In truth, Frankfurter, one of the first Jews on the Supreme Court, was the “activist” on the court (whereas Warren was a reactionary dupe). Frankfurter was chief architect and advocate of the school desegregation that resulted in the Brown vs. Board of Education desegregation decision; in addition to being one of the first Jewish Supreme Court Justices, he was the first Justice to appoint a Negro clerk to the Supreme Court (a clerk who was on the team making diligent and ultimately effective efforts for forced integration, of course). Frankfurter had always had a very “progressive” position.

Yet, Newton refers to Frankfurter as the principle advocate of ‘restrained judiciary.’

As Warren reacted in purist, liberal ideological mechanism, Frankfurter positioned himself as the moderate. While Warren overstepped the “restrained judiciary”, Frankfurter was “concerned” that “the dumb Swede” would run roughshod the court’s jurisdiction and undermine its legitimacy.

Warren took the bait, with typical White ambition in pursuit of innocence and power at once, and was duped into initiative over and against Frankfurter’s “Restraint” (goodness, Frankfurter could have fainted at such importunance) claiming that Restraint “was shirking duty, as one should decide not avoid.”

Thus, Warren self-righteously “led the charge” (was duped into reacting) into desegregation and integrationism.

With his purist “duty” Warren sought a “unanimous court on behalf of Brown” – his singularly marked accomplishment. Any dissent would have “given quarter to opponents.”

In his initial address, exercising his prerogative to speak first before the court upon his nomination as Chief Supreme Court Justice:

Regarding the pending Brown vs. Board of Education decision, and given the background that his recent appointment (as a liberal) foreordained that the court would approve school desegregation, he said, “the only way that segregation can be upheld now” given the court’s banishment of it henceforth, “would be to conclude that Blacks were inferior to Whites.”

Frankfurter and Jackson (the other “restrained member”), being “so restrained” would never want to be so immoderate as to be on the wrong side of such a reasonable judgment. No, they had to humbly accept the position (that Frankfurter’s gang had cunningly devised). But Newton rather claims that Warren, not Frankfurter, had “framed the debate in such a way as to nudge along the very Restrained Frankfurter.”

I’d like for the right-wingers out there to see how heavily those opposed to Whites depend upon Whites foolishly falling into the Jewish canard of arguing against the positions of their best interests – e.g.,  taking the equality/inequality issue to cunningly maneuver Whites into tactless arguments on behalf of inequality and superiority (as opposed to qualitative difference).

It is qualitative difference of patterns that are important.

Note how Jewish interests bury their position as something taken for granted: Warren “wanted unanimity” because a divided court would send a message that would have given quarter to those who would resist integration. A unanimous court on behalf of integration is a singular accomplishment that can be attributed to Warren, expressing his wish to combine legal result with “moral imperative”, and while that did not effect integration as quickly as Warren would have liked, it had the effect of backing early “civil rights” activists with conviction that Warren’s court was on their side….what a nerdy, “modest gain the ‘dumb Swede” had really achieved with his imprudence, how much resistance was met unnecessarily for lack of Frankfuter’s Jewish “restraint” in this battle (against White sovereignty) which still, ‘regrettably’, has so far to go.”

While this obscene decision, with all that it willfully ignores, was “unsatisfactory” accomplished and met with “terrible resistance”, it did move things “modestly forward.” Hence, a severely anti-White advance is casually presented as a moderate gain; having met with resistance, shocking resistance, it needs still to go so much further – a presentation by the Jewish thinker, James Newton, L.A. Times.

You see, Frankfurter, “the voice of reason”, became disenchanted with Warren.

The most interesting thing is how the Jews got Whites to react to distinguish themselves as the most pure, most determined liberals. Having maneuvered the Whites as such, the Jews represented themselves as “the moderate position, which has nevertheless been met with a myriad of unreasonable obstructions and needs to go so much further.”

They proceed as if their Jewish angle is taken for granted as the normal, reasonable position.

While Warren was not so “unrestrained” as to water down the Brown decision and increase possibilities for its resistance by spreading its application against other areas of discrimination, it nevertheless became precedent for all subsequent discrimination decisions in American courts (such as matters of immigration).

“The principle of integration as a value of American society was not there pre-Warren.”

Earl Warren is the so-called “activist” centrist according to this Jewish narrative whereas Felix Frankfurter was the hand of “restraint.”