Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Politics If Elite Composition Matters, Skilled Immigration Matters Self-proclaimed America Firsters can subscribe to elite theory or wish to open the floodgates on skilled immigration, but not both. There are clarifying moments in the history of a movement. Donald Trump’s electoral victory has left the “New Right” coalition—an unhappy moniker in a number of ways, not least in that it used to be applied to the movement it allegedly replaces—in possession of the field, which means its constituents can turn their attention to the important business of bickering over the spoils. The current stars of the movement are Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, both recent converts from being center-left Democrats, who, having considered the problems of the nation and the world, have settled on the novel solution of checking government waste, fraud, and abuse. (Why has no one ever thought of this before?) The dyad, along with the incoming administration’s AI czar, David Sacks, has backed the incoming AI advisor Sriram Krishnan’s suggestion that caps on H1B visa numbers for Indian engineers be done away with. The argument is that hoovering up foreign talent will cement the American tech industry’s supremacy, and that this is an “America First” outcome. The camisas viejas, on the other hand, have noted that this is (gently put) in tension with the immigration restrictionist rhetoric traditionally associated with the phrase. Ramaswamy, to his credit, got out ahead of the clash this summer, identifying within the America First coalition a tension or dispute between “National Libertarianism”—which is free-trade, pro-immigration, anti–state power, and basically looks an awful lot like fusionism with an injection of foreign-policy realism—and “National Conservatism,” which is protectionist, anti-immigration, pro–state power, and basically looks an awful lot like paleoconservatism without its traditional moral streak (or its skepticism of Israel, let alone of every former Warsaw Pact country that comes hat-in-hand to American political conferences). Ramaswamy weighed in Thursday about visa workers on X with a long post, almost a screed, about why companies prefer foreign skilled labor to American. The upshot: Americans are lazy and aspire to mediocrity. Well, then. The New Right (including Ramaswamy) has spent a lot of time and ink jabbering about elite theory—elite overproduction, counterelites, meritocracy, and so on. This isn’t a knock; we’re not above it ourselves. You have to do some pretty footwork to shoehorn this into what everyone insists is the “populist moment,” but columnists need to eat. On the H1B question, we’d put a little catechism to the pro side: Does a nation have a culture—a set of shared public norms of behavior, language, belief? Does a nation have an interest in preserving the continuity of its culture? Does America in particular have an interest in preserving its own culture? Are there greater or lesser differences between one culture and various others? Do large groups of people from outside a place tend to be more resistant to assimilation than smaller such groups? Do elites have disproportionate influence over a culture? It is not “racist” to suggest that people in places like India have significant cultural differences from Americans, perhaps greater than the cultural differences of people from Norway or Chile. India never underwent the formative experiences of modern Western countries: the secularization of Christian principles, the wars of religion, the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, the rise of nationalism. Instead, it has its own distinct set of formative historical moments; much of the modern nation’s history has been dominated by efforts to digest Western theoretical constructs like economic planning and the nation-state, not to mention its own wars of religion and the postcolonial hangover. It would be strange if different historical matrices didn’t result in tangible differences of culture, not all of them easily reconcilable or particularly welcome. The left’s own felt need to legislate against caste discrimination is one instructive example. Working-class immigrants have more incentive to assimilate than elites—that is, they tend to have less choice. This is borne out by historical experience. The second-wave immigrant groups were predominantly working-class. By the third generation, had mostly become monolingual English-speakers, were integrated into mainstream American civil society structures, and so on. (This is not to say that there weren’t persistent difficulties in their assimilation, like Italian organized crime and the Irish penchant for public disorder, still on full display every March 17 on Boston’s T.) Elite immigrants, particularly if they are in groups large enough to maintain their native cultures internally, are in a position to change culture to fit their own predilections rather than to assimilate. If, as Ramaswamy suggests, an innate poverty of spirit lies at the heart of American culture—that is, if his answer answer to question 3 above (“Does America in particular have an interest in preserving its own culture?”) is “no,” as it seems to be—maybe that’s a good thing. I would suggest, though, that such an argument is not an especially America First cut.  There are few absolute evils in statesmanship. Skilled immigrants may provide a stopgap for acute labor shortages in strategic industries—the ongoing drama of the TSMC fab in Arizona comes to mind. Yet it seems feckless to pretend that large, monied, prestigious immigrant groups will not exert strong and unexpected influences over American culture, some perhaps good, some perhaps ill. America Firsters, particularly while they have a mandate to step back from the revolutionary immigration policies of the left, should be skeptical of calls for a fresh round of uncontrolled population composition experiments. The post If Elite Composition Matters, Skilled Immigration Matters appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Shifting Sands: South Korea’s Future and Navigating Trump 2.0 What implications might the South Korean president’s impeachment hold for American policy in east Asia? Credit: Paul Froggatt/Shutterstock On December 14, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol was impeached by parliament following his abortive martial law decree earlier that month. With Yoon’s fate now hinging on a pending Constitutional Court decision, speculation of possible early presidential elections is rising. If the court upholds the impeachment motion against conservative leader Yoon, South Koreans will head to the polls within 60 days to elect a new chief executive. In such a scenario, liberal opposition leader Lee Jae-myung, who currently dominates the poll, would likely ascend to the helm.  This could spell troubles for South Korea’s indispensable ally, the United States. Lee has previously shown misgivings about the bilateral alliance with Washington, even referring to the American troops stationed in Korea after the peninsula’s 1945 liberation as “occupation forces.” As the political climate grows uncertain, questions emerge about whether Yoon will survive his impeachment and what the future could hold under Lee’s presidency. To better understand the shifting landscape, we spoke with Dr. Moon Chung-in, a James Laney Professor at Yonsei University and editor-in-chief of Global Asia. He served as senior adviser for three presidents in South Korea and is widely recognized for his expertise in inter-Korea relations and East Asian security. Was President Yoon justified in declaring martial law on December 3 to eliminate “anti-state forces” and root out “pro–North Korean agents”? No, his rationale cannot be justified. There was no war or war-like emergency to warrant the declaration of martial law. Another issue lies in Yoon’s interpretation of “anti-state forces” and “pro–North Korean agents.” Yoon appeared to label anyone opposing his policies as anti-state. For him, members of the National Assembly who passed impeachment motions against his cabinet, cut government budgets, or enacted bills unfavorable to his administration were deemed anti-state forces. Legislative gridlock, however, is a natural part of the democratic process in mature democracies like the U.S. and many European countries. Yoon showed little tolerance for such democratic practices. The term “pro–North Korean agents” is a problematic one. The Yoon administration branded antiwar protesters and supporters of engagement policies and peace initiatives as pro–North Korean sympathizers or agents. This approach is arbitrary and unacceptable.                                                        If Yoon was convinced of their illicit actions, he should have applied the local National Security Law—which is stringent, I admit—to those he deemed anti-state and pro–North Korean agents. But he didn’t, as there were no legal grounds to charge them. This reflects the president’s autocratic-style leadership, in which he views himself as the state—L’etat, c’est moi—and labels those who oppose him as anti-state forces or pro–North Korean agents. It’s possible that his indulgence in ultra-right-wing YouTube content played a negative role in shaping this approach. The U.S. government appeared somewhat displeased by the lack of “prior notice” regarding Yoon’s martial law. Do you believe Washington has a valid concern, or is this a display of imperialist overreach? The declaration of martial law was illegal in and of itself. So how could Yoon issue the Biden administration a “prior notice”? I think Washington’s concern was valid, and the American protest was not an act of imperialist overreach. It was a normal and legitimate function of Seoul’s staunchest ally. It’s not just the Biden administration’s emphasis on “value diplomacy” to promote democracy and human rights, but also a sense of betrayal stemming from Yoon’s erratic behavior–—if, indeed, the American side felt any displeasure at all. Yoon has been one of the most vocal and loyal partners in the U.S.-led coalition of democracies. Washington viewed him as a beacon of freedom and democracy in Asia, with Yoon positioning himself as a global crusader for these values by advocating for a “value alliance” with the U.S.  It should have been unthinkable, therefore, for him to threaten the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea by declaring martial law, attempting to seize control of the National Assembly, and using military force to arrest political opponents. This must have been an extremely disappointing moment for Washington.  South Korea’s parliament impeached President Yoon on December 14. What does this mean for the future of South Korea’s security and foreign policies? I do not foresee any major changes in South Korea’s security and foreign policies in the short term. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, now acting president, will likely maintain the status quo. He values the ROK-U.S. alliance and will continue the ROK-U.S.-Japan trilateral cooperation mechanism. But he would likely pursue a more defensive policy on North Korea and aim to avoid any military clashes with the North. If the Constitutional Court formally dismisses Yoon, a presidential election must be held within 60 days. If Lee Jae-myung, the progressive and most popular candidate now, is elected, he is likely to pursue a foreign and national security policy significantly different from that of the Yoon government. Should Washington be concerned about Lee Jae-myung’s presidency? Lee is a progressive political leader who will prioritize peace over conflict, economic growth with redistribution, and a focus on welfare and fairness. His policies will stand in stark contrast to those of Yoon. Unlike Yoon, who was ideologically rigid and politically inexperienced, Lee is a seasoned pragmatist with extensive political and administrative experience. He knows how to navigate conflicting interests and find compromises. While his overarching goals are progressive, he takes a practical approach to policy implementation. As a long-time human rights lawyer, Lee is also a skilled and tough negotiator. His eight years as mayor of Seongnam City and four years as governor of Gyeonggi Province are a testament to his ability to lead pragmatically and effectively. Now, I understand American concerns about his leadership. Lee’s criticism of the U.S. in the past has contributed to crafting his anti-American populist image. But, by and large, Lee is a realist. His top priority is preventing war on the Korean Peninsula, and he recognizes that South Korea needs the U.S. alliance for nuclear deterrence against the North. As a result, he will continue to emphasize the importance of this alliance.  That said, Lee will seek to enhance peace efforts on the Korean Peninsula through various diplomatic channels, including with Beijing and Moscow. He will be a tough negotiator with the U.S. on defense cost-sharing and trade protectionism. Frictions may arise over the issue of threat perception regarding China. While the U.S. will want to include both North Korea and China in its regional deterrence strategy, South Korea, under Lee’s leadership, will focus more specifically on the North Korean threat. Lee will likely pursue a policy to harmonize the Seoul-Tokyo-Washington trilateral relationship with the Seoul-Beijing-Tokyo trilateral relationship. In an era marked by the revival of bloc politics, such efforts will be a herculean task. Would Lee be able to form a working relationship with Trump? Yes, Lee understands that establishing a strong working relationship with President Trump and his circle is essential for South Korea’s national interests. He will approach Trump with sincerity and an open mind, with the outcome largely contingent on Trump’s readiness for serious negotiations. If Trump is willing to engage in meaningful dialogue, Lee will reciprocate, and vice versa. How should South Korea approach the incoming Trump administration? We have four major concerns. First, there is a fear that Trump 2.0 could disrupt or weaken the ROK-U.S. alliance, either by making excessive demands for defense cost-sharing or by threatening to reduce or withdraw American forces from South Korea. Considering the thrust of the MAGA policy platform, these scenarios cannot be dismissed. The second concern regards the possibility of President Trump striking a direct deal with North Korea. Despite the setback of the 2019 Hanoi Summit, Trump is known to have maintained contact with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. South Korea would be alarmed if Trump were to negotiate an agreement exchanging U.S. sanctions relief and diplomatic normalization for North Korea’s suspension or reduction of its nuclear forces and related activities, coupled with incremental denuclearization. The prospect of Washington recognizing Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons status and the fear of being sidelined in U.S.-DPRK negotiations would deeply unsettle Seoul, potentially undermining the future of the bilateral alliance. Third, differing threat perceptions of China between South Korea and the U.S. will be another source of tension. A second Trump administration will likely escalate its hardline policy toward China and seek Seoul’s active participation in countering Beijing’s influence. Even the mission of American forces stationed in South Korea could shift toward deterring China. While prioritizing the North Korean threat, however, Seoul may be reluctant to fully align with Washington’s strategy to encircle and contain China. This discrepancy is poised to become another friction point. Finally, Trump’s trade pressures present yet another problem for South Korea. The potential imposition of universal tariffs, the termination of subsidies for South Korean firms heavily invested in the U.S., and the introduction of non-tariff barriers such as quantitative restrictions could exacerbate Seoul’s anxiety. In addressing these challenges, South Korea has three potential options: complying with American demands to maintain amicable relations with a Trump 2.0 administration, raising its voice and engaging in tough negotiations, or defying U.S. demands and seeking alternative strategies. None of these paths are without difficulty. The first option, a loyalty-based approach, risks triggering immense domestic political opposition. The second, asserting its voice, may prove ineffective with a president as adept at transactional deals and bluffing as Trump. The third, an exit strategy, appears too far-fetched. Whatever options South Korea chooses, it will encounter a serious policy dilemma.    Any advice to President Trump in dealing with nuclear North Korea?  Regarding North Korea’s nuclear weapons, we need to make a distinction between recognition and awareness. We can never recognize the country as a nuclear weapons state since we must comply with the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. But we need to be aware of North Korea’s possession of these weapons. That is a naked reality that we cannot deny. In this sense, the idea of CVID (complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement) seems unrealistic. As Dr. Sigfried Hecker has been suggesting, our operational goal should be more practical, like “halting, rolling back, and a long-term, incremental dismantling” of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Placing denuclearization at the entrance will be a non-starter. It is essential to lower expectations and restore cognitive empathy toward North Korea. For instance, in April 2018, Pyongyang voluntarily put a moratorium on nuclear and ballistic missile testing and didn’t undertake any tests until 2020. But instead of rewarding North Korea for this “good” behavior, the Trump administration imposed over 18 additional sanction measures on the North. The logic behind this seemed to be that two summits were sufficient rewards for Kim Jong Un. That’s bad, unilateral reasoning without any strategic empathy. Pyongyang should have felt bitter and betrayed. If a sanction is a tool to change North Korea’s behavior, it should be more flexibly utilized. I understand that all sanctions are codified and legally binding. But Washington should have found ways to ease that rigidity and used sanctions as more adaptable bargaining tools. The post Shifting Sands: South Korea’s Future and Navigating Trump 2.0 appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, Half Of The West Is Doomed: Here’s Why, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. (Natural News) Only a few years ago, most of Western Europe seemed like a fortress of stability in international politics. With robust economies, solid social systems, and the grand edifice of “European integration,” it gave an impression of permanence, impervious even to major geopolitical upheavals. Now, however, it has become an inexhaustible source of peculiar headlines and … Continue reading Half Of The West Is Doomed: Here’s Why ...

WTF?? Cops Arrested HIM Because a Computer PREDICTED He'd Commit a Crime in the FUTURE - 2,592 views December 21th, 2024 HighImpactFlix - Imagine cops coming to your door to arrest you for a crime a computer said you'd commit in the future. - That really happened to four families in Pasco County. - It is the intent of this video to promote transparency in law enforcement by providing authentic footage of police interactions. Our FAIR USE content allows viewers to easily access and analyze publicly available material in an informative, educational and newsworthy context from the perspective of individual, civil rights. - Grab a SHIRT: http://bit.ly/HighImpactFlix-Merch - Become a Channel member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTSYXSwbauRs79G1skOCzIw/join - Support the channel: ⭐ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/highimpactflix ✅ CashApp: https://cash.app/$HighImpactDonate ☕️ Buy me a coffee or two: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/HighImpactFlix ⭐ SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/highimpactflix ? Snail Mail: P.O. Box 1454 Tahlequah, Ok 74465 ? Private Email List: http://bit.ly/HighImpactFlixOfficial (don't forget to CONFIRM) ? Email: contact@HighImpactFlix.com ? Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighImpactFlix - Equipment I use (I receive a small % from each purchase at NO COST to you): ? Grab the NEW DESIGN: q ⭐ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/highimpactflix ✅ CashApp: https://cash.app/$HighImpactDonate ? Snail Mail: P.O. Box 1454 Tahlequah, Ok 74465 ? Private Email List: http://bit.ly/HighImpactFlixOfficial (don't forget to CONFIRM) ? Email: 1 - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://old.bitchute.com/channel/highimpactflix/

I am not surprised. Working hard he was, 'saving lives'....... All I hear is that cops are "heroes"...right....??

LeBron James is set to be thrown under the bus by the entertainment industry elite following news that a “Freak Off” tape featuring the Lakers star engaged in depraved behavior at a Diddy party has been sold on the black market to the highest bidder. LeBron has been hiding in plain sight for decades, openly associating with Diddy and other reprobates, while using the adoring legacy media to shield him from justice. But this time, there’s no covering it up—the tide has turned, and it’s game time. The truth is finally coming to light, and a whole roster of household names are backed into a corner with nowhere left to hide. UTL COMMENT:- I can't wait til all names come out.....if that ever happens......maybe all this shit is just for show.... Get Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Fenbendazole here: https://pills4ever.com - use coupon code 'peoplesvoice' for 15% off. - Become a member of the world’s first ever cyber nation: https://joseon.com - Visit https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/IPV6 to take back control of the Internet

Not in the city you might expect. The post The love song Johnny Marr wrote about a skyscraper: “It might happen when you look up” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Immigration Moratorium Now