Thursday, December 13, 2018

The United States Were Created from a British Colony

The media these days are full of talk about the importance of diversity.  Diversity has not been an important feature of the United States until recent decades.  It was not important for the first 200 years of American history.  Attitudes about what it means to be an American have changed radically in the last few years.  It was highlighted for me on Fareed Zakaria’s December 9 GPS show on CNN. 

Here is the transcript:

ZAKARIA: Political divisiveness feels like it's never been higher, but a new poll reveals that most Americans agree on what makes a real American. And it brings me to my question. What is the trait most widely held to be very important to being considered a real American, A, the ability to speak English; B, belief in treating people equally; C, support of the U.S. Constitution; or D, belief in democracy over other forms of government? Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. 

The correct answer to the challenge question is B. According to a new Grinnell College national poll, a full 90 percent of people think a belief in treating people equally is very important to being a real American. The next most important trait, taking personal responsibility for one's actions, followed by accepting people of different racial backgrounds, and then, finally, supporting the U.S. Constitution.

The idea of treating people equally is important.  The main cause listed in the Declaration of Independence for the decision to break from Great Britain was:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. 

The colonists rebelled at being treated unequally by the King and the British government.  However, the signers of the Declaration of Independence all had British names.  In 1776, the United States was not diverse, polyglot country.  It was an agglomeration of former British colonies, populated by people who had until then been British citizens.  The Declaration did protest that the Crown limited immigration:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. 

At that time the American continent was largely empty space, except for the Indians, whom the colonists sought to subdue.  The colonists wanted a population to control this mostly empty land.  According to Lumen Learning:

The population of the American colonies through the 18th century was primarily a mixture of immigrants from different countries in Europe and slaves from Africa. By 1776, about 85% of the white population in the British colonies was of English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsh descent, with 9% of German origin and 4% Dutch. 

According to Wikipedia, at the time of the Revolution about 80 percent of the American population was white and about 20 percent was black.  The black slaves did not play any substantive role in the formation of the United States, although the issue what to do about them was always difficult and divisive.  In 1910, 88% of the US population was non-Hispanic white, about 11% was black, and about 1% was Hispanic, Asian, or other.  By 2010, the non-Hispanic white population had dropped to 64%, the Black population was 13%, the Hispanic population was 16%, and Asian or other was 15%.  The percentage of white people in the US did not dip below 80% until 1980, when it began a rapid drop to 63% in 2010.  Much of the change was due to Ronald Reagan’s amnesty program for illegal aliens, which encouraged massive additional illegal immigration. 




Thursday, November 29, 2018

Brooks and Applebaum on Immigration

David Brooks' November 15 NYT column, "The Rise of the Resentniks" referred to an article by Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic, "A Warning from Europe: The Worst Is Yet to Come."  I like David Brooks, but it irks me that almost every book or article he recommends is by a Jewish author, which Anne Applebaum is. 

I found two strands running through Applebaum's article that I find Jewish and that I disagree with, at least in part: that diversity is an important element of any society, and that society's benefits should be distributed using a system of meritocracy.  Both of these ideas tend to favor outsiders over natives of a country, and Jews make themselves outsiders in almost every country they live in, except Israel.  Making diversity important immediately implies discriminating against the native population, which by definition is not diverse.  Making all decisions based on meritocracy again discriminates against the native population, which is necessarily much smaller than the entire population of the world.  There will by the simple law of numbers be people outside the country who are smarter, stronger, better looking, than many of the people in the native population, thus leading to the eventual subjugation and destruction of the native population. 


After World War I, the Jews made a strong effort to subjugate the ethnic German population of Germany.  You can still see traces of this in current efforts to restore art taken from Jews during World War II.  How was it that almost all of the great art in Germany was owned by Jews?  Because they had become so enormously wealthy in comparison to ethnic Germans, who needed a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.  It was a predecessor to the huge inequality of wealth that we are currently experiencing in the US.  Of course, we all know that the Germans rose up against the Jewish oppression.  Violence is not the way the equalize economic inequality, but if the state refuses to, or is unable to, act, as in the Weimar Republic, then bad things may happen.  Some Jews may recognize the problem.  Michael Bloomberg has an op-ed in today's NYT, "Why I'm Giving $1.8 Billion for College Financial Aid."  Of course, implicit in this gift is the possibility that better-educated blacks and Hispanics will help Jews subjugate the white, Anglo race and remove whites from power in America.  It empowers the Jewish priorities of diversity and meritocracy.  A college admission policy that gave priority to children of alumni or donors would tend to strengthen the native-born population.    

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Democrats Reject Founding Fathers

The Democratic Party has rejected one of the main ideas embodied in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.  In Federalist Paper 10 James Madison argued  that the US government should be a republic, not a democracy.  A republic acts through representatives of the people, not by direct votes of the people themselves.  In defending this position Madison says:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter….

Excerpt From: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay. “The Federalist.” Apple Books. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-federalist/id809256982?mt=11

The Constitution did not originally say who was qualified to vote for the representatives of the republic; it left it to the states to decide who was eligible to vote.  Most states allowed only white, male, adult, property owners to vote for representatives.  This was far from a democracy where everyone had a say in the government, as is the case in some New England town meetings.  Over the years the right to vote has been greatly expanded by amendments to the Constitution.  This expansion has created some of the very problems foreseen by the Founding Fathers.  The Democratic Party believes it can get its representatives elected by promising free stuff, particularly to blacks, Hispanics, and recent immigrants, but also to whites, e.g., Medicare and Social Security.   Typically, it has made wider public provision of healthcare the focus of Democratic campaigns in the midterm elections. 

One of Madison's arguments was that representative government would make it harder for special interests to influence the government, because the representatives would have a broad, diverse constituency.  In practice today, however, gerrymandering and lobbying have undermined this principle.  Congressional districts are not diverse, and the huge amounts of money controlled by the lobbyists give them inordinate power over the wishes of ordinary citizens.  The result has been a distortion that benefits both ends of the population spectrum.  Poorer voters get more government benefits because Democrats pander to their demands, and richer voters get more government benefits because their lobbyists bribe lawmakers to give them.  The middle class essentially gets left out.  Their votes are not for sale, but they can't afford to buy politicians. 

Madison's response would probably be that the elected representatives should be people of high moral character and intelligence who would serve the country's interest, rather than a few of their constituents, but this does not seem to be the case today, with a few exceptions. 

Stopping immigration weakens the Democratic approach of winning over poorer voters with government benefits.  There are remedies for limiting the influence of wealth in the Republican Party, such as higher income and inheritance taxes, and limits on campaign contributions, perhaps requiring that all campaigns must be limited to public funding; however, I don't see any movement toward these reforms. 





Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Jews and Trump

President Trump has attacked Fed Chair Jay Powell for being crazy, in an attempt to place the blame on Powell for the recent stock market declines.  I like Powell because he is the first non-Jewish chair of the Fed in about 50 years, except for one year in the 1970s under William Miller.  I think the Jewish chairmen have used their position to financially benefit their Jewish brethren at the expense of non-Jews.  I don't think they have done anything illegal, but when there are several approaches to dealing with problems, they have usually chosen the one that will benefit other Jews.  This has been apparent for the last 10 years, when interest rates have been held close to zero, benefitting investors who take bigger gambles, typically Jews, rather than people who just want to invest conservatively for the long term.  Before the 2008 crash, conservative investors could buy bonds or just put money in savings accounts for the interest they paid; after the crash bonds paid nothing, and for any return investors had to buy riskier assets.  One result of this Jewish approach has been to radically increase income and wealth inequality, benefitting the wealthy, including Jews disproportionately, and penalizing the middle class, mostly non-Jewish whites.  By increasing interest rates, Powell is taking away the Jews' punchbowl.

Rather than hearing complaints from Jews in the financial industry, such as Goldman Sachs, we are hearing criticism from President Trump. How do we account for that?  One answer is that Jewishness has nothing to do with the matter; it's just about money! Another possibility is that the Jews don't have to speak out because Trump is speaking for them. 

I'm not sure what kind of relationship Trump has with Jews in general, or if he even sees it as a different relationship from his relations with other types of people, white Christians, Hispanics, etc.  New York is a Jewish city, particularly Manhattan, where Trump has lived and worked most of his life.  Roy Cohn, Jewish lawyer for Senator Joe McCarthy, was one of his mentors.  I think New York real estate is a particularly Jewish profession, but Trump has succeeded at it while being a white Protestant.  He has worked so closely with Jews that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is Jewish and his daughter Ivanka has converted to Judaism.  Yet establishment Jews have broken with him on many of his key issues.  Gary Cohn, who was supposed to represent the best of Jewish financial thought, has left his administration.  Treasury Secretary Mnuchin is still there. Trump is a strong supporter of Israel, breaking with the rest of the world and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. 

On the other hand, his opposition to unlimited immigration and support for Southerners' defense of their heritage have put him at odds with many liberal Jews.  Most recently, his nomination of and support for Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court justice put him at odds with most of the Jews in the Senate, particularly Diane Feinstein, who led a Democratic Jewish attack casting filthy accusations against Kavanaugh in an attempt to block his approval.  This vile confrontation was basically a religious one, with Jews opposing Kavanaugh because as a Catholic Christian he opposes abortion, while Jews support access to abortion. 

I was pleased when Trump named a non-Jew, Jay Powell, to be chairman of the Fed, breaking with tradition.  But now Trump is criticizing Powell for trying to raise interest rates to a normal level.  Trump is now siding with the Jewish speculators against his own Fed chairman.  Which is the real Trump?  The one who named Powell, or the one who attacked him?  I don't know, but I want Powell to stay.


It looks like the conservative Jews who were so prevalent in previous Republican administrations -- William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, for example -- are either opposed to Trump or missing in action.  I'm sure that Trump has some Jewish friends and colleagues from his years of living and working in New York, but they are not too visible right now, except for his former lawyer Michael Cohen, and Trump would probably prefer that he had remained invisible.   

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Jews Still Crucifying Christians

In the Brett Kavanaugh Senate hearings regarding his appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, two Jews -- Diane Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal -- led the character assassination of Judge Kavanaugh.  The attack was to a certain extent religiously motivated.  As a Catholic, Judge Kavanaugh is opposed to abortion, although he has refused to say whether he would try to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The two Jewish senators are pro-choice, and want to retain the ability to have abortions, protected by Roe v. Wade.  Thus, religion is at the heart of the animosity. 

The Democratic attack on Judge Kavanaugh has been about as filthy, underhanded, and dishonest as possible.  Senator Feinstein had long advance knowledge about the allegations of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey Ford, but she didn't reveal them until the last minute.  Feinstein's goal was character assassination, which she did rather well with a thoroughly coached and prepped Blasey Ford.  No one in the media was concerned that there was no concrete evidence to back up her testimony.  She seems to have a weak personality, and it seems likely that something happened to her, and she has been mentally unable to cope with it, which may well have led to her making up a version of events that absolve her of any blame.  What was she, a 15-year old girl, doing drinking at an unsupervised party with older boys, and then going up to the bedroom?  Did she plan to lose her virginity and then lost her nerve instead?  Was the boy really Bret Kavanaugh?  Did she latch on to his name in her revised memory because he had become famous and powerful?  Has she unknowingly changed her memory to make herself less guilty in her own mind? 

While Feinstein and Blumenthal may have been the only two Jews on the Democratic side, they were joined in their cries of "Crucify him!" by their other Democratic collogues.  I guess the American public is crying "Give us Barabbas!" a different, worse nominee to the Court. 


The Democrats may win, but they have soured much of the nation on Washington.  The hatred, the emphasis on sex and filth, that the Senate displayed was disgusting, and much of the public will be disgusted.  Certainly some of it rubbed off on Kavanaugh, who will never be the same.  It will be difficult to find any decent lawyer who will be willing to risk the personal attacks that now are part of any hearing on a Supreme Court nominee.  As a result, we will get much worse candidates, men and women who are willing to face the possibility of all kinds of shame in order to get a prestigious seat on the Supreme Court.  It will lower the caliber of the Court forever.  

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Editorials on Free Press

Today hundreds of newspapers carried articles defending the free press and criticizing Trump's characterization of the press as "fake news." The New York Times ran its own editorial and excerpts from others around the country.  In quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the Times laid out the tension between politicians and the press.  Jefferson loved the press while out of office, and distrusted it while in office. 

I agree that we need a free press and that the press should be free to say pretty much whatever it wants.  However, I think that in news reporting the press should stick to the facts and not editorialize, although it is free to editorialize on its editorial page.  I think that recently the press has lost this distinction between opinion and fact.  If Trump says more people attended his inauguration than any other, they should correct him.  However, they should be more careful about not convicting him of treason before he is found guilty.  They regularly reserve judgment for ordinary cases, referring to a murderer found standing over his victim as the "alleged" murderer.  Trump has not been convicted by Mueller, but you would think he has been.

The New York Times, for example, has ceased to be the old "Gray Lady" with "all the news that's fit to print."  It has become more of a tabloid carrying sensational stories about the Trump administration.  If there is something scandalous or some evidence of stupidity, they print it over and over.   Reprinting year-old news is almost like editorializing. 

The cable TV networks are worse -- CNN and MSNBC on the Democratic side and Fox on the Republican side.  The PBS News Hour is joining the Democratic side. 


There is no doubt that Trump has justification for criticizing the media, whether he calls it "fake news" or something else.  I am inclined to call it racist news because of the predominance of Jews attacking Trump in the pro-Democratic media.  The NYT's op-ed page is almost entirely Jewish, although I think David Brooks is an excellent columnist.  I can's say the same for most of the others.  

Monday, August 13, 2018

Illegal Immigration

Today the alt-right or white power demonstration in Washington was a failure.  I thought, "What's the big deal?"  Ordinary white people don't protest.  There were huge protests when I was in college in the 1960s, but it was because boys were being drafted and sent to Vietnam.  People were protesting mainly because they did not want to risk getting killed in Vietnam in a war that was not about the survival of the United States.  Today, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are about as non-essential to the survival of the US, but because there is no draft there are no protests. And soldiers are not being killed by the thousands as they were in Vietnam. 

Today, the counter-protest against the alt-right demonstration totally dwarfed the demonstration itself, and from the video coverage it looked like there was more violence on the side of the Antifa counter-protesters, but the commentators did not talk about it.  Many of the counter-protesters had bandanas over their faces so that they could not be easily identified if they resorted to violence.  

So, the blacks, Hispanics and white hoodlums intimidated the white power protesters.  What of it?  The counter-protesters were espousing criminality.  The huge influx of aliens into the US has been illegal, in violation of immigration laws.  The laws could have been changed to eliminate all immigration restrictions, but the Congress has not done it.  So, the Democratic Party is encouraging people to break the law, so that it can develop a non-white power base.  The Democratic Party wants to destroy the America that won World War II and replace it with some Afro-Hispanic conglomeration dominated by the Jews.  Most white people do not respond to such attacks with violence.  Even in Charlottesville, it was overwhelming presence of Antifa counter-demonstrators that lit the match leading to violence. 

Trump is the first President since the 1950s to worry about illegal immigration, causing the Jews (at CNN, NBC, the New York Times, etc.) to vigorously oppose him using their domination of the media.  No wonder Trump is dismayed by "fake news"'; it's enemy propaganda squarely directed at him.  He has faults, but trying to enforce immigration law is not one of them.  It's interesting that federal courts have nullified immigration law in order to oppose Trump.  Courts refuse to enforce the law. 

Roman Empire, here we come, following you down the drain.