By THE TRUTH HOUND — “Stop the Presses” News & Commentary
Most of us have heard of the controversy surrounding president-elect Donald Trump’s choice of former Brietbart News executive Stephen Bannon as his top advisor. The internationalist New York Times—whose publisher had just finished apologizing to readers for its biased misreporting of how much support Trump actually had during the 2016 campaign—wasted no time in peddling out yet another anti-Trump editorial that laid bare what Times’ editors see as a “far-right” coup having reached the White House via Trump’s election victory.
The Times’ editorial is a typical broadside by the internationalist-modernist establishment against anything containing even a whiff of a “right-wing” worldview, as confirmed by the editorial’s inclusion of the twisted observations of the notoriously crooked Southern Poverty Law Center, whose founder and boss, Morris Dees, is a sordid specimen of lies, fraud, duplicity and deceit. That he’s long been a profit-driven hustler who has exaggerated the menace of “the right” to line his pockets with money from wealthy left-wingers has been firmly established.
That Times’ editorial states: “In an ominous sign of what the Trump presidency will actually look like, the president-elect on Sunday [Nov. 13] appointed Stephen Bannon as his chief White House strategist and senior counselor, an enormously influential post . . . . Many if not most Americans had never heard of Mr. Bannon before this weekend, and for good reason: He has kept a low profile, even after taking over Mr. Trump’s campaign in August. Before that, he worked as the executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network, parent company of the far-right website Breitbart News, which under Mr. Bannon became what the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a ‘white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill.’”
Oddly, Mr. Stephen Bannon, while he’s clearly seen as a far-right ideologue, is also a former Goldman Sachs banker who has reportedly called himself a “Leninist” [which is left wing, not right wing], supposedly with a goal “to destroy the state.” If this stuff is true, Bannon does deserve closer scrutiny, but the Times is handling the matter deceptively.
Notably, that Times’ editorial, which scorns Breitbart News for opposing feminism and gun control, frightfully points to a provocative headline for an article that Breitbart ran not long after the reported South Carolina church shootings that, according to mainstream media and police, took the lives of nine black churchgoers. That does seem rather naughty of Breitbart—until you actually read Breitbart’s commentary under that headline on how the shootings are being exploited by the left, not by the right.
“The American left is in a feeding frenzy, cynically exploiting the tragic murders of nine black worshippers in a Charleston church to promote its agenda of cultural genocide against conservatism, tradition and the South,” Breitbart News online noted in July of 2015, after Bannon had already left Breitbart to pursue other interests. Of course, the left is always aiming for gun and ammo control, too.
So, on one level, the core problem is that the left, which is behind the violence erupting at post-election anti-Trump demonstrations, is trying to pin its street crimes on the “right,” even though actual documented, significant right-wing violence is almost non-existent in the U.S. and abroad. Furthermore, the left and the internationalist-modernist-plutocratic establishment, as represented by the Times, doesn’t have any solid proof that feminism has made the world a genuinely better place or that remembering the Confederacy, whatever its faults and foibles may have been, is an evil thing.
A basic tenet of modernism is that we we’re forced to rely on a government-approved, politically-correct, factually-stunted view of history that justifies bulldozing all traditions while making constant changes to every facet of society—simply for the sake of making changes. Those who would rule us want us in a constant state of flux and imbalance, so as to distort our view of reality—which serves to protect the tyrants.
Take note that this worldview—which the establishment refuses to reveal and explain so it can focus on condemning the right for all the world’s problems, to divert the public’s attention—extends to the geo-political level in the form of internationalism. It’s at this level that things get very interesting.” — The TRUTH HOUND
Now, keep in mind that the Times’ crowd and many of those with the same mindset are aghast at the very idea of national self-determination because they feel it will lead to “crude nationalism,” as outgoing President Obama just told an audience during his last European tour. The possible emergence of such a thing, Obama claimed, could cause a divisive “us versus them” mentality along racial, ethnic and religious lines. The allegation is that a more right-ward political trajectory will lead to severe discrimination, persecution and violence along those dividing lines.
To be fair, that has happened some and it could happen more. But the right, largely consisting of people who believe in strident individualism, has never been good at the “group thing” and has a tough time competing with the left’s ability to broadly organize and take issues to the streets while also overturning laws and making other radical legal changes via the courts. (Legalizing mass infanticide via abortion, overturning laws forbidding same-sex marriage etc.)
Yet, here’s the most crucial catch: The dividing line that really matters, in the real world, is the super-rich for whom Obama works—versus the rest of us.” — The TRUTH HOUND
Some might subtitle this divide as “right versus wrong, not right versus left,” in the sense that the internationalist Establishment with a capital E is the real wrong-doer and inflates the left-right standoff in order to keep the little people at each other’s throats, while hiding the fact that the left-wing has the upper hand, by far, in influencing and molding public policy.
Far from being a reaction to social chaos, Obama’s remarks are actually a causative tool to arouse the passions of people caught up in the left-right standoff. The Establishment figures constantly preaching about ridding the world of “hate” are the real haters, as they strive to bring out the worst in all of us while acting like they want peace and brotherhood.
Notice, too, that the progressive “preachers” on the Times’ editorial board, while screaming that the right consists of racists who hate minorities, women and nearly everything else in existence, has been a consistent champion of the internationalist “world order” and its ongoing mission: To enter countless countries and civilizations that won’t accept free trade and monopoly capitalism and destroy them.
Somehow, piles of corpses of brown people—men, women and children—left charred and burning after U.S. drone strikes in the preposterous war on terror doesn’t amount to the racial hatred against people of color that the Times endlessly tries to pin on the domestic “right.” The same goes for abortion victims, most of whom are babies carried by black women, whose plight and color suddenly don’t matter to the Times, which then turns around and calls white Joe-Six-Pack guys “racist.”
Accordingly, the left has long assumed that it owns the anti-war movement by portraying the right as an aggressive lot. But that’s a lie.” — The TRUTH HOUND
A sizeable segment of the right, ever since World War II’s early days and a little before that, has consistently opposed the U.S. interventionist warfare policy that has destroyed the lives of people of many races and backgrounds for decades. The only exception is the phony “neo-conservative” faction of the “right,” as embodied by Fox News and the Weekly Standard. The latter’s boss, William Kristol, boasts a conceptual lineage that actually is rooted in the violent revolutionary left as embodied by Leon Trotsky, but which masquerades as “conservative,” although with a pro-war stance. That is done to deliberately cast in concrete the impression that there’s no such thing as anti-war conservatism.
Most people therefore have the deliriously false impression that conservatism in all its hues must mean being pro-war. Not so. Paleo-conservative “old right” writers like the late Joe Sobran and the late Samuel Francis understood correctly that, yes, real conservatism recognizes big government’s major pitfalls BUT they also knew that big brother’s biggest advances come through the military, accompanied by the big spending and domestic surveillance that global policing inevitably brings.
Furthermore, the military culture is the worst of all worlds. Much of it is a vast socialist enterprise, with guaranteed housing, health care, day care, and, well, you name it. And the weapons contractors receiving massive contracts comprise the crony-capitalism wing, as friends of the government get the lucrative contracts. So the world’s military-boosters calling themselves conservative, fiscally or otherwise, becomes a rather amusing spectacle.
And those like Sobran and Francis accurately tied their genuinely conservative credo to the time-honored views of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to avoid entangling alliances and deadly interventionism. The idea that meat-headed, slavish devotion to the military (and the notion that the military and the policy behind it can do no wrong) is pure servility to the state. Sorry, flag wavers. Patriotism and servility are not the same thing and your blanket worship of the military is now exposed for what it is—goose-stepping servility.
To make matters worse, the old-right which for decades has been pleading for the U.S. to stop policing the world, often comes under the gun of the coercive humanitarians at the Times and others in the Weaponized Media that talk a good talk about peace and love, but constantly jockey for more intervention, war and destruction.
Other old-right anti-war figures of yore, such as aviator Charles Lindbergh, Sen. Robert Taft and scores of others, though long dead, were widely and viciously condemned by the media, but they have been proven right. They insisted that an America that travels the world nonstop in search of monsters to destroy, with “victory” undefined and never obtained, is a nation headed for oblivion, not greatness.
That is a fact, not an opinion. DO NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO TELL ME OTHERWISE.” — The TRUTH HOUND
The new, better America that might have at least a reasonable chance to form under Mr. Trump as president can have no part of that worldview. Enough uncritical pandering to Israel. Enough interventionism for big oil. Knock off this absurd worship of the military. Mr. Trump needs to hear this message most of all, since, whether by default or misguided design, the counterfeit patriots known as neo-conservatives (such as perhaps naming John Bolton as secretary of state) are seeping into the Trump transition process and are looking for more monsters for American men and women to slay on their behalf.
Here’s a little reassurance: On a recent “60 Minutes” on CBS, Trump said: “You know, we’ve been fighting this [war on terror] for 15 years. . . . We’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion—we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels . . . and our airports are . . . obsolete.”
Yet, as columnist and 1996 presidential candidate Pat Buchanan recently wrote: “The War Party [mainly neo-con Republicans but also some Democrat hawks—Truth Hound note] has not had enough of war, not nearly. They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev [Ukraine] to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea.”
That’s correct, and that’s why we must recognize the nature of the falsehoods placed in front of us so we can kick out the old media, form a new media and properly reform our nation and the world—while making sure that the debt-based, privately run monetary system is also abolished and replaced, perhaps with something like this.
URGENT EDITOR’S NOTE: A petition has been launched demanding that the Department of Justice investigate the paid “protesting” currently going on in many U.S. cities. These “protests” have been violent, destructive and terrorizing to the people in these cities and across the nation. Notorious left-wing billionaire oligarch George Soros, who had a major hand in financing the early 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian government, is thought to be behind these post-election anti-Trump riots. For much more click here on this colored link.