Oct 7, 2015

Rabbi Says Jews Should Renounce Their “Whiteness” and Double Down on "Anti-Racism"

via American Freedom Party

Though most on the alt-right have long considered jews to be non-white — if not by blood then by culture, and if not by either, by the history of elite jews using their influence to undermine goy society — one rabbi has come out in support of American jews renouncing their status as ‘White Americans.’

Unlikely to agree on much else, both the alt-right and ((((Gil Steinlauf)))) are at odds with the mainstream perception of American jews, who are mostly ashkenazim, as White. Steinlauf notes this was a status they did not always have, but his reasoning behind why he rejects it and is encouraging other jews to do the same is remarkably useful. The article is titled (and subtitled):
Jews in America struggled for decades to become white. Now we must give up whiteness to fight racism. Let’s teach our children that we are, in fact, not white, but simply Jewish.
Right off the bat we have two important affirmations:
  1. Whiteness is a status to jews and rather than an identity.
  2. Fighting racism requires giving up “whiteness.”
  3. You can still keep your jewish identity; it’s the White one that has to be attacked.
(Tell that to the Palestinians.)

And in Shlomo’s own words:
The brilliance of being Jewish, though, is that we stubbornly refuse to fit into any social construct of power or oppression. We are simply Ivri’im, people from “somewhere else,” people who struggle with God and justice, who demand that the rest of the world does, too, and see every human life as sacred because we are all in the image of God. And the truth is, we have never belonged to one race alone. The Torah tells us that we left Egypt with the “erev rav,” with a mixed multitude of peoples. Around the world there are Jews of color, Asian Jews, Jews of all kinds. The idea that Jews are white is not only ridiculous, it’s offensive to who we really are! Yes, societies like America come along sometimes and give us privileges and powerful labels like “white.” In America’s racist social construct, Jews are very much white people, but we must never again think of ourselves that way — it’s time for us to opt out of that racist paradigm, because we are Jews.
Jews Say Black Lives Matter
Did “Black Lives Matter” when Jewish slave merchants transported Africans across the Atlantic Ocean?

Being jewish is clearly something important and an identity worthy of celebration and praise. Being White is racism, so that’s bad. You need to stop supporting “whiteness” to fight racism. In fact, it’s offensive to be labelled as White. Oy vey! Of course, jews will still be jews even if they stop identifying as White. Their identity and people will survive. This is such a clear cut case of the my-tribal-identity-is-good-and-yours-is-bad trope employed by jewish authors against goyim—the dual morality of in-group versus out-group—that it speaks for itself without further comment.
Imagine what we and our children could be like if we associate our Jewishness with an essential statement against racism and discrimination. Even though we and our children have benefited from the best schools and jobs and housing that whiteness affords, we can be the ones to challenge the system from within. We can be the ones who change business practices, housing codes, policing, correctional facilities, social policies, unequal schools — motivated by our values and our Jewish historical experience. Indeed, so many progressive leaders in this country have been Jews (including some Jewish founders of the NAACP), motivated exactly by this vision. But so many more of us need to own our real power, which is not our whiteness, but our Jewishness, our Torah and our tradition that motivates us to remember the stranger, for we were strangers in Egypt; that calls on us to lift up the cause of all those who are oppressed.
I don’t know about you, but my sides have left the planet. Rabbi, are you implying that jews don’t already use their power and influence to combat “racism” in the United States, with racism of course meaning the existence of a White majority and White group interests? What was that about ((((business codes)))) and ((((housing practices))))… And to define jewish identity as an “essential statement against racism and discrimination,” aka anti-racism, is simply to be anti-white, because prosecuting racism is never about promoting racial harmony but simply hunting down ethnocentric White people and practices. Meanwhile, as is obvious from this article, tribal behavior among jews is not only totally fine but also good for social justice. It is only pathological for White people to display tribal loyalties.

In other words, he’s saying that to be jewish is to be consciously against the White majority, which has almost always been the case throughout our unfortunate histories and is why jews remain unassimilated. It is why they reject Christianity; it is why they consume kosher food; it is why they commemorate the jewish Maccabean Revolt against the (Hellenic) Seleucid empire almost two thousand years ago every year during Hanukkah; it is why Israel exists as a country; it is why they promote cultural marxism—it is why jews are jews.

He’s literally saying “jewishness” is about siding with the “oppressed.” Under the jewish framework of cultural marxism, this means deconstructing White people, because all the building blocks of Western civilization are inherently bad and we need to make sure ethno-nationalism for Whites/Europeans never happens again, since that would be bad for jews, who as rabbi tells us, are not White. True progress is a world without any White-majority countries, where jews are conveniently no longer identified as White by the societies they’re living in. You’d like that, Shlomo, wouldn’t you? You’d love for the schvartzers to think that you think that #BlackLivesMatter. You’d love for the Latinos coming in to replace Whites to think you’re a fellow minority rather than another ethnic variety of gringo. You’d love for Asians to sort you apart from Anglos.

I don’t think it’s going to work. I think the people being brought in thanks to your immigration lobbying are going to see you as oppressors. They vote left and you’re the richest group per capita in this country. ‘Jewish privilege’ is already a thing being floated in academic circles. The only other option is to be completely submissive to their demands, like Bernie Sanders is. So strategically, ditching the ability to pass as White among the White majority makes sense, given that the United States is projected to lose its White majority and the zeitgeist is increasingly anti-White. Why join the losing team?

This article is spectacular from a metapolitical standpoint, as an American jewish leader is on record being as anti-white and unintentionally tribal as possible. He is a rabbi and therefore a leader of the American jewish community, so his opinion is important. I think it’s a great article and I hope a lot of cuckservatives read it and feel something. To boil it down, the main takeaways are essentially:
  1. Jews don’t see themselves as White.
  2. Jews believe in fighting racism, which is a proxy for fighting against White people.
  3. The proxy is actually really shitty and transparent since they’re calling it “whiteness.”
  4. Jewish culture is inherently leftist on issues pertaining to its hosts and conservative pertaining to itself.
  5. Wake the fuck up, goyim.
  6. Go read TOO and the Daily Stormer.
  7. And of course, TheRightStuff.biz.

"Girl-Power-Girls" and Women in the Military

via Henry Dampier

Strong female characters have been pervasive in American popular culture for decades. They star in movies, feature in comic books, are TV heroes, and are protagonists in thrilling novels. In some cases, their strength is supernatural in nature, but more commonly, they’re just portrayed as women imbued with male talents, spirit, and other qualities wrapped up in the package of a beautiful woman. Americans and other Westerners love these particular entertainments, and aren’t especially allowed to notice that they’re not plausible. The implausibility and falsity to life is often something that pop-culture fans love about it.

Because actual experience in the military has transitioned from something that marked the lives of entire generations of men at once into something that only a professional minority experiences, modern democratic societies have profoundly changed the relationship of their cultures to their military organizations. What used to distinguish democracies from the alternative was the concept of universal conscription on behalf of a popular government which obeyed the votes of all those men dying in the trenches for their nation.

Given this change, it’s easier for academics and journalists who primarily live in the land of language and imagination to then use their authority to conflate the imaginary world in which they live with the real social world that supports all that abstract thinking. The same people who live mostly in the world of popular culture become upset when they see segments of the real world that deviate from the idealized stories that they immerse themselves in.

The military, being mostly concerned with killing people and breaking things, still deviates from these popular stories in that the combat arms aren’t womanned by millions of grizzled she-lions who are eager to fertilize the grass with the blood of America’s enemies.

The people in the military tend to be more than willing to acquiesce (in stages) because they need to ask the people who shape the culture to support their requests for more money. And the military is quite expensive, with most of the costs going to pay for salaries and retirement benefits. In return for funding, the military needs to reform itself to appear to be more like the stories that our cultural leaders love so much. While it may be easier to pretend that men and women are the same in an office environment, it’s much easier to falsify gender equality in more physical pursuits.

Fear of "The Donald" and the Ben Carson Money Machine

via American Renaissance


The rise of Donald Trump has upset most everyone who does not support him. From the smear piece in the New Yorker, to the hostile commentary from Conservatism Inc., to the condescending remarks of libertarians, those not for Mr. Trump are very much against him. After a bit of scrambling, the chattering cuckservatives of the 24-hour commentary cycle seem to have settled on a strategy to dismantle him: promote Dr. Ben Carson as the “legitimate outsider” of 2016 and pray that the average-Joe Republicans now fueling Mr. Trump’s rise will jump ship.

“Washington Watcher” at VDARE has a full treatment of the phenomenon. He notes the incredible, seemingly out-of-thin-air surge from late August of “conservative” pundits telling us what an amazing candidate and person Dr. Carson is. FOX-regular Charles Krauthammer seems to have gotten the ball rolling in August by declaring Dr. Carson to be the “anti-Trump” and also a “wonderful guy that is hard not to actually like.” Rich Lowry laid it on none too subtly with “Ben Carson, the Superior Outsider.” A few days later, neoconservative Bill Kristol claimed that the GOP was wrapping up its “summer fling” with Mr. Trump and would soon engage in a “fall romance” with Dr. Carson. Michelle Malkin wrote a surreal piece entirely about what a lovely person Dr. Carson’s wife, Candy, seems to be.

“Washington Watcher” is entirely correct in his analysis of this trend, and he also points out Dr. Carson’s far-from-conservative opinions–especially on immigration–but there is more to the story. What is only whispered within the Beltway is that the Carson candidacy is not so much a serious effort to make him president as a fundraising scheme–and a very effective one. A polished team is making millions flogging a hopeless black candidate to guild-ridden Republicans who are wasting every dollar they contribute. It’s a tactic they have perfected with several black long shots.

Draft Ben Carson

Dr. Carson became a household name in February 2013 after he criticized Obamacare of at the National Prayer Breakfast. Just six months later, John Philip Sousa IV (great-grandson of the famous one) founded the National Draft Ben Carson for President Campaign Committee (NDBCPCC). Dr. Carson was still far from declaring his candidacy, and the purpose of the PAC was to demonstrate the fundraising capacity a run for president could have. Also, if he did declare, there would be infrastructure and funds lying in wait.

John Philip Sousa IV
John Philip Sousa IV
By law, PACs and candidates are not allowed to communicate. Politicos find ways around this, but there is only speculation as to how involved Dr. Carson was with the decision to start the PAC, or how involved he was with its tactics.
When Mr. Sousa was interviewed in December 2014 about the PAC, he seemed curiously lacking in passion for his candidate. He mentioned that he was very much taken with Dr. Carson’s speech at the Prayer Breakfast, and with his rags-to-riches tale, but also conceded, “Did we thoroughly vet the guy? No.” He claimed to be impressed with Dr. Carson’s Christian faith and conservative positions, but noted that “he doesn’t have all of his positions set yet.”

Mr. Sousa insisted that Dr. Carson would certainly win at least 17 percent of the black vote, but had only one reason to support that claim: “He’s black.” Mr. Sousa was vague as to exactly why Dr. Carson was the best candidate, and vaguer still about what would happen to the PAC if the campaign went nowhere. He admitted that the PAC was focused almost entirely on raising money.

The first fundraising letter went out in August 2013, and in 2014 the PAC raised just over 13.5 million dollars–more than the top Hillary Clinton PAC, Ready for Hillary. According to expenditures analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, the PAC then spent about ten million dollars on more fundraising, mostly by direct mail.

The great value of a super PAC like this one is that there is no limit on how much money anyone can give to it. There are very strict limits on how much a donor can contribute directly to a candidate or his committee, but not to a super PAC. That’s the point of them. And that is why leftists say that the Citizens United Supreme Court case that legitimized super PACs as “free speech” means the “corporatization of our democracy.”

Jeffrey Katzenberg could not give more than $5,000 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, but he gave $2,000,000 to the Priorities USA Action PAC that stumped for Mr. Obama. Republicans do the same thing. Sheldon Adelson single-handedly propped-up Newt Gingrich’s 2012 campaign by passing along millions to PACs that supported him. Rick Santorum’s insurgent 2012 candidacy got its funding from one man, Foster Friess.

But why bother with a direct-mail super PAC? Direct mail casts a wide net to get small donations from regular, non-millionaire citizens, and that’s the way NCBCPCC operates. Mr. Sousa claims that the highest single donation was somewhere around $70,000. If there is no limit on donations to NDBCPCC, why not save the time and bother of direct mail and just cozy up to rich people? Answer: There is more money in direct mail for the people who run the PAC.

The man who originally filed the paperwork to set up NDBCPCC and is now its political director, Vernon Robinson, made around a quarter of a million dollars in 2014. When Mr. Sousa was asked to comment on this figure, he said, “Is Vernon making a lot of money? Yeah, he is. But I will tell you that Vernon works 24/7 and he does a good job for us.”

Vernon Robinson
Vernon Robinson
It is not obvious why Mr. Robinson deserves that kind of compensation. He was a city councilman in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for eight years, and unsuccessfully ran for congress as a conservative (calling himself the “black Jesse Helms”) three times between 2004 and 2012. In other words, a black man who only held local office a decade ago and lost three congressional races is the political director of a PAC trying to elect a black man who has never held political office.
I’m inclined to suspect that Mr. Robinson got his job, not because he is good at winning elections (obviously, he isn’t), but because he is very good at raising money. During his 2004 congressional run, he raised three million dollars, which is a lot of money for an ex-city councilman’s second attempt at Congress in a forgettable part of North Carolina. For his 2006 race, he raised $520,000 just in the summer, which is a notoriously hard time to raise money.

A lot of all this money flows through something called Eberle Associates, a direct mail house that did fundraising for Mr. Robinson. Mother Jones reports about $2,000,000 of NDBCPCC’s swag also went straight to Eberle. On top of that, the Washington Post and Buzzfeed have noticed that other companies that work for NDBCPCC share an address with Eberle Associates, and are owned by the same umbrella company, Eberle Communications Group. Campaign Funding Direct, for example, picked up $1.6 million and Omega List collected $1.5 million. They all live together at 1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 490, McLean, Virginia.

Like Vernon Robinson, the Eberle companies are paid to shake down donors. “They’ve been good friends of mine for a lot of years,” says Mr. Sousa. “I’ve used them on a lot of campaigns. They earn every single dollar that they’ve charged us and I begrudge them not a penny.”

Bruce Eberle, founder and president of Eberle Communications Group, brags about the money he raises. In the closing days of 2011, he wrote a revealingly titled article called The Amazing Herman Cain Money Machine, boasting about the inside role he and his associates played in the presidential campaign of the 2012 black Republican, Herman Cain. The campaign did raise a lot of money but Mr. Cain dropped out before the Iowa caucus after accusations of adultery and sexual harassment.

Bruce Eberle
Bruce Eberle
Mr. Eberle seems to specialize in raising money for black Republicans who go nowhere. The Cain campaign was a complete failure, which means all those donors wasted their money. The same goes for Mr. Robinson’s congressional campaigns, which were also complete failures. But for the people who are paid to raise money, campaigns mean a fat paycheck, win or lose.

When the conservative movement began using direct mail in earnest during the late ’70s under the guidance of New Right pioneers such as Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, fundraisers were a kind of tradesman. They were hired to raise money for candidates who didn’t know how to do it. However, as the “industry” grew and grew over the years, fundraisers became a new interest group within the conservative movement. They are now powerful enough to influence the selection of candidates, and they pick people they think will make good centerpieces for their fundraising plans.

From such a perspective, as Mr. Eberle explains, the Cain campaign was a success, and there is no shame in thinking that success can rub off onto Dr. Carson. In August 2013, the month NDBCPCC was founded, Mr. Eberle’s blog featured a post called Ben Carson for President:
I am not unbiased. The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee (www.runbenrun.org) is a client of Campaign Funding Direct, a company I founded. . . .
But, I’m not for Ben Carson due to my connection with Campaign Funding Direct. I’m excited about a Ben Carson candidacy because he is a wise, dedicated Tea Party conservative and I believe he is a sure winner! Please let me explain. In the last presidential election cycle, Campaign Funding Direct raised funds for Herman Cain. It was very exciting and quite successful. The campaign raised (via multiple fund raising channels) some $14 million in the first 40 days and was on track to top $30 million in the next thirty days when the campaign imploded . . . .
. . . . Well, what most folks don’t know is that the internal polling of the Cain campaign showed him winning 40% of the African-American vote. That’s right 40%!
Naturally, the post ends with a link that lets you donate to the NDBCPCC.
Needless to say, blacks vote overwhelmingly democrat no matter what, and the 40 percent claim is a full 23 percent higher than Mr. Sousa’s claims for Dr. Carson. Blacks despise black conservatives. Tea Party favorite Allen West got the boot from the NAACP, and actress Stacey Dash was labeled a “race traitor” after endorsing Mitt Romney in 2012. Ben Carson is no conservative anyway. He worries about semi-automatic weapons and supported amnesty for illegals as recently as 2013.

So Mr. Eberle is wrong about all that, but he’s right about the money. Lots was raised for Mr. Cain, and even more can be raised for Dr. Carson, so the people in charge of the operation will have very fat paydays.

But why should we care if slick operators fleece the public? The tragedy is what goes on in the imaginations of so many gullible Republican voters. They are so beaten down by two terms of Barack Obama, so beleaguered by constant accusations of racism from the media and the academy, and so desperate for Republicans to shake off even implicit whiteness, that they are willing to believe most anything that sounds both comforting and even remotely plausible. What could sound better to a naively colorblind Republican than a bright black man who will talk sense about economics, prove to the left that racism is over, and lead the Republicans to victory? People like Bruce Eberle, John Sousa, and Vernon Robinson are making millions cashing in on the burning desire of so many conservatives to shed the “racist” label.

NDBCPCC’s direct-mail pieces are hucksterism at its finest. They claim that Dr. Carson won the first debate, that he can be trusted to protect the 2nd Amendment, and that 37 percent of all blacks are conservative. And how’s this for exploiting racial guilt:
The problem is that for more than 50 years the Democrats and their friends in the national news media have been telling black voters that you and I are racists.
Think about it. Trust is the key to winning someone’s vote.
Even if you agree with someone on all the issues, you won’t vote for him or her if you think a candidate is a racist who hates you because of the color of your skin. But Ben Carson is not just another African-American.
Ben Carson is an Icon in the Black Community.
It’s simple: Once all the blacks who hate the Import-Export Bank as much as Dr. Carson does realize that Republicans are not racist, they will check the “R” boxes and all will be well! This from the team that writes a blog post called “The Amazing Herman Cain Money Machine,” and followed up less than two years later with one called “Ben Carson for President.”


Unscrupulous fundraising isn’t new. Sam Francis complained more than once about the “never-merry band of direct mail scam artists” of Conservatism, Inc. One Republican direct mail company, ForthRight Strategy (formerly Base Connect, formerly BMW Direct), is notorious for pocketing as much as half of the money it raises for GOP candidates.

This time, the scammers have discovered how to exploit the guilt so many Republicans feel about being white. And now, in a loathsome convergence, they have teamed up with the very worst of the GOP’s pundits to promote the same black, long-shot, fake conservative.

For those of you unfortunate enough to get mail from NDBCPCC, do not just throw it away. If it has a business reply envelope (BRE), put some junk mail and send it back. The Post Office charges by weight for BREs, so you’ll be keeping a few dollars out of the hands of Bruce Eberle, Vernon Robinson, and John Philip Sousa.

The Vast Journey of the Fourth Generation

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

The vast journey of the Monarch butterfly is one of the most mysterious — and awe-inspiring — facets of Nature. We are far, far from understanding it. These delicate creatures — just four inches across — have bodies narrower than a snippet of the smallest twine, parchment-thin wings with patterns like stained glass of orange and amber, and five of them together do not quite weigh an ounce. They have brains little larger than a grain of salt. Yet within those brains are genetically-implanted instructions that send these creatures on a multi-generational journey of immense proportions and mysterious dimensions — a journey that we didn’t even know about until 1975.

The first generation of Monarchs is born in the Spring, goes through its larval stages on the ever-diminishing stands of milkweed in North America, then emerges from its cocoon, lives for a few weeks during which it mates, lays its eggs, and dies. As it does so, it inches north a few miles. The second generation follows the same pattern, living just a few weeks and moving a little more northward. The third generation does exactly the same thing.

But from the eggs laid by the third generation, usually in southern Canada or the northern US, the northernmost point of the creature’s range, arises the fourth generation. And the fourth generation is different. We do not know precisely how it is different, or why it is different, or how it knows it is different, but the fourth generation is always different — profoundly so. The fourth generation, though to our eyes and even to our scientific instruments looking exactly the same as those which preceded it, does not die in two to four weeks, as all the other generations do. It lives for up to nine months — ten times as long. It does not inch northward a few miles. Instead it sweeps out of the north and across an entire continent, three thousand miles and more, travelling up to 100 miles a day in a months-long vast and perilous journey to the high mountains of Mexico and southern California, where it congregates with its fellows, covering the forest in its millions and weighing down the branches in its hundreds. And, in the moist and temperate air of these long-secret sanctuaries, it waits.

When something inside them hears the silent signal of approaching Spring, the fourth generation takes flight again. Northward, ever northward, they fly — from sanctuaries they found but had never seen before, to breeding grounds that only their great-grandparents knew. And there they alight, dance their mating dance, and lay the eggs for a new generation one — and thus the ancient cycle begins once more.

We, too, have our Generations — and our Vast Journey. In our case, our Generations span hundreds of literal, biological generations. In our case, our Vast Journey has just begun.

The First Generation of man consisted of, as William Pierce put it, the “first race of men [who] held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind.” Only thus, only by racial separation, only by leaving behind the more primitive races around them, could the earliest true men take the first faltering steps up the ladder which led to Pythagoras, Phidias, Darwin, Crick, and Watson. When they made this choice to leave the more primitive races around them behind, it was the right choice — but it was also an unconscious choice, an instinctive choice, a choice made by the soul more than by the mind: A choice of beauty over ugliness, intelligence over stupidity, grace over clumsiness, refinement over crudity, future greatness over decline, degradation, and extinction. This ability to distinguish — and instinctive revulsion against — the base and the ugly and the primitive, in both individuals and races, still persists in our souls today. Our enemies call it “hate” and “racism” and wish it could be abolished — but it is really one of our greatest and noblest traits, if we understand it rightly. And it is necessary; all forward progress depends on it. Survival itself depends on it. Abolishing it is the same as abolishing us. And so, with the First Generation of man, we left the sub-men behind us, we separated ourselves, and inched forward and upward.

The Second Generation of man, his understanding growing along with his frontal lobes, learned to make tools and domesticate plants and animals. He built cities and roads and canals and aqueducts. He invented agriculture. The most important consequence of these things was that some men were now freed from the immediate necessity of spending all their time trying to fill their bellies and keep themselves from getting killed. And a small subset of these men spent their hard-won free time not in leisure, but in deepest thought. They observed the heavens and the patterns and motions of the stars and planets. They learned the rudiments of engineering. They created religions and philosophies, some of which were honest and deeply penetrating advances in our understanding of the Universe. Again, they inched forward and upward, sometimes falling back but eventually setting the stage for the next Generation.

The Third Generation of man developed the most powerful tool ever discovered, which was a tool not of stone or of steel, but a tool primarily of the mind: the scientific method. Using that tool, they plumbed the mysteries of time and space — came to understand numbers, mathematics, and geometry; built Stonehenge and other astronomical observatories, and eventually saw that the Earth is a planet among other planets circling a star amid millions of stars. Their inventions fill our homes, our laboratories, and our encyclopedias. The Third Generation took to the air, mastered electromagnetism, and — most importantly — learned the science of biology, thus preparing the way for the Fourth Generation.

The Fourth Generation of man is our generation. Its first men were Darwin, Galton, Nietzsche, Hitler, and Pierce. The Fourth Generation understands that neither man nor Life nor the Universe itself are static, but are ever-changing, ever-evolving. The Fourth Generation knows that neither our race as it is now, nor even the best of current human societies are ends in themselves, but are merely way stations and means to reach something infinitely higher. Standing on the shoulders of the greatest men of the past, the Fourth Generation now has in its possession the awareness and the knowledge — and, if we will but grasp it, the power — to direct its own future evolution, and no greater revolutionary force has ever existed on Earth.

Throughout the ages of the first three Generations and into our own, the human races evolved and diverged as they always have. New races emerged, and some became higher, some much higher, and some stagnated or devolved or became parasitic. Some went extinct. The abandonment of the sub-men in the First Generation was not a final act of separation. It was necessary, but not sufficient in itself. Racial separation is an act which has repeated itself, and will continue to repeat itself, almost infinitely throughout the history of biological evolution. Without racial divergence and separation, evolution itself — and hence life itself — is impossible. Man is no exception to this rule.

Most notable in the passage of these Generations is that the advancement represented by each succeeding stage was increasingly the province of one particular race, the European or White race. Equally apparent is the almost total non-participation of the lowest races, the Negroid and Australoid, in these advances. One mission of the Fourth Generation is total biological separation of the highest race of man — the race from which sprang the Fourth Generation, and from which Higher Man will himself spring — from all other races, lest it be brought down and lose its soul, its intelligence, its beauty, and its destiny.

Like the fourth generation of the Monarch butterfly, we too must now set out on our Vast Journey, and go where prior generations have never gone before. There is much danger and much we do not know as we set out together — but we do know this: Our journey will be a journey to the stars — a journey to transcend the Earth; and it will be a journey toward Higher Man — a journey to transcend ourselves. And we also know this: The hard-won knowledge and the methods of science bequeathed to us by prior generations will help us to find our way in unknown lands — and the truths that are written deep within our souls will guide us ever closer to our destiny, ever closer to God, ever closer to what must be.
* * *
The National Alliance is the embodiment of the Fourth Generation of man. The National Alliance is something never seen before in this world. The men and women of the National Alliance are dedicated to ensuring that our race’s Vast Journey shall continue eternally until we reach our undreamed-of destination; dedicated to ensuring that our Journey shall not end in death as our enemies intend, but that we shall instead ascend forever to new heights of greatness, of knowledge, of power, of beauty, and of wisdom never known before. And it is our mission to create a new and healthy State for a new and healthy people, and the purpose of that State will be the fulfillment of our mission.

In the deepest part of your soul, White man, White woman, White father, White son, White mother, White daughter — you know that I am right. You know that pursuing what is great and wise and noble and beautiful in our actions and, what is even more important, in the future evolution of our kind is the purpose of our lives. You know that there is nothing more important than the survival and advancement of our race. You know that everything we value, everything we care about, every hope for our children, every dream for the future, will die if our race dies. And you know that — if things continue as they are going in this society — our race will die. You know the changes that have to be made. Join with those who are determined that they shall be made. Join with the growing hundreds who know this truth and are acting on it. Join the National Alliance.

Stasi Roots of the German-Jewish “Anti-Racist” Left and Its Program of Destroying Ethnic Germany

via The Occidental Observer

For professional German “anti-racist” Anetta Kahane, last week was a very good week. For one of her many organisations is slated to lead the campaign to shut down opposition to the immigrant invasion on Facebook.

This clampdown on Facebook free speech is now one of the German government’s highest priorities following a meeting between between Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerburg, and means that henceforth all criticism of the immigrant invasion will be severely curtailed. Such a vast initiative will need an army of loyal and trusted functionaries, and who better but Ms Kahane and her Network Against Nazis.  (“Netz gegen Nazis”) to show they mean business.  Just to make sure ordinary Germans get the message the government have charged the leader of the dissident PEGIDA movement for anti-immigrant comments he made on Facebook.

In the lucrative anti-racism sector, Anetta Kahane is without doubt a shrewd and far-seeing  operator. She recognised earlier than most that there were huge amounts of money to be had by re-packaging ordinary people’s concerns about immigration into “Neo-Nazi” scares, and she worked hard to ramp up this industry and turn it into the money-making machine that it is today.

Like so many Jewish leaders in Europe these days, Kahane is quite brazen in expressing her wish for the destruction of White Europe. “You have to really change the policy of immigration inside Europe. This is very important; you have to change the educational system and the self-understanding of the states. They are not only white anymore or only Swedish or only Portuguese or only German. They are multicultural places in the world.”

It was her founding of an organisation called the Amadeu Antonio Foundation in 1998  that has been her springboard to fame. This well-funded outfit aims to smear and defame all White resistance to immigration as “neo-Nazi” and works closely with magazines such as Stern and Die Welt  to that end. Modelled after the Stephen Lawrence campaign in the UK, it receives lavish funding from the German government, the EU and a host of international NGOs including the Ford Foundation.

Her work has earned her a huge profile, and she is frequently sought out by the media for her views. She is not slow to oblige. Except, perhaps, when it comes to one matter.

This is her role as a collaborator for the Stasi or East German Ministry of State Security between 1974 and 1982.  From the age of nineteen, Kahane — codename: “Victoria” — was an enthusiastic informer or inoffiziele Mitarbeiter (IM) and submitted monthly secret reports on the political reliability of dozens of fellow students, journalists, actors and writers she mixed with.

Her own file shows her controller considered her to be zealous and reliable. Her role as a trusted informant in the state apparatus meant privileges denied to ordinary East Germans such as foreign travel. At the East German embassy in Mozambique she worked as a translator and informed on her colleagues there. She was paid in money and “gifts” for her services.

Collaborators like Kahane wielded a terrible power.  The spraying of graffiti or even written criticism of the regime could result in years of imprisonment and hard labour. A wrong word out of place and a career could be blighted forever.

She was far from the only one. John Koehler, author of The Stasi, estimates that if part-time collaborators were included, there could have been one for every 6.5 citizens, far more than were used in Nazi Germany. Only North Korea has imposed a comparable level of surveillance over its citizens.

Another prominent East German Jew was also unmasked as a Stasi IM informant. His name is Gregor Gysi; TOO readers may remember the YouTube video of this man gloating at the prospect of the race-replacement of Germans by immigrant invaders. (See also this article by Max Blumenthal, a critic of Israel. Blumenthal writes that Gysi “felt compelled to engineer the campaign to suppress our speech.” While advocating the destruction of ethnic Germany, Gysi is nothing if not a Jewish patriot.)

After reunification, Gysi tried to persuade the former Soviet authorities to hide or destroy the Stasi files identifying collaborators like himself. Ultimately he failed, but he has since fought a vigorous legal battle to suppress discussion of his time as a Stasi informant. He has bounced back from this humiliation, and today is the leader of the left-wing Die Linke (“The Left”), Germany’s third largest party.

As with Anette Kahane, Gregor Gysi enjoyed a privileged upbringing as the offspring of a senior Jewish Communist Party apparatchik. Gysi’s father Klaus was a member of the Politburo and a close friend of East German leader Erich Honecker. Klaus Gysi enjoyed a number of senior foreign postings including ambassador to the Vatican.

And they were far from the only ones. German Jews flocked to East Germany after the war and many enjoyed a rapid rise through the Party machinery. As in the Soviet Union in the early decades and throughout Eastern Europe after World War II (e.g., Poland; see here, p. 66), Jews became prominent in the security police. An infamous example is Colonel General Marcus Wolfe, chief of the Stasi’s foreign espionage directorate.

Jews were important cogs in the apparatus of communist oppression because they were not ethnically German and thought by Moscow to be therefore more trustworthy. It was a role for which there are many historic parallels — the Jews as loyal overseer for a foreign ruler, over a sullen, unwilling population.

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, there was a huge cry for justice against the communists. But the pursuit of this justice was a halting affair. Many of the guilty escaped punishment as their cases became stalled and abandoned. This is in stark comparison with what happened at the end of World War II when the East Germans arrested so many of their own citizens they had to re-open or establish eleven concentration camps including Buchanwald and Sacksenhausen.

In the five years after 1945 some 160,000 Germans disappeared into these camps. Of these about 65,000 died, 36,000 were shipped to the Soviet Union, and 36,000 were freed.

For though many Jews obviously enjoyed a privileged existence in the former East Germany, they now insist their lives were blighted by an anti-Semitism every bit as bad as anywhere else.

As far as Anetta Kahane is concerned, in East Germany she was a victim too, forced to conceal or bury her Jewish identity. But in fact socialist dogma frowned on all as an outmoded construct that belonged in the dustbin of history.

Kahane typifies the deceptive and often self-deceptive nature of Jewish identification under communism (see above link, passim), noting “My parents were Marxist-Leninists and had nothing to do with religion. But my father liked to talk about his grandparents, which was for him the romantic side of Judaism.” But here is a curious paradox — where religion in submerged, ethnic identity typically remained intact. For while many Jews pled persecution, they seem to have had no problem pursuing specifically Jewish ethnic causes and preoccupations.

Kahane’s father, the famous journalist Max Kahane, is a case in point. He covered the case of Adolf Eichmann, the alleged Nazi war criminal. Institutional East German “anti-Semitism” did not stop him from covering this story from beginning to end and journeying from Argentina to the trial itself in Israel.

Another Stasi IM collaborator was the head of East Berlin’s Jewish Community Dr. Peter Kirchner. Although publicly a strong supporter of Israel, he was also an informant, known to his controller as “Burg.”  He does not seem to have suffered.

Jewish historian and documentary filmmaker Helmut Eshwege is yet another. Throughout his time in the GDR he was a vocal supporter of Israel, and in his autobiography, claimed to have suffered greatly from anti-Semitism. It’s a shame that in this book he did not feel able to write about his role as a Stasi informant called “Ferdinand,” which was revealed afterwards.   (At his last meeting  with his controllers on 15 November, 1989 he handed over the constitution of the new left-wing party which was to replace the communists).

There are numerous similar examples of Jews who made the successfully made the transition from communism. Take Kahane and Gysi’s old comrade, the famous Stalinist writer Stefan Heym. Having sat out the war safely in the United States he returned to East Germany and a distinguished writer’s position, as a fanatical cheerleader for the regime. After the death of Stalin he wrote of how the murderer of tens of millions was “the most loved man of our times.” After reunification he lost no time in rediscovering his Jewish victimhood card. In 1995 he said “the political climate is very similar to that of 1933, and this frightens me.”

So where was the East German anti-Semitism?  The more this issue is teased out, the more it seems obvious that Jews were not singled out for persecution but at the same time were not given the special status they felt they deserved as the self-styled “pre-eminent victims” of the Holocaust. In East Germany it was taught that it was communists who were singled out by the Nazis.

Two East German policies, in particular, grated with Jews and have been described as Anti-semitism.  One was the GDR’s refusal to recognise Israel — which was consistent with their position of opposing US-backed colonial power.

The second was East Germany’s refusal to pay Holocaust reparations. While Israel received vast subventions and armaments from West Germany after 1945, the East refused to pay a dime. This infuriated the Jews who ascribed both these positions to “anti-Semitism.”

Both Anette Kahane and Gregor Gysi have made an effortless transformation into pillars of the new progressive Germany and have achieved great success.  They both shrugged off their past as “informers” and prefer to concentrate on the present and how the stain on German society can only be removed by the mass immigration of alien hordes from the Middle East.

The eradication of White Germany is not their only enthusiasm. They are both tireless defenders of Israel and are quite willing to hound and harass and purge not just their own left-wing comrades, but even other Jews who do not toe the line.

Gysi declared Anti-Zionism can no longer be an acceptable position for the left in general, and the Die Linke party in particular. He has echoed the words of Angela Merkel in saying that “solidarity with Israel” as an essential component of Germany’s “reason of state.”

He has led campaigns against fellow Die Linke members accused of supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign against Israel and also of those who joined the Free Gaza Flotilla. His campaigns have been successful and resulted in cancelled speaking engagements and withdrawn bookings for “Holocaust Industry” author Norman Finkelstein and Israel critic Illan Pappe, both notable dissident Jews.

As for Anetta Kahane, what effect did her reports have on the lives of the people she denounced?  A good example might have been the talented young actor Klaus Brasch who, together with his brother Thomas, met Kahane in 1976.

Her confidential report on them contained the following sentence. “The enemies of the GDR primarily include Klaus Brasch and Thomas Brasch.” It would be interesting to ask Klaus Brasch about the effects that Kahane’s reports had on their careers but sadly that is not possible. Thomas Brasch died of a heart attack in 2001.  His brother Klaus died from an overdose in 1980.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Globalist's Long Game

via Majority Rights

Overview

The main points covered in this article are:
  • Broad agreement on the TPP has been reached.
  • The TPP actually does not incentivise mass migration, it is part of a process which is empowering people to live and work in their own lands.
  • The TPP is part of a trend of ongoing economic development in South East Asia, Central America and South America, which is concomitant with raising wages in those areas.
  • Regional imbalance is one of the core components of global economic crisis, which can be remedied by enabling people to actually buy the products they produce.
  • The advent of a multipolar world means that global ideological hegemony can no longer be easily held by one regional group.
  • Unlike the disastrous case of NAFTA, it is in fact strategically sound for all ethno-regionalists to endorse the TPP.
It is written with the intent of conveying the necessary information in the shortest amount of time. Read more beneath the fold.


Things are Happening

Sometimes there are really bad days, when you feel like the ball of yarn that is global trade, development, and geostrategy, is being made ever more complicated by the actions of foolish politicians.

And then there are good days, when everything seems to work the way that it should. Today is a good day for those people who have been hoping for development of productive forces to continue rapidly in Asia:
Nikkei Asian Review, ‘Sweeping trade deal sets wide-ranging rules’, 06 Oct 2015:
TOKYO—The broad agreement just reached on the Trans-Pacific Partnership marks a major step toward creating a massive economic zone along both sides of the Pacific.
The TPP is a free trade agreement that will lower tariffs and establish more transparent investment rules among the 12 member countries. It aims to promote trade and investment in the growing Asia-Pacific region.
The pact builds on a 2006 FTA between Singapore, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei. Negotiations for a broader agreement began in March 2010, when the U.S., Australia and others joined the process. Japan came on board in July 2013.
The negotiations covered issues ranging from tariff reduction and elimination to intellectual property protections and reform of state-owned companies. The agreement’s 31 sections cover those areas as well as rules governing such topics as e-commerce and finance.
The tariff cuts are expected to benefit companies by fueling export growth. Clear rules on foreign investment and dispute resolution will help smooth the flow of money and services across borders. Individuals should benefit from simpler customs procedures.
In Japan, lower import duties on rice, beef, pork and other agricultural products will let consumers buy inexpensive foreign goods more easily. The TPP will slash heavy tariffs protecting the nation’s agricultural sector, likely forcing such reforms as improved productivity and a shift to bigger farms.
With a broad agreement now in hand, the participant countries need approval from their legislatures. How long this will take is unclear. The agreement will not enter into effect until after the U.S. ratifies it, a step likely to come in 2016 at the soonest. Congress appears set to take its time discussing the TPP, addressing persistent concerns about the impact on domestic industry and employment.
(Nikkei)
The same story is being echoed almost verbatim in the Financial Times in the UK as well, with a bit of a twist so as to appeal to western liberal viewers. This is because Nikkei now owns the Financial Times.

And:
Nikkei Asian Review, ‘Japan assembling task force to aid farmers’, 06 Oct 2015:
TOKYO—The Japanese government will establish a task force as early as this week to help farmers deal with the expected rise in low-cost imports under the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.
“It’s the responsibility of politics to protect the beautiful original landscapes of agriculture,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Monday night.
“I want to do my best to turn agriculture into a field that can give young people dreams,” Abe said.
Assuming that the TPP will trigger a flood of cheap imports, the task force will focus on enhancing farmers’ productivity and stabilizing their income.
Japan’s small farmers are only half as productive as their larger counterparts with 15 hectares or more of land. Key proposals include a tax system to encourage consolidating farmland and an expansion of irrigation subsidies.
The government also plans to introduce an insurance mechanism to supplement farmers’ income in the event the prices of agricultural products fall.
[...]
Now, there were plenty of people who were against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and who argued very forcefully against it back when the TPA was being authorised so that the United States Executive branch would be capable of negotiating the agreement.
So it’s necessary to cut through some of the rhetoric that was being used back then.

The TPP does not incentivise mass migration

The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes 12 countries:
  • Brunei
  • Chile
  • New Zealand
  • Singapore
  • United States
  • Australia
  • Peru
  • Vietnam
  • Malaysia
  • Mexico
  • Canada
  • Japan
  • Colombia
  • Philippines
  • Taiwan
  • South Korea
  • India (future)
  • Laos (future)
  • Myanmar (future)
For North Americans who are worried about ‘the threat of mass migration resulting from the TPP’, you all should know that the Trans-Pacific Partnership actually incentivises everyone to stay in their own countries, because it incentivises the movement of capital—and thus, jobs—into locations in the developing world, rather than transplanting labour from the developing world into North America. This is simple economics.

Take for example the case of the Philippines. A lack of jobs inside the Philippines triggered a decades long mass migration out of the Philippines and into the North Atlantic, to the point that almost 10% of the female population—many of them rural people—of the Philippines ended up outside of the Philippines.

The fastest way to turn that situation around is to push more FDI into the Philippines, carry out governmental reforms, and build infrastructure in rural areas. That would halt the outflow of human beings almost immediately, and would have a good effect for everyone. After all, mass migration doesn’t only hurt white people. Mass migration also hurts people from developing countries that experience the phenomenon known as ‘brain drain’, and also among rural people the phenomenon known as ‘dislocation’.
The Standard, ‘Aquino wants to make Philippines into Detroit’, 06 Oct 2015:
[...]
One major initiative is the so-called Comprehensive Automotive Resurgence Strategy program, or CARS, which aims to woo General Motors, Toyota and other auto giants to set up shop in the Philippines. It entails tax incentives and about $600 million worth of benefits for companies willing produce at least 40,000 vehicles annually, each fully built in the Philippines.
“We’re not relying on trickle down,” Aquino told me in an interview on Wednesday at the presidential palace in Manila. “We are really trying to enable our people to seize every opportunity that comes their way.”
Call and data centers have created hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in the Philippines. But that’s the domain of educated urban workers, not the tens of millions of rural poor; manufacturing would soak up more workers at home and hopefully draw back some of those currently working abroad. While the $24 billion Filipinos wired home last year helps Manila’s finances, migration depletes the quality of the local labor pool and hurts productivity.
“At the moment, we are a two-shop economy—business-process outsourcing and remittances,” says Nestor Tan, president of BDO Unibank, the nation’s biggest money manager. “More manufacturing would diversify the economy in so many ways.”
The challenges, however, are immense. Carmakers aren’t going to show up until the Philippines improves its ports, roads, airports and its notoriously expensive and unreliable power supplies.
Clearing logjams to infrastructure projects will be hard; paying for them will be harder. Last month, Aquino greenlighted six transportation-related projects totaling about $8.4 billion; those costs will grow exponentially. As great as the record $6.2 billion of FDI last year sounds, it’s still half what Thailand has been getting in recent years.
Pulling in more cash requires better governance. Investors will demand more progress in reducing corruption and inefficiency before deploying fresh capital. Equally important, Aquino’s anti-graft push must outlive his six-year term, which ends in June 2016. That means he’s going to have to start putting more public services and transactions online, including bidding for government contracts. He should go further to do lifestyle checks on lawmakers living far beyond their means. He also should do more to clamp down on the infamous Bureau of Customs, where tens of billions of dollars have vanished since 1990.
Still, Aquino’s not wrong to see an opportunity here. Given Japan’s aging population and the central bank’s failure to end deflation, Toyota is looking abroad and expanding its strategy of producing cars where they’re purchased. (The world’s largest automaker may soon formalize a $1 billion investment in a new assembly plant in Mexico.) Its traditional Southeast Asian base—Thailand—is looking less and less attractive as the ruling junta juggles a vague and shifting list of economic priorities. Thailand’s central bank recently downgraded the economy’s prospects this year, saying business and consumer confidence had been shaken by the weaker-than-expected recovery.
With its young, English-speaking population, low labor costs and rising household incomes, the Philippines looks good by comparison. The biggest change in the Asian manufacturing space is choice—automakers suddenly have many options as India, Indonesia and the Philippines vie for their factories. At first, the Philippines is trying to find “a niche for the region” and position itself as “a mass producer of a model that is not produced in Thailand,” before building on those gains, says Trade Secretary Gregory Domingo. In the interview, Aquino called signs that Japan’s Mitsubishi may be upping production in the Philippines “very, very significant.”
[...]
That is just one example.

Here’s another, involving the pattern in Vietnam:
Nikkei Asian Review, ‘Canon Vietnam helps itself by keeping female workers healthy and happy’, 19 Nov 2013:
HANOI—Rising wages for factory workers in China have spurred global manufacturers to shift some production to Southeast Asia, where labor is cheaper. But companies can only stay ahead of wage trends for so long. Then it becomes a matter of giving workers enough incentive to stick around while avoiding a loss of competitiveness.
Canon’s subsidiary in Vietnam has found that creating a relatively employee-friendly environment goes a long way.
The major Japanese camera and printer maker established its local unit in 2001. Today, the subsidiary runs three printer plants, staffed largely by young Vietnamese women. Yet labor costs are on the rise here, too, with manufacturers one-upping each other to secure workers. In the northern part of the country, Samsung Electronics of South Korea is aggressively courting workers with higher pay.
Canon Vietnam is taking a different approach. “We will not get caught up in an unnecessary fight” over human resources, said Katsuyoshi Soma, the unit’s general director. Instead, the company offers its Vietnamese employees comprehensive welfare and benefits. It also tries to make workers feel they are more than just cogs in a machine.
At 7:00 a.m. each day, Soma carries out a ritual started by his predecessor. He and other members of the managerial team stand at the gate of the company’s factory in the Thang Long Industrial Park, about 16km north of Hanoi. The bosses greet workers as they file in.
“The chief shouldn’t be too high up (and inaccessible), like clouds in the sky,” Soma said.
The average age of the unit’s workers is 24; 93% are women. “Their growth is directly linked to our productivity,” Soma said, stressing the importance of ensuring they are healthy and happy.
Employee benefits include pre- and post-childbirth care. Twice a year, Canon Vietnam invites a doctor to talk to pregnant women about childbirth. New mothers are allowed to leave work an hour early. The company also reserves a room for them to express their milk.
As for more general efforts, a cafe and convenience store were opened last year on the site of the employee dormitories, which are home to nearly 4,000 workers. The company also organizes monthly events—trips, sports festivals and parties—to encourage loyalty and improve morale.
All of this has helped Canon Vietnam build a reputation as an employer worth sticking with. The benefits are considered a big reason its turnover rate has declined by half. This is no small feat in a country where turnover at factories is high—monthly rates of 10-20% are common.
Still, Canon Vietnam is not immune to climbing labor costs. Vietnam’s minimum wage has been increasing at a 20% annual clip, pushing a number of foreign companies into the red. To overcome this challenge, Soma emphasizes the need for “production innovation” and “reform rather than stagnation.”
Canon Vietnam has started in-house production of some components it used to import. It has also found local parts suppliers and offered them guidance. Its local procurement ratio hit 67% this year in value terms, 15 percentage points higher than in 2009.
Soma, meanwhile, is challenging a stereotype—widely held among Japanese companies—that productivity in Vietnam is not as high as in China or Thailand. The key is to give workers a chance to reach their potential.
In 2010, Canon Vietnam introduced a qualification system for metal molding techniques. Under its human resources development program, a select few workers go through two months of intensive training in basic molding methods. “In the past, they had to turn to Japanese employees for help,” Soma said. “Now they can find and handle defects on their own.”
When Canon fired up its first Vietnamese factory in 2002, the unit had 1,100 workers. Since then, the company says its production operations have grown twentyfold, with sales increasing steadily as well. The policy of nurturing workers promises to help keep the business on a positive trajectory.
This is what happens when people actually invest in Asia. With more and more governments actually making innovation into a cornerstone, the rewards from such investments should be significant.
Nikkei Asian Review, ‘Infrastructure, cross-border connectivity vital to development’, 05 Jun 2014:
[...]
“To maintain the hard-won gains of development of the past 20-30 years, we should pay attention to stability.”
Surin said the futures of Asia’s countries are intertwined. “For Japan to address the problem of its shrinking population, East Asia will have to grow up together,” he said. “And the only way to do that is to help East Asia stand up on its own, and (for) its people to become consumers.”
The former Asean chief said: “If the 600 million people of Asean can gradually become more prosperous, with higher incomes, they will become business partners for the Japanese and be consumers of Japanese products. Japan will need more customers outside its borders for demographic reasons.” For that to happen, he said Asean member states need to invest more of their budgets in science, education and technology. “Asean countries spend less than 0.5% of their GDPs on research and innovation. We need to move away from an economy that depends on labor, and the ADB can help.”
To increase trade within Asean, the 10-member bloc will by the end of next year create an economic community with reduced tariffs. Nakao said many of the tariff issues for the coming Asean Economic Community have already been resolved. “Moving ahead, even if (the AEC) cannot achieve 100% tariff reductions, it is moving closer to a single market and is becoming a core of growth for the Asian region.”
Surin said lowering tariffs was not the only issue Southeast Asia needs to tackle. “Has Asean been effective enough in integrating?” he asked. “Most of the agreements and legal instruments to sustain this Asean economy have been done. The challenge is the nontariff barriers. How much are you going to reduce the tariffs and how much are you going to establish nontariff barriers. Some economies are reluctant to open up, particularly the big ones.”
Nakao agreed, saying, “There are many issues (that need to be dealt with), such as education, urbanization and the aging of the population. The ADB wants to address those issues along with Asean. One way to address these issues is through cross-border connectivity.”
As an example of cross-border connectivity, Nakao talked about the Greater Mekong Subregion initiative, a plan to connect countries bound together by the Mekong River, such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.
[...]
The passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on top of all that, would turbo-charge the flow of more investment into places that have up until now not experienced significant enough development. With rising prospects in their home countries, many South East Asian people will make the choice to stay in their own lands as opportunities are brought to their lands.

Some have however been suspicious of this, and have put forward the idea that a US President could, for ideological reasons, use the powers granted by the TPA in order to modify the interpretation of the TPP so as to facilitate or incentivise mass migration. I’m happy to tell you that such a thing would be impossible.

There is a supreme court ruling called Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954), which explains:
Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954):
[...] In light of the expansion of the concept of substantive due process as a limitation upon all powers of Congress, even the war power, see Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 251 U. S. 155, much could be said for the view, were we writing on a clean slate, that the Due Process Clause qualifies the scope of political discretion heretofore recognized as belonging to Congress in regulating the entry and deportation of aliens. And since the intrinsic consequences of deportation are so close to punishment for crime, it might fairly be said also that the ex post facto Clause, even though applicable only to punitive legislation, [Footnote 4] should be applied to deportation.
But the slate is not clean. As to the extent of the power of Congress under review, there is not merely “a page of history,” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 256 U. S. 349, but a whole volume. Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the Government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 101; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 49. But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government. And whatever might have been said at an earlier date for applying the ex post facto Clause, it has been the unbroken rule of this Court that it has no application to deportation.
We are not prepared to deem ourselves wiser or more sensitive to human rights than our predecessors, especially those who have been most zealous in protecting civil liberties under the Constitution, and must therefore under our constitutional system recognize congressional power in dealing with aliens, on the basis of which we are unable to find the Act of 1950 unconstitutional. See Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U. S. 585, and Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 259 U. S. 280. [...]
If someone tried to use the Trans-Pacific Partnership to facilitate mass migration into the United States, by executive decision, that would be a totally unconstitutional interpretation, and the Supreme Court of the United States would be obligated to strike down that command at once.

Furthermore, far from allowing the President of the United States to make decisions on his own about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPA arrangement in fact subjected the executive branch to congressional oversight:
S.995 - Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015:
A BILL
To establish congressional trade negotiating objectives and enhanced consultation requirements for trade negotiations, to provide for consideration of trade agreements, and for other purposes.
[...]
(c) International Trade Commission assessment.—
(1) SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION TO COMMISSION.—The President, not later than 90 calendar days before the day on which the President enters into a trade agreement under section 3(b), shall provide the International Trade Commission (referred to in this subsection as the “Commission”) with the details of the agreement as it exists at that time and request the Commission to prepare and submit an assessment of the agreement as described in paragraph (2). Between the time the President makes the request under this paragraph and the time the Commission submits the assessment, the President shall keep the Commission current with respect to the details of the agreement.
(2) ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 105 calendar days after the President enters into a trade agreement under section 3(b), the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a report assessing the likely impact of the agreement on the United States economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors, including the impact the agreement will have on the gross domestic product, exports and imports, aggregate employment and employment opportunities, the production, employment, and competitive position of industries likely to be significantly affected by the agreement, and the interests of United States consumers.
(3) REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL LITERATURE.—In preparing the assessment under paragraph (2), the Commission shall review available economic assessments regarding the agreement, including literature regarding any substantially equivalent proposed agreement, and shall provide in its assessment a description of the analyses used and conclusions drawn in such literature, and a discussion of areas of consensus and divergence between the various analyses and conclusions, including those of the Commission regarding the agreement.
(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The President shall make each assessment under paragraph (2) available to the public.
[...]
That was a bill that was forcing the executive branch to report to the congressional committees on every economic, environmental, and social issue that could be imagined, so that they could keep track of what the executive branch was doing and provide criticisms and make objections.

Rather than being some kind of nefarious scheme, it in fact invited oversight just like any other trade bill that had preceded it in the United States.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership helps to correct global imbalances

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) lights a spark that can facilitate actual economic growth which would raise the living conditions of people in the poorest regions of Asia. It also helps in the process of ‘global rebalancing’. Global structural imbalances and the geographically-based trade deficit, comprise the root of the previous economic crises. Deals like the TPP are economically sound because they are part of the ongoing process of fixing this persistent problem.

Stockhammer (2012) explains:
Stockhammer, E. (2012). ‘Rising Inequality as a Root Cause of the Present Crisis’, PERI, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Working Paper Number 282:
Since the early 1980s an increase in inequality has occurred in all OECD countries. At first sight, this seems to have taken on different forms in different countries. In the Anglo Saxon countries we observe a sharp increase in personal income inequality. Top incomes have experienced a spectacular growth (Piketty und Saez 2003, 2007; OECD 2008). Since 1980 the top income percentile has increased its share in national income by more than 10 percentage points. In continental European countries we see a strong decline in the functional distribution of income. Since 1980 the (adjusted) wage share has fallen by around 10 percentage point (of national income). Given the extent of redistribution that has taken place, one might expect that there are macroeconomic effects. While several authors have noticed that there might be a link between rising inequality and the crisis (Stiglitz 2010, Wade 2009, Rajan 2010), there is as of yet little systematic analysis. This article gives a conceptual framework, based on post-Keynesian theory, for the different channels through which rising inequality may have contributed to the crisis and, secondly, presents some preliminary evidence to substantiate these channels.
Our hypothesis is that the crisis should be understood as the interaction of the deregulation of the financial sector (or financialisation, more generally) with the effect of rising inequality. In a nutshell our story is the following:
since the early 1980s the rise of Neoliberalism has brought about important economic and societal changes, including the deregulation of the financial sector and various legislative measures that have weakened organised labour and the welfare state. From a macroeconomic point of view two growth models have emerged: a debt-led growth model and an export-led growth model.
The USA and the UK are prime examples of the former, Germany and China for the latter. Both growth models can be regarded as a reaction to the lack of domestic demand due to rising inequality. Potentially stagnating domestic demand is compensated for, in the first case, by debt-financed consumption and residential investment booms and, in the second case, by export demand. Several macroeconomic imbalances have emerged:
growing trade imbalances across countries; rising household debt levels, namely in the debt-led economies; a rise in the size of the financial sector relative to others; and a rise of asset and property prices. These imbalances are at the root of the crisis. They have been facilitated by financial deregulation, but most of them are intrinsically linked to the rise of inequality.
The paper takes a view that is informed by Kaleckian macroeconomics and by French Regulation Theory. We identify four channels through which rising inequality has contributed to the crisis. Firstly, rising inequality creates a downward pressure on aggregate demand, since it is poorer income groups that have high marginal propensities to consume. Second, international financial deregulation has allowed countries to run large current account deficits and for extended time periods. Thus, in reaction to potentially stagnant domestic demand two growth models have emerged: a debt-led model and an export-led model. Third, (in the debt-led growth models) higher inequality has led to higher household debt as working class families have tried to keep up with social consumption norms despite stagnating or falling real wages. Fourth, rising inequality has increased the propensity to speculate as richer households tend to hold riskier financial assets than other groups.
[...]
This paper has investigated the question whether rising inequality has contributed to the imbalances that erupted in the present crisis, in other words, whether rising inequality is a cause of the crisis. We have discussed four channels through which inequality may have contributed.
This is not to be understood as an alternative to financial factors, but as a complementary explanation that highlights the interaction of financial and social factors.
First, increasing inequality leads potentially to a stagnation of demand, since lower income groups have higher consumption propensity. Second, countries developed two alternative strategies to deal with this shortfall of demand.
In the English-speaking countries (and in Mediterranean countries), a debt-led growth model emerged, in contrast with the export-led growth model in countries such as Germany, Japan or China. These two growth models became feasible because financial liberalisation of international capital flows allowed for unprecedented international imbalances.
Third, in debt-led countries rising inequality contributed to the growth of debt as the poor have increased their debt levels relative to income faster than the rich. For the USA this can be clearly seen in debt-to-income ratios for different income groups. Financialization has meant debt growth instead of wage growth. This growth model that is not sustainable.
Fourth, increasing inequality has increased the propensity to speculate, i.e. it has led to a shift to more risky financial assets. One particular aspect of these developments is that subprime derivatives, the segment where the financial crisis broke out in 2008, were developed to cater to the demands of hedge funds that manage the assets of the superrich. Increasing inequality has thus played a role in the origin of the imbalances that erupted in the crisis as well as in the demand for the very assets in which the crisis broke out.
Our conclusion is that increasing inequality, in interaction with financial deregulation, should be seen as root causes of the crisis. Figure 6 summarises our argument graphically.
Figure 6


This argument has direct implications for economic policy. A broad consensus exists that financial reform is necessary to avert similar crises in the future (even if little has yet changed in the regulation of financial markets). The analysis here highlights that income distribution will have to be a central consideration in policies dealing with domestic and international macroeconomic stabilisation.
The avoidance of crises similar to the recent one and the generation of stable growth regimes will involve simultaneous consideration of income and wealth distribution, financial regulation and aggregate demand. It is this first element “the distribution of income and wealth” that has not conventionally been incorporated in macroeconomic analysis. Put more bluntly, creating a more equal society is not an economic luxury that can be taken care of after the real issues, such as financial regulation, have been sorted out. Rather, a far more equitable distribution of income and wealth than presently exists would be an essential aspect of a stable growth regime: wage growth is a precondition of an increase in consumption that does not rely on the growth of debt. And financial assets are less likely to be used for speculation if wealth is more broadly distributed.
A more equitable distribution of income and wealth will involve changes in tax as well as in wage policy. Reformed tax policies will include increases in upper income tax rates, rises in wealth taxes and the closure of tax loopholes and of tax havens (Shaxson 2011). In the area of wage policy far reaching changes are necessary. Present policy prescriptions aim at cutting wages in a recession. But higher wage growth is a necessary aspect of a balanced economy. It can only be achieved by strengthening of labour union and collective bargaining structures.
As FDI into Asia increases, and as the development of productive forces continues, and as wages in Asia continue to rise, the structural imbalance is ameliorated as populations in these countries gain the ability to actually buy the products which they are manufacturing, rather than selling most of the products as exports to the North Atlantic where they are then purchased by Americans and Europeans on credit.

Taking steps toward breaking that vicious and unsustainable cycle, is one of the most encouraging aspects of the recent developments in Asia.

The transformation which is associated with this rebalancing, was forecasted a while ago:
The National Bureau of Asian Research, ‘Strategic Asia 2012-13’, Oct 2012:
The presence of this new order—which hinged on the military capabilities of the United States—would progressively nurture a new economic order as well, one that began through deepened trading relationships between the United States and its allies but slowly extended to incorporate neutrals and even erstwhile and potential rivals—to the degree that they chose to participate in this order. [...] it maintained a remarkable degree of military advantage despite Soviet opposition, while at the same time sustaining an open economic system at home and an open trading system abroad, both of which interacted to permit the United States and its close allies to grow at a rate much faster than the autarkic economies of its opponents.
The fact that the United States’ allies were able to regenerate their national power so quickly after the devastation of World War II was also a testament to the enlightened elites in these countries: they consciously pursued economic strategies that enabled their nations to make the best of the open economic order that the United States maintained in its interest but which provided collective benefits. The rise of these allies, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and eventually the smaller Southeast Asian “tigers,” undoubtedly portended the relative decline of the United States. But such a decline was judged acceptable because these were friendly states threatened by common enemies, and their revival was judged—correctly—to be essential for the larger success of containment. [6]
Yet the ascendancy of these allies signaled a serious problem that marks all imperial orders, namely, that success produces transformations that can lead to their undoing.
As development of productive forces takes place, and as countries in Asia become more economically powerful, so too will the governmental structures of those countries gain the ability to set up viable regional organisations which would have economic and military clout behind them, a process which is already taking place.

Rather than producing the ‘increasingly globalised world’ that liberals had hoped for, it will instead produce a phenomenon known as ‘deglobalisation’. Deglobalisation is actually just a word that really can be said to describe the growth of a ‘new regionalism’, it is the new way of organising pan-nationalist hegemonic power. It involves new ways of governing, to achieve prosperity and maintain stability:
UNU Global Seminar ‘96, ‘Globalization, the New Regionalism and East Asia’, Bj√∂rn Hettne, 06 Sep 1996:
1. Whereas the old regionalism was formed in a bipolar Cold War context, the new is taking shape in a multipolar world order. The new regionalism and multipolarity are, in fact, two sides of the same coin. The decline of US hegemony and the breakdown of the Communist subsystem created a room-for-manoeuvre, in which the new regionalism could develop. It would never have been compatible with the Cold War system, since the “quasi-regions” of that system tended to reproduce bipolarity within themselves. This old pattern of hegemonic regionalism was of course most evident in Europe before 1989, but at the height of the Cold War discernible in all world regions. There are still remnants of it here in East Asia.
2. Whereas the old regionalism was created “from above” (often through superpower intervention), the new is a more spontaneous process from within the regions, where the constituent states now experience the need for cooperation in order to tackle new global challenges. Regionalism is thus one way of coping with global transformation, since most states lack the capacity and the means to manage such a task on the “national” level.
3. Whereas the old regionalism was inward oriented and protectionist in economic terms, the new is often described as “open”, and thus compatible with an interdependent world economy. However, the idea of a certain degree of preferential treatment of countries within the region is implied in the idea of open regionalism. How this somewhat contradictory balance between the principle of multilateralism and the more particularistic regionalist concerns shall be maintained remains somewhat unclear. I would myself rather stress the ambiguity between “opened” and “closed” regionalism.
4. Whereas the old regionalism was specific with regard to its objectives (some organizations being security oriented, others economically oriented), the new is a more comprehensive, multidimensional process. This process includes not only trade and economic development, but also environment, social policy and security, just to mention some imperatives pushing countries and communities towards cooperation within new types of regionalist frameworks.
5. Whereas the old regionalism was concerned only with relations between nation states, the new forms part of a global structural transformation in which non-state actors (many different types of institutions, organizations and movements) are also active and operating at several levels of the global system.
In sum, the new regionalism includes economic, political, social and cultural aspects, and goes far beyond free trade. Rather, the political ambition of establishing regional coherence and regional identity seems to be of primary importance. The new regionalism is linked to globalization and can therefore not be understood merely from the point of view of the single region. Rather it should be defined as a world order concept, since any particular process of regionalization in any part of the world has systemic repercussions on other regions, thus shaping the way in which the new world order is being organized. The new global power structure will thus be defined by the world regions, but regions of different types.
It could be said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a push toward increasing globalisation, but rather, can be seen as a response to the rise in international importance of states in the intermediate zones and the periphery which are acquiring a regional identity, and which are increasingly pursuing economic development which is planned from a regional perspective. These states have not only resources and labour power, as well as strong companies and centres of innovation, but also a keen sense of their own identity and the need to use political clout on the world stage in order to defend it.

For countries in South East Asia and in Central and South America, a political will which arises out of the common aspirations of all nations, has combined with geostrategic and economic expediency to make membership in the Trans-Pacific Partnership a very productive move. South East Asian companies and states are confident in their ability to compete in their own way and with their own regional development goals in mind.

Economic power precedes geopolitical power, and a high coefficient of productivity always denotes the reserve capability for a high coefficient of destructive military force. The dispersal of this economic power into the intermediate zones and the periphery, will serve to create a multipolar world—a new world order—in which no single region will be able to arbitrarily determine what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’, and no single region will be able to claim to be the single repository of all political ‘truth’.

In light of the distressing and frustrating things which have happened since 1945 in monopolar or dipolar world orders, all the different initiatives that characterise the beginnings of a transition toward this kind of multipolar world order, in my view should be hailed as a progressive development, and those leaders who—either accidentally or deliberately—have made it possible should be regarded with the deepest appreciation.