Martin Sellner's Banned UK Speech Delivered March 18th by Tommy Robinson at London's Speakers' Corner

(from Raheem Kassam's account on Breitbart.com)

Dear Friends, dear Britons, dear lovers of free speech.

I assume you all are lovers of free speech because you have come to Speakers’  Corner.

You might not understand all the fuss happening today around this speech. Honestly, I don’t understand it either.

My name is Martin Sellner. I am an Austrian patriot, and at the moment, I’m sitting in a detention cell in Colnbrook Bypass near Heathrow. My smartphone was taken and my girlfriend Brittany was separated from me. I currently don’t know where she is. We will be deported on Sunday.

Five minutes ago, they unlocked our cells and my fellow inmates are gathering in the prison wing. They are mostly illegals and eastern European criminals.

What brought me into this situation? What was my crime?

My crime was that I wanted to be here with you, to speak at Speakers’ Corner.

But let’s start with the beginning. I was invited by UKIP to present my movement at an event last Autumn. I represent Generation Identity — a patriotic European youth movement that is raising awareness about mass immigration and Islamisation.

Far-left people call us right-wing, people who want to shut free speech down call us ‘fascist’, and folks who hate their own culture call us ‘racist’.

In reality, we are just a group of young patriots fed up with the system, the mainstream press and lying politicians. We use peaceful activism to make our voices heard, and contrary to our friends on the radical left, who are probably swarming
you right now, we never wear masks.

From Paris to Rome, from Vienna to London, we fight peacefully but without compromise for our freedom, our homelands, and our identity!

This is what I wanted to speak about in Autumn. But the conference was cancelled due to threats from the radical left. The venue would not take the risk. So they rescheduled it for March, this time keeping the venue secret — but again the terror of the left prevailed, and the venue dropped out.

But this time I did not want to let them win! It was about principles! (Also, our flights
were already booked.)

My last refuge was Speakers’ Corner. I remembered my mother telling me about that special place when I was a child. It
seemed almost magical to me. A place where everyone, without exception, could just stand on a box and start to speak to those who wanted to listen. I have always loved this tradition of Speakers’ Corner, which seemed very British to me.

But I came only to see that this tradition — the tradition of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom — is dead.

Your Country is blocking you from challenging ideas from the outside. This is a disgrace to our democracy!

I should be speaking in neat, warm a conference room right now, and you should be sitting in comfortable chairs. Instead, I’m in my cell and you are on the street in a standoff with the enemies of freedom of speech.

And this is very telling! Today there is a war going on for our freedom of speech. This war is being fought on the streets,
by you!

Every man and woman showing her face today, standing shoulder to shoulder, is standing up against a new totalitarianism
that has been growing for far too long. You can be proud of yourself. You might not even agree with me on every point — you are simply giving a statement that I should have the right to speak my mind freely.

I would love to be among you now. They prevented me from it. They locked up the speaker, but I know that the speech will
find a way through the iron bars. It will find a way to you and you are going to hear what you government so desperately wants to protect you from.

Those words which they consider more harmful to you then rape gangs or terrorists who are let into your country again and
again.

I’m going to tell you something nobody has told you before. It’s the biggest, most obvious secret of our media our politicians and our powerholders: People of Britain, you are being replaced.

There has always been immigration in your history. People coming in, assimilating. But what’s happening today is different:
You are being replaced by massive Muslim immigration.

You see it everywhere: in London, in Manchester, but also already in the little countryside towns. A big replacement is going
on.

And let me tell you: your politicians have no plan, no vision and no idea how to deal with the problems that come along. Problems like you have seen in Telford, Rotherham, and on Westminster Bridge.

All across Europe, there is a shadow hanging over our heads. The French are whispering about in the Metro, the Germans murmuring about it when they feel unwatched, Italians look left and right, and if nobody is listening they tell you: “I don’t feel at home anymore in my street. We are becoming foreigners in our own country.”

And again and again I hear: “We are not allowed to talk about it.”

And that’s the bizarre drama of the ‘Strange death of Europe’. We are being replaced, conquered by radical Islam, and we are now allowed to talk about it!

Dear Britons, defenders of free speech. Out of my cell in Colnbrook, I want to ask you something. Be honest and raise your hands.

Who among of you has ever been in the following situation: You grab a beer after work, or you are visiting your girlfriend’s parents for the first time, or you meet other children’s parents at school — and suddenly the conversation moves to politics: radical Islam, immigration.

Who of you in this very moment was faced with the decision between speaking his mind and facing problems, or complying
and staying silent?

Raise your hands and be honest.

I will not be able to see the results, but every single hand is too much. This amount of fear should not exist in a society. Speech that has social costs and severe consequences is no longer free. It has a price — and our Government and the Antifa are working everyday to raise that price.

No freedom of speech means no democracy. In front of our very eyes this country is becoming a tyranny, shutting all debates
about immigration down, until demographics solves the issue by replacement.

People of the UK. I might be in a cell right now, but you all are in a cell. It’s the prison of fear and silence your governement and the PC tyranny has locked you in since the days of your childhood.

I ask you, I command you, break free! 

Patriots of the UK: come out of the closet. Make your dissent visible by visible acts of resistance that inspire others. I know for certain that millions in the UK think like me. Those millions should be on the street now.

We need a coming out of the silent majority, or Britain is lost. We need a free, open and honest debate about immigration,
Islam and demographics, so we can sort these problems out together.

And I know that the force is still in you. With your Brexit vote you stunned the world! The will and the life of the British
nation is not broken.

Initially, I asked if freedom of speech is dead in the UK. You, every one of you who came today, is a living sign that the tradition of the UK is not dead! You are the livley tradition of your nation, saving its face before history.

People of the UK — remember who you are! Remember your glorious past, you are sons and daughters of knights, kings, explorers, philosophers and artists. Who is the sovereign in this country?

Is it big money?

The mainstream media?

The politicians?

It’s you — the people. You, the silent and invisible majority who said NO during Brexit. You can say NO again — no to Islamisation, no to mass immigration, and no to the great replacement.

And YES to your identity — yes to your security, yes to your heritage and the future for your children.

And all this is impossible without to freedom of speech.

I know, if these words will find their way to the UK and even to Speakers’ Corner, it will be victory for our cause.

If they did, and if you are hearing them now, I tell you: go further on that winning street. Don’t be afraid because we have an
ally that is unbeatable: Truth.

The battle, our battle for freedom of speech, has just begun, and Speakers’ Corner will become a symbolic place in that
struggle.

When you go home know I want you to bring the spirit of Speakers’ Corner with you. Every single person who raised his hand because he could relate to this moment of fear, when he did not dare to speak his mind.

Promise me: Next time I will overcome my inner fear. Next time I will speak up!

Remembering Professor David Wyman, by Rafael Medoff

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

News Release:  March 15, 2018

For more information, contact:

info@wymaninstitute.org / 301-593-8429

PROF. DAVID S. WYMAN, AUTHOR OF GROUNDBREAKING STUDY OF

AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO THE HOLOCAUST, PASSES AWAY AT 89

Professor David S. Wyman, author of The Abandonment of the Jews, the groundbreaking and definitive study of America’s response to the Holocaust, passed away on March 14, in his home in Amherst, Massachusetts, after a lengthy illness. He was 89.

A private memorial ceremony will be held by his family. A public event commemorating Prof. Wyman’s life and legacy will be held by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in New York City, at a date to be announced.

Dr. Rafael Medoff, founding director of the Wyman Institute, said: “David was a brilliant scholar, a gifted speaker, an exceptional teacher, and a devoted friend. But above all, he was a person of extraordinarily fine character—a true ‘mensch’.”

Prof. Deborah Lipstadt once wrote: "I am convinced that had there been more Christians like David Wyman in the 1930s and 1940s, the history of this period would have been very different. He strikes me as one of the tzadikei umot ha'olam [righteous of the nations]."

Dr. Medoff added: “It is testimony to David’s greatness that the achievement of which he was proudest was not any of the numerous awards he received for his pioneering scholarship, or the many laudatory reviews of his books, but the fact that The Abandonment of the Jews contributed directly to the rescue of more than 800 Ethiopian Jewish refugees.”

The refugees were left stranded and starving along the Ethiopian-Sudanese border in early 1985, when an Israeli airlift operation was interrupted. Jewish activists, together with Congressman John Miller, gave copies of The Abandonment of the Jews to Vice President George H.W. Bush and his aides, pleading with them to “do now what we didn't do then." As a result, the U.S. sent a fleet of C-130 Hercules transport planes to rescue the refugees and bring them to Israel.

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, a research and education institute based in Washington, D.C. and chaired by the noted businessman and philanthropist Sigmund A. Rolat, was established by Prof. Wyman's colleagues in 2003.

* * *

David S. Wyman, the grandson of two Protestant ministers, was born in Weymouth, Massachusetts, in 1929, and raised in Auburndale, Massachusetts. He graduated from Boston University with a bachelor’s degree in history, and from Harvard University with a Ph.D. in history. 

From 1966 until his retirement in 1991, Prof. Wyman taught at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he was the Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. Professor of History and twice served as chairman of the Judaic studies program. DuBois was a Treasury Department official who, in 1943, played a key role in exposing the State Department’s sabotage of opportunities to rescue Jews from the Nazis. When the university honored Prof. Wyman by allowing him to select the name of his professorship, he chose Josiah DuBois.

Prof. Wyman’s first book was the critically-acclaimed Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938-1941 (University of Massachusetts Press, 1968). He spent the next fifteen years researching and writing the sequel, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 (Pantheon, 1984). 

Prof. Wyman often spoke about how difficult it was for him, as a Christian, to be confronted with the evidence of the meager response by American Christians to news of the Holocaust; sometimes he “cried for days” and had to take a break from his research. As he explained to the Chronicle of Higher Education, he "had been brought up wth the belief that at the heart of Christianity is the precept that, when people need help, you should provide it."  

Prior to the publication of The Abandonment of the Jews, the widespread assumption among the American public was that there was little or nothing the Roosevelt administration could have done to save Jews from the Holocaust. Prof. Wyman’s meticulous research demonstrated that there were, in fact, many ways the U.S. could have aided European Jewish refugees, without interfering with the war effort or undermining America’s immigration laws. He documented how President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his State Department suppressed news about the Holocaust and ignored opportunities to rescue refugees.

The Abandonment of the Jews quickly rose to the New York Times best-seller list, and reviewers were nearly unanimous in their acclaim. "We will not see a better book on this subject in our lifetime," Prof. Leonard Dinnerstein concluded. Prof. Hasia Diner wrote that Abandonment "systematically demolishes often repeated excuses for inaction.” Thirty-four years later, The Abandonment of the Jews is still the gold standard in its field.

The Abandonment of the Jews won the Bernath Prize of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, the Saloutos Award of the Immigration History Society, the Ansfield-Wolf Award, and the National Jewish Book Award, among other accolades. It went through seven hardcover printings and multiple paperback editions, as well as editions in German, French, Hebrew, and Polish, selling a total of more than 150,000 copies worldwide.  

The book attracted considerable interest on Capitol Hill, as well. Twice in 1985, Prof. Wyman was invited to address groups of members of Congress. U.S. Senator Paul Simon (D-Illinois) devoted an installment of his weekly syndicated column to The Abandonment of the Jews, which he characterized as "one of the most powerful books I have ever read."  

During the decade following the book’s publication, Prof. Wyman was a featured guest on numerous major radio and television shows, including Nightline with Ted Koppel, the Today Show with Jane Pauley, and the Larry King Show. He delivered more than 400 lectures to synagogues, churches, civic organizations, and educational institutions, and even those represented only the fraction of the invitations that his teaching load enabled him to accept. In his lectures, Prof. Wyman often would unfurl, accordion-like, the four foot-long government form that a would-be immigrant was required to fill out in order to be considered for a visa to enter the United States in the 1930s and 1940s. 

Prof. Wyman was deeply proud that his book not only educated Americans about their country’s response to the Holocaust, but helped ensure that another persecuted Jewish community would not be abandoned. The role that The Abandonment of the Jews played in the 1985 U.S. airlift of more than 800 Ethiopian Jews was widely acknowledged in the news media at the time. Wolf Blitzer, who was the Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, wrote: "Today's direct and very active cooperation by the U.S. government in helping to rescue Ethiopian Jews is in marked contrast to the documented abandonment of European Jewish refugees before and during World War II ... [which has been] well-documented in David S. Wyman's recently published book, The Abandonment of the Jews.”

Vice President Bush subsequently sent Prof. Wyman a handwritten note of thanks for inspiring the rescue mission. The note is proudly displayed in the Wyman family home in Massachusetts.

During a visit to Israel in 1988, Prof. Wyman's hosts took him to an orphanage to meet some of the children who had been rescued in the airlift; he described it as one of the most moving experiences in his life. In 2008, Prof. Wyman visited an Israeli air force base, together with Dr. Rebecca Kook, Astra Temko, and Nili Kook, the daughters and widow, respectively, of Holocaust rescue activist Hillel Kook (Peter Bergson). There they met Major-General Amir Eshel, who was involved in the 1985 airlift operation, and Moshe Gadaf and Ami Farradah, who, as eight year-olds, were among the Ethiopian Jewish children who were rescued. The poignant ‘reunion’ of the former child refugees, the Israeli general who helped save them, and the American historian whose book made the rescue possible, was truly unforgettable.

Prof. Wyman was also the coauthor, with Rafael Medoff, of A Race Against Death: Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust (The New Press, 2000); editor of America and the Holocaust (thirteen volumes of the documents used in The Abandonment of the Jews, published by Garland in 1990); and editor of The World Reacts to the Holocaust (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). Most recently, he contributed a chapter to Dr. Medoff’s 2018 book, Too Little and Almost Too Late: The War Refugee Board and America’s Response to the Holocaust.

Prof. Wyman’s wife, Midge, who assisted him in his scholarly work, passed away in 2003. The Wyman Institute joins with their children, Teresa and Jim, and the other members of their family, in mourning his passing.

Everything You Need To Know About US-Russia Relations In One Graph...

SOURCE: http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/russias-anti-american-propaganda-euromaidan-era

Newseum Panel Details Silicon Valley Censorship

A fascinating video with Jim Hoft, Pamela Geller, Michelle Malkin, James O'Keefe and others, detailing the current censorship problem:

Jack Dorsey and Twitter Why Are You Harrassing Me?

I received this unsolicited email from Twitter today—and took it as malicious:

Dear Laurence Jarvik,     As part of our recent work to understand Russian-linked activities on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, we identified and suspended a number of accounts that were potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russian government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency.     Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing you because we have reason to believe that you either followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked content from these accounts during the election period. This is purely for your own information purposes, and is not related to a security concern for your account.     We are sharing this information so that you can learn more about these accounts and the nature of the Russian propaganda effort. You can see examples of content from these suspended accounts on our blog if you're interested.     People look to Twitter for useful, timely, and appropriate information. We are taking active steps to stop malicious accounts and Tweets from spreading, and we are determined to keep ahead of the tactics of bad actors. For example, in recent months we have developed new techniques to identify accounts manipulating our platform, have improved our process for challenging suspicious accounts, and have introduced new measures designed to identify and take action on coordinated malicious activity. In 2018, we are building on these improvements. Our blog also contains more information about these efforts.     People come to Twitter to see what's happening in the world. We are committed to making it the best place to do that and to being transparent with the people who use and trust our platform.     Twitter              About  |  Settings  |  Download App     Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103       More:

Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore)

1/19/18, 5:35 PM In late Friday (EST) announcement, Twitter says it has now identified a total of 50,258 Russian-linked automated accounts -- and notified 677,775 people exposed to Russian propaganda. blog.twitter.com/official/en_us…

DOCUMENT: Damore v. Google

  Damore vs Google Class Action Lawsuit by zerohedge on Scribd

GOP Saves the NEH -- to Attack America

Today's Washington Times ran an op-ed by Professor Allen C. Guelzo  urging the GOP to save the National Endowment for the Humanities, despite the agency's proven track record of enabling anti-American "scholarship" over the years. I was so outraged that I commented on their website:

Absurd self-serving piffle from a self-interested beneficiary of a corrupt system. Thanks to the work of NEH councils ("Soviet" is the Russian word for council, Professor) people in the USA respect our history so much they are now tearing down historical monuments, banning the Confederate battle flag, removing George Washington's plaque from his church, and kneeling for the Star Spangled Banner. "Heck of a job, Guelzo," as Pres. George W. Bush might have said. Somehow before the crypto-Communists and fellow travelers of the NEH took over, Americans respected our history, honored our flag, and learned patriotism instead of anti-Americanism in schools. I think the Princeton History Department worked pretty well teaching history prior to 1965, something Professor Guelzo apparently doesn't know--another indictment of the baneful influence of this corrupt and corrupting Great Society program.

This is the second pro-Endowment lobbying item I've seen the supposedly Conservative/Republican Washington Times, the first being a pro-National Endowment for the Arts oped by Governor Mike Huckabee, father of President Trump's spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders!

With GOP outlets running commentary like this, one wonders how President Trump will be able to make any serious changes in Washington. Eliminating the NEA and NEH are not only no-brainers--they would deprive the left of cash used to pay anti-GOP--and anti-American--operatives.

Hello, Republicans! How about taking your assailants off your payroll, for starters?

Link to New 2017 Release of JFK Assassination Files

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release

Filmstruck Now Streaming "Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die?"

Glad to see that Filmstruck is now streaming my 1981 documentary, Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die? with a nice introduction by Columbia University Professor Annette Insdorf...click here to watch: https://www.filmstruck.com/us/watch/detail/1300010061.

Pamela Geller's CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS?

Can't We Talk About This? from "Can't We Talk?" Homepage on Vimeo.

Pamela Geller's new documentary, CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS? THE ISLAMIC JIHAD AGAINST FREE SPEECH couldn't come at a more appropriate moment, as Americans are experiencing the silencing not only of dissent on college campuses, but also the decline of the "public's right to know"as evidenced by the scarcity of public information about the recent massacre in Las Vegas. 

Instead of talking about the attack, its targets, the possible motivations of the gunman, or the glee with which ISIS and leftists have greeted the bloody deed, the media and political leadership have focused laser-like on the issue of gun-control...which, if this were a terrorist attack, would be supremely irrelevant as terrorists have used every weapon imaginable: guns, bombs, cars, trucks, knives, acid, and sabotage. And they have used these weapons to terrorize Western societies precisely in order to prevent discussion of...Islamic terror!

Geller's superb documentary shows how the inability to talk about Islamic terror since 9/11 has guaranteed defeat in the "war of ideas" currently taking place between the West and the Islamic world. For while Islamic terrorists spread their ideas with "propaganda of the deed," the West doesn't talk about its own ideas in response. It is a form of unilateral intellectual disarmament in a global ideological struggle...

In fact, as the film shows, Western authorities attempt to suppress Western ideas in the face of a Leftist-Islamic alliance against them, attacking critics of Islamic terror like Geller and her all-star cast of witnesses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, Ezra Levant, Lars Vilks, Robert Spencer, Garland Muhammad cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin, and Geller herself.

This is reminiscent of nothing so much as the Establishment's response to Communism following the Kennedy assassination. Until JFK's murder in Dallas by Communist assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, American media, colleges, schools, and publications were free to discuss Communist aggression against the West. Afterwards, supposedly Cold-War liberals changed sides, and mention of Communism became taboo in respectable society. Those who worried about the "Red Menace" were mocked, ostracized, and shunned...portrayed as crazy, paranoid, delusional believers in "Reds under the bed" or advocates of "McCarthyism."

Until Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States and defeated the Soviet Union, the collapse of which opened Russian archives that revealed the Comintern had indeed been active to promote worldwide Revolution, the Rosenbergs had been spies, Alger Hiss had been a Russian Agent, and that the USSR had been active in Vietnam and Central America...just as the "crazy" anti-Communists had charged. 

Reagan had succeeded because he refused to adopt the Establishment consensus and avoid the issue of Communism. Rather he called the USSR an "Evil Empire" and confronted it head-on.

Yet, after the fall of Communism, a messianic age of peace and love and understanding did not arrive, despite Clinton administration promotion promotion of Francis Fukuyama's fatuous "The End of History." Rather, what took place was what Fukuyama's teacher, Samuel Huntington, described in his own book, "The Clash of Civilizations." Instead of a "unipolar world," ancient tensions that had been subsumed under the East-West conflict once again bubbled to the surface--a "return of the repressed."

Chief among these was the rise of Islam as a competitive and adversarial ideology opposed to bourgeoise Western democracy, most dramatically in the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11th, 2001. As damaging as the Kennedy assassination had been to the US, apparently nothing had been learned. Once again, ideological underpinnings were willfully ignored. Just as it had become a career-ender to call someone a Communist in the latter half of the 20th Century, it became a career-ender to call someone an Islamist in the first half of the 21st.

And just as in the Post-Vietnam era, the West began to lose its mojo. Afghanistan and Iraq became costly, futile quagmires instead of quick, decisive victories. Americans saw the social fabric fray under domestic attacks reminiscent of the 1960s.

All this is either discussed or implied in Geller's brilliant film. The West defeated Communism only when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan allied to directly confront it ideologically as well as military and economically.

The takeaway from CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS? is perfectly clear: Until Americans are free to confront Islamic terror directly, it cannot be defeated. To silence criticism of Islam is to surrender to the enemies of America and Western Civilization.

The next step to Making America Great Again is to talk openly about Islam. And the best way to do that, in my opinion, would be for President Trump to broadcast CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS? on Radio Free Europe, the Voice of America, and PBS--just as President Reagan sponsored the broadcast of LET POLAND BE POLAND, a film that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Evil Empire.

Broadcasting Pamela Geller's film on US-Government sponsored channels as soon as possible would be a signal to the world that the Islamic fundamentalists and their supporters no longer had America running scared.

Jordan Peterson & Camille Paglia Face-to-Face...

Milo v UC Berkeley re Free Speech Week

Milo Announces Berkeley Free Speech Week Speakers

Sept. 24: “Feminism Awareness Day”

• Miss Elaine
• Lucian Wintrich
• Lisa DePasquale
• Chadwick Moore
• Milo Yiannopoulos

Sept. 25: “Zuck 2020”

• Heather Mac Donald
• Monica Crowley
• SABO
• Professor Jordan Peterson
• James Damore

Sept. 26: “Islamic Peace and Tolerance Day”

• Michael Malice
• Raheem Kassam
• Katie Hopkins
• Erik Prince
• Pamela Geller
• David Horowitz
• Milo Yiannopoulos

Sept. 27: “Mario Savio is Dead”

• Mike Cernovich
• Charles Murray
• Ariana Rowlands
• Stelion Onufrei
• Alex Marlow
• Milo Yiannopoulos
• Steve Bannon
• Ann Coulter

More at freespeechweek.com.

MILO interviews James Damore about Google's Politically Correct Goolag...

The Political Limitations of the Private Sector

 Kenneth Frazier, CEO, Merck; Brian Krzanich, CEO, Intel; Kevin Plank, CEO, Under Armour
resigned from Pres. Trump's Manufacturing Council in protest.

Recent news reports about Silicon Valley mega-corporations such as Pay Pal, Google, Facebook and Twitter banning conservatives from their services should give pause to GOP "thought leaders" who have argued that privatization is a panacea.

In fact, in the Trump Era, the time has come for a change of course by those fighting Political Correctness, to recognize that "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" cannot be permitted to fall under the control of one political party indefinitely--and that GOP policies which enabled Democratic hegemony over the "permanent government" may have contributed to the current crisis of legitimacy.

If 50% of the population is not represented in the government workforce, then it cannot be said to be a representative government. Indeed, it is by definition unrepresentative--no matter that the elected officials sitting on top of the pyramid may differ. When Democratic Party civil servants openly announce their intention to "resist," then a constitutional crisis is inevitable.

Quite simply, no country can afford to have a political party which has been defeated at the ballot box in a position to determine the allocation of government goods and services to its opponents. It is not only undemocratic, it is a recipe for political corruption, chaos and abuses of the highest order.

However, in order to effectively combat this dangerous situation, the GOP must abandon its fetishistic commitment to "privatization" as the sole tool in their toolkit to deal with government issues.

It is quite clear that the Democratic party has corrupted a willing private sector to the point where American businesses now are more than happy to sacrifice markets, customers, and profits for Political Correctness--whether Merck, Intel, UnderArmour, Target, Apple, Google, Facebook, or Camping World, or dozens of others. 

This represents a fundamental and problematic change in prior business norms.

In the recent past--I taught in a business school for some 15 years--it was axiomatic that businesses should steer clear of politics to the maximum extent possible.

While individual business people were free to be political in their private lives, companies should try avoid political controversy--on the understanding that large numbers of customers disagreed about politics, so why risk losing sales?

However, this prior consensus obviously no longer applies.

Today, companies seemingly go out of their way to adopt controversial positions which alienate and even insult considerable segments of their customer base, with ostentatious "grandstanding" such as Merck's resignation from the President's Manufacturing Council, or Apple's $1 million donation to the SPLC. 

One should note that Steve Jobs did not believe in making any charitable donations, so Tim Cook's action is in direct contradiction to the business legacy of the company's founder, which I discussed in Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Discontents: Contradictions in ISO 26000: 2010 (August 15, 2014).

 1.   Steve Jobs & Apple—an anti-­‐CSR CEO of an anti-­‐CSR company. 

Walter Isaacson’s magisterial biography of Steve Jobs (2011) does not contain a single entry in the index under “Charity,” “CSR,” “Corporate Social Responsibility,” “Social,” or “Responsibility.” This is not surprising. Jobs did not believe in spending company money on charity. He was so Scrooge-­like that he did not pay dividends to stockholders. Job’s control-­freak style of management at Apple, and what Isaacson characterizes as his “nasty” and “mean” personality, enabled him take the company from one-­twentieth the value of Microsoft in 2000, to parity in 2010, to being worth 70% more than Microsoft in 2011—a year in which Mac’s market share grew by 28% as Microsoft’s shrank 1%. Yet no one can deny that Apple products have in fact added value to society.

Their user-­friendly, easy-­to-­use, and simple design made computing accessible to a wide range of people alienated by Microsoft’s difficult interface…and helped move computing from the corporate office to the individual home and pocket. This, in turn revived an endangered American electronics industry through the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and MacBook computers. Indeed, Isaacson called Jobs “the greatest business executive of our era, the one most certain to be remembered a century from now." 

One reason for Jobs’ success at Apple, is that rather than diverting attention and resources to CSR initiatives, Apple remained focused on its core business, and in Jobs’ own words, put “humanity into innovation.” Isaacson concluded Jobs’ focus was “to a create a company to last, not just to make money.” 

In putting his company first—above employees, customers, or society—Jobs exemplified [Milton] Friedman’s theory of the responsibility of the business executive. Did it lead to a successful business? Yes.

In other words, as Steve Jobs knew but Tim Cook does not, the proper business of business...is business.

That said, it would be remarkable if one could rely upon business to counter a determined political movement, especially as many of America's CEOs currently seem to follow the Chinese model, with the Democratic Party as the Communist Party, as explained in Bruce Dickson's Wealth into Power: The Communist Party's Embrace of China's Private Sector.

This would indicate that the traditional model that the GOP represents the private sector while the Democratic Party the public sector is in need of revision.

Indeed, with the government sector (federal, state & local) accounting for more than half of all jobs in the USA--more if one includes contracts and grants--the time has come for the Trump Administration to force pushback in the public sector.

Quite simply, the principle of representation and diversity must be expanded to promote inclusion of Republicans and Independents on the public payroll in proportion to the American population. What would that mean?

It would mean that the government workforce profile should be adjusted through goals, timetables and affirmative action programs to match Gallup survey results on political affiliation of the American public, the latest presented below:

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
2017 Aug 2-6	28	41	28

Some things to note: (1) survey results do not match Congressional or Senate ratios, due to the systematic exclusion of independents from the political process; (2) Independents are the largest political group in the United States; (3) Pres. Trump owes his victory to Independents, many of them former Democrats; (4) the GOP does not have sufficient public support to govern without Independents--however, for the past 16 years they have been in a coalition with the Democrats instead, marginalizing the largest voting block in the country.


The explanation for this is probably simple greed. Making deals with Democrats--political opposites--allows for a roughly 50-50 split of the spoils, and permits a "coalition of the extremes against the middle" with a maximum return of investment. Were the GOP to ally with the middle-class ordinary American Independents, they would be a minority partner in the business.


This dynamic may explain establishment GOP politicians like Cong. Ryan's and Sen. McConnell's strange support for Antifa and other Democratic interests. One can assume that Pres. Trump is aware of his middle-class backing, but to share the wealth with Trump supporters, the GOP would have to become a junior partner to the more numerous Americans who support the President.


In other words, two minority parties--Democrats and the GOP--can rule over a larger population of Independents simply by horse-trading with one another and ignoring the excluded middle-class.


This could be countered by President Trump, if he manages to reduce popular support for both the establishment GOP and Democrats by 5% each in the next few years.


Such a strategy could call for running a large number of 3rd-party candidates in selected liberal districts, as well as primarying "Never Trumpers" in GOP strongholds. The goal would be to either bring the Independents into the GOP as "Trump Republicans" (like "Reagan Democrats"), making the party more representative, or laying the groundwork for a Third Party such as the one which replaced the Whigs, or Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party.


At a minimum, this means that the current GOP marriage to the private sector--especially now openly hostile corporate CEOs--must be dissolved and replaced with a marriage with the broad majority of American people, a marriage which would include government jobs as part of the pre-nup...something Pres. Trump could probably negotiate.