While the virus known as Covid-19 originated somewhere in China, if you want to know who weaponized it, the real culprits are the Democrats.
One of the problems that the Democrats had going into 2020 was Trump’s refusal to be Hitler. Trump didn’t round-up Jews; he embraced them. Trump didn’t put the LGBTQRSTUV squad in concentration camps; he pretty much ignored them (unless they were Ric Grenell, in which case they occupied important government positions). Trump didn’t enslave blacks on plantations; he brought them the most economic prosperity they’d ever achieved in America (and same goes for Hispanics). Trump didn’t aim for world domination; he refrained from starting any wars at all. Trump didn’t destroy the economy with his mad tariffs; he immeasurably strengthened it with lower taxes, less regulation, and truly fair trade deals. Trump didn’t kill or imprison illegal aliens; he just stopped letting them in and, along the way, developed a good relationship with Mexico’s president. As each opportunity presented itself, Trump was defiantly NOT HITLER.
For the Democrats/Progressives/Leftists/Socialists/Communists (hereinafter, “Democrats”), this was a disaster. It was bad enough that every single probe, right up through the impeachment hoax, proved that Trump was as pure as driven snow. This was true for his politics and his past business dealings. We’ve probably never had a president in at least the past 150 years who was so clean. Even Harry Truman came up through the filthy Pendergast political machine, but not Donald Trump.
In January, the Democrats were too busy with the fauxpeachment to take much notice. By February, though, they realized that it was the best thing ever to happen to the Democrat party. Here’s what they were able to do with the virus:
Democrats were able to get Americans used to draconian restrictions on their lives. It must have fascinated the Democrats to see how many limitations they could incrementally impose on America.
Democrats were able to run a fake candidate, using the virus as an excuse to hide him from the people.
Democrats were able — temporarily — to destroy the Trump economic juggernaut and, along the way, substantially enrich their rich Democrat friends, everyone from Jeff Bezos to the Waltons to all of Silicon Valley.
Democrats were able to use this economic destruction to make more people dependent on the government, including the future need for government healthcare.
Democrats were able to get rid of tens of thousands of elderly people, along with a whole lot of other people who were frequent healthcare users. Elderly people and those with chronic illnesses are always a problem in socialist systems. They’re no longer contributing to the system, but they’re high users, especially in healthcare. Killing these people may not have been the original plan, but it certainly was a side benefit.
All of that was useful, but in the short term, the Democrats put into place two immeasurably important things:
Democrats were able to justify completely overriding legislation regarding voting and, whether by fiat or legislation from Democrat legislatures, to switch to mail-in voting. The Democrats mailed out millions of ballots, regardless of whether people were alive, were interested in voting, or had moved from their original addresses. With all those ballots out there, anything was possible.
And best of all for their political purposes, Democrats were finally able to call Trump Hitler: He wasn’t a “world domination Hitler or a “concentration camp Hitler.” Instead, by pointing to the 230,000 people alleged to have died directly from the virus, Democrats successfully (wrongly, but successfully) were able to label Trump as the “Disease Hitler.”
Looking at the election, I am certain that, if Trump can successfully reveal the massive fraud behind the election, both on the ground and behind the scenes (using corrupt and corruptible voting systems), it will be apparent that Trump won resoundingly. But to the extent there were people who genuinely voted for Biden, many did so because, at long last, the Democrats were able to convince them that Trump is Hitler.
That’s why my new name for the disease that came here from China is the Democrat Virus. After all, it was the Democrat party that so successfully weaponized it against the American people and President Trump.
In America, the term Right Wing is misused to imply that conservative Americans are fascists lusting for world domination; in fact, the opposite is true.
(As my regular readers (to whom I am endlessly grateful) know, I was away from my blog for some time caring for a relative who had surgery. Being away that long gave me time to think about “going a little crazy,” as Bob Ross likes to say when he adds another tree to a painting. In my case, “going a little crazy” meant wondering if I could do a video as well as a podcast.
In addition to the time spent researching how to do go about making a Power Point video (I’ve got to start somewhere), it took me six hours to create a 35 minute video and companion podcast. They both are a little glitchy, but not bad for a first effort. I will get better. But I will never forget my readers, so here is the same content in written form.)
The idea for this video came when I ended my trip with a much-needed massage. Because this is Tennessee, my masseur is a liberty-oriented man so, in the midst of a far-ranging conversation, he asked this question: “Why are conservatives called “fascists,” when fascism is a socialist doctrine?” An excellent question, and one I wanted to answer here.
The reality is that, even though the media loves to talk about “right wingers” (although never left wingers), there is no “left wing” versus “right wing” in America, at least as those terms are understood in the rest of the world. Instead, we only have liberty versus tyranny, along with the supporters of both those ideologies.
Ironically enough, although the French Revolution post-dated the end of the American revolution by six years, the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are leftovers from that overseas kerfuffle. Let me explain.
The French Revolution had as its slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Liberty, equality, fraternity! In the context of the French Revolution, those words were always lies.
At the start of the Revolution, France had an absolute monarchy that sat on top of a large, equally absolutist aristocracy. It was not a sustainable system, and the revolutionaries intended to topple it. However, unlike the American revolutionaries who envisioned limited government coupled with individual liberty, that’s not what the French wanted. Instead, the revolutionaries imagined an absolutist commune, with the monarchy and aristocracy replaced by an equally controlling cabal of “the people.”
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with “left wing” and “right wing”? Simple. In the French Parlement during the lead-up to the Revolution, the representatives who sought to retain an absolutist government led by the monarchy and the aristocracy sat to the Speaker’s right. The representatives who sought to replace the existing government with an absolutist government led by “representatives of the people” sat to the Speaker’s left.
And that’s where the terms still used today in American and around the world came from: Those on the right seek to “conserve” the old ways; those on the left seek to upend them. Except, as I’ll develop at greater length, America has not traditionally had any cognates to this European left/right divide.
And now we get to my favorite chart, one that, for convenience’s sake, uses a left/right continuum to show how there are two sides to the political spectrum:
On the left (although it could just as easily be portrayed on the right side of the line) is absolutist, totalitarian government, something with which we are all familiar. It exists under many names – monarchy, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, fascism, theocracy, etc. – but it always plays out the same: maximum government control; minimum individual liberty.
Meanwhile, on the right side of the continuum (although I could have easily placed “liberty blue” on the left), is the political system that has limited government and maximum individual liberty. At its extreme, it’s anarchy. Otherwise, it’s . . . well, it’s really only the American experiment. Everywhere else in the world, government control is the standard.
So what is the American experiment? It was build on Britain’s Magna Carta and its 1689 Bill of Rights. That last document was a statement of limitations on monarchical. William of Orange and Queen Mary II had agreed to this Bill of Rights in order to to attain the British throne in the wake of 1688’s “Glorious Revolution.” (It was glorious because King James II fled, rather than going to war.)
If you look at the British Bill of Rights, you’ll see many echoes in our own Bill of Rights. However, the British Bill of Rights limits only the monarchy. Parliament was not limited, which is why it felt free to impose all sorts of restrictions on British citizens in the American colonies.
When the Founding Fathers decided to draft a Bill of Rights, they did it correctly. Instead, of stating the items as a negative charter (as Obama wrongly put it), one that simply tells government what it can’t do, the Founders stated our Bill of Rights as a set of rights inherent and inviolable in every individual. No government – no monarchy, no legislature, no judiciary, no official whatever – should be able to impede those rights without a high showing of necessity.
Hold that thought in mind as we look at the three most common forms of government outside of America in the years since WWI.
First, we have socialism, which exists not only as a free-standing form of government (National Socialists), but also as an umbrella term for the evil twins of communism and fascism. Under communism, there is no private ownership. Everything – and everybody – belongs to the government. Examples, all of them tyrannical, are the Soviet Union, China (despite its faux market economy), North Korea, and Cuba.
Back in the 1930s, fascism put a softer face on communism, because it did not nationalize all private property, instead limiting itself to nationalizing a few major industries, especially fuel and transportation. However, there is no freedom in a fascist country. Mussolini provided the ultimate definition of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” (I also include today’s oligarchies in the list of fascist states, since they function much the same way.) In the World War II era, fascist states sought world domination and, in Germany’s case, included genocide and slavery in the service of an imaginary “master race.”
Today’s Europe is still fascist, although that would no doubt horrify Europeans were you to tell them that. Under both EU rule and the governments of the individual European states, there is private ownership, but major industries, especially transportation, are still nationalized. Moreover, the EU and the individual governments tightly control every aspect of people’s lives.
(When it comes to nationalized services, I have a real bee in my bonnet about these “soft” socialized states’ so-called “cradle to grave” care, something my parents’ European-based friends and family boasted about non-stop. These benefits had nothing to do with socialism. They were available in Europe because American taxpayers funded European defense costs during the Cold War. It wasn’t socialized medicine; it was American medicine. Now that the Cold War has ended and the money isn’t flowing as much, European socialized medicine is cratering.)
The difference between today’s European fascism and Hitler’s is that (a) it’s not called fascism today and (b) it’s not yet engaged in world domination and anti-Semitic genocide. However, given the speed with which Muslims are populating Europe, all in thrall to an Islamic doctrine that calls for world domination and anti-Semitic genocide, I think it won’t be long before Europe starts to repeat the 1930s.
The third type of government in the world today shows up in monarchies or theocracies, both of which thrive, and are often intertwined in the Middle East. Whether it’s Mullahs in Iran or Kings in Saudi Arabia, these are totalitarian governments that use religious doctrine to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives. (In Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammed bin Salman is slowly trying to change this but, since he holds the tiger by the tail, it’s a very delicate and dangerous process.)
And then there’s America, which has a totally different system, one that, in its purest form, does everything it can both to limit government power and mob rule. There’s nothing else like it in the world.
The American political system as the Founders envisioned it has a limited federal government composed of three parts – executive, legislative, and judicial – each with unique spheres of power, each with some control over the other branches, and each jealous of its own power as a bulwark against any branch becoming too strong.
The Executive branch eschews pure democracy in favor of an Electoral College, forcing presidential candidates to campaign in every state (as Hillary learned to her cost). Without this, all presidents would be elected out of population centers. If the Democrats were able to do away with the Electoral College, something they’re trying to do through the grossly unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all future American presidents would be elected by California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington.
Under the Legislative branch, we have two organs. The Senate was originally meant to have its members appointed by each state’s governors, ensuring (a) that the Senators would be responsive to their states and (b) that no senator would be enslaved to the passions of the mob. The 17th amendment changed that in 1912, probably not for the better.
The House controls the power of the purse and, before the 17th Amendment, was the only branch of government with direct democracy. House members must go back to the voters every two years to make their case. This is why impeachment begins in the House and why the current refusal to have a formal impeachment – which would force House members to make their positions known to their voters — is a direct betrayal of the voters.
Finally, the Judicial branch is the least democratic part of our government, for its members get selected by the President, get approved by the Senate, and then sit for life. In theory, it is impartial and rules only on whether matters are constitutional or unconstitutional, a power Chief Justice Marshall arrogated to the Court in the early 19th century.
In recent years, the federal judicial has boldly grabbed for itself both legislative power and executive power. The legislative power appears in its finding emanations of penumbras to justify federally sanctioned abortion, something never contemplated in the Constitution, and writing whole romance novels to allow gay marriage, another concept far afield from the Constitution. Both these issues belong in the states until such time as the Constitution is formally amended. As for executive power, every time some podunk judge in a Leftist district blocks a facially valid executive order from President Trump based upon the judge’s interpretation about the purity of Trump’s mind and soul . . . that’s an improper exercise of executive power.
Lastly, as I said before, our Founders gave us a Bill of Rights holding that certain rights are vested in the people and that the government cannot infringe them. This is extraordinary and differs from all other constitutions in the world, each of which is an endless book of bureaucratic does and don’ts.
So what kind of cool stuff flows from a limited government and a Bill of Rights? For starters, we have free market capitalism, which has been doing wonders since President Trump reformed taxes to leave more money with citizens and cut back on onerous regulations.
Strikingly, our Democrat Party presidential candidates have no room in their platforms for the free market. Bernie is a stone-cold communist. As an aside, given that he’s been alive for the greater part of the 20th century and all of the 21st (to date), he must know about the tens of millions dead and enslaved under communism (a knowledge sadly denied to uneducated millennials). That he still supports communism despite this knowledge means either that he’s the most stupid man ever to walk the earth or an evil tyrant wannabe. Neither reflects well on him or the voters who support him.
Warren also should know better, but I can attest to the fact that she’s stupid. Maybe evil too, but definitely stupid.
The most recent example of the disrespect the Left has for the free market comes from Kamala Harris, another candidate who is dumb as a rock, only dumber. Her candidacy is in free fall, so she’s promising to seize private property to prop it up. (Incidentally, I don’t think the government should fund private companies, but it’s important to note that, government aid notwithstanding, these are still companies with shareholders, employees, and profits.
Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on if drug companies do not comply with her mandatory set drug prices: “I will snatch their patent so that we will take over”
Audience asks: “can we do that?”
“Yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that! … I have the will to do it” pic.twitter.com/gpU8nnGt6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 23, 2019
Another benefit we have is social mobility of a type that never existed anywhere else in the world before America. I created a little photo montage, just off the top of my head, of people who have attained success in a way that would not have been possible without America:
In America, the fact that your grandparents were rich doesn’t mean you will be, and the fact that they were poor doesn’t mean that is your fate either. We make our own fate in America.
One of my favorite rights – and one that I came to late in life – is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I think this picture says it all:
In Nazi Germany, the government seized arms as a prelude to seizing people. A government should always stand in awe of its people’s right to defend itself against tyranny.
People should also be able to defend themselves against evil-doers in their own community. Mexico, a rapidly failing state, with appalling gun violence and skyrocketing murders, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
Of course, the Democrat Party desperately wants your guns. Beto, before dropping out, was open about this – and please note the audience roar of delight:
And then there’s the right to free speech. In England, the cradle of free speech, it’s already gone:
Free speech isn’t doing so well in Leftist America either. In New York, you can be find $250,000 for “misgendering” someone. And in California, when it comes to long-term care facilities, it’s the law that you can be fined for “misgendering” residents there too.
So, going back to my chart and the left/right divide, here’s what you need to know about the rest of the world: it’s not tyranny versus liberty; it’s two different types of tyrants fighting each other for total control over citizens. In America, we have half of that equation. The American left wants total control over American citizens:
“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product.” – Barack Obama (net worth $40,000,000).
“You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” — Elizabeth Warren (net worth $18,000,000).
“I will snatch their patent so that we will take over.” – Kamala Harris (net worth $4,000,000).
“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Beto O’Rourke (net worth $10,000,000-$15,000,000).
On the opposite side of the political aisle in America, however, things are different. Conservatives don’t crave power. They crave a smaller government that leaves citizens alone to pursue their own lives, and that concerns itself solely with such core issues as national security, a stable legal system, functional transportation across the country, and managing (God forbid) major health crises.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” – Ronald Reagan
With the above in mind – American conservatives are the sole political movement in the world dedicated to individual liberty – why are American conservatives called “right wing” or “fascist,” terms that are tied to totalitarian control, while American leftists are called “liberal,” implying a dedication to individual liberty? It’s time for a little history lesson to answer that question.
Back in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin both presided over socialist governments. The former was fascist (private ownership but government control), while the latter was communist (no private ownership of the means of production). They were hideous, evil fraternal twins of socialism.
As is often the case with sibling rivalry, the two countries (and their leaders) hated each other. Nevertheless, in August 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, sparking WWII, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia entered in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Under that pact, they swore to be neutral vis-à-vis each other in times of war.
When Hitler invaded Poland, Soviet Russia did nothing. Taking their cue from Russia, in America, communists also took a very lukewarm stance against Hitler.
The Pact ended abruptly on June 22, 1941, when Hitler initiated Operation Barbarossa by invading the Soviet Union. When America entered the War, it found itself allied with Russia against the Nazis. On the American home front, communists instantly became staunch and fervent anti-Nazis.
However, when the war ended, with the Allies victorious, and socialist/fascist Germany in ruins, American communists had a problem: Fascist socialism stood exposed as one of the most evil ideologies of all time. How were they to protect communist socialism, which was also one of the most evil ideologies of all time?
The answer was to create a false syllogism that took hold in academia and media, and that now controls American thought:
Communists and Fascists were enemies.
Communists helped win World War II, with the war’s end providing unquestioned proof that Fascists were completely evil.
Communists and American Republicans are enemies.
Republicans are therefore akin to Fascists and, like fascists, must be completely evil.
And what’s the moral of this story?
Next time someone accuses you, or any other conservative, of being “fascist” or “right wing,” object vigorously. You are a person committed to individual liberty as opposed to being a slave to an all-powerful government (no matter how woke, intersectional, and politically correct that government claims to be).
Jexodus (or Jexit) asks Jews to leave an increasingly anti-Semitic Democrat Party, something I’m trying to facilitate with tweets to my #DearFellowJews.
If you’ve been paying attention to the news of late, you can’t have missed stories about anti-Semitism. For example, for many years now, France has periodically been roiled by grotesque anti-Semitic murders, including one that happened in connection with the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, in January 2015.
I mention that massacre specifically, because it was an event that lifted for Leftists American Jews, even if ever so slightly, the veil hiding the anti-Semitic rot at the heart of the Democrat Party. As you may recall, in January 2015, Islamists committed a mass murder at the headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo because it had dared to mock the eminently mockable Mohamed. Two days later, a member of the same radical Islamist community entered a kosher market in Paris, took hostages, killed four people, and injured nine.
The massacre did not occur because anyone in the Hypercacher market had mocked Mohamed. No one had, of course. The only reason the Hypercacher massacre happened was because Islamist murderers always use the opportunity of a massacre to include a few Jews. Thus, when Islamists committed the exceptionally bloody Mumbai massacre, they wasted resources deviating from their central massacre just so that they could torture to death a rabbi and his wife who had a small Chabad House in Mumbai.
In a way, this Muslim massacre technique (a big massacre that includes, as a sideline, brutally killing a few Jews) is comparable to Hitler’s Holocaust: For Hitler and Germany, the primary goal was world conquest. However, just as was the case with the Islamists, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was so all-encompassing that he willingly diverted resources from the main goal to accomplish a secondary goal that was neither ancillary to nor necessary for world conquest. Indeed, it lessened the chances for world conquest, but Hitler couldn’t stop himself.
But I digress. This is not a post about rising anti-Semitism around the world. It’s just a prelude to a post about rising anti-Semitism in America and, more specifically, about the anti-Semitic rot at the heart of the Democrat Party . . . which brings me back to the purposefully anti-Semitic attack on Jews in the Hypercacher market in Paris.
Obama, by then well into his second term as President, had something to say about that event: He casually remarked that the Hypercacher victims were “a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris” whom terrorists “randomly” shot. It was bit of cavalier word-play manifestly intended to hide the fact that the dead and wounded were not just a “bunch of folks in a deli” nor was their shooting random: It was a deliberate, targeted anti-Semitic attack.
Those of us paying attention to Obama in 2008 were not surprised by this cavalier attempt to cover up manifest anti-Semitism within Islam. We knew about the Los Angeles Times hiding “a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat….” We knew that Obama ran with a hard Left crowd that celebrated the “Palestinians,” who are carpetbaggers who came to the Holy Land in the mid-19th century and considered the Jews, whose ties to the Holy Land extend back in an unbreakable march of over 5,000 years, to be interlopers.
These examples, though, informed only those few Jews paying attention. This stalwart 22% of American Jews refused to vote for Obama in the 2008 election in significant part because they knew that Obama came in with a slimy trail of anti-Semitism in his wake.
When we tried to raise this anti-Semitism with the 78% of Jews who were unbelievably excited about Obama, they dismissed us as paranoid. The Khalidi bash was mere rumor because no sensible newspaper would ever sit on something as newsworthy as that. As for the anti-Semites with whom Obama traveled, well, hadn’t every president made kissy faces with Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al “Diamond Merchants” Sharpton?
We were also told that Presidents can’t always choose their followers so we shouldn’t take it too seriously when they have some extremists backing them — a bit of wisdom that vanished when a minute speck of white supremacists threw their backing to Trump who had never attended secret racist meetings but had, instead, won awards for his work benefiting the African-American community.
Almost immediately, Obama’s nascent presidency exposed a few more problems our president had with Jews. In his first major overseas appearance, Obama went to Egypt subtly implied that Israel came into being, not because of her 5,000 plus years in that land, but because of the Holocaust — a grotesque canard that Muslims advance to support their claim that they are victims of the Nazis too: That is, were it not for Europe’s guilt about the Holocaust (which Muslims claim never happened), the Western imperialists would never have dumped white Jewish Zionist supremacists onto the beleaguered, victimized Muslims.
Obama’s slimy anti-Semitic associations also followed him right into the White House. Immediately after his first inauguration, Obama’s beloved Reverend Wright, who hated America, made it patently clear that he didn’t like Jews either. But again, the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama told us we were hypersensitive, paranoid, unfair, and unrealistic about how the world works.
As Obama’s years in the White House began to add up, those of us Jews who were suspicious never had anything to allay those suspicions. Instead, we saw him treat Benjamin Netanyahu like trash (and we saw Veep Joe Biden do the same. Moreover, we didn’t like it when Clinton treated her opposite number in Israel like a whipped child. And those Jews paying attention got really worried when Obama went out of his way to court Iran, which has as a central part of its government platform the genocidal destruction of Israel. It didn’t get better when Obama shipped pallets full of cash to Iran and lifted sanctions in exchange for . . . nothing. But . . . “world peace!” we were told.
People noticed things and, by 2012, the 22% of Jews who distrusted Obama in 2008 expanded to 31% — but that wasn’t enough to stop him then and still hasn’t been enough to stop the Democrats now.
Funnily enough, though, for all those Jews who were cavalier about Obama’s actions towards Israel and his sleazy acquaintances, Obama’s remark about some random folks in a deli hit close to home. I think that’s because every Jew I know has stories of relatives who died in or survived the death camps. These relatives weren’t some random folks who happened to be caught in a Nazi dragnet. They were people whom the Nazis killed solely because they were Jews. And for Obama to say that the people in the Hypercacher market died randomly, unrelated to their Jewishness . . . well, that bugged a whole lot of Jews who had forgiven Obama much more serious acts of active or passive anti-Semitism. Of course, by then, Obama was on his way out of the White House, so it didn’t matter anymore.
But still, it was an opening; it was the thin edge of the wedge. It raised in people’s minds the concern that the American Left really might have an anti-Semitism problem. And even while too many Jews joined the rest of the Leftists in donning pink hats and marching down the streets with obscene signs, Jews across America have noticed — have been forced to notice — that the Women’s March has been taking over entirely by people who are open in their loathing, not just for Trump, but for Jews. And by people who venerate Farrakhan who likened Jews to termites and called them Satanic. (And don’t forget Bill Clinton’s willingness to stand side-by-side by Farrakhan at Aretha’s funeral.)
And then there’s Ilhan Omar. She’s pretty and she’s very articulate in intersectionality victim-speak. But people, especially Jewish people, started noticing that Omar obsessively kept making rancidly open anti-Semitic statements. In a way, she is as compulsive as the Charlie Hebdo murderers who couldn’t stay away from Hypercacher, as the Mumbai killers who couldn’t leave the rabbi and his wife untouched, or as Hitler who compulsively undermined his own war effort just to kill the Jews.
People also noticed all of Omar’s “sorry, not sorry” fake apologies. And they’ve been noticing that the Leftist media, including the New York Times, has been spinning like a top to cover for Omar’s remarks: If only the Jews wouldn’t give her a reason to be anti-Semitic, if only AIPAC weren’t all about the Benjamins, if only people would understand her intersectional suffering, if only this and if only that.
And Jews have noticed, oh, boy! have they noticed, that the Democrats in Congress have been incapable of doing to Omar what the Republicans did to Rep. Stevens the moment he awkwardly said something even vaguely supportive of white supremacy — they slammed him against the wall, stripped him of committee assignments, and made it clear that the disavowed everything he said, might have said, might not have said but sounded as if he said, etc. But not the Dems. They stand with Ilhan. She’s still on a prestigious committee that can see her doing massive damage. Moreover, they’re compulsively watering down the language of their “we stand against anti-Semitism” statement so much that it’s a statement against nothing at all, except that Congressional Dems really disapprove of Islamophobia, especially when it intersects with people being castigated for anti-Semitism, or something….
So I’ve been tracking all those things today on Twitter, first by saying “Dear Fellow Jews,” and then by actually creating a #DearFellowJews hashtags. Here are my tweets:
A hashtag experiment for conservative Jews: What would you put in a tweet addressed to #DearFellowJews, 70% of whom voted Democrat in 2016?#DearFellowJews: Have you noted that Democrats refuse to distance themselves from Farrakhan, who’s called Jews “termites” and “satantic”?
#DearFellowJews: Bernie just signed a loyalty oath to the Democrat Party. Knowing what you know, why have you essentially done the same?
Sanders Fills Ranks With Anti-Israel Advocates Tied to Anti-Semitism Scandal via @freebeaconhttps://t.co/av1I4T8e85
70% of you support the Democrats. Are you okay with the fact that at the highest levels in the Democrat Party they’re now excusing Ilhan Omar’s openly expressed, unapologetic anti-Semitism? I’m not okay with that. https://t.co/H5e2DheqZq
I wish others would follow Yosef Cornfeld’s example.
Here’s the thing: As I’ve often said before, people will go along believing in a certain worldview until something very personal breaks through for them. I turned conservative in large part because (a) public radio kept lying about Israel and (b) it was obvious that welfare incentivized illegitimate babies. Once those two things created overwhelming cognitive dissonance, I turned away from my old Democrat Party allegiance.
For my Mom, her “turn away” moment was the media’s lie that Michelle Obama was a the new Jackie Kennedy. For Brandon Straka, who created the “Walk Away” movement, it was seeing video proving that Trump had not mocked a handicapped reporter. Once he saw one Leftist media lie, he knew there were more. For increasing numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics, it’s seeing that Trump’s policies, by keeping out competition from illegal aliens and letting businesses keep money to grow jobs, are benefiting not hurting them.
Once something breaks through the cognitive dissonance in which the Left seeks to confuse and then bury people, it’s over . . . for the Left.
A high pressure media campaign has rolled out across major papers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, not to mention the usual digital media smear sites, normalizing and defending Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitic comments.
The Progressive Caucus is standing by her. As is the Congressional Black Caucus, which has met with Farrakhan, and has its own issues with anti-Semitism. Look for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and some of her cohort, which have defended Omar’s anti-Semitism, to start claiming the heads of some of her Jewish critics, like Rep. Engel, as the Corbynization of the Democrats get underway.
The Corbynization of the Democrats will leave Jews with few options as the party turns not only anti-Israel, but overly anti-Semitic, as Corbyn’s Labour has. And it’s important to note that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her DSA mothership are Corbyn allies.
When the process is properly underway, only the most radical leftists of Jewish origin, who are willing to work non-stop to defend anti-Semites, will be able to remain in the party.
Meanwhile the Jexodus momentum is slowly building. The process is partly generational. It will decisively split millennials between Jewish and leftist allegiances. There will be plenty of leftists with Jewish last names vocally defending the DNC’s anti-Semitism, but they will not consider themselves Jewish, except where briefly politically convenient, whose those who identify as Jewish will leave.
This will be a slow and ugly process. Jexodus would make it quicker. It’s the difference between leaving Egypt and having to be expelled.
If you’re on social media, please help the Jexodus (or Jexit, if you prefer). Using hashtags, write #DearFellowJews posts and explain to them the beauty of #Jexodus and #Jexit. It’s time, because if Jews wait too long, every day will be Hypercacher day somewhere in America.
(Regarding the photo for this post, you can read here)”>here the story about this amazing moment in Jewish freedom.)
The pause in North Korea negotiations reveals that the media is locked in a dangerous imaginary world where negotiations play out like bad old-time movies.
To date, the stupid Leftists in the media have been trained like Pavlov’s dog to expect “a win” whenever there’s a summit with a foreign leader. Past presidents have always emerged from the meetings with “a deal,” even if that deal was either illusory or, worse, gave away the store.
Media hacks therefore have no template within which to fit an actual negotiation, such as the one Trump is conducting with North Korea. That’s why we end up with these headlines (to which I will not hyperlink):
Trump-Kim Summit’s Collapse Exposes the Risks of One-to-One Diplomacy (New York Times)
Trump Kim talks: What to make of the Hanoi summit collapse? (BBC News)
Trump Cuts North Korea Summit Short After Talks Collapse (iHeart News)
Will nothing go right on this trip? Officials have to manually push stairway from Air Force One after they broke down in Vietnam – just like Trump’s disastrous summit with Kim Jong Un (Daily Mail)
Hanoi summit collapse could be ‘big blow’ to North Korean leader’s pride, experts say (ABC News)
Summit Collapse: How Trump’s Hanoi Talks With Kim Unraveled (Bloomberg)
Aside from the Borg-like repetition of the word “collapse” (those “journalists” must all drink coffee around the same cooler), the collective media is displaying its inability to see beyond a Hollywood moment. You know what Hollywood moment I mean.
To the media, every negotiation is one of those old black-and-white films in which the leaders of two nations on the brink of war are sitting around a conference table, exhausted, their ties loose, their shirt sleeves rolled up, five o’clock shadow on their faces, ash trays stacked with cigarette stubs. If they walk away, the negotiation is over and the world explodes into war. Then, suddenly, our hero rushes in with a brilliant idea or a piece of breaking news. Instantly, the stalemate is broken, the joyous negotiators dance around the room, and the hero and his girl fall into each other’s arms, the world once again saved.
That’s certainly the stereotype past presidents played into with their announcements about “successful” summits — even if it meant spelling success “caving in to foul dictators.” You’d think we would have learned back in 1938, after the Munich (“Peace in our time”) Agreement between Hitler and Chamberlain that this is not how the real world works. But, egged on by an ever credulous media, we’ve learned nothing.
Thankfully, Donald Trump does not live in a Hollywood movie nor is he moved by the brigade of media stupid Leftists. Instead, Trump lives in the real world of real deals — and one of the absolute necessities of pounding out real deals that benefit all parties (especially yourself) is a willingness to walk away from the table. As he explained in a press conference, “Sometimes you have to walk.”
Kim tried to offer Trump this deal: North Korea promises to de-nuclearize in return for the U.S. actually getting money into the broken North Korean economy. This is, of course, the same deal every past president has made with North Korea, and the outcome has always been the same: North Korea broke its promises even as the Americans fulfilled theirs to enrich North Korea’s coffers. Incidentally, it is also the same deal that Obama made with Iran, with exactly the same result. It’s a fool’s deal, intended to keep the media happy. It’s also the classic definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.
Indeed, in the CBS story about the pause in negotiations, the reporter makes this telling admission: “The summit was truncated, to the surprise of the press, with the elimination of a lunch and a signing ceremony previously on the schedule.” (Emphasis mine.) I’ll bet the press was surprised. That’s not part of the usual Hollywood script.
Thomas Lifson, not only one of the best political thinkers out there, but also a former Harvard Business School professor back in the day when that still meant something, explains what Trump was really doing:
President Trump wisely sent North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, back to Pyongyang from Hanoi, where he can tell the generals and security police commanders, on whose support he depends, that they are not going to get sanctions relief without giving up their nuclear arsenal.
There is every sign that this outcome in Hanoi is a predictable stage in the process of obtaining consensus among the North Korean ruling class that they must give up on the strategy of confrontation and isolation, with their survival guaranteed solely by nukes, and instead open up to the outside world and the prosperity market economies can generate.
President Trump abundantly signaled that he is not in a hurry for a deal — any deal — at the expense of getting a suboptimal result. He set the expectation that, while optimistic about eventually getting to his goal of denuclearization, it might be a longer process than the short attention span media would prefer.
Aside from the practical realities behind Trump’s willingness to pace the deal to get what he wants, Lifson hones in on the idiocy of the word “collapse,” which implies that the negotiating parties parted ways with recriminations and threats in the wake of complete failure. To the contrary:
It is clear from Kim’s language that the talks didn’t “collapse” into bitterness and a refusal to proceed. Both leaders remained cordial and continue to affirm their mutual goal of getting to a deal. So far as I have been able to discover, this was the first time a North Korean leader has ever faced a press conference with Western media asking questions. That in itself is a significant factor in opening up North Korea to the process of getting toward acting as a normal country does. It is a long process, to be sure, but this is a step in the right direction.
Lifson explains as well that, while Kim has the appearance of a total dictator, that’s not true. Even the worst dictator in the world needs a cadre of people loyal to him who will be his attack dogs to protect their own turf. Before he can do anything, he needs to assure his loyalists that they will benefit from the deal. Otherwise, the sword of Damocles that hangs over every dictator’s head (“Sic semper tyrannis“) has a habit of falling, even if only to make way for the next generation’s brutal tyrant.
Trump has patiently been prepping for this moment for a long time. He knows what he wants — North Korea must give up its nuclear weapons in fact, not just in theory. He also knows what he can offer in return — North Korea’s return to the community of nations, along with Trump’s willingness to hold off on using his even bigger nuclear arsenal.
Returning to the community of nations is a huge carrot for an isolated, impoverished country in which even the supreme dictator lives in chronic fear. Holding the talks in Hanoi was a brilliant idea because it is the living embodiment of a way station on the road to true prosperity. Two years ago, I blogged about the thrumming economy in Vietnam and that’s nation of shopkeepers idea is going to seem more accessible to the North Koreans than suddenly promising they’ll be Switzerland. Kim knows Switzerland, for he went to school there, but he’s not a fool and knows that his country needs a slower trajectory.
Having laid the groundwork, Trump, the most experienced practical negotiator ever to sit in the Oval Office, is going to be patient and do it right: Kind words for his negotiating partner, strong positions on core issues with flexibility on ancillary issues and, always, the manifest willingness to walk away from a bad deal.
Some people, including NeverTrumpers have launched a different attack on Trump. They are saying that it’s an absolute disgrace for Trump to treat Kim respectfully because Kim has so much blood on his hands. Yes, it’s absolutely true Kim has blood on his hands, but he’s also got functional nuclear weapons in his arsenal. Given that latter reality, we have two choices: negotiations or war. At this stage, negotiations are still a lot better than war.
If we agree that negotiations are the way to go, we again have two choices: a good outcome for the U.S. or a bad outcome. Trump wants a good outcome and he’s smart enough to know that he will get this, not by insulting and demeaning Kim, but by appealing to Kim’s ego. It’s not clear if stupid Leftists, in or out of the media, or NeverTrumpers understand this, but people who live in the real world do understand that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
If you’ve ever read Dale Carnegie’s brilliant How to Win Friends & Influence People, which was originally published in the mid-1930s, you may remember that he opened the book by talking about “Two Gun” Crowley, a murderous gangster who was captured in New York in 1931 after a two-hour shootout with police. Crowley was an incredibly dangerous man who thought nothing of killing people, especially police.
Carnegie, however, added an interesting coda to the story of Two Gun’s capture:
But how did “Two Gun” Crowley regard himself? We know, because while the police were firing into his apartment, he wrote a letter addressed “To whom it may concern.” And, as he wrote, the blood flowing from his wounds left a crimson trail on the paper. In his letter Crowley said: “Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one—one that would do nobody any harm.” (Carnegie, Dale. How To Win Friends and Influence People, p. 4. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.)
Two Gun wrote those words just hours after gunning down a police officer in cold blood. Even as he was being led to the electric chair, Two Gun denied being a murderer and insisted that he was acting in self-defense. Carnegie points out that Al Capone saw himself in the same light — not as a cold-blooded murderer and bootlegger, but as someone just doing good for his fellow man. The infamous Dutch Schultz also explained in an interview that he was doing good.
According to Carnegie, a letter he received from Lewis Lawes, who had been Sing Sing’s warden, these famous criminals were just like their criminal brethren:
[Lawes] declared that “few of the criminals in Sing Sing regard themselves as bad men. They are just as human as you and I. so they rationalize, they explain. They can tell you why they had to crack a safe or be quick on the trigger finger. Most of them attempt by a form of reasoning, fallacious or logical, to justify their antisocial acts even to themselves, consequently stoutly maintaining that they should never have been imprisoned at all.” (How To Win Friends and Influence People, pp. 4-5.)
That is human nature and Carnegie fully understood that, human nature being what it is, you get nothing by interfering with people’s best view of themselves:
If Al Capone, “Two Gun” Crowley, Dutch Schultz, and the desperate men and women behind prison walls don’t blame themselves for anything—what about the people with whom you and I come in contact?
John Wanamaker, founder of the stores that bear his name, once confessed: “I learned thirty years ago that it is foolish to scold. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence.”
Wanamaker learned this lesson early, but I personally had to blunder through this old world for a third of a century before it even began to dawn upon me that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people don’t criticize themselves for anything, no matter how wrong it may be.
Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person’s precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment. (How To Win Friends and Influence People, pp. 5-6.)
I would not be at all surprised to learn that, just as Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking (the substance of which Trump heard every Sunday while sitting in the pews at Peale’s church) strongly influenced Trump’s thinking, so too did Dale Carnegie’s seminal book. You can use verbal abuse to try to force people to bend to your will but, if you want people voluntarily to give you something, you have to be nice. And that’s what Trump is doing with Kim — he’s being nice, not just to pander to Kim’s tyrannical ego, but to allow Kim to save face, and be the big man, even as he gives up his only ace in the hole.