I have three lovely headlines for you this morning.
“Venture capitalists spent much of last year blaming government for their dearth of distributions. Those excuses wore pretty thin, but will evaporate come Jan. 20.
The big picture: Silicon Valley is about to influence D.C. like Wall Street once did. …
Behind the scenes: Trump’s implicit endorsement of Musk’s position on H1-B visas, in opposition to longtime MAGA, suggests that the ties run deeper than electoral expediency. And that the red carpet is even more ingrained for “Little Tech” than it was during the Obama years.
The bottom line: Trump 2.0 is shaping up to be an access administration for Silicon Valley. …”
Yesterday, I compared the incoming Trump administration and Silicon Valley to the time the railroads took over the federal government after the Civil War. The liberal establishment essentially lost Civil War 2. We kept expecting the culture war to turn violent, but the liberals gave up and surrendered to “fascism” without a fight. They didn’t try to organize a violent rebellion like the old Slave Power. They are now a defeated establishment like the Southern Bourbons in the late 19th century.
“The year 2024 will be the year media fell apart
The ecosystem of news media has been cracking for two decades, but in 2024 it fully fell apart. While we’ve become accustomed to the bloodletting of constant layoffs in legacy newsrooms (and that’s still happening), now we’re seeing premium talent ditching their jobs to start independent news organizations like Bari Weiss’s Free Press, Oliver Darcy’s Status, Kara Swisher’s podcasts or — like Don Lemon and Megyn Kelly — thriving YouTube channels. …
The year antisemitism found a home on the left
Don’t tell me this has nothing to do with anything because it does. The shocking rise of antisemitism (not “anti-Zionism” or “anti-Israel sentiment”) in mainstream institutions, whether that’s the BBC, Columbia University or Irish and Canadian government offices, augurs badly for good people everywhere. It doesn’t take a trained student of history to know that when societies start demonizing Jews, catastrophe usually ensues for both the Jews and those societies. …
The year DEI hit the wall
It was bound to happen. Pendulums swing, and this pendulum is swinging pretty hard. After a peak national surge to combat racism in the wake of George Floyd’s horrific murder by a police officer in Minneapolis in 2020, DEI programs — adopted at C-suite levels at media and entertainment companies — are in retreat across the board. Some executives quit in frustration after concluding there was no real support for prioritizing diversity, while other companies cut departments and positions as part of their broader layoffs. …“
Antisemitism became cool again because the Jewish elite and their legacy media institutions are long in the tooth like 82-year-old Nelson Peltz. Their whole world is crumbling. Many of the people out there on college campuses leading the anti-Israel protests are their anti-Zionist Jewish grandchildren.
“Elon Musk hijacked British politics this week with a stream of at least 60 X posts since Tuesday attacking Prime Minister Keir Starmer, defending an anti-Islam campaigner and endorsing the far-right Reform Party.
Why it matters: The right-hand man to America’s next president has gone after the leaders of several of its closest allies in recent months. But his fight with the British government is turning into the nastiest yet.
While Musk’s X microphone was enough to send Westminster into a frenzy, there’s been intense speculation he’ll also open his checkbook for Reform and its Trump-aligned leader, Nigel Farage. …”
Then there is Elon.
Elon’s has pivoted to UK politics since he set off the H-1B visas debate. He has fired off about 60-80 new tweets about the rape of White girls by Muslim gangs in the UK.
Jewish donors like Michael Bloomberg, Nelson Peltz, Sheldon Adelson, Bernie Marcus, Paul Singer and so forth used to be like the sun at the center of American politics. The whole world revolved around their concerns. Elon has replaced them at the center of the political universe.
For every Bloomberg, Peltz, Adelson, Marcus, Singer you can find a one to one equivalent jew in Silicon Valley, so zero difference in the end. Jews are in total control, BLM was becoming problematic because the goyim were starting to believe their propaganda that blacks were more important than jews, so it had to be shut down ASAP.
“Jews are in total control, ”
That’s hyperbolic and self-defeating.
Jwz aren’t in total control, they have tremendously disproportionate power, but aren’t in control.
What lever of power do the jews not control according to you?
The Supreme court, they don’t control.
The oil industry. The shipping industry.
Much of mining. Military officer ranks.
They exert an excessive level of influence,but not ‘total control’.
@US of AIPAC,
Jews pass Voltaire’s test of who rules over you.
More than half of US states have laws against BDS pissrael.
Several states have made criticizing pissrael and jews “hate speech.” The LGBTQ freaks don’t have nearly that level of extralegal support in the US.
They only control or are only able to control those who worship money. If you worship God they have no control over you.
@Aryan Uprising,
Zion Don Jr (who OD will hope is Vance’s VP) Musk, Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, Jon Lonsdale, Nikki Haley, Lyndsey Graham, Mike Johnson, News Nation, News Max, Kid Rock, Dennis Quaid, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Hulk Hogan, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and other MAGAtards told us to chill and grill.
Trust the plan. Patriots are in control again.
Yes, the grifters, thieves, scam artists, hucksters, “Free Market Capitalists” with their U.S. Government welfare payments (Looking at you, Elon) are in charge, led by the Stable Genius himself, the King of Debt and bankruptcy.
https://youtu.be/vPF500Gs28M?t=207
What could go wrong?
Jews are indestructible god-like beings to some people.
Given the vast disparity in resources between the populist Trumpism and the entrenched establishment that controls practically all the institutions and industries (diminished though they might be), it is not at all surprising that Trump has grasped ahold of this coalition of tech bros and their democratic refugees like Rogan, Kennedy and Gabbard to lend his agenda a broader base of support and legitimacy than the White working class could ever have provided him alone.
There is no way in any kind of reasonable world that he will go out of his way to cater to the overall less important concerns of a fringe when his clearly stated agenda is served more by his coalition, this strange order of monsters.
The H1B thing sucks. But it has sucked for a long time, and its nothing new. What is new is the opportunity to make a broader and further reaching shift in the overton window that if successful will greatly benefit White Interests. What is new is having an opportunity to greatly curtail the federal government and erode the centralization of control that is crushing White prosperity through corruption and tyranny.
It is precisely the myopic obsession with the JQ that ensures dissident right folks have no actual seat at the table. Not because they are wrong, but because they are obnoxious and toxic and impossible to deal with in any meaningful political engagement. Jews have lost control of the empire. Nobody cares if they have more influence in the middle east, let them have it. Here, at home, they are losing control and everyone is seeing them for who they are. The worm is turning and a paradigm shift has taken place. MOVE ON and pivot to the challenges of the day. Let them wallow in their self made misery. Learn to care again about White interests for their own sake, and see the bigger picture. There is more to all this than just a hook nosed menace.
The essence of this self destructive autism is that it insists on the perfect when the good enough is all that is realistically attainable. This childishness must end, and it will end, either when the dissident right or a remnant of it consciously decides to, or when all memory of it is completely obscured by cultural irrelevance.
I have no dog in the fight anymore. I’m trying to work in the real world where there are consequences to foolishness.
“…and everyone is seeing them for who they are. ”
‘everyone’, oh please .
You know damn well that the vast majority are blind to the jp.
Ppl on this forum sure enjoy hyperbole and superlatives, to excess.
Any chance these self proclaimed “high iq” tech bros, Miller, and the Floridians can ban third world undesirables and deport the sludge? They have had 10 years to figure it out. Cliff notes legal overview of US law.
Pursuant to 8 USC section 1157 the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such a number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, as is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interests. The President alone could make it so the USA would only allow 1 refugee to enter per year if he wanted.
Pursuant to the immigration and nationality act, the president also has the authority to determine how the total should be allocated among various refugees fleeing conflicts and disasters around the world, thus giving the president important authority to EXPRESS HIS PREFERENCES regarding who should enter, whether those preferences are motivated by foreign policy or domestic concerns. (See sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the immigration and nationality act, 8 us code 1187(a)(12)(visa waiver for certain visitors from Iraq and Syria), 8 usc 1182(f) and 1185(a). See also, 1980 Refugee Act.)
I think everyone knows section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which gives the President PERSONALLY the power to suspend the entry of any class of aliens whose admission would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. (Due to middle eastern terrorist groups having access to legit Syrian and other government passport printing machines along with fingerprint and biographical data on all Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan citizens, it could be detrimental to national security if we let them in as we can’t verify who they are. Other third world criminal organizations like the Mexican cartels also do this).”
To summarize, the President can pick which countries he wants to accept refugees from and the USA does not have to accept a single refugee from any country if the President does not want to.
The first immigration act in the USA was written by the founders and only allowed whites to immigrate. It stayed this way for the majority of our country’s history. Is it really unconstitutional to ban non-whites.? See, The “Naturalization Act of 1790. Benjamin Franklin and the Founders also clearly stated that America should be a white country, which is why America’s first immigration act banned all non-white immigration. See also Chinese Exclusion Act (1882).
The 1891 Immigration Act barred polygamists, people with contagious diseases, people convicted of crimes “of moral turpitude,” and those likely to become a “public charge” by depending on government assistance. A 1903 law barred anarchists and others, including beggars.
The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia.”
“In 1917, the U.S. Congress enacted the first widely restrictive immigration law. The uncertainty generated over national security during World War I made it possible for Congress to pass this legislation, and it included several important provisions that paved the way for the 1924 Act. The 1917 Act implemented a literacy test that required immigrants over 16 years old to demonstrate basic reading comprehension in any language. It also increased the tax paid by new immigrants upon arrival and allowed immigration officials to exercise more discretion in making decisions over whom to exclude. Finally, the Act excluded from entry anyone born in a geographically defined “Asiatic Barred Zone” except for Japanese and Filipinos. In 1907, the Japanese Government had voluntarily limited Japanese immigration to the United States in the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Philippines was a U.S. colony, so its citizens were U.S. nationals and could travel freely to the United States. China was not included in the Barred Zone, but the Chinese were already denied immigration visas under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The literacy test alone was not enough to prevent most potential immigrants from entering, so members of Congress sought a new way to restrict immigration in the 1920s.”
“The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating – the Japanese in particular – would no longer be admitted to the United States.”(History gov)
“Although the national-origin quotas have received the most attention, the 1924 legislation also contained other important provisions. For instance, it barred immigration of anyone ineligible for naturalization in the United States, which re-codified the bar on Asian immigration, since only people categorized as White or Black were eligible to naturalize at the time. (Partly in order to incorporate residents of U.S. regions that were formerly part of Mexico, Mexicans and other Latin Americans were officially classified as White for the purposes of naturalization.) Given that the Asiatic Barred Zone remained in place, the main effect of this provision was to prevent immigration from Japan, ending the Gentleman’s Agreement. Minimal allocations were given to Japan and other Asian countries, but only non-Asians from the region were able to take advantage of them.
Only a limited number of migrants were exempt from the law’s overall quotas and bars, including wives and unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens, professors and ministers of any religion, their wives and minor children, and students. Government officials and their families and employees were also exempt, as were temporary visitors. Thus, even for countries that faced a prohibition on immigration or very law caps, narrow pathways to the United States remained.
The 1924 act cemented a requirement that immigrants apply for and obtain a visa at a consular post abroad before entering the United States. The United States had created an ad hoc visa system during World War I, but under the 1921 Emergency Quota Act permission to enter under numerical limits was adjudicated at Ellis Island and other U.S. ports, creating a situation in which shipping companies raced to deliver migrants before annual quotas were reached, and in which migrants exceeding the caps were turned back around to Europe at the companies’ expense. After 1924, immigrants needed to obtain medical screenings, complete their application, and secure a visa stamp in their passport abroad. Thus, immigrants could board ships to the United States confident that they could lawfully enter, and the United States was able to control immigration levels at the source.
The law also made anyone who entered without a visa or inspection, or who stayed past an allotted period, subject to deportation, effectively declaring that a category of immigrants was living in the country illegally.” (Migration policy)
Under U.S. law, a “refugee” is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion, or national origin. This definition is based on the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols relating to the Status of Refugees, which the United States became a party to in 1968. Under the UN Convention and/or Protocols, a putative refugee must demonstrate that their GOVERNMENT intends to harm them because of their identity. What government is targeting these people?
Asylum:
The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for an alien physically present in the United States or at a land border or port of entry, irrespective of such alien’s status, to apply for asylum. 8 usc section 1158(a). We should follow remain in Mexico and The European Court of Justice, (Supreme Court for the European Union) has ruled that would be migrants MUST seek asylum in the first country they reach. As such, all of the asylum claims from the people coming from south of our border would not need to go before the court because their asylum claims would be invalid on its face. Therefore, we can free up court resources and deport them without court intervention. Does fraud exist? Or can these people can buy fake passports and birth certificates.?
Immigration and Nationality Act section 208 provides asylum procedures. Under 208(a), the attorney general has the DISCRETION to grant asylum to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien is a refugee as defined by section 101(a)(42). However, asylum status is subject to continuing review, and such status may be terminated if “circumstances” change in the alien’s country. In order to qualify for withholding of deportation, an alien must demonstrate that it is more likely than not the alien would be subject to persecution. Is every city in their country a war zone.?
The refugee status of any alien (and/or the spouse or child of the alien) may be terminated by the Attorney General pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe if the Attorney General determines that the alien was not in fact a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42) of this title at the time of the alien’s admission. See, Immigration and Nationality Act section 207(c)(4). Therefore, as almost all of these people did not meet the legal definition of being a refugee at the time of admission as their governments did not target them based on their identity, we can deport them all, almost.
No legal right of sanctuary exists within the United States. Sanctuary is not recognized by common or statutory law. “The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a legal opinion, rejecting sanctuary as a legal right in the United States under federal, state, or common law.”
Sanctuary participants who knowingly harbor an illegal alien could violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324. In U.S. v. Costello the 7th circuit discussed the scope and stated that ” 8 U.S.C. §1324 (a)(1)(A)(iii), which provides that anyone who knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the U.S. in violation of the law, conceals, harbors or shields from detection[or attempts to do any of these things], such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation,” is punishable by a prison term and a fine.” (Churches/Mayors)
Sanctuary Cities.> The power to regulate immigration resides exclusively with the federal government and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution “bars or preempts state and local governments from taking serious actions that frustrate federal laws and regulatory schemes established in relation to immigration.” Preemption stems from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.) “Accordingly, it has long been settled that state laws that conflict with federal law are without effect.” (Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett (2013) 570 U.S. 472, 479.) This is so even if the law is within the state’s power: “[U]nder the Supremacy Clause, from which our preemption doctrine is derived, any state law, however clearly within the State’s acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield.” (Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Assn. (1993) 505 U.S. 88, 108; see also Connelly v. Iolab Corp. (Mo. 1996) 927 S.W.2d 848, 851.)
Preemption may be express or implied. (Id. at 98.) Express preemption occurs when Congress explicitly states that a federal statute displaces state law. (Ibid.) Implied preemption comes in two forms. (Ibid.) The first, not relevant here, is “field” preemption, which exists “where the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.” (Ibid.) The second, relevant here, is “conflict” preemption. (E.g.,Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council (2000) 530 U.S. 363, 372 [“[S]tate law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.”].) Conflict preemption exists “where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” (Gade, supra, 505 U.S. at 98; see also PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing(2011) 564 U.S. 604, 621, fn.6 [“[P]urposes-and-objectives preemption is a form of conflict preemption.”].)
The Supreme Court has also consistently stated that the need to have uniformity in immigration is best accomplished by maintaining the federal government’s exclusive control over immigration.Sanctuary policies which restrict the exchange of information regarding a person’s immigration status between the federal and state/local government on their face violate(FEDERAL LAW) the Immigration Reform Act and Welfare Reform Act. (See Sec. 642 Immigration Reform Act and section 434 Welfare Reform Act.)
Layman’s terms, state and local governments CANNOT restrict, in any way, the exchange of information with the federal government regarding a person’s immigration status. (See Sec. 642 Immigration Reform Act and section 434 Welfare Reform Act.)
*A local policy that prohibits or restricts officials and employees from sharing immigration information with federal authorities will likely conflict with 642 and 434 and thus would be a nullity. Sanctuary policies that obstruct the “Accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” in the field of immigration law may be preempted by federal law. You could argue that a law that prohibits employees from asking about a persons immigration status is preempted by implication as it conflicts with the purpose of 8 U.S.C. § 1373’s “promoting communication between federal and state and local government.” If they want to require non-dissemination of immigration information for minors who are arrested for felony crimes, it would also be preempted by federal law.
If they have “Don’t Tell”, federal law bars the city from preventing voluntary dissemination of immigrant status information. In the Second Circuit in New York, the Court struck down an executive order which prohibited New York City employees from voluntarily reporting immigration information to federal officials. “In ruling against the city’s Tenth Amendment claim, the court held that the city did not have the untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs.” The court also outlined how the city would have to present evidence on how its illegal juvenile non-reporting policy is integral to the operation of the government. So, despite New York losing on a constitutional challenge, they are still recognized as a sanctuary city.
* congress can authorize an across-the-board stripping of federal dollars from state and local governments that do not fully comply to the full extent of the federal governments immigration enforcement programs.
For the Pakistani’s, would add this.>
The Born In Bradford Study found that half the city’s babies born each year are to Pakistani-heritage mothers. Like Tahira, two-thirds of these women (Pakistani’s) are married either to first or second cousins, a fact which heightens the risk of their offspring dying or having disabilities. You want to pay for that? You want to pay more taxes for that?
“In Western and European countries, the prevalence of CM does not exceed 0.5%, whereas, in India, the prevalence is 9.9%. In Arab Gulf countries and Pakistan, where the majority of inhabitants are Muslims, the prevalence of CM ranges between 40% and 60% [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. In Saudi Arabia, although the prevalence of CM ranges between 42% and 67%, different cities vary in the estimated prevalence. In cities such as Mecca, Madinah, and Riyadh, the prevalence ranges between 40% and 67%, whereas in Albaha, in 2005 the prevalence was 42%, which is the lowest in comparison to other cities in Saudi Arabia [4,6].
” like the SOUTHERN BOURBONS of the late 19th century”, Yes that is who we descended from, the woke/left are the Bastard lineage of the Enemy, circumstances similar, yet different than 1861-1876, the more fervent and excitable on both sides then, led us to WAR, the more moderate and reasonable voice’s of 21ist century SOUTHERN BOURBON’ ISM, such as MR. Griffin, James Edward’s, Commander Hill, led with poise, maturity, restraint and wisdom and they have held sway, thankfully ………Elon Musk, is a DRAGON SLAYER, he will slay DRAGONS for us, ………..for a price …..
Last few days, he has been busy in the UK, demonstrating the art of SLAYING DRAGONS …..
N.Farage, will be their next Prime Minister …….
Computers against white ppl. – u bet !
“Are There Any Non-Woke Operating Systems?”
Musk is philosemitic.
Musk is tech obsessed.
This is how we get kosher skynet.
This is interesting,
Something else wildly positive for White folks overall. This trend of red states actively undermining access to pornograpghy with age verification rules.
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/pornhub-ban-news-states-florida-redtube-b2673628.html
Add Kentucky to this list, I don’t know why they didn’t include it, probably because its a recent addition to the blockade.
Mind you, its totally voluntary that porn hub has blocked access to thise states because they don’t want to enforce the law, and they want kids to have access to porn.
All of this was done without making some overt tortured connection to the JQ. It was just White people recognizing their own interests and advocating for them.