Tribal Loyalty is Not New in the Justice System


Republican nominee and deportation enthusiast Donald J. Trump’s recent remarks about an ethnically Mexican judge—and member of mestizo racialist organization La Raza—being likely to judge him unfairly in the ‘Trump University’ lawsuit have drawn widespread condemnation from the left and right, and usual charges of racism. Reflecting the current-year presentism that pervades American political discourse, anti-Trump commentators, especially on the right, are aghast that someone could suggest: 1.) identity influences a civil servant’s decisions, and 2.) someone born in Indiana to Mexican parents is a Mexican. Pat Buchanan offers an excellent rebuttal.

But given the history of diversity-proximity friction in this country and its subverted institutions, can anyone sincerely find any controversy in the idea that a judge’s background influences his decisions? Certainly, the case has been made that a person’s identity matters more than ever before in the last eight years. We know for example from progressive sermonizing that White males are unqualified to run a diverse America’s institutions because of their implicit biases, white privilege, male privilege, etc. In other words, liberals already believe that identity is relevant to one’s political positions, which is correct. Identity politics for everyone but Whites and criticism of Whiteness and masculinity as being anti-progress are part of their canon. Conservatives have no response to this than crying that identity politics is racism, but as the moral authority-setting left has also explained, people of color cannot be racist, only Whites. Who are conservatives siding with when they call Trump a racist? For voicing concern that a judge who belongs to an ethnic group that he plans to deport a sizable chunk of might be biased against him on the basis that he is part of said group? Sounds like common sense to me.

Identity has mattered in the judiciary for a long time. Justice Antonin Scalia (PBUH), a Silent Generation-born Italian-American Catholic and member of the Knights of Columbus, was an extremely conservative judge who stuck to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He also expressed concern that Protestants were not represented on the Sanhedrin (SCOTUS), which at the time of his death was and remains entirely benched by Jews and Catholics. Obama’s chosen liberal candidate to replace Scalia, (((Merrick Garland))), is a mischling and would be the second Jew appointed to the Sanhedrin by him. Trump’s current list of potential Court nominees is all White (and conservative). It matters who decides court cases; only liars dispute this.

People seem to have already forgotten about the most powerful mestizo judge in the country’s views on identity and the judiciary. One of Obama’s first-term Sanhedrin appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, made the case way back in 2001 at an academic networking event for mestizos that as a Spanish-speaking woman of color she was inherently a better judge than a White male. Speaking at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture and published a year later in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal as “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” the Senate-confirmed Sotomayor made her infamous “wise Latina” remark that only the alt-right seems to remember:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

There are plenty of other snippets throughout the speech which confirm what everyone who isn’t viciously delusional already knows, that collectivism is rampant among the constituent nations of any diverse empire and that tribal loyalties matter to people and their politics. What makes this empire truly bizarre is that identity politics is tolerated and actually encouraged among the supposedly oppressed minority groups:

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes [mestizo ethnic networking]  that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Well look at that! I guess it’s not e pluribus unum, it’s still many. Have another:

Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Puerto Rico is part of the United States. So is New York. But she considers herself an ethnic Puerto Rican who resides in New York, NY. Not a deracinated American. More:

Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge.

We. Our. Spoken like a collectivist taking over a soft and effete egalitarian society. Have another:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Again, a mestizo is saying being mestizo will change the way a judge does his or her job. Come on, get this through your heads:

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” — a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity – is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences.

Oh, so in other words, diversity makes the United States inherently unstable and leads to conflict over what it means to be an American. We need to both celebrate diversity and ignore it? All the while considering it desirable for people to “maintain and promote [non-white] cultural and ethnic identities,” an explicit form of factionalism—recognized in the Federalist Papers as a grave threat to the Republic—if there ever was one. No, what is quite clear is that this a collectivist speaker talking to an audience of co-ethnics. And it’s the future. Well actually, these words were spoken in 2001. It’s the present! None of these issues have been resolved; they have only accelerated.

Trump is right about the mestizo judge. So is Sotomayor. And she said it first. Republicans who deny the role of identity in politics are doing themselves a disservice in the long-run, assuming they aren’t just filthy liars being loyal to ((((an anti-conservative faction)))). They’re also cucking for the anti-gringo La Raza organization by not supporting the Republican nominee, who many of them pledged to support months ago. And as we already know, liberals calling Trump—or Whites broadly—racist for playing identity politics are pure distilled scum. They don’t even blink about doing it themselves.

This entry was posted in America, Ideology, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Tribal Loyalty is Not New in the Justice System

  1. Bar Tar says:

    I’ve been thinking about nationalism a bit lately, and especially now that the “alt-right” memeplex is beginning to leak into the mainstream. This is the first “movement” to have any serious memetic oomph since neoconservatism (and jewish progressivism, I guess) fermented in and then exploded out of the jewish community colleges in the 1940s. (There’s an excellent video about how the jews arrived dirt-poor in America, fermented their intellectual “movements” in their jewish ghettos and community colleges, and then swept through and dominated America’s institutions, but I can’t remember what it’s called. I’ll do some searching and try to post it later.)

    A big part of a movement’s success is the ability to construct a “parallel language” of sorts. Technical terms. Jargon. In-group speak. Eventually if the group is successful their special word-meanings become standard and are imposed upon the language-at-large. Examples: diversity, privilege, minority. “White” and “White Nationalism” are both duds, I think 70 years of bashing “Whites” for our “colonial sins” has accomplished that. Besides, the only “White” flags, standards, etc. are derived from National Socialism, which was many things but not White Nationalist. Nobody wants to be “White”, and why should I adopt my enemy’s crude libel-label anyway? I don’t need the useless “solidarity” of Generation Identitaire or whomever across an ocean to take back my own country. I want to be able to be proud to call myself an American.

    Weev’s RACE method is all about reconnecting (White) people with their (supreme) Western cultural heritage and using it to create what I call a moment of “transcendent experience” in order to re-establish an implicit connection to the blood. ( I think this is a necessary approach for the masses, to have an implicit racial qualification rather than an explicit one; race alone just isn’t enough to motivate most people, especially altruistic, non-nepotistic Hajnal-line-Euros.

    But I digress. I think it’s absolutely critical to take back the word “American”. American used to mean something: Native English-speaking, NW Euro, fully assimilated culturally and totally loyal to the American nation, etc. Now it just means “any baby plopped down on the ground within the borders of the USGov”. I’m sick of it, and thoroughly tired of the hyphen-“American” bullshit as well.

    “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all … The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic … There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.” – Teddy Roosevelt

    The Mexicans, the Moslems, the Africans, the Chinese, the overseas Israelis, and the literal Israelis like the vice-chair of the Fed all have to go back.

    The first step is to pointedly, deliberately exclude Un-American groups from the title American.

    And we can refer to Nonwhites who support our tribe over theirs as “honorary Americans”.


    • I really don’t think we are getting the demonym of American back. I’m not even sure we would want it back, given how disastrously the experiment has failed. I get the sentiment that American was once understood to mean “White person” and that the rest of the world believed it longer than our institutions did. Now we are at a point where America represents an evil being perpetrated against our people. I am partial to the term Anglo-American as you probably know, over the occupation government’s “non-Hispanic white” classification. I’ve also seen some people in our circles use “Amerikaner,” which reflects the large Anglosaxon-Germanic component of the American people and shows solidarity with global White settler populations, especially in the Cape Colony/South Africa. In any event, calling ourselves “American nationalists” or anything of that now-understood-as-deracinated identity would confuse a good amount of our supporters and also give our enemies a fat wide avenue of attack. There is such an obvious retort that anyone born in the United States is considered American and that since the 1860s citizenship has not been race-based.


      • Bar Tar says:

        The trouble is I don’t see how anyone’s going to rally around obscure identities like “White” or “Anglo-American” or “European-American” or whatever. You might argue that “White”, at least, is not obscure, but it hasn’t managed to become an organizing principle despite 70 years of trying. “Anglo-American” means absolutely nothing to the vast majority of people (sorry). “European-American”, sounds like “naturalized American citizen from European”. The emotional quality of their “vibe” is all either negative or neutral (nonexistent).

        When (trueborn) Americans came here they gave up all former loyalties, identities, races to just become American. And there was a strong implicit racial sense to that term much more recently than 1860s. It’s only recently, in the last two or three decades, that the true meaning of American was yanked out from under our feet.

        Moreover, once you give up the central “American” you are demoting yourself to hyphen-Americanism.

        I was already thinking about this before Trump, but now he’s demonstrated just how well this works in practice with his recent comment on that Mexican judge. Trump successfully changed the perception of that “American” into what he really is, a Mexican, even though he was born in Indiana.

        It’s easier and more effective to change the meaning of a word that a lot of people already use and even identify with than it is to invent an entirely new one and try to convert people to it. Why do you think (((they))) subverted Christianity? I imagine it gets even easier when you’re returning a word to its original meaning.

        So anyway, maybe we aren’t going to get it back but it’s worth a damn good shot. And what a theft it would be.


      • Half of all Americans born in this country are non-white. Half. If it hasn’t lost its racial worth to everyone yet it will soon.


  2. Bar Tar says:

    If we can’t retake a word how are we going to retake a country?


  3. Bar Tar says:

    Three-quarters of all immigrant households are on big daddy government gibs. They don’t pay taxes. They don’t invent things. They don’t create high culture. Their labor is already mostly useless and getting ever more so. They’re dead weight. Their only purpose is to suck the white working and middle classes dry and soothe the conscience of the upper-middle and upper classes.

    They are congenitally incapable of self-organization. They are evidently incapable of high civilization. I fail to see what’s stopping an independent government from routing them in short order. Hell, we don’t even need an independent government, we just need the existing government to release the pressure on the white man, to step back and let him self-organize to do what’s necessary.

    And if we have the good fortune of even a little bit of good old-fashioned famine we don’t even need a neutral government. Society nine meals away from revolution, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • What’s stopping an independent government is that it doesn’t exist. Meanwhile the current one is democratically elected by universal franchise, which means it won’t be evicting its clients.


      • Bar Tar says:

        It doesn’t exist, until it does. Or, more likely, finds itself unable to enforce its rule. You may think it impervious, as it indeed appears, but I suppose it is a parlor trick.

        We live in watershed times.


      • We do. But how they will resolve is very theoretical at this point.


  4. Pingback: Anglo-American Diversity | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  5. Pingback: Alternative Right: ANGLO-AMERICAN DIVERSITY – The Americanist

  6. Senatssekretär Freistaat Danzig says:

    Reblogged this on behindertvertriebentessarzblog.


  7. Pingback: America’s Consensus Pronounced Dead | ATLANTIC CENTURION

  8. Pingback: Skinning the Invisible Knapsack, Part 3 of 5 | ATLANTIC CENTURION

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s