Brexit vote, the FN leader
promised a "Frexit" referendum in France too.

One difference is rhetorical excess. Ms Le Pen is in some ways a Trump
lite. She may share many of his reflexes, but wraps them up in more
cautious language. She has never, for instance, called for all Muslims
to be banned from France, but rather for an end to an "uncontrolled
wave" of immigration. She does not promise to build walls, but to
control borders. The problem, she says, is not Islam but what she calls
the "Islamification" of France.

In France, where Ms Le Pen is trying to transform a one-time pariah
movement with former neo-Nazi links into a credible political force
ready to govern, such nuances remain an asset. Ms Le Pen’s populism has
fewer rough edges than Mr Trump’s, and is all the more electorally
powerful for it. Even in France’s two-round system, which makes it
difficult for insurgent parties, her party has shown that it can win a
majority of votes locally. The FN now governs a dozen town halls across
France, mostly in the north and the Mediterranean fringe.

To win the two-round presidential election, however, Ms Le Pen would
have to break a glass ceiling. Empirically, this has capped her support,
both in opinion polls and at the ballot box, at just over 40%. A
majority of French voters on the left and centre-right, less wedded to
their political family than they are allergic to the FN, tend to gang up
to vote against it in a run-off, in what is known as a front
républicain. They did just this at regional elections in December 2015,
when Ms Le Pen won 44%, but failed to secure the presidency of northern
France, after Socialists, improbably, campaigned for the centre-right
candidate, Xavier Bertrand.

All polls suggest today that Ms Le Pen would similarly face—and lose—a
presidential run-off next year against the Republican candidate, who
will be picked at that party’s primary later this month. She would do
better in a contest with Nicolas Sarkozy, a frenetic former president,
against whom polls suggest she would win 42% of the vote, than she would
if she faced Alain Juppé, a professorial former prime minister, against
whom she would win 32%. Indeed, Mr Juppé has specifically campaigned for
left-wing voters disappointed with François Hollande’s Socialist
presidency to turn out at the Republican primary and vote for him, a
more palatable option for them than Ms Le Pen.

All of which assumes, however, that the polls are a reasonable guide to
voting intentions. Recent American and British experience now caution
against this. The sense of possibility that a victorious Mr Trump offers
Ms Le Pen will give her campaign fresh momentum, and perhaps embolden
her silent supporters. The more the media and political classes lament
the American result, the more she will play on the arrogance and
entitlement of the out-of-touch Paris elite. And, whether Mr Juppé or Mr
Sarkozy runs for president, her anti-establishment denunciation of the
unchanging cast of political old-timers will ring all too true. A Le Pen
victory may still be improbable. But it would be a grave mistake to rule
it out.

(2) Le Pen congratulates Trump

Wed Nov 9, 2016 | 2:56am EST

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen congratulates Donald Trump

France's far-right National Front party leader Marine Le Pen
congratulated Donald Trump on Wednesday as he looked set for a shock
victory in the U.S. presidential election.

"Congratulations to the new president of the United States Donald Trump
and to the free American people!" she said on Twitter.

Opinion polls show Le Pen likely to win the first round of French
presidential elections next year, but lose in the second round to
whoever should be her opponent.

Her father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen who reached the second round
of French presidential elections in 2002, added his voice.

"Today the United States, tomorrow France," he tweeted, while National
Front deputy leader Florian Philippot followed up with a tweet saying
"their world is crumbling. Ours is building."

France's National Front has been building support for its
anti-immigration, anti-European Union stance in recent years.

U.S. Republican nominee Trump was on Wednesday edging closer to winning
the White House with a series of shock wins in key states such as
Florida and Ohio, rattling world markets that had expected Democrat
Hillary Clinton to defeat the political outsider.

(Reporting by Andrew Callus and Ingrid Melander; Editing by Sudip Kar-Gupta)

(3) French Elite doubles its efforts to stop Marine Le Pen

France must face possibility of a 'President Marine Le Pen'

Published: 09 Nov 2016 13:28 GMT+01:00 Updated: 09 Nov 2016 13:28 GMT+01:00

After Donald Trump's earth-shaking win and Britain stunning the EU by
voting out, France must now accept the possibility far-right Marine Le
Pen could actually pull off a hat-trick of shocks in next year's French
presidential election.

Marine Le Pen congratulated Donald Trump on becoming the new president
of the United States long before the official results were in.

A sign that the leader of the populist far-right National Front party is
bouncing with confidence on Wednesday.

And you can’t blame her.

"Madame Frexit" as she dubbed herself, has already been given a huge
boost this summer by Britain’s rejection of the EU.

And if Le Pen and her party needed any more proof that populism was
proving popular it came in the form of 47.7 percent of the American
electorate voting for their own anti-establishment, wildcard candidate
in the form of Trump.

"Their world is crumbling, ours is being built" was how National Front
deputy leader Florian Philippot summed it up.

"Today, the United States, tomorrow France. Bravo America!" cheered
Jean-Marie Le Pen the founder of the the National Front.

     Leur monde s'effondre. Le nôtre se construit. #PlaceAuxPeuples     — Florian Philippot (@f_philippot)
November 9, 2016

For once it didn’t feel like inflated populist rhetoric.

But can Le Pen really complete a hat trick of shock vote victories?

"It’s now a hypothesis that everyone should take seriously," French
political commentator Philippe Marliere told The Local on Wednesday.

"That doesn’t mean it will happen, but it’s now something we have to
consider is a possibility.

"And I would never have said that a few years ago. But Trump, with his
populist, xenophobic and anti-immigrant discourse has managed to take
over the most powerful democracy in the world. So why can’t it happen in

French newspaper Le Monde carried a similar warning: "In the world that
has opened up with this election, anything is possible – even that which
we have difficulty facing up to – an extremist party taking power."

Former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin added: "The main lesson for
us in France is that Marine Le Pen can win".

In next spring's presidential elections Le Pen is expected to top the
first round of voting.

But polls show she is likely to be defeated in the second round, as her
party was in last year's regional elections, when tactical voting kept
them out of power.

But who is willing to trust opinion polls anymore after both Brexit and
Trump defied them?

"There's a global awakening," Le Pen told reporters last month in the
southern town of Frejus where supporters flocked to hear her bashing the
EU, the euro and immigration.

In echoes of Trump's "Make America Great Again" or Brexit's "Take
Control" slogans, she declared that "the time of the nation state has
come again."

Le Pen, who has worked hard to clean up the image of her party, knows
that in France there are similar conditions and a similar climate to the
UK and the United States.

There are swathes of disenfranchised voters, white working classes who
feel abandoned, record unemployment, rapid de-industrialisation,
devastating jihadist terror attacks, a migrant crisis and a longstanding
resistance to change among many voters, especially in the rural France.

There is also the weak and disunited left which has had a shot at power
and failed to achieve what it promised voters and a right which is
failing to convince the electorate that it is a better alternative.

In France's depressed north, for example, voters in former leftist
bastions have decamped in droves to the protectionist National Front,
out of frustration with the government's failure to halt factory closures.

Into this setting anti-establishment figures like UKip’s Nigel Farage,
Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen can find fallow turf to plough their
populist anti-EU, anti-globalisation and anti-immigration rhetoric.

"There could be a kind of contagion effect. Disenfranchised voters will
see it happen elsewhere and think why not in France?" says political
commentator Marliere.

The best scenario for Le Pen would be a second round face off against
former president Nicolas Sarkozy, who is deeply unpopular among left
wing voters, many of whom are horrified at the prospect of having to
tactically vote for "Sarko" to keep Le Pen out.

Sarkozy has lurched to the right in his bid to win back the Elysée
Palace and his rhetoric is even more anti-Islam and anti-Immigration
than Le Pen’s.

"If people have the option of a copy or the original, they will always
go for the original," said Marliere.

Le Pen has the advantage that with Brexit unlikely to be triggered
before May’s elections and Trump only taking office in January, it's
unlikely there will be any catastrophic effects that may dissuade French
voters from putting a cross in the box next to her name.

Jean-Yves Camus, a researcher who specialises in far-right movements,
said her trump card was that she had never been in government.

"It conceals many aspects in her programme that lack credibility," he said.

"She is absolutely convinced she can win," one of Le Pen's advisors told
AFP recently.

(4) Farage Offers to be Trump's Ambassador to the EU

Nigel Farage says he would like a role in Donald Trump's administration

The Ukip politicians was coy on whether he had already had talks with Mr

November 9, 2016

[...] The former Ukip leader has campaigned for Mr Trump in the United
States, giving a stump speech at at a rally on stage with the billionaire.

Mr Farage, who remains leader of Ukip’s group of MEPs despite stepping
down as party chief after the EU referendum, said he would like to serve
as Mr Trump’s ambassador to the European Union.

Donald Trump says election victory would be 'Brexit plus plus plus'

He was evasive when questioned whether he already had discussions with
Mr Trump about working for his administration were he to be elected.

The Brexit campaigner likened the US elections to the EU referendum and
suggested Mr Trump would bring about "change". Mr Trump has made similar
parallels between the two votes, dubbing himself "Mr Brexit".

"I don’t know what’s going to happen, all I can say is this election is
very simple: it’s rather like Brexit. Do you want a change, or do you
want to stay exactly as you are? That’s what it’s all about," Mr Farage
told ITV1’s The Agenda programme.

"If he did offer me a job I would quite like to be his ambassador to the
European Union. I think I would do that job very well."[...]

883 White Working Class overthrows the Globalist Establishment

White Working Class overthrows the Globalist Establishment

Newsletter published on 9 November 2016

(1) ISO Trots lament "revenge of the white working class"
(2) ISO Trots call Trump 'Monster', ponder "the irretrievable racism of
all white workers"
(3) The (Rothschild) Economist calls Trump 'Malign'
(4) Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment - NYT (telling the truth
for once)
(5) Deplorables Overthrow the Ruling Elite
(6) Trump will change the Supreme Court - The (Rothschild) Economist

(1) ISO Trots lament "revenge of the white working class"

What's riding on the Election 2016 swing set?

November 8, 2016

[...] DAYS BEFORE Election Day, Hillary Clinton's once formidable lead
in the national opinion polls had shrunk to a few percentage points,
spreading panic among liberals and Clinton supporters.

If the polls are correct--and given their pro-Republican slant in 2012,
that is a big "if"--Clinton is in danger of losing as many as four
"swing states" that Barack Obama won in two successive presidential
elections: New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Iowa.

With the exception of Florida, all of these states have a higher
percentage of non-Latino whites in their electorates, compared to the
national average. All of them except New Hampshire have a lower rate of
voters with a college education than the U.S. average. (See the U.S.
Census data here.)

Why focus on race and education level? Because the national media and
many social scientists dub "non-college educated whites" as the "white
working class," which is supposedly the core of Donald Trump's base. So
if Trump can cut into Clinton's support in these states, the media will
explain it as the revenge of the "white working class." [...]

(2) ISO Trots call Trump 'Monster', ponder "the irretrievable racism of
all white workers"


How could this monster win?

No one expected Donald Trump to become the Republican nominee, and his
election victory is a bigger shock--but the first step is to understand
why and face it squarely.

November 9, 2016

AN ENDLESS, miserable presidential campaign is over--with the most
miserable result imaginable. [...]

The liberal base of the Democratic Party came through for Clinton.
According to exit poll data, she won 88 percent of the Black vote and 65
percent from Latinos. It was the swing voters who Clinton courted that
stuck with Trump. [...]

Bernie Sanders' left-wing campaign for the Democratic presidential
nomination nearly upset Clinton by making an appeal to workers to
challenge what he called the "billionaire class." Clinton, who has spent
her political career ingratiating herself to that class, managed to bury
Sanders' message--and rather than continue his "political revolution,"
Sanders abandoned his opposition to whip up support for Clinton.

Clinton and Sanders and much of the rest of the political establishment,
some Republicans included, criticized Trump's ugly outrages. But because
they never acknowledged the real economic grievances that he built his
campaign around, they left the way clear for Trump to channel legitimate
bitterness into scapegoating and scaremongering.

Even when Clinton did counter Trump's racism, woman-hating,
immigrant-bashing and Islamophobia, it rang hollow. As a personification
of the insider Washington political establishment, Clinton bears
responsibility--often directly--for policies that led to the mass
incarceration of African American men, the sweeping deportation of
immigrants and endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have fueled
anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry. [...]

THE CONVENTIONAL media wisdom was stunned by this outcome, and so there
will be a scramble for simple answers to explain away Election 2016: a
fundamentally conservative population; the irretrievable racism of all
white workers; even the impact of the Green Party's Jill Stein, whose
"crime" was to rightly insist that the greater evil can't be stopped by
championing the lesser evil.

We should refuse to accept those simple answers. One of the first
challenges for the left will be to explain what happened in all its
complexity. But there are many more challenges to come.

As the radical left warned, in defiance of calls for moderation from
liberals, the right wing has been emboldened by Trumpism and needs to be
confronted. But we can't let the people most responsible for this mess
point the finger at the most reactionary bigots. Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama and the Democratic Party need to answer for why they had nothing
to offer as an alternative to Trump's scapegoating.

We have a lot of work to do, starting today, to build a real left
alternative that recognizes the misery and suffering so many people
endure; that confronts these conditions politically and practically; and
that builds organization capable of turning the tide.

Large numbers of people are already horrified by Trump and will be
determined to take action to show their opposition. More will be spurred
to act by the inevitable outrages of an arrogant right wing that
oversteps--that's a lesson from all of the right's victories in recent
elections. In the end, at least some of those who voted for Trump will
come to understand that they abhor what he stands for.

But for now, we need to start building that resistance from the ground
up. The first step is to understand the lessons and implications of this
election and face them squarely--and then we move on from there.

(3) The (Rothschild) Economist calls Trump 'Malign'

Donald Trump, vigilante

Good people have been frightened and angered into backing a dangerous man

Nov 5th 2016 | From the print edition

ON NOVEMBER 8th around 60m Americans are likely to cast ballots for
Donald Trump to be president. That will present the country with a
puzzle. If nearly a quarter of the adult population are Trump-backers,
many good people will have ended up supporting a bad man. [...]

Having painted the established order as an assault on all that America
cherishes, however, Mr Trump’s rivals offered only a reshuffling of
political leaders in Washington as their solution. Mr Trump proposed
something much more stirring: to take protection of the homeland into
his own hands, as a sort of vigilante strongman. "I alone can fix it,"
as he told the Republican National Convention. "I am your voice." That
is one reason why so many will forgive his boorishness, his refusal to
release his tax returns, his praise for sundry foreign autocrats and
other flaws that would normally doom a presidential nominee. Supporters
hear a presidential candidate talking of the need for desperate measures
in the name of self-defence, and that resonates. As a result, they judge
him as they would judge themselves, should they hear window-glass
shattering in the dead of night. Such voters will not easily be stood
down, however this election ends. Mr Trump’s malign influence will not
quickly fade.

(4) Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment - NYT (telling the truth
for once)

Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the


Donald John Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States on
Tuesday in a stunning culmination of an explosive, populist and
polarizing campaign that took relentless aim at the institutions and
long-held ideals of American democracy.

The surprise outcome, defying late polls that showed Hillary Clinton
with a modest but persistent edge, threatened convulsions throughout the
country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr.
Trump’s unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold.

The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality
television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection
of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the
world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on
everything from trade to immigration.

The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of
President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a
decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of
mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the
promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of
globalization and multiculturalism.

In Mr. Trump, a thrice-married Manhattanite who lives in a
marble-wrapped three-story penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue, they
found an improbable champion.

"The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no
longer," Mr. Trump told supporters around 3 a.m. at a rally in New York
City, just after Mrs. Clinton called to concede.

In a departure from a blistering campaign in which he repeatedly stoked
division, Mr. Trump sought to do something he had conspicuously avoided
as a candidate: Appeal for unity. [...]

Mr. Trump’s win — stretching across the battleground states of Florida,
North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania — seemed likely to set off
financial jitters and immediate unease among international allies, many
of which were startled when Mr. Trump in his campaign cast doubt on the
necessity of America’s military commitments abroad and its allegiance to
international economic partnerships.

 From the moment he entered the campaign, with a shocking set of claims
that Mexican immigrants were rapists and criminals, Mr. Trump was widely
underestimated as a candidate, first by his opponents for the Republican
nomination and later by Mrs. Clinton, his Democratic rival. His rise was
largely missed by polling organizations and data analysts. And an air of
improbability trailed his campaign, to the detriment of those who
dismissed his angry message, his improvisational style and his appeal to
disillusioned voters.

He suggested remedies that raised questions of constitutionality, like a
ban on Muslims entering the United States.

He threatened opponents, promising lawsuits against news organizations
that covered him critically and women who accused him of sexual assault.
At times, he simply lied.

But Mr. Trump’s unfiltered rallies and unshakable self-regard attracted
a zealous following, fusing unsubtle identity politics with an economic
populism that often defied party doctrine.

His rallies — furious, entertaining, heavy on name-calling and
nationalist overtones — became the nexus of a political movement, with
daily promises of sweeping victory, in the election and otherwise, and
an insistence that the country’s political machinery was "rigged"
against Mr. Trump and those who admired him.

He seemed to embody the success and grandeur that so many of his
followers felt was missing from their own lives — and from the country
itself. And he scoffed at the poll-driven word-parsing ways of modern
politics, calling them a waste of time and money. Instead, he relied on
his gut.

At his victory party at the New York Hilton Midtown, where a raucous
crowd indulged in a cash bar and wore hats bearing his ubiquitous
campaign slogan "Make America Great Again," voters expressed
gratification that their voices had, at last, been heard.

"He was talking to people who weren’t being spoken to," said Joseph
Gravagna, 37, a marketing company owner from Rockland County, N.Y.
"That’s how I knew he was going to win."

For Mrs. Clinton, the defeat signaled an astonishing end to a political
dynasty that has colored Democratic politics for a generation. Eight
years after losing to President Obama in the Democratic primary — and 16
years after leaving the White House for the United States Senate, as
President Bill Clinton exited office — she had seemed positioned to
carry on two legacies: her husband’s and the president’s.

Her shocking loss was a devastating turn for the sprawling world of
Clinton aides and strategists who believed they had built an electoral
machine that would swamp Mr. Trump’s ragtag band of loyal operatives and
family members, many of whom had no experience running a national
campaign. [...]

But over and over, Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate were
exposed. She failed to excite voters hungry for change. She struggled to
build trust with Americans who were baffled by her decision to use a
private email server as secretary of state. And she strained to make a
persuasive case for herself as a champion of the economically
downtrodden after delivering perfunctory paid speeches that earned her
millions of dollars.

The returns Tuesday also amounted to a historic rebuke of the Democratic
Party from the white blue-collar voters who had formed the party base
from the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Mr. Clinton’s. Yet Mrs.
Clinton and her advisers had taken for granted that states like Michigan
and Wisconsin would stick with a Democratic nominee, and that she could
repeat Mr. Obama’s strategy of mobilizing the party’s ascendant liberal
coalition rather than pursuing a more moderate course like her husband
did 24 years ago.

But not until these voters were offered a Republican who ran as an
unapologetic populist, railing against foreign trade deals and illegal
immigration, did they move so drastically away from their ancestral
political home. [...]

A version of this article appears in print on November 9, 2016, on page
A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Triumphs.

(5) Deplorables Overthrow the Ruling Elite

How Trump Replaced America's Globalist Consensus With A Nationalist

Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of
Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s
ruling elites.

Robert W. Merry

November 9, 2016

The old order of American politics crumbled on Tuesday with an election
that signaled an inflection point in the nation’s history. Donald
Trump’s victory, almost universally considered impossible until it
happened, shattered the globalist consensus of America’s governing elite
and replaced it with a nationalist sensibility exemplified in the
slogan, "America First." Never in the country’s history has it seen an
anti-status quo, anti-establishment politician of such force and

The globalist consensus contained a number of central tenets, all
rejected by Trump. They included:

— We live in a unipolar world, with America at its center as an
"indispensable nation" with an imperative and mandate to dominate events
and developments around the world; spread Western-style democratic
capitalism; and salve the hurts and wounds of humanity in far-flung
precincts of the globe.

— The nation state is in decline and is being replaced by emergent
multinational super-institutions such as the European Union, the United
Nations and, presumably, Hillary Clinton’s proposed "hemispheric common
market," with open trade and open borders.

— The demands of constituent identity groups, based mostly on ethnicity
and gender affiliations, are more important than any concept of national

— Borders have lost their significance as nationalist sentiments have
receded, and while something probably needs to be done about illegal
immigration, largely to assuage political pressures, there is nothing
essentially wrong with mass immigration.

— Free trade is an imperative in the post-Cold War era of globalization
to lubricate global commerce and spur global prosperity.

— Despite the advent of Islamist radicalism, fueled primarily by intense
anti-Western fervor, there is no reason to believe that large numbers of
Muslims can’t be assimilated into Western societies smoothly without
detriment to those societies.

This globalist consensus was embraced by American presidents from Bush I
to Clinton I to Bush II to Obama and then to Clinton II. It was so
entrenched within the top echelons of American society—the federal
bureaucracy, the media, academia, big corporations, big finance,
Hollywood, think tanks and charitable foundations—that hardly anyone
could conceptualize any serious threat to it. Then Trump attacked it and
marshalled a rowdy following of people bent on upending it. The
globalist sensibility won’t go away, but it now is seriously challenged.
The result is a new fault line in American politics.

The Trump constituency rejects most of the central tenets of the
post-Cold War consensus. Its beliefs include:

— The American experiment in national building, with an attendant
propensity for regime change, has been an utter failure, particularly in
the Middle East, and needs to be replaced.  America must be in the world
but shouldn’t try to dominate it.

— Nationalism is a hallowed sentiment, tied to old-fashioned patriotism,
and shouldn’t be denigrated or rejected.

— Identity group politics is eroding national cohesion and, through
political correctness, is threatening free speech on the country’s
college campuses; that threat will grow throughout society if not checked.

— Borders matter; countries without clearly delineated and enforced
borders soon cease to be countries. Immigration numbers should be
calibrated to ensure smooth absorption and assimilation.

— Free trade, as practiced in the post-Cold War era, is killing us,
hollowing out the country’s industrial base and devastating its middle

— Islamist radicalism represents a serious threat to homeland security,
and it is merely prudent, therefore, to consider adjustments in
immigration policy as one tool in seeking to lessen the threat.

Clearly, a clash is inevitable between the post-Cold War elites and the
Trump constituency. And its intensity was presaged by writer and thinker
Shelby Steele in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. Steele traced the
emergence over recent decades of the view that America was a
"victimizing nation," tainted by its history, particularly slavery, its
treatment of its native Indian populations, and its diminishment of
women and minorities. This raised a perceived imperative, in the view of
many, that the country must redeem itself from its oppressive past. This
could be done, writes Steele, only through a kind of deference "toward
all groups with any claim to past or present victimization."

But this call for deference assumed a moral high ground—and thus became
a political weapon. From this moral position, the deference cadres could
look down upon those who didn’t embrace the argument and stigmatize them
as "regressive bigots." Writes Steele: "Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and
liberals generally practice combat by stigma." He cites Clinton’s famous
"basket of deplorables," those Trump followers who don’t embrace her
view of America as victimizing nation. They are stigmatized as
"irredeemable," subject to her sense of political correctness. "And
political correctness," says Steele, "functions like a despotic regime."

Then along came Trump, a thoroughly non-deferential figure, "at odds
with every code of decency," who "invoked every possible stigma" and
rejected each with dismissive sneers. "He did much of the dirty work,"
writes Steele, "that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the
platform to do." [...]

But Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of
Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s
ruling elites of both parties who presided over national decline and
economic inertia, failed to secure the country’s borders, got America
mired in unceasing Mideast wars, and pursued trade policies viewed as
harmful to the country’s middle class. He galvanized white working class
voters and rural folks throughout the nation, even in traditionally
Democratic states in the Midwest and Great Lakes region, such as
Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. By 2:40 a.m. Eastern time, when
Pennsylvania put Trump over the top in the Electoral College, the
Republican candidate had flipped five major states that had voted for
Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012—Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania. In addition, Michigan and New Hampshire, also Obama states
in the two previous elections, teetered between the two candidates as
votes were counted late into the night.

Trump was particularly strong among whites without college degrees,
expanding his margin of victory with this voter segment to nearly 40
percentage points from just 25 percentage points in 2004. Whites with
college degrees remained with the GOP but by a much smaller margin than
in previous years. Wealthy Americans shifted away from the Republican
Party in significant numbers.

All this suggested the possibility of a serious realignment in American
politics, with more wealthy voters (educated suburbanites, Country Club
types, urban dwellers) moving toward the Democrats and with working
class Americans (once the bedrock of the Democrats’ old FDR coalition)
shifting to the GOP. [...]

(6) Trump will change the Supreme Court - The (Rothschild) Economist

How the Supreme Court will change under President Trump

Nov 9th 2016, 11:37 by S.M. | NEW YORK

THERE are two ways to think about the future of the Supreme Court in the
wake of last night’s stunning upset in the presidential race: taking
Donald Trump at his word when he says he will load the bench with
conservatives, or, in view of his penchant for changing his mind, taking
these promises with a shaker full of salt. Neither offers much solace to

Mr Trump has pledged to appoint highly conservative justices who will
uphold gun rights, walk back the 18-month-old decision allowing gays and
lesbians to wed and "automatically" overturn Roe v Wade, the 1971 ruling
recognising a right to abortion choice. On the campaign trail, Mr Trump
provided more information about his intentions with regard to the
nation’s highest court than any presidential candidate has ever
divulged: not one list of potential nominees but two, totalling 21 souls
he says merit a shot in one of the Supreme Court’s nine seats.

That is 21 more names than previous applicants for the White
House—including Hillary Clinton—have made public. Mr Trump released his
first list of 11 names in May to shore up support for his budding
nomination and to reassure conservatives that he could take just as hard
a line on replacing Antonin Scalia, the arch-conservative justice who
died in February, as his nearest rival, Ted Cruz. Publicising the
roster, which was curated with the help of the Federalist Society and
the Heritage Foundation, two solidly conservative think tanks, was a
highly unorthodox move, and it’s likely Mr Trump knew very little about
any of the potential nominees. But the stunt had its intended effect:
the conservative base coalesced around Mr Trump and the real-estate
magnate took the mantle of the Republican party.

The original Trump Eleven were all white judges, six sitting on federal
circuit courts and five on state supreme courts. In line with what would
become a promise to "drain the swamp" in the final weeks of his
campaign, none hailed from inside the Washington beltway. That is a
remarkable slight to the DC Court of Appeals, an institution where many
presidents have fished for nominees. Of the eight justices currently on
the Supreme Court, three once served on the DC court: the liberal Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and conservatives Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, the
chief. Barack Obama’s pick to replace Mr Scalia, Merrick Garland, is the
DC circuit court’s chief judge.

Late in September, Mr Trump added ten more potential picks to his
Supreme Court wish list. This list was more diverse. It included more
women and three people of colour, including Amul Thapar, a Detroit-born
judge of South Asian descent; Federico Moreno, a Florida judge who hails
from Venezuela; and Robert Young, the black chief of Michigan’s supreme
court. It also featured Mike Lee, a senator from Utah who refused to
endorse Mr Trump and who called on him to quit the race following
revelations about his treatment of women in October. Mr Lee has said he
is happy serving in the Senate and is not interested in taking a seat on
the Supreme Court.

Nobody knows who Mr Trump will actually tap for Mr Scalia’s empty seat.
Mr Trump himself might have little clue. In the course of his business
career, the president-elect has shown a remarkable ability to dodge and
parry and reverse himself on everything from the war in Iraq to
immigration policy to Mr Obama’s birthplace. Notably, Mr Trump never
said he would choose one of the 21 people on his lists: he said the
names should be viewed as "a guide" he would consult when sitting down
to make his selection. They are "representative of the kind of
constitutional principles I value", he said. Time will tell whether
those principles make their way into an actual Trump nominee.

But with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and the White
House, there is only one barrier to Mr Trump seating a justice of his
choice: the Senate filibuster, a maneouver that permits the minority
party to prolong debate and block votes as long as the majority is
weaker than 60 votes. Senate leaders told The Economist over the summer
that this last line of defence will be erased no matter which party
takes the chamber in the November election. With their successful
nine-month stonewall of Mr Garland now looking like a brilliant move to
preserve a half-century-long conservative tilt on the Supreme Court,
Republicans will have no reason to bow to a Senate rule that hamstrings
their new president. Expect the filibuster to dissolve and Mr Trump to
have his way with the empty chair—one way or another.

Meanwhile, last night’s vote may have changed retirement plans for Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, 83 and Stephen Breyer, 78, the elder liberals on a court
that is destined to swing to the right. If they hang up their robes over
the next four years, the Supreme Court may be unrecognisable a
generation down the road.

882 ews dominate Globalist organizations; but this is not evidence of Conspiracy

Jews dominate Globalist organizations; but this is not evidence of

Newsletter published on 9 November 2016

(1) Correction: Jim Spigelman, not Jim Lieberman
(2) Jewish friends voting for Trump
(3) Trump and the Jews: Paranoia at the Finish Line - Kevin MacDonald
(4) Jews dominate Globalist organizations; but this is not evidence of

(1) Correction: Jim Spigelman, not Jim Lieberman
Correction: Jim Spigelman, not Jim Lieberman - chairman of the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (re 18C)

From: Denis McC <> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016
01:47:15 +0000

A useful round-up of the usual and unusual suspects Peter - but I think
down below re. Chairman of 'our' ABC here, you mean Jim Spigelman, not
Jim Lieberman, as you have written...just letting you know that I do
actually read  your stuff sometimes old pal.

(2) Jewish friends voting for Trump

From: Ron <>
Subject: Re: Trump ad targeting Globalists (Soros, Yellen, Goldman)
branded 'anti-Semitic' by ADL
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:52:15 -0700

I'm Jewish and have many Jewish friends voting for Trump so the " money
" may go HRC way but the people , even Jews .. Are voting for Trump .
Painting with a broad brush can be counter productive . Ron

(3) Trump and the Jews: Paranoia at the Finish Line - Kevin MacDonald

Tuesday, 8 November 2016 - 20:36

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

November 7, 2016 — 28 Comments

Kevin MacDonald

With precious little time left to go in the election, it seems like
Jewish angst is ramping up, although of course, not all Jews see Donald
Trump as a disaster (see previous articles in this series). Here’s a
typical Trump rally as imagined by New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait.

     Another huge Trump rally last night that isn’t going to be reported
by Shillary’s crooked media

     — Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) November 5, 2016

Much of the recent furor concerns Trump’s final ad, a 2-minute
masterpiece of populist rhetoric that depicts a "global power structure"
that is "bleeding America dry" with horrible trade deals that enrich
elites and open the gates to mass immigration. Activist Jews watching it
focused on the people depicted as behind this globalist takeover: George
Soros, Janet Yellen, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve, and Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman of Goldman Sachs, with the
implication that Clinton is their minion. As he noted in his famous West
Palm Beach speech which also triggered activist Jews and cucks like Rick

     The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure. We’ve
seen this first hand in the WikiLeaks documents, in which Hillary
Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction
of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers,
her special interest friends and her donors.

This was enormously triggering for the ADL which tweeted:

     This #Trump ad touches on images and rhetoric that anti-Semites
have used for ages

     — ADL (@ADL_National) November 6, 2016

But of course, this is an egregiously stupid tactic for Jews and
cuckservatives to take. Why call attention to Jewish involvement in
international banking when their involvement and their general
commitment to a globalist model for Western countries is well-known? As
Jonathan Taylor  noted in Counterpunch:

     For our tiny size, we are by far the most politically influential.
The worlds of finance, media, journalism and law are home to extremely
disproportionately high numbers of Jews. Leading globalist institutions
like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO have high numbers of Jewish executives
and staffers, as do organizations such as the Council on Foreign
Relations, which one informal estimate claims is around 50% Jewish. Half
of the US’s billionaires are Jewish. Jewish donors play an enormous role
in funding Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The normally Republican and
predominantly Jewish neoconservatives have thrown their support behind
Hillary. … Bringing up anti-Semitism then just reminds people of how
much influence and power Jews have.

A November 7 article at JTA focuses on Jewish responses to these
statements by Trump as tapping into a wellspring of anti-Semitism that
will unleash another holocaust ("Anti-Semitism unleashed by Trump
followers chills Jewish voters"). It begins ominously: "Pieties? Out.
Passports? In. Paranoia? On its way."

I’d have to say that paranoia is already here if this is any indication.
Another sample:

     "My sister and her son didn’t have passports, but I pushed her to
get them this summer," said Suzanne Reisman, 40, a New York City-based
writer who has been harassed by anti-Semites on Twitter. "My
grandparents were Holocaust survivors. I hope it won’t come to it, but
if we have to flee, we are ready."

At the extreme (psychiatric case) end of this paranoia is an article in
the Forward ("How Do I Explain My Trump Nazi Nightmare to My Mexican
American Daughter?") that begins by recounting the author’s nightmare of
a naked Trump appearing with a swastika headband and saying things like
"I’m deporting your daughter even though she was born in New York." For
her, it’s the 1930’s all over again, and we all know what that means:

     I watch the news. Here is what I see: On a recent interview with
CNN Trump says that he is for a ban on Muslims coming into the United
States. I check the date to see if it’s still 2016 and I’m living in New
York City or if it’s 1936 and I’m living in Nazi Germany, because for
one to say, "Muslims shouldn’t be allowed into the United States," to me
is the same thing as saying "Jews should wear a yellow star when they
walk down the street."

This paranoia is an integral part of Judaism’s bunker mentality — a
marker of strong ingroup identification and central to Judaism as a
group evolutionary strategy. As I noted in Chapter 7 of A People That
Shall Dwell Alone (pp. 218-219):

     A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among
Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen
(1982) note that for Jewish families a "sense of persecution (or its
imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with
pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It
binds Jews with their heritage–with the suffering of Jews throughout
history." Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153) note that the homes of
wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities
sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms,
and that their existence was "part of the imagery of the children who
played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every
Jew’s mental equipment." …

     Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is
a fundamental theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary
America. Within this world view, the gentile world is conceptualized as
fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing
to exist entirely. "Like many other generations of Jews who have felt
similarly, the leaders of the polity who fear that the end may be near
have transformed this concern into a survivalist weapon" (Woocher 1986,
73). Thus, for example, Woocher (1986) notes that there has been a major
effort since the 1960s to have American Jews visit Israel in an effort
to strengthen Jewish identification, with a prominent aspect of the
visit being a trip to a border outpost "where the ongoing threat to
Israel’s security is palpable" (p. 150).

Self-deception is another important aspect of Judaism as a group
evolutionary strategy and the focus of Chapter 8 of Separation and Its
Discontents. Perhaps the most self-deceptive comment comes from Julia
Ioffe, a journalist who was offended by Twitter comments after her hit
piece on Melania Trump appeared in GQ. Ioffe, who writes for Foreign
Affairs and Politico, said she was "personally glad to see the
outpouring of antisemitism" because it restored Jews’ status as a
persecuted minority.

     For a long time I was very frustrated by the discussion on kind of
the liberal side of the political spectrum, where Jews, like Israel,
were no longer seen as the underdog, no longer seen as the persecuted
minority, in fact, this kind of scurrying line of anti-Semitic
stereotype of us as the establishment, and people who run and control

This was too much even for Jeffrey Goldberg, who, as a leading
pro-Israel journalist (who, as editor-in-chief of Atlantic, also has a
perch in the elite media) is quite aware of Jewish power:  "Two things
can be true at once," implying that Jews could be a persecuted minority
and yet a dominant part of the establishment. Indeed, one might say that
in general Jews as an elite with different interests and attitudes than
other sectors of society, are the main cause of historical
anti-Semitism.  Without going into a laundry list of Jewish power in
America (Jonathan Taylor’s comments above are a good start), let’s just
say that writing for elite publications and being attacked by a bunch of
mainly anonymous Twitter trolls (some of whom are doubtless on the
payroll of the ADL) is not exactly a sign that you are on the outside
looking in.

     Now the polls are no longer rigged? Bet that changes when Orange
Hitler loses. #GoHillary

     — (((Political Nerd))) (@Sttbs73) October 30, 2016

Also in the running for most self-deceptive pre-election comment is the
above-mentioned Jonathan Chait, writing in New York magazine ("The GOP’s
age of authoritarianism has only just begun."). For Chait, Trump is a
reincarnation of a decades-old Jewish bogeyman in American politics:
right wing populism.

     The party has grown increasingly reliant upon White identity
politics to supply its votes, which has left an indelible imprint on not
only the Republican Party’s function but also its form.

     Right-wing populism has had the same character for decades — in
1950, Theodor Adorno described the fear of outsiders, and the veneration
of law and order, as "the authoritarian personality"; in 1964, Richard
Hofstadter described a similar tendency as "the paranoid style" — but
until recently, those movements lived outside both political parties.

The work of Adorno and Hofstadter remains central to Jewish
intellectuals’ understanding of American politics. Chait’s comments are
a good example of how Jewish intellectuals are able to plug into
influential pseudoscientific movements led by strongly identified Jews
who were pursuing Jewish interests (Adorno and Hofstadter are covered in
Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique).  For these Jewish intellectuals,
a particularly noxious aspect of populism is distrust of elites and
"experts" such as those vetted by the American university system — a
view that obviously dovetails with Jewish interests as an elite.
Hofstadter’s view that departures from liberal thinking derive from
"status anxiety" may seem relevant. However, Hofstadter framed status
anxiety as nothing more than psychopathology, while the anxieties of
Trump voters are not at all a psychopathology. In fact Trump voters have
very real fears about their future in non-White America (here, here,
here and here), and for good reason (see comments on David Brooks, below).

In making such statements, Chait ignores research that Trump voters are
not actually more authoritarian than non-Trump voters. They are actually
populists whose main characteristics are support for American
nationalism and distrust of elites — people like Chait and Brooks and
their employers. [Trump’s voters aren’t authoritarians, new research
says. So what are they? Washington Post, March 6, 2016]

What Chait fails to mention, of course, is that authoritarianism is
rampant on the left, most notably in universities where free speech is a
distant memory and we even see threats of physical assault. [...]

(4) Jews dominate Globalist organizations; but this is not evidence of

Trump, Anti-Globalism and the Anti-Semitism Slur

OCTOBER 14, 2016


There are few tactics in contemporary politics more effective than
labeling your opponent as an anti-Semite. So, as Donald Trump’s campaign
continues to ramp up its radical populism, Trump’s attacks on global
elites are increasingly being characterized as anti-Semitism. It’s as if
every time Trump excoriates a Washington insider or international
corporate power broker he really wants to say "Jew." At least, that’s
the charge by numerous members of the media, many of whom are Jewish

Just listen to Louis Mensch, ostensibly a conservative blogger for Heat
St, whom Wikileaks just outed as a Hillary campaign helper: "Globalists
is a racist code word for Jew because there are none. free trade between
sovereign nations is not a wish to abolish the former." By Mensch’s
convoluted logic, since globalists don’t want to completely destroy
national sovereignty, they aren’t really globalists. Therefore when
people say globalists, they must mean Jews.

Or let’s hear from the Republican campaign strategist and "Never
Trump-er" Rick Wilson: "Globalist"…why don’t you just say "Jew" and get
it over with?"

Then there’s Bret Stephens from the Wall Street Journal, who demanded
conservative columnist Laura Ingraham be fired for using the term
"globalist cabal." "Globalist cabal" is an anti-Semitic dog whistle of
the first order. Fox News should act," Stephens insisted.

And Louis Mensch again: ""Globalists" is, like "zionists" or "zios" the
new antisemitic code word for Jews". Distressing news no doubt to
anti-Zionist Jews and critics of Israel, who are used to being
spuriously accused of anti-Semitism.

Then there’s neocon blowhard Jamie Kirchick’s response to an incoherent
tweet by Paul Ryan challenger Paul Nehlen, about Ryan’s staffer Dan
Senor "With globalist advisers like @DanSenor it’s no wonder @PRyan is
to the left of @HillaryClinton on #TPP. " To which Kirchick responded
"Why don’t you just say "Jew?"" Senor is indeed Jewish, and is rumored
to be the person who leaked the infamous Trump- Billy Bush "pussy" tape
to the press.

One Is tempted to just quote Lewis Carroll: "When I use a word," Humpty
Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it
to mean—neither more nor less."

But perhaps we should take a step back and look at the words globalism
and globalist themselves . Globalism is currently used mainly to
describe economic and political globalization. The word first became
popular in the 1940s to describe US policies of containment of the
Soviet Union. "Globalist" refers more broadly to someone who favors
"global capitalism" and to political leaders who strive to create a
unified global economy. In its more political-economic sense, the word
"globalist" refers to international institutions that intervene
globally. The United Nations, World Bank, IMF, World Trade Organization,
EU, OECD, G20 and World Economic Forum are examples of globalist
institutions. Politicians and bureaucrats who favor these institutions
and their ability to dictate terms to sovereign states are globalists.
Essentially, we are talking about the majority of mainstream US
politicians from both parties.

In its more conspiratorial sense the word globalist is applied to groups
who are thought to attempt to create global policies secretly or behind
the scenes. This would include groups such as the Trilateral Commission,
the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, or the people
who put together global trade deals that override national laws, like
the TPP.

In his speech of October 13, 2016, Donald Trump used the term globalist
repeatedly, triggering accusations of anti-Semitism from media outlets
such as Mother Jones and Raw Story. The ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt
tweeted his concern, mildly stated compared to the rampant Twitter
hysteria, that "Trump should avoid rhetoric&tropes" that suggest
anti-Jewish themes. But despite the media pile-on, Trump has been
discussing globalism in his speeches for months. As Jill Stein and to a
lesser extent Bernie Sanders represent the long-standing
anti-globalization movement of the left, Trump represents the
anti-globalization movement of the right. And there is significant
overlap between the two, as opposition to the TPP demonstrates or to
provocative militarism towards Russia demonstrates.

Back on April 27, in a speech on foreign policy, Trump stated: "We will
no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of
globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness
and harmony."

 From his acceptance speech at the RNC: "The most important difference
between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put
America first. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo."

 From a speech on jobs on June 28: "Today, we import nearly $800 billion
more in goods than we export. This is not some natural disaster. It is
politician-made disaster. It is the consequence of a leadership class
that worships globalism over Americanism."

Trump appeals to economic nationalist policies, calling for more
advantageous trade deals and hinting at protectionism. On foreign policy
he advocates for less interventionism and military policy that is
primarily defensive and in service of clear US national interests. He
questions the patriotism of US elites by implying they serve some other
power than the American people. That these ideas are appealing is not
surprising in a country in which 70% of all households have less than
$1000 in savings.

But are these policies anti-Semitic? Trump, whose daughter Ivanka is a
Jewish convert married to an Orthodox Jewish husband who is a top Trump
campaign advisor, seems an unlikely Jew hater, but the mainstream
Hillary-loving press has been insisting he is Hitler throughout the
campaign (odd since they also accusing him of being controlled by
Russia. A new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?) As the election looms the media
are busy cranking up Jewish paranoia to 11. As the unflappably cool
Matthew Iglesias surmises. "My guess is that in a Trump administration
angry mobs will beat and murder Jews and people of color with impunity."

In the wake of Trump’s October 13 speech, reporter Travis Gettys
informed his readers that Trump’s very reference to international banks
at all was anti-Semitic. His article for Raw Story was just a series of
breathlessly fearmongering tweets. If Trump attacking bankers inspires
such fear and loathing one hesitates to guess what Gettys must think of
Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, let alone bankster critics like
Michael Hudson or David Graeber. Clearly goose-stepping brownshirts all.

Tactically speaking, the primary purpose of an accusation of
anti-Semitism is to end debate. So if someone says "globalist is a code
word for Jews", or "blaming international banks for economic problems is
anti-Semitic", the function of this is to ensure that globalists and
international banks cannot be blamed. It’s as if someone responded to
the Occupy movement that "the 1%" is a codeword for Jews, so we should
stop talking about wealth disparity." The ramifications are obvious –
leave the global elites out of this campaign or you’re a Jew-hating
bigot and by the way here comes the ADL.

Second, by making this association, these supposed defenders of the Jews
are in fact the ones at risk of fostering anti-Semitism. If "globalists"
are conflated with Jews by Jews, then doesn’t that means that globalists
ARE Jews? If "international bankers" is a cover for anti-Semitism, than
by simple deduction most international bankers must be Jewish! The mind
reels at the notion that suggesting these ideas is some sort of
push-back against the actual anti-Semitism found among those who discuss
"the Jewish Question" on the alt-right. And of course the alt-right
trolls read these tweets, chuckle and say they knew it all along.

For those sitting on the sidelines, a logical response to these
accusations of anti-Semitism is to start wondering about just exactly
how Jewish the global elites really are. Of course, this is way beyond
anything Trump is asking his supporters to do. Trump does not "name the
Jew" as segments of the alt-right wish he did. Given his prominent
position in globalist networks of power, Trump knows that while Jews are
disproportionately represented that doesn’t mean that the global elite
itself is predominantly Jewish. However Trump has singled out a couple
of Jews in recent speeches: George Soros, and Sidney Blumenthal. Soros,
as an extraordinarily wealthy financer and speculator who also funds an
enormous amount of liberal and dare I say globalist causes around the
world has long been a subject of attention on the far right. Blumenthal
is less important, as a prominent Clinton advisor and Libya plotter who
makes cameo appearances in Wikileaks. But naming a couple of prominent
Jews associated with Hillary is hardly reading the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion to the SS. Of course it is possible that Trump has some
antipathy towards Jews, but far more likely that his actual beef is with
globalists whose policies he is opposed to and whom are doing their
damnedest to try to prevent him from becoming president.

Anti-Semitism is frequently used to silence people from saying the
things they want or need to say. Trump needs to make his case for
economic populism and an essentially paleoconservative foreign policy by
depicting his opponents as the enemy. When the enemy appears to be an
octopus-like conglomeration of career politicians like the Clintons,
Wall Street bankers, wealthy .. uh… globalists like George Soros,
oligarchs with media empires like Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos, Trump
needs to affix a label to them. He does use "special interests" but the
term is ambiguous and there are special interests on Trump’s side as
well. So Trump must name his enemy, and globalist is the word that fits

Trump’s Jewish attackers want to pretend that Trump is an anti-Semite
and all of his attacks on globalist institutions or individuals is a
personal attack on Jews. That’s preposterous, and projection. Trump’s
Jewish attackers don’t want to admit their Jewish privilege. We Jews
(yes, I’m one) are the wealthiest religious group in America and the
second richest ethnic group behind Indian-Americans. For our tiny size,
we are by far the most politically influential. The worlds of finance,
media, journalism and law are home to extremely disproportionately high
numbers of Jews. Leading globalist institutions like the World Bank,
IMF, and WTO have high numbers of Jewish executives and staffers, as do
organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which one
informal estimate claims is around 50% Jewish. Half of the US’s
billionaires are Jewish. Jewish donors play an enormous role in funding
Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The normally Republican and predominantly
Jewish neoconservatives have thrown their support behind Hillary. None
of this is evidence of conspiracy. Jews are overrepresented in a many
other fields as well, such as mathematics, physics, medicine,
philosophy, etc. Jews like to argue with each other and with gentiles,
and anybody positing a unified Jewish perspective on any issue has
obviously never had Shabbat dinner with a typical Jewish extended
family. But claims that Jews are using their disproportionate wealth and
influence to support Hillary Clinton are, in fact, true.

Bringing up anti-Semitism then just reminds people of how much influence
and power Jews have. Casually hurling charges of anti-Semitism at
critics of globalism is incredibly ill-advised and unhelpful. Trump’s
critique of globalism, global elite corruption, and the role of bankers
in global affairs is not anti-Semitic but the people who allege that it
is are the ones who actually foster anti-Semitism, while simultaneously
protecting globalism and globalist institutions from critique.
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in some parts of the alt-right. There’s no
need to make it worse by shaming people who criticize global elites.

881 On election eve, NATO announces military buildup against Russia. But Trump will tear up Brzezinski's Chessboard

On election eve, NATO announces military buildup against Russia. But
Trump will tear up Brzezinski's Chessboard

Newsletter published on 9 November 2016

(1) NATO announces largest troop deployments against Russia since Cold War
(2) Huge NATO land army to meet Russian aggression - London Times (just
before election)
(3) NATO chief tells President-elect Trump: you can't dismantle NATO
(4) The World might be safer under Trump - former head of British armed
(5) Maybe No World War Three
(6) No Third World War

(1) NATO announces largest troop deployments against Russia since Cold War

NATO announces largest troop deployments against Russia since Cold War

By Alex Lantier

8 November 2016

NATO will place hundreds of thousands of troops on alert for military
action against Russia in the coming months, top NATO officials told the
Times of London on Monday.

The US-led military alliance is planning to speed up the mobilization of
forces numbering in the tens of thousands and, ultimately, hundreds of
thousands and millions that are to be mobilized against Russia. Beyond
its existing 5,000-strong emergency response force, NATO is tripling its
"incumbent response force" to 40,000 and putting hundreds of thousands
of troops on higher alert levels.

The Times wrote, "Sir Adam West, Britain’s outgoing permanent
representative to NATO, said he thought that the goal was to speed up
the response time of up to 300,000 military personnel to about two
months. At present a force of this size could take up to 180 days to

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said, "We are… addressing what
we call the follow-on forces. There are a large number of people in the
armed forces of NATO allies. We are looking into how more of them can be
ready on a shorter notice." According to the Times, Stoltenberg
explained that NATO is looking broadly at methods for "improving the
readiness of many of the alliance's three million soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines."

The target of these deployments, the largest since the dissolution of
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist bureaucracy and the end of the Cold
War a quarter century ago, is Russia.

"We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial
military build-up of many years, tripling defence spending since 2000 in
real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their
forces and using military force against neighbours," Stoltenberg said.
"We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among NATO allies
and that is exactly the reason why NATO is responding. We are responding
with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end
of the Cold War."

These statements show how NATO planning for a horrific war against
Russia has continued behind the backs of the people throughout the US
presidential election campaign. Military deployments and war
preparations by the Pentagon and the general staffs of the various
European countries are set to go ahead, moreover, whatever the outcome
of the election in the United States and those slated for 2017 in the
European NATO countries.

Stoltenberg's vague attack on Russian "propaganda" in Europe is an
allusion to the instinctive opposition to war that exists in the
European and international working class and popular distrust of the
anti-Russian propaganda promoted by NATO officials like Stoltenberg and

Last year, a Pew poll found broad international opposition to NATO
participation in a conventional war against Russia in Eastern Europe,
even in a scenario that assumes Russia started the conflict. Under these
hypothetical conditions, 58 percent of Germans, 53 percent of French
people, and 51 percent of Italians opposed any military action against
Russia. Opposition to war in the poll would doubtless have been higher
had pollsters mentioned that NATO's decision to attack Russian forces in
Eastern Europe could lead to nuclear war.

This opposition is rooted in deep disaffection with the imperialist
Middle East wars of the post-Soviet period and the memory of two world
wars in Europe in the 20th century. The arguments Stoltenberg presented
against it are politically fraudulent.

The primary threat of military aggression and war in Europe comes not
from Russia, but from the NATO countries. Over the past 25 years, the
imperialist powers of NATO have bombed and invaded countries in Central
Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Within Europe, they bombed Serbia and
Kosovo in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, pushed NATO’s borders hundreds
of miles to the East, and backed a violent, fascist-led putsch to topple
a pro-Russian government in Ukraine in 2014.

The aggressive character of NATO policy emerged once again last Friday,
when NBC News reported that US cyber warfare units had hacked key
Russian electricity, Internet and military networks. These are now
"vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the US
deem it necessary," NBC stated. [...]

The aggressive character of NATO’s agenda is illustrated by a report
issued last month by the CIA-linked Rand Corporation think tank on the
military situation in the Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia. The small military forces NATO has posted in the Baltic
republics, Rand wrote, are "inviting a devastating war, rather than
deterring it." They calculated that Russian forces, if they actually
invaded, could overrun these countries in approximately 60 hours.

On this basis, the think tank called for launching a vast NATO military
build-up in the Baltic republics, virtually at the gates of St.
Petersburg. It wrote that it would take "a force of about seven
brigades, including three heavy armored brigades—adequately supported by
air power, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready
to fight at the onset of hostilities… to prevent the rapid overrun of
the Baltic states." This would cost the NATO countries $2.7 billion each
year. [...]

(2) Huge NATO land army to meet Russian aggression - London Times (just
before election of Trump)

Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

November 7 2016, 12:01am, The Times

Huge NATO land army to meet Russian aggression

Hundreds of thousands of NATO troops will be put on a higher state of
alert amid rising tensions with Russia, the head of the alliance has

NATO commanders want to prepare a substantial land force capable of
deterring Russian -aggression.

NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg did not give precise figures,
but Adam Thomson, Britain’s outgoing permanent representative to the
alliance, said the goal was to speed up the response time of up to
300,000 military personnel to about two months. At present a force of
this size could take up to 180 days to deploy.

The troops would act as a -"follow-on force" to NATO’s existing response
force, which can be deployed to a war zone within days. The personnel
will come from nations across the alliance.

"We have seen Russia being much more active in many -different ways," Mr
Stoltenbergsaid in an exclusive interview.

"We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial
military build-up over many years; tripling defence spending since 2000
in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their
forces and using military force against neighbours.

"We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among NATO allies
and that is exactly the reason why NATO is responding. We are responding
with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end
of the Cold War."

The measures, drawn up after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in east Ukraine, include
the deployment of 4000 NATO troops to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and
Poland from next year. NATO has already created an emergency response
force of 5000 ground troops, backed by air, sea and special forces,
which is able to mobilise within five days.

In addition, the 28 member states agreed to triple the size of an
incumbent response force to 40,000 troops. They can be moved in quickly
as reinforcements after the initial wave.

Mr Stoltenberg said NATO was looking at improving the readiness of many
of the alliance’s three million soldiers, sailors, -airmen and Marines.

"We are ... addressing what we call the follow-on forces," he said.
"There are a large number of people in the armed forces of NATO allies.
We are looking into how more of them can be ready on a shorter notice."

The issue was discussed at a meeting of NATO defence ministers last
month. Sir Adam said all allies had agreed it was necessary to increase
the deployability of large numbers of -alliance troops. "I am not sure
that everyone has realised how difficult and how expensive it is going
to be, but it is part of that concept agreed in February of this year,"
Sir Adam said, referring to a previous meeting of defence ministers.

After the Soviet Union -collapsed, defence budgets in most NATO states
were slashed. Most of those forces still in uniform were put on a lower
state of readiness. But -Russia continued to train its military at
scale, with exercises of more than 100,000 personnel taking place each
year. NATO is also responding to an increase in espionage, hybrid
warfare and cyberattacks. One step has been the creation of an
intelligence division.

(3) NATO chief tells President-elect Trump: you can't dismantle NATO

Wed Nov 9, 2016 | 5:31am EST

NATO chief tells Trump: no conditions on defending allies

By Robin Emmott | BRUSSELS

NATO's promise to defend and protect any ally under attack is an
unconditional guarantee set out in the Western alliance's founding
treaty, the organization's chief said on Wednesday following the victory
of Donald Trump in the U.S. election.

During the campaign, Trump threatened to abandon U.S. allies in Europe
if they do not spend enough on defense, unnerving the ex-Soviet Baltic
states on Russia's border, who fear Moscow might try a repeat of its
2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea.

"NATO's security guarantee is a treaty commitment and all allies have
made a solemn commitment to defend each other and this is something
which is absolute and unconditioned," NATO Secretary-General Jens
Stoltenberg told a news conference.

Trump's suggestion of conditioning the United States’ defense of its
Western allies was the first time a leading presidential candidate had
raised the idea, putting him directly at odds with NATO's 27 other
member states.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was founded in 1949 around the
central promise that an armed attack against one ally is an attack
against all, whether it be on land, in the air or on the seas. NATO
leaders in July added the area of cyberspace to that list of war
fighting domains, although allies have to request NATO's help and
decisions are on a case-by-case basis.

After the fall of the Soviet Union a quarter of a century ago, NATO's
European allies cut defense spending to historic lows, leaving the
United States to make up around three quarters of the alliance's
military expenditure.

A newly assertive Russia under President Vladimir Putin has begun to
change that and Europe is again spending more on defense. But Britain,
Poland, Greece and Estonia are the only European nations to meet a NATO
goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

Trump also threatened to withdraw U.S. forces from Europe if allies fail
to pay more for U.S. protection. [...]

(4) The World might be safer under Trump - former head of British armed

    Thomas Seidler<> 8 November 2016 at 23:59

World may be safer with tycoon, says general

Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

November 4 2016, 12:01am,  The Times

The world might be a safer place under Donald Trump than under Hillary
Clinton, a former head of the British armed forces has said.

General Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said that the Republican
billionaire, who has made no secret of his admiration for President
Putin, would re-boot relations between Moscow and Washington, which are
at a post-Cold War low.

By contrast, Mrs Clinton would be more likely to set the West on a
course for war if she pushed ahead with a safe zone for civilians in
Syria: that might require US aircraft to shoot down the Russian fighter
jets flying in support of the Assad regime.

Lord Richards told The Times this week that he believed the only way to
prevent a further humanitarian catastrophe in the rebel-held east of
Aleppo would be for the rebels to withdraw, removing any reason for
Russian planes to attack.

He repeated this view in an interview with The House magazine, which
appeared yesterday. "In the Cold War era states coalesced and they had
this understanding and it worked — even though there was a massive
amount at stake, communications and mutual understanding between Russia
and America wasn’t too bad," the crossbench peer said.

"It’s non-state actors like Isis that are the biggest threat to our
security. If countries and states could coalesce better to deal with
these people — and I think Trump’s instinct is to go down that route —
then I think there’s the case for saying that the world certainly won’t
be any less safe. It’s that lack of understanding and empathy with each
other as big power players that is a risk to us all at the moment.
Therefore I think he would reinvigorate big power relationships, which
might make the world ironically safer."

Lord Richards, who was chief of the defence staff between 2010 and 2013,
said that setting up safe zones for Syrian civilians, as suggested by
Mrs Clinton, could lead to a serious confrontation with Russia. "Unless
she’s prepared to do this properly and go to war with Russia, she
shouldn’t talk about no-fly zones and nor should we. We would have to
shoot down Russian aircraft to impose it. Do we really want to go to a
shooting war over Aleppo?"

Sir Adam Thomson, Britain’s outgoing permanent representative to Nato,
said that alliance members had been unnerved by recent remarks from Mr
Trump that he would be less inclined to defend European allies if they
were not spending sufficiently on defence. "We need to . . .
re-establish that the commitment is there," he said. "Let us see what he
says as president. It is one thing to be a candidate. It is another
thing to be president of the United States."

(5) Maybe No World War Three

From: "Larry" <> Subject: US election.
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:26:15 +0800

Peter, after this, I will believe anything you tell me. The US media
were talking Hillary all the way. I can't imagine how you predicted
this. Maybe No World War Three.

(6) No Third World War

Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 10:29:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Eric Encina <>

[...] Honestly, it is not easy to make America great again but let’s
give him the benefits of the doubt. If God is with him, then making
America great again is not far-fetched to impossible.  Americans have
all the reasons to optimistically  back up Mr. Trump for American victory.

Making America great again is to restore monetary and economic justice
and have a model for a real economy where human life is respected, the
poor is given dignity and economic security is guaranteed without
destroying other nations in this planet even hostile to America. Soon
America is gonna the nation of peace and a bridge of peace in the world.
No more wars of nations and definitely no third world war. [...]

It is convincing that God heard the prayers for America for a new birth
of governance through Trump Administration. And that’s the end of too
much political bickering and division and just like the way I called up
for the Philippines following our own election last May, let’s be
united for a ground solution for the good, security and victory for all
of us.

I still wish and pray a better relation between America and my country
Philippines following these elections of two countries in more than 4
decades of alliance in the South East Asia despite of the apparent
differences between of foreign policies of two country-governments’
elected presidents.

God bless America!

Eric V. Encina