White supremacists differ on Trump

THE DONALD DECEPTION

By Michael Collins Piper

(https://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/2015/07/26/the-donald-deception/]

Donald Trump’s rise to stardom came as a consequence of his having been a flamboyant front man for some unsavory behind-the-scenes sponsors. Here’s the story:

In his memoir, Trump proudly described how in 1987 he bought his first casino interests when he purchased 93 percent of the voting stock in the Resorts International (RI) gambling concern.

What Trump didn’t say was that RI was controlled by a clique of sordid, international big-money elements in alliance with the Jewish crime syndicate which was, in turn, collaborating with the CIA and Israel’s Mossad in an array of inter-connected money-laundering operations.

The casinos laundered money for the CIA and the Mossad. In return, these agencies used their influence to ensure the mob remained protected from interference by law enforcement.

To understand where Trump fits in, we turn to RI’s murky origins. RI evolved from a CIA front—the Mary Carter Paint Company—set up in the 1950s by then-CIA director Allen Dulles and his close associate, New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, a leader of the “Rockefeller wing” of the GOP. While the company did in fact operate a national paint store chain, its real purpose was to function as a covert CIA money-laundering operation.

In 1958 and 1959 Dewey and several associates used CIA funds to buy a controlling interest in the Crosby-Miller Corporation (headed by Dewey friend James Crosby), which was then merged with Mary Carter. The new concern laundered CIA money for the arming of the anti-Castro Cuban exiles and also launched lucrative gambling enterprises in the Caribbean where the CIA was active, having engaged the Meyer Lansky crime syndicate in plots to topple Fidel Castro.

How many law-abiding Americans who bought Mary Carter’s paint would have thought they were funding a joint CIA-mob operation posing behind the smiling face of a “typical American housewife,” the fictional “Mary Carter” whose visage adorned its products?

In 1963 the company spun off its paint division and began focusing on its casino operations, particularly in the Bahamas. In 1967 and 1968 Mary Carter changed its name to Resorts International and expanded. Several principal investors provided the assets:

• Meyer Lansky, the “chairman of the board” of the Jewish crime syndicate;

• David Rockefeller, who provided his family’s clout with the CIA and in global banking to assist;

• The Investors Overseas Service, then the world’s largest “flight-capital” conglomerate, headed by notorious Bernard Cornfeld who was no more than a frontman for two behind-the-scenes principals:

• Tibor Rosenbaum, the Mossad’s Swiss-based arms procurer, who headed the Banque De Credit Internationale of Geneva, the Lansky syndicate’s chief European money launderer;

• Baron Edmond de Rothschild of the infamous banking family and a personal business partner of Rosenbaum in many Mossad-related ventures; and

• William Mellon Hitchcock, an heir to the Mellon dynasty—one of America’s largest family fortunes which has collaborated closely with the CIA for years. In 1970 the mob moved to expand legalized gambling on U.S. soil. Mob chief Lansky called a high-level syndicate conference where the fading resort of Atlantic City was pinpointed as their new target. Prior to this, Lansky-controlled Nevada was the only outpost of legal gambling in the United States. RI’s resources were used to finance the lobbying campaign that brought legalized gambling to Atlantic City and RI quickly moved in.

In 1987 upon the death of RI’s nominal head—CIA frontman James Crosby—up-and-coming New York real estate tycoon Trump stepped in and bought Crosby’s RI holdings. So while the name “Trump” appeared in the headlines, RI’s real movers remained hidden from public view.

Trump shed his RI investments in his much-publicized “bankruptcy” but he remains a major player in the gambling industry—and now he may be running for president of the United States.

  

Donald Trump’s breakthrough statement on immigration

Kevin Macdonald  (www.theoccidentalobserver.net)

August 17, 2015

I certainly counted myself among the skeptics when it comes to Donald Trump’s candidacy. But it’s clear now that he is going full populist on the issues that matter, first with his statements on trade deals, but now—and more importantly—on immigration. Ann Coulter calls his immigration statement “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.”

I agree—if it can actually end up influencing policy. While other candidates like Scott Walker and Rick Santorum have mumbled things about legal immigration, the immigration issue will now define Trump’s candidacy. White Americans can finally express themselves on what kind of country they want to live in. As Coulter also points out, immigration is the only important issue.

Suddenly the cozy consensus among elites on immigration is exposed. White American voters started this election cycle with the deadening belief that it was going to be Hillary vs. Jeb in the election, with nary a mention that immigration was even an issue. Flip a coin, because it makes no difference to the big money or anyone else—the politics of oligarchy in action. Here’s a cartoon of a person who had hanged himself, his feet dangling down in front of a TV screen showing a presidential debate between Jeb and Hillary.

Exactly. And in that debate there would be zero questions on immigration—just the way the big media wants it.

But now Trump is saying what White Americans have been actually thinking for a very long time. This passage gets at the heart of the issue.

Put American Workers First Decades of disastrous trade deals and immigration policies have destroyed our middle class. Today, nearly 40% of black teenagers are unemployed. Nearly 30% of Hispanic teenagers are unemployed. For black Americans without high school diplomas, the bottom has fallen out: more than 70% were employed in 1960, compared to less than 40% in 2000. Across the economy, the percentage of adults in the labor force has collapsed to a level not experienced in generations. As CBS news wrote in a piece entitled “America’s incredible shrinking middle class”: “If the middle-class is the economic backbone of America, then the country is developing osteoporosis.”

The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage. Nearly half of all immigrants and their US-born children currently live in or near poverty, including more than 60 percent of Hispanic immigrants. Every year, we voluntarily admit another 2 million new immigrants, guest workers, refugees, and dependents, growing our existing all-time historic record population of 42 million immigrants. We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers in order to: help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities’ rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream.

The populist labor-market critique of immigration policy, pioneered by Senator Jeff Sessions and based on sound academic research, is finally getting into the political mainstream. The incredible reality is that putting American workers first is anathema to elites among both Democrats and Republicans. We talk a lot about implicit Whiteness here, and it has often been said that implicit Whiteness is not enough. But certainly the start of the revolution to restore a White America need not be explicitly White at all. The labor-market argument applies to the vast majority of Americans, Black and White alike. The idea that importing millions of uneducated, impoverished Third Worlders into the US — or any other European-derived country — would actually benefit the country is ridiculous.

It’s never been about the needs of most Americans, but rather the desires of businesses for cheap labor, the desires of the ethnic lobbies to get more of their people here to increase their power, and the desires of predominantlyJewish elites against the idea of a homogeneous White America. If there has been one constant threat of Jewish intellectual and political activity since World War II, it has been to oppose populism. Obviously, they much prefer an oligarchy of the wealthy with control of the media and in control of the donor class of both Republicans and Democrats.

And oligarchy is what they have gotten: The idea that Western societies are democracies is an  illusion. In fact, an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics much better than a democratic model (see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page inPerspectives on Politics, Sept. 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens“).The Trump candidacy is the most hopeful sign that the present oligarchy could be circumvented at the presidential level.

What the establishment fears most is a highly visible, personally attractive, honest, populist candidate who cannot be shut out of the media and with enough money to run a viable campaign.

This Washington Examiner article is right on the money in showing that Trump’s statement actually fits well with the views of most Americans.

Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate’s leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump’s positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics. “Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have to Go,'” read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on “Meet the Press.” “They have to go,” Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. “We either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican senator Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. Some of Trump’s presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. “Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we’ll let some of them come back,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. “I just hope we don’t go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he’s going to take all of us with him if we don’t watch it.”

Let’s watch Graham run on that and see where it gets him (he is atzero percent in the latest poll). All his sucking up to the Israel Lobby has gotten him nowhere.

The real importance of the Examiner article is in highlighting a study showing just how out of touch elites are on immigration:

But are Trump’s views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public’s views on immigration are closer to Trump’s than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.

 The Broockman/Ahler paper, published in July, is about more than just immigration; it examines the range of public opinion on several issues. On each, the authors gave a scientifically-selected group of respondents a broad range of policy options. On immigration, they listed seven possibilities, ranging from open borders to shutting down all immigration. These are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:

1.      The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

2.      Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

3.      Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.

4.      Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.

5.      The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.

6.      Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.

7.      Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.

Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven. The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump.

Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a “small number” of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent. “Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse,” Broockman and Ahler conclude.

Shocking! We have said all along that the anti-White revolution is a top-down phenomenon initiated and maintained by hostile elites with very little popular support, especially among White people — which is why these elites continue to import millions of non-Whites. Those percentages show that an immigration platform something like Trump’s is a winner.

Trump’s immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It’s probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump’s position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump’s immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Just a couple comments on Trump’s position paper which should be read in its entirety. It may be considered the Jeff Sessions playbook on immigration, including ending birthright citizenship. The only other presidential candidate mentioned is Marco Rubio:

When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties. …  Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

Beautiful. And he could have mentioned Rubio’s ultra-Zionist backers, Norman Braman, Larry Ellison, and Sheldon Adelson. Sounds like a pattern. Obviously, one of the big strengths of the Trump candidacy is that he is not dependent on the donor class. He gets another dig in at the donors:

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own.

Unfortunately, all European-derived countries have immigration policies that are absolutely opposed to the interests of their native populations. We can now expect that a raging conflagration of media attacks against Trump and that Republican elites will continue to do all they can to derail Trump’s candidacy. This will be political theater at its best.

Trump/Sessions for president/vice-president in 2016!