Record inflows into equities adds more evidence that the middle class has been suckered into the Fed’s rigged casino. Why lose money every day in savings and money market accounts when newbie punters are raking in $250,000 a month playing options on Gamestop?
Alas, the majority of this “wealth” is phantom, as revealed by the chart of tangible (real) / intangible (financial) assets. The Fed’s casino prints trillions of dollars and gives them to the biggest gamblers for free, and so the artificial semblance of free money for everyone who gambles is compelling.
Unfortunately, the Fed’s casino is only rigged to benefit the Fed’s cronies. Everyone else is suckered in to lose whatever they have. The Fed’s cronies have been impatiently waiting for the suckers to surrender their rational risk aversion and flood into the rigged casino to share in the Fed’s limitless wealth machine: the more you risk, the more you win!
But the wealth is illusory. The Fed can create currency out of thin air and give it to its predatory, parasitic cronies, but this isn’t real wealth. Real wealth has to be generated by work and investing in productive assets.
The Fed’s casino isn’t just rigged; it’s criminally unstable. Once the phantom wealth evaporates and returns from whence it came (i.e. thin air), the unfairness of the Fed’s financial system will trigger a Cultural Revolution that the Fed will be helpless to control, for everything the Fed can do will only accelerate the unraveling.
Decades in the making (arguably centuries), it’s within sight now.
The Chinese navy has a worsening problem attracting qualified recruits for its growing fleet of new warships. The larger new ships, like carriers and amphibious assault ships require large crews and operate as part of task forces containing many additional smaller ships. Not enough Chinese are willing to serve on these ships.
The recruiting problem is caused by several factors. The longer voyages are essential to train sailors to Western standards and this sort of thing is particularly unpopular with young Chinese. Then there is the growing labor shortage in China that provides too many more better paying jobs that don’t involve months at sea on a warship.
The labor shortage is turning into a crisis that was caused by a 1980s policy of one-child per couple. This limited population growth, as intended, but the introduction of a market economy helped create the first large (several hundred million strong) Chinese middle class of well-educated engineers and other professionals. These are the people who were key to China quickly creating the second largest GDP in the world.
But there is a catch. Affluent, talented women everywhere, and throughout history, don’t have a lot of children. Even though the one-child rule was revoked several years ago, the population is not growing, especially with educated couples.
Worse the children of middle-class families are not eager to join the military, which needs their skills to operate all this new gear. China has conscription but it is not enforced because it is unpopular, especially among the educated. Those carriers, and all their support ships, need lots of capable officers and sailors.
Someone did the math and realized the ships could be built faster than competent crews could be found. One carrier task force, with a carrier, five warship escorts and four or five resupply ships, requires over 5,000 sailors. …
The military, in general, has had a hard time getting capable young men to do all the tech jobs the army and air force, as well as what the navy now requires. Given the shrinking workforce, because of the one-child rule, that situation is not going to improve for a decade or more.
The army and air force are more attractive options for Chinese seeking a military career. China has no tradition of a high-seas fleet, something the West invented and have been using for over 500 years. The only other East Asian nation to develop a high-seas fleet was Japan, which starved its economy in the 1920s and 30s to do so and saw that impressive fleet largely destroyed by the American fleet after two years of heavy combat. …
Military strategy in China, since ancient times, has placed emphasis on having a powerful military but using it mainly as a threat and giving enemies an incentive to accept bribes and allow China to get what they want.
[On cross-examination, the state medical expert] was asked a simple question. “Would George Floyd be alive today if he had just followed instructions and got into the police car as the cops asked many times?”
If Chauvin is acquitted, that is probably the moment the jury realized the absurdity of the show going on in court. This question never gets asked in any of these traffic stops that go bad, like the latest one from Minnesota.
In every one of these cases, the guy getting shot could have avoided the problem by simply not being an asshole. The prevailing moral orthodoxy says you can never question the actions of a nonwhite, so the conversation veers into increasingly weird logic.
Another example is the voter ID stuff. Right now, we have the largest corporations on the planet holding secret meetings to figure out how they can overturn election laws like the one just passed in Georgia. No one dares ask these people why they think blacks are too stupid or lazy to get a driver’s license. The fact that they have no trouble getting a license is another relevant factor. Voter ID is racist because it just is. Not one dares question it, so we have these bizarre public debates.
In the meantime the Wuhan virus is mutating, creating thousands of different variants. In a recent paper entitled “The impact of viral mutations on recognition by SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cells” is the following figure:
…
The significance of all this is that the virus is mutating fast enough that vaccines developed for it are likely to have relatively short periods of usefulness. Some of the vaccines create carriers who can transmit the disease asymptomatically, especially the new variants.
Control of the disease will then have to revert to anti-virals, such as ivermectin, and social isolation. There are some antiviral molecules that the virus will not be able to mutate around.
And you don’t want to get this disease. It had been thought that children were somehow immune to the Wuhan virus, but everyone gets damaged by it. Researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have found elevated levels of a biomarker related to blood vessel damage in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection, even if the children had minimal or no symptoms of COVID-19. They also found that a high proportion of children with SARS-CoV-2 infection met clinical and diagnostic criteria for thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). TMA is a syndrome that involves clotting in the small blood vessels and has been identified as a potential cause for severe manifestations of COVID-19 in adults.
There is also likely to be a long term cancer burden with the Wuhan virus caused by inflammation, just as Hepatitis C results in 20% of those infected developing liver cancer in the disease progression.
With vaccines destined to lose their efficacy, it is time to revisit what cheap antiviral molecules can do. This site has compiled Wuhan virus test results. From that site, this table summarises the data from the “no side effects” molecules in that list:
A combination of these molecules is likely to be good. Ivermectin and iodine have different binding sites on viruses and so are likely to be synergistic. These things are as good as most vaccines and no virus is going to mutate around them. China’s vaccine has less than 50% efficacy by comparison.
The big picture is emerging from the chaos of the last year. Vaccines probably iffy, anti-virals may be the longer term solution, it’s worth making some effort to avoid this disease, and there may be more Chinese bioweapons in the future. Read it all.
The British spy agency GCHQ is so aggressive, extreme and unconstrained by law or ethics that the NSA — not exactly world renowned for its restraint — often farms out spying activities too scandalous or illegal for the NSA to their eager British counterparts. There is, as the Snowden reporting demonstrated, virtually nothing too deceitful or invasive for the GCHQ. They spy on entire populations, deliberately disseminate fake news, exploit psychological research to control behavior and manipulate public perception, and destroy the reputations, including through the use of sex traps, of anyone deemed adversarial to the British government.
But they want you to know that they absolutely adore gay people. In fact, they love the cause of LGBT equality so very much that, beginning on May 17, 2015 — International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia — they started draping their creepy, UFO-style headquarters in the colors of the rainbow flag. …
Who could possibly be opposed to an institution that offers such noble gestures and works behind such a pretty facade? How bad could the GCHQ really be if they are so deeply committed to the rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people? Sure, maybe they go a little overboard with the spying sometimes …
Similar agencies of deceit, militarism and imperialism now robustly use this same branding tactic. The CIA — in between military coups, domestic disinformation campaigns, planting false stories with their journalist-partners, and drone-assassinating U.S. citizens without due process — joyously celebrates Women’s Day, promotes what it calls The Agency Network of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Officers (ANGLE), hosts activities for Pride Month, and organizes events to commemorate Black History Month. The FBI does the same. …
Like the GCHQ, how menacing can an intelligence agency be when it is so deeply and sincerely supportive of the rights of the people they routinely spy on, repress and kill?
Corporations now making the same PR play:
Large corporations have obviously witnessed the success of this tactic — to prettify the face of militarism and imperialism with the costumes of social justice — and are now weaponizing it for themselves. As a result, they are becoming increasingly aggressive in their involvement in partisan and highly politicized debates, always on the side of the same causes of social justice which entities of imperialism and militarism have so effectively co-opted.
Corporations have always sought to control the legislative process and executive branch, usually with much success. They purchase politicians and their powerful aides by hiring them as lobbyists and consultants when they leave government, and those bought-and-paid-for influence-peddlers then proceed to exploit their connections in Washington or state capitals to ensure that laws are written and regulations enforced (or not enforced) to benefit the corporations’ profit interests. These large corporations achieve the same goal by filling the campaign coffers of politicians from both parties. This is standard, age-old K Street sleaze that allows large corporations to control American democracy at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy this influence.
But they are now going far beyond clandestine corporatist control of the government for their own interests. They are now becoming increasingly powerful participants in highly polarizing and democratic debates. In the wake of the George Floyd killing last summer, it became virtually obligatory for every large corporation to proclaim support for the #BlackLivesMatter agenda even though many, if not most, had never previously evinced the slightest interest in questions of racial justice or policing. …
With Democrats controlling both houses of Congress as well as the Executive Branch — all of the instruments that can legislate and regulate their businesses — they may be calculating that using their massive weight to serve the Democratic Party’s political agenda is wise. Doing so could curry favor with powerful lawmakers and regulators and result in rewards or, conversely, allow them to avoid punishment and recrimination for the crime of refusing to engage in activism. …
What a crock:
The farcical nature of all of this is obvious. Just as it is laughable that the CIA and GCHQ care about social justice, feminism, and racial diversity as they bomb and subvert the rest of the world in ways that contradict all of those professed values, the idea that corporate giants who use sweatshops, slave labor, mass layoffs and abuse of their workforce care about any of these causes would make any rational person suffocate on the stench of their insincerity.
Pointing this out doesn’t suit the left, so you’re not going to hear this anytime soon in the mainstream media.
“Top CEOs plan to get dramatically tougher on state legislators over proposed new restrictions on voting,” Axios reported on Monday. After a weekend Zoom summit, these CEOs are “threatening to withhold campaign contributions — and to punish states by yanking investments in factories, stadiums and other lucrative projects.” The call featured a constellation of leading industry managers, including James Murdoch, Ken Chenault, Ken Frazier, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh, Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank, and executives of Delta, United, and American Airlines.
The debate over whether the [US voting] laws in question are racist or excessively restrictive is ultimately a waste of time because this has less to do with policy than it does with power. Even with ideological considerations accounted for … the outcome is the same: a stronger Democratic Party is good for them.
Of course, the Republican Party is similarly beholden to the same economic elites and organized interest groups — which makes them especially pathetic because, by an odd turn of fate, corporations have aligned themselves more closely with the Democratic Party. Recall Joe Biden received more billionaire support than former President Donald Trump during the 2020 election, and there was, by Time’s proud admission, “a conspiracy . . . behind the scenes” spearheaded by CEOs to ensure Biden’s victory. …
Conservatives, Republicans, and others who, in response to these woke corporatists, attempt to disprove that a specific law is racist miss the point. There is no good faith argument to be had, no common ground to seek.
For too long the right has deluded itself with the belief that the better argument will prevail on the merits. But these people don’t care about rational debate, and as long as that is the situation, neither should you. In the current reality, only power checks power and what the Right lacks is not a better argument, but a willingness to exercise power where and how it can. …
The challenge CEOs are issuing to Americans is that they are too big to take on and too big to fail. The only appropriate response would be to raise their taxes, close tax loopholes, deploy anti-trust action, fine, and see as many of them go bankrupt as possible. If we can’t do that, then they’re right about who rules America, and we’re left waiting for Caesar.
We are edging ever closer to the pre-Christian politics of might makes right, where morality is irrelevant.
In January 2020, the Socialist government of Spain, led by Pedro Sánchez, proposed a bill of profound cultural and political significance: a “Law of Historical and Democratic Memory.”
If adopted, this law will bring to completion a twenty-year effort on the part of the Spanish left to limit speech and reshape civic life. It would establish a national “Council of Memory,” an organ of state comprising public officials as well as professional “experts” and representatives of nongovernmental but politically reliable organizations. It would elaborate a comprehensive state policy to promote a left view of Spain’s early and mid-twentieth century.
The bill …prescribes the placement of “memory plaques” throughout the country to identify sites and personalities associated with “democratic memory” — the memory of radical opponents of the Franco regime, comparatively few of whom favored democracy. The “Law of Historical and Democratic Memory” calls on the Spanish government to identify and honor alleged “victims,” without regard to the fact that many were likely involved in mass killings and extra-judicial executions.
The proposed law is highly punitive. Symbols, meetings, or statements judged to approve of the Franco regime and the victors in the civil war are deemed infractions against “historical and democratic memory.” Proposed penalties include an elaborate schedule of fines ranging from two hundred to a hundred thousand euros, the closing for a period of six months to two years of any entity found in violation, and the confiscation of the means or goods involved in any such activities. That this law will dramatically restrict freedom of expression and thus violate the Spanish Constitution is apparently irrelevant to the Sánchez government.
The Law of Historical and Democratic Memory is the most dramatic, arbitrary, and punitive proposal concerning discussions of history anywhere in the Western world.
Yet the attitude it reflects is fairly common on the left, which increasingly uses governmental or nongovernmental means to restrict and punish speech that defends rightwing views, movements, and figures past or present. Politicized interpretations of history are, of course, not new. But Spain’s proposed law is a stark sign of the way the contemporary left seeks to weaponize history to achieve its goals and silence all dissent. …
The twenty-first-century ideology of the Spanish left rejects nearly all aspects of the past. It is hostile to most traditional values … The new ideology emphasizes cultural and sexual revolution. History is a political show trial, little more than a record of heroes and villains. Its major function is to unmask oppressors, separating past generations into victims to be affirmed and sanctified and victimizers to be silenced and demonized. It projects guilt onto scapegoats of the past, especially if they can somehow be identified with political opponents in the present. …
Proponents of ending the “pact of silence” insist that the left fought only for “democracy” in opposition to “fascism,” which in turn is held responsible for all political violence. As in other Western countries, the media and educational system in Spain are dominated by the left, which imposes what the Spanish call el pensamiento único (unipolar or exclusive thought). Moderates and conservatives rarely speak out, fearing the label “Francoist” or “fascist,” and in their timidity they cede the public square.
Sound familiar, yet more advanced? I am reminded of the 1619 project to delegitimize whites in the US, and the aboriginal industry in Australia, which is always rewriting history to get more favorable treatment of modern aboriginals in Australia.
The Spanish left has gone further, and is now using the coercive power of government to ban any opposition to its version — a version that just happens to delegitimize and stigmatize its political opposition. If successful, won’t that achievement be emulated by leftists everywhere?
As always with the modern left, truth is no defense.
On January 19 … then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, on his last day in office, declared that China was committing “ongoing” genocide against the Uygurs. …
Muslim terrorism by Uyqurs:
I used to visit Xinjiang from Hong Kong until a few years ago, for an American firm which had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in two private businesses there.
Both employed Uygurs and Han people alike. Those were coveted jobs. On my visits, I was taken to Uygur bazaars, Uygur dinners and Uygur dances, all of which my hosts presented to me with pride. Most officials I met were Uygurs.
Starting around 2007, however, it became increasingly dangerous to visit Xinjiang. The region was rocked by a spate of horrific terrorist attacks, resulting in over 1,000 deaths and countless injuries.
For example, on July 5, 2009, there was a riot in the capital city of Urumqi; 197 people were hacked, beaten or burned to death and 1,721 were injured. On May 22, 2014, two car bombings in the same city killed 43 people and wounded 94. There were dozens of other attacks.
The extreme violence was not just confined to Xinjiang. In 2013, five people died and 38 were injured in a suicide attack by three Uygurs in Beijing. In 2014, a killing spree by eight knife-wielding Uygurs left 31 people dead and 141 wounded at a Kunming railway station.
A 2016 study commissioned by the US government noted that, from 2012 to 2014, domestic attacks in China “apparently became more frequent, more geographically dispersed, and more indiscriminately targeted”. The perpetrators, in many cases, were radicalised members of the Uygur ethnic group.
The organisation that often claimed responsibility for the attacks, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), was described in a Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder as “a Muslim separatist group founded by militant Uygurs”. …
Uygur fighters battled with US forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere, with many being wounded, killed or captured. For years, the US held 22 Uygurs at Guantanamo Bay. As recently as July 2020, the UN identified thousands of Uygur Islamic State fighters in Syria and Afghanistan.
Much like the post-September 11 war on terror — one in which the US, ironically, had considered China to be a partner — China has been waging its own counterterrorism offensive in Xinjiang. The extremists operate across China’s porous borders and train alongside the Taliban and Islamic State. …
How does the Chinese record against Muslim terrorism compare to the American?
By various estimates, America’s war on terror has claimed half a million lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many more in Pakistan, Syria and Libya. In Iraq, the conflict caused an estimated 200,000 civilian deaths, the vast majority of whom were women and children, outnumbering the casualties among Iraqi troops five to one.
Unlike the US’ war on terror, China’s counterterrorism campaign seems to have worked. There have been no reports of terror attacks since 2017.
It is actually quite remarkable that China has been able to rein in terrorism, an intractable problem anywhere in the world, without inflicting as much collateral damage. This point never seems to be made in the torrent of outrage pouring from the Western press. …
There are about 25 million Muslims in China. Beijing alone has about a quarter of a million Muslims and more than 70 mosques. China’s policies in Xinjiang, however draconian they might appear to be at one level, are not targeted at a religion or an ethnic group, but at extremism; major Muslim countries understand this and have publicly supported China.
Implicit in any claim of genocide is the idea that one group is attempting to exterminate another. … Between 2010 and 2018, the Uygur population increased by 25 per cent, compared with 2 per cent for the Han population.
It is well known that China implemented a one-child policy between 1979 and 2015. What is not well understood is that non-Han ethnic groups such as the Uygurs were exempt from the birth control policy, and couples in rural areas were allowed to have up to three children.
Interesting that the Chinese method is working — but is that level of suppression really required? Can’t terrorism be successfully combated by less brutal means?
Also interesting that the media here now airbursh Uygur terrorism out of the picture — a classic lie by omission.
Is the US Crossing the Rubicon? Led by Tucker Carlson? Finally, someone with a megaphone addresses the central issue in US politics. The Overton window just shifted. The left will hate this, having managed to suppress public discussion of this for decades. Tucker has poked them where it hurts. Demography is destiny.
First, Tucker Carlson’s monologue is highly recommended if you have time, though we’ve quoted the most vital bits below:
If you were in sixth grade, for example, and without telling you, your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand new bikes and let them stay up later and helped them with their homework and give them twice the allowance that they gave you. You would say to your siblings, “You know, I think we’re being replaced by kids that our parents love more.” And it would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence. …
So this matters on a bunch of different levels. But on the most basic level, it’s a voting rights question. In a democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I’d become disenfranchized as a current voter. So I don’t understand. I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. “Oh, the White replacement.” No, no, no. This is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they’re importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American, guaranteed at birth, is one man, one vote, and they’re diluting it. No, they’re not allowed to do that. Why are we putting up with this? …
You wonder how much longer they imagine Americans are going to go along with this; an entire country forced to lie about everything all the time. It can’t go on forever, but you can see why they’re trying it.
Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions. Let’s say that again for emphasis, because it is the secret to the entire immigration debate: Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions. In order to win and maintain power. Democrats plan to change the population of the country. They’re no longer trying to win you over with their program. They’re obviously not trying to improve your life. They don’t even really care about your vote anymore. Their goal is to make you irrelevant.
That is provably true. And because it’s true, it drives them absolutely crazy when you say it out loud. A hurt dog barks. They scream about how noting the obvious is immoral, that you’re a racist if you dare to repeat things that they themselves proudly say. Most people go along with this absurd standard and dutifully shut up; they don’t think they have a choice. But no matter what they’re allowed to say in public, everyone understands the truth: When you change who votes, you change who wins. …
The painful decline of California (Tucker knows what he is is talking about, having grown up in SF):
Between 1948 and 1992, the state of California voted for exactly one Democratic presidential candidate. Among America’s big population centers, in vivid contrast to Chicago and New York, California was reliably, proudly Republican. For eight years, no less a figure than Ronald Reagan ran the state. California had the country’s best schools, the best infrastructure, the best economy, not to mention the prettiest national environment on the planet. California was a model for the world.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan, California’s former governor, became president of the United States. In retrospect, it never got any better for California. Midway through his second term, Reagan signed something called the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Though he likely didn’t realize it at the time, that law made future Ronald Reagans impossible. The Immigration Reform and Control Act brought about an amnesty, and a path to citizenship, for nearly three million foreign nationals living in the U.S. illegally. The next year, by executive order, Reagan added to that number. He halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal minors, the Dreamers of his day.
The rest of the world watched carefully as this happened. Would-be migrants everywhere concluded that there was no real penalty for breaking America’s laws. In fact, there was a reward. Reagan also signed a law that required hospitals to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status. The Supreme Court had already guaranteed free education to anyone who showed up without a visa. So: Free hospitals, free schools, and amnesty if you get caught. Why wouldn’t the rest of the world come? They soon did. …
Huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately, many of them illegal. California was transformed virtually overnight into a Democratic state. In 1988, George H.W. Bush narrowly won California in the presidential election, but no Republican has won that state since. No Republican ever will win in California, not in our lifetimes. …
The counties in California with the highest percentage of Republicans are, not coincidentally, those with the lowest percentage of immigrants and vice versa. California changed because the population changed.
Analysis of the 2012 presidential election, for example, showed that if you lived in the state of California in 1980, you probably still voted Republican. Your views hadn’t really changed. But as your state swelled with foreign voters, your views became irrelevant. Your political power, the power to control your own life, disappeared with the arrival of new people who diluted your vote. That was the whole point.
That’s not democracy, it’s cheating. Imagine watching a football game where one team decides to start the third quarter with an extra 40 players on the field. Would you consider that fair play? The Democratic Party did something very much like that in the state of California. They rigged the game with more people. They packed the electorate. As a result, Americans who grew up in California lost their most basic right in a democracy, the right to have their votes count. …
In 1986, California was the richest landmass of its size in the world. California now has more poor people than any state in the country as of this year, according to the best measurements available from the federal government. California has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi, indeed the highest in the nation. …
It’s the deepest held leftist policy, dearer even than climate change:
How did a place as idyllic as California become so miserable that huge numbers of people who were born there decided to abandon their homes and flee? If you cared about the United States, you would want to know the answer and you’d want to make absolutely certain it didn’t happen anywhere else. Yet the Democratic Party is working to make certain it happens everywhere else. That’s not a slur. It’s not a guess. We know it because they brag about it constantly.
The left becomes unhinged if you point out that American voters are being replaced by Democratic Party loyalists from other countries. You’re absolutely not allowed to say that, but they’re allowed to say that. And they do. They say it all the time. They’ve done studies on it, written long books about it, talked about it endlessly on television, often in the ugliest racial terms. They’re not ashamed at all, they don’t think they have to be ashamed. In the fall of 2018, a columnist for The New York Times wrote a piece that was literally entitled “We Can Replace Them“. …
They tell you that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right. No, it’s not. They say it’s some horrifying right-wing conspiracy theory, that the right is obsessed with it. No, the left is obsessed with it. In fact, it’s the central idea of the modern Democratic Party.Demographic replacement is their obsession because it’s their path to power. …
Leftists in Israel know the path to power is to prevent immigration, so they say so:
Go to the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) website sometime if you’d like a glimpse of what an unvarnished conversation about a country’s national interest might look like. In a short essay posted to the site, the ADL explains why the state of Israel should not allow more Arabs to become citizens with voting rights:
“With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world,” the ADL explains, “Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically — and potentially physically — vulnerable.
“It is unrealistic and unacceptable,” the ADL continues, “to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.”
Now, from Israel’s perspective, this makes perfect sense. Why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? Isn’t that the deepest betrayal of all? In the words of the ADL, why would a government subvert its own sovereign existence? Good question.
Somehow Americans don’t get to vote on the issue, except in 2016 when one candidate finally brought it up obliquely, promising to build a wall. Surprisingly, he won.
Most Americans aren’t even allowed to have the conversation. So they watch from the sidelines as their democracy is murdered by people who claim to be its defenders. …
This is what it looks like when an entire native population — Black and White, but every one of them an American — is systematically disenfranchized.
Middle class Americans become less powerful every year. They have less economic power, and thanks to mass immigration, they now have less political power.
The leaders making these changes have no sympathy for their victims. They blame the country for its own suffering. You always hate the people you hurt.
Doesn’t that bell the cat? The left will do their best to ignore it, expect to redouble their efforts to get Carlson’s show canceled. Nonetheless, a watershed has been crossed, and perhaps the long overdue conversation about power and race in America will begin.
If Tucker can keep his show despite their protests and even mock them along the way, that’s a big deal.
I think it’s fair to say, Tucker went as far on this issue as any host has in the last 40 years of American TV. I can’t think of any network pundit who framed it this strongly.
It is only a relatively short period of time since the Republicans were in charge of all branches of government and they did not attempt to bring in new immigration legislation propose something like a moratorium on immigration for 10-years.
Whites, if they massively immigrate in the US — are automatically on the white, European side of the Kulturkampf. They are on the side of Columbus, Jefferson, Mozart, Edison, ….
This is primarily a culture war for the “soul of America”. It is about who is American”.
“By 2017, those of us of European stock will be an absolute minority in the United States of America,” Biden said at a State Department luncheon for Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. According to pool reports, Biden added that that’s “not a bad thing, that’s a good thing” because it means the country is becoming more diverse.
The U.S. Census Bureau revealed last week that in 2014, minorities made up a majority of children under five years of age in the United States for the first time.
In the UK, the Blair/Brown ‘New Labour’ regime attempted to pull off the same trick, … instituting a full-on full blown Economist style ‘open borders’ free for all.
No doubt, part of the attraction was of importing a permanent vote farm to ensure an automatic, in built permanent Labour Party hegemony in the UK.
But, alas, it all blew up in their faces. Part of this Devil’s calculus was that the proles, the drones, the white industrial working class would keep being their performing seals their masters relied upon and vote Labour in their droves ‘they’ve got nowhere else to go’ …
But … they’ve broken the habit and taboo of generations and found ‘somewhere else to go’ — the Conservative Party.
Thus the ‘clever-clever’ scheme was not so clever after all.
The whole world knows how the Culture Wars are playing out in America, but its impact on other countries is less well understood. …
Liberals, worldwide including in South Africa, love to display their boldness in confronting the populist Right, but somehow slide-away when the need arises to confront the illiberal, authoritarian Left. …
It is not uncommon these days for young South Africans to know all about political developments in the United States (through a woke prism), but absolutely nothing about events in their own country — even when these events are as shocking as the revelations about State Security slush funds being used by the ANC to buy off judges and journalists to support the ruling party. …
The Mandela Government’s talk about racial harmony turned out to be a con. Now it’s all about money, and power through tribalism.
“Racial transformation” has become the ANC’s overriding policy imperative, not just one of several policy goals. The purpose of this focus, when one cuts through the hollow rhetoric, was to legalise corruption and enable the politically-connected to burrow into every capital flow in the country, in order to loot.
They pretended the goal was “broad-based black economic empowerment”. Anyone who ever believed that must surely, by now, realise they were conned. …
Wokeness is an exercise in self-deception and misdiagnosis.
It claims that “Whiteness” is the core problem in South Africa. For the vast majority of people, this translates into the conclusion that whites are the core problem in South Africa, and have been since Jan van Riebeeck first put his foot on solid ground on the Southern tip of Africa in 1652. The corollary of this idea is that salvation lies in the removal of whites from all positions of power and authority, and for some, from the country as well.
Until that happens, the logic continues, South Africa will remain divided into two main groups: The Villains (comprising about 8% of South Africa’s population) vs. Everyone Else.
This simplistic diagnosis, an article of faith for South African Wokeness, is a massive barrier to addressing the real problems our country faces. It also prevents us from building a successful, inclusive future.
Wokeness has given the ANC the courage to reveal its true nature as a black nationalist organisation. Its commitment to non-racialism and independent institutions of state was always paper thin — a temporary compromise to move the country through the “first stage” of the bourgeois revolution, with the backing of Western powers, before moving onto the second stage.
On the 5th March 2012, the policy sub-committee of the ANC’s National Executive Committee announced the commencement of the “second stage”, seeking to bring the “National Democratic Revolution” (NDR) to its conclusion. Its fulfilment will mean the party will control the State and all its institutions; and the State will control the economy and society.
Jacob Zuma, president at the time, promised that “Radical Economic Transformation” imposed through all institutions of State, would eradicate the imaginary bogeyman “White Monopoly Capital”.
If whites have no place in Africa, as is now commonly proclaimed, then do blacks have any place in Europe? Or anywhere apart from Africa for that matter? This is rapidly becoming an urgent issue:
I am a teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan. …
I know that by attaching my name to this I’m risking not only my current job but my career as an educator … But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can’t stay silent.
My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed.
Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don’t match those assumptions. … All of this reinforces the worst impulses we have as human beings: our tendency toward tribalism and sectarianism that a truly liberal education is meant to transcend.
Ask the wrong question:
Recently, I raised questions about this ideology at a mandatory, whites-only student and faculty Zoom meeting. (Such racially segregated sessions are now commonplace at my school.) It was a bait-and-switch “self-care” seminar that labelled “objectivity,” “individualism,” “fear of open conflict,” and even “a right to comfort” as characteristics of white supremacy. I doubted that these human attributes — many of them virtues reframed as vices — should be racialized in this way.
In the Zoom chat, I also questioned whether one must define oneself in terms of a racial identity at all. … It seemed like my questions broke the ice. Students and even a few teachers offered a broad range of questions and observations. Many students said it was a more productive and substantive discussion than they expected.
Get unfairly slammed:
However, when my questions were shared outside this forum, violating the school norm of confidentiality, I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused “harm” to students, given that these topics were “life and death matters, about people’s flesh and blood and bone.” I was reprimanded for “acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs.” And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the “greater good and the higher truth.” …
The school’s director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.
A few days later, the head of school ordered all high school advisors to read a public reprimand of my conduct out loud to every student in the school. It was a surreal experience, walking the halls alone and hearing the words emitting from each classroom …
My own contract for next year requires me to “participate in restorative practices designed by the Office of Community Engagement” in order to “heal my relationship with the students of color and other students in my classes.” The details of these practices remain unspecified until I agree to sign.
Comrades:
I wanted to be a voice for the many students of different backgrounds who have approached me over the course of the past several years to express their frustration with indoctrination at our school, but are afraid to speak up.
They report that, in their classes and other discussions, they must never challenge any of the premises of our “antiracist” teachings, which are deeply informed by Critical Race Theory. These concerns are confirmed for me when I attend grade-level and all-school meetings about race or gender issues. There, I witness student after student sticking to a narrow script of acceptable responses. Teachers praise insights when they articulate the existing framework or expand it to apply to novel domains. Meantime, it is common for teachers to exhort students who remain silent that “we really need to hear from you.”
A recent faculty email chain received enthusiastic support for recommending that we “‘officially’ flag students” who appear “resistant” to the “culture we are trying to establish.”
When I questioned what form this resistance takes, examples presented by a colleague included “persisting with a colorblind ideology,” “suggesting that we treat everyone with respect,” “a belief in meritocracy,” and “just silence.”
Is this not a 180 degree change in moral outlook? Who voted for this? Is it not being imposed by a small bunch of activists on the rest of us for their benefit?
