Monday, 6 March 2017


Trump rehearsing for his speech to Congress. 

by Colin Liddell

Hitler's intentions were very clear to anyone who bothered to read Mein Kampf, and the same can be said about Donald Trump and his speeches. The speech he gave a week or so ago to a joint session of Congress was the most high profile and important speech he has given yet, and comes after five weeks of frenetic activity by his administration. It is therefore well worth examining for clues as to what Trump's vision and intentions are.

The clarity of the vision was partly obscured by some distracting PC touches. But, taken in context, with other statements by the President, a fairly coherent picture emerges of what Trump thinks it is possible for him to achieve.

On the plus side, it is clear he believes in a fairly broad-based economic nationalism that aims to "privilege" all Americans, possibly at the expense of the rest of the World. Seeing it in these terms may also explain why Trump included such a big commitment military spending at a time when America has very little to worry about geopolitically:
"Finally, to keep America safe we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war and—if they mustto fight and to win. I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history. My budget will also increase funding for our veterans. Our veterans have delivered for this Nationand now we must deliver for them."
Of course, this could merely be a good way of supporting American jobs, because the "military industrial complex" has less "porosity" than other sectors in the US economy, i.e. it can't be outsourced to create jobs in China quite so easily, for security reasons. This also makes it a perfect form of "pork barrel" and thus a means of strengthening government power. But it could also be an expression of the view that economic nationalism will rely on America continuing to project power on the wider global stage.

Trump seems to realize that America will get better trade deals with the likes of China, Russia, and the Saudis, if it maintains its massive military lead. Although the USA spends more on its military than the next 12 nations combined, much of the money is wasted or spent ineffectively. Spending alone does not indicate the relative military strengths and weaknesses of various powers.

More military spending...yawn!
But enough about the murky world of geopolitics. The most important issue for the Alt-Right is, of course, Trump's immigration policy, especially as Whites are already a minority of new births in the USA.

In his speech, Trump signalled that he is very strongly opposed to certain kinds of illegal immigrant, namely thugs and gang members who break laws in addition to the actual immigration law ("criminal illegals"). The general consensus of the American people—carefully shepherded by the globalist media and, let's be fair, their own churches—leans towards "being OK with" immigrants, as long as they are nice and hard-working. This is simply a "soft-genocide" position that will lead to Whites becoming a minority and losing power.

But although Trump doesn't have a racist bone in his body (meant as criticism not praise), he is not entirely lining up with the "cuck consensus" of contemporary America. This is because to do so would be politically inexpedient for him. Unlike normal Republicans, he seems to be aware of how demographics impact on the fortunes of what is now his own party.

This creates a conflict in Trump. On the one hand, as a cosmopolitan, big business guy with plenty of Jewish associates, he is in favour of immigration, both personally (check out Melania) and from an economic point of view. But, on the other hand, as a "political realist," he sees how mass immigration has been used as a political weapon by Democrats. Trump's speech gave us some clues as to how he is intending to deal with this conflict.

There are three elements to Trump's approach.
  1. First he has to throw his base—including the Alt-Right—some red meat. Hence the moves to ban Muslims, build an actual wall, and deport large numbers of gang members and other criminals, while also keeping the threat of deportation hovering over millions of other illegal immigrants.
  2. Secondly, he realizes that he is not politically strong enough (or personally inclined that way) to kick out all the illegals, including the "decent, hardworking" ones. He knows that such a move could lead to a very divided country, and that getting bogged down in the endless controversies this will create would undermine his own authority and also his drive for more economic nationalism. Effectively it could derail his whole presidency if pushed hard enough. Because of this inherent danger, he seems to be envisaging some sort of compromise.
  3. Thirdly, he wants to change the nature of immigration, essentially from low-skilled Hispanics (a tool for Democrats) to high IQ Whites and Asians (people who would be willing to support a successful Republican President as he hopes to be).
Given his position and the considerable forces that could either ally with him or be opposed to him, all three of these elements make a lot of political sense. Nobody but SJWs and extreme leftists care about the "criminal illegals" he is kicking out, so attacking this group is a quick and easy way to score points, especially against sanctuary cities. Trump's speech mentioned the populist approach he is taking here:
"I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called VOICEVictims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests."
The Muslim ban also has widespread support, although it has also partly  become a political football, making it necessary for a more nuanced approach that we see in his second executive order banning Muslims/terrorists.

The biggest hands in the world.
From Trump's point of view, the previous system of mass low-skilled illegal immigration with creeping amnesty was a disaster, because it was, in essence, just a means for the Left to not only import votes, but also create conditions where other groups—especially Black and some Whites—would be pushed into taking a more Leftist outlook. Blacks and poor Whites pushed onto welfare or into fake government jobs by cheap illegal labour, effectively become a leftist bloc vote. At different points in his speech Trump showed an awareness of this dynamic:
"By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed—but that can't happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We must restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders."
"Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers."
Raising wages and reducing unemployment and dependency should be read as code for reducing the number of Democrat voters. This strand in Trump's thought is at least as much an act of political warfare as the Democrats illegal seizure of California through amnesty policies or British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to flood the country with immigrants. Trump is politically fighting back in a way unprecedented by a Republican politician.

This also explains his comments on merit-based immigration policy:
"Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others—have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America's taxpayers many billions of dollars a year."
Immigration of whatever kind is liable to push up the leftist and anti-White vote, but clearly letting in high IQ Chinese and Indians is less likely to be a straight gift to the Democratic Party.

Also, if Trump can succeed, and, in so doing, inflict a major defeat on the Democrats, he could turn it into a party of losers and failures—the party of the low-skilled, workshy, indigent, laid-off public sector worker, and hysterical SJW. Such a party immediately becomes a lot less attractive for the hard-working high earning immigrant from Asia.

Old immigration.
But the problem remains what to do with the Trojan horse of up to 20 million illegal immigrants who aren't tattooed members of MS13. Big business doesn't want to see them suddenly disappear from the labour pool, even if the technology to replace them already exists. Also, the American public, with its carefully softened heart, is not ready for the messy business of ripping the 20 million out of the nation, especially with the Leftist media on hand to amplify every squeak of pain and misery.

Trump is clearly reading the public mood on this one and sensing what is possible. For him, remember, the main thing is not to be too divisive or too hated, and to avoid pissing off big business too much, while also not being a political cuck:
"I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation's security, and to restore respect for our laws. If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades."
The kind of deal that would work for Trump would be one that legalizes illegals already in the country as "migrant workers," and also avoids granting them citizenship and voting rights. This would also have to avoid granting their children citizenship, even the ones born in the USA.

The Left would criticize this as the creation of peon class and call it a new system of apartheid, and the Alt-Right will complain that it doesn't go far enough in removing the demographic timebomb, but given the balance of forces and the nature of the American people (varying from cucked to half-cucked), and the continuing power of big business, this is the defensive line that can best be held in the battle to stop America sliding into a non-White Third World hell hole. At least for now.


No comments:

Post a Comment


by Colin Liddell AUDIO VERSION AVAILABLE HERE In recent days, the news cycle has been dominated by so-called "racism" ...