Thursday, May 24, 2018

Trump Campaign Informant

I can't get excited about protecting the source who reported on Trump's campaign.  His name has been revealed by the Washington Post as Stefan A. Halper.  I don't know who revealed it first, but it has now been published by liberal media like the Washington Post who earlier were claiming that it would be the end of the world if the name was revealed. 

We still have to figure out the impact of this spying on the 2016 election.  Looking at two or three Trump campaign hangers-on to see if they were Russian agents didn't affect the election, as Russian media meddling may have.  It does raise the odd issue that the President does not have to get a security clearance like any other government official who has access to classified information.  The voters give the President his security clearance, although at the beginning of his adminsitration, there seemed to be some reluctance by the intelligence community to give Trump an unlimited briefing on the most sensitive intelligence. 

If the FBI had found through their spy that Trump was actually working in cooperation with the Russians, what would the FBI have done?  Presumably it would have publicized this fact, as it did Hillary Clinton's email investigation.  The American people can elect someone who favors a Russian alliance or a Communist government if they want to.  Should the FBI arrest Donald Trump because they think his politics are too favorable to Russia?  Isn't a Communist allowed to run for President?  Should we prohibit someone from running for President simply because he likes Vladimir Putin? 

The FBI and CIA were probably justified in trying to find out whether Trump was a stalking horse for Putin, but that would not justify their arresting him or killing him.  In fact, the proper way for America to handle this situation would have been for the media -- newspapers, TV networks, and on-line channels -- to investigate and publicize Trump's connections to Russia, rather than organs of the US government.  Trump is right to be outraged that Obama's government treated him as if he were a traitor.  The only remedy for a treasonous President is impeachment. 

The whole Russia connection brouhaha is a charade to cover up the fact that the Democratic Party ran the worst political campaign in recorded history in 2016.  First, the Democrats pushed out Joe Biden by choosing Hillary Clinton while Biden was mourning the death of his son, displaying despicable callousness and disrespect for him.  Then they ran a fecklsss campaign with no message and no enthusiasm, in essence saying Democrats rule this country by divine right; we don't have to campaign. 

Monday, April 30, 2018

Charolottesville Slogan

A Wall Street Journal op-ed examines "The Theory Behind That Charlottesville Slogan." Some Jews have been trying to destroy Christianity for 2,000 years.  Obviously Jews are no more a monolithic culture than any other ethnic group.  While most Jews are Democrats: Jewish senators, and donors like Donald Sussman, George Soros, Haim Saban.  During the George W. Bush administration, the war on Iraq was led by Jews: Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith, and others.  In the 2016 election, most of the wealthy Jewish donors supported Hillary, while a Jewish politician, Bernie Sanders, was her principal opponent.  Sheldon Adelson was one of the few wealthy Jews who supported Trump.  While Jews support both parties, the  Jerusalem Post says Jewish donors contribute 50% of all funds received by the Democratic Party, and only 25% of all funds received by the Republican Party.  The Democratic Party is the immigrant party, both of recent immigrants, like Jews, and of future immigrants, like Hispanics.  Jews support policies that will displace the white European middle class as the majority ethnic group in the US, a position it has held for almost 250 years.  People forget that the United States was founded by British colonists who rebelled against the King, and it remained very British until the mid-1900s. 

Non-British immigrants did not start arriving in America until the late 1800s and even then not in such large numbers that it changed the ethnic make-up significantly.  Most of these immigrants came from western and northern Europe.  Jewish immigrants did not start arriving in great numbers until the 1930s as Hitler began his rise to power in Germany and contined into the 1970s and 80s when the Jackson-Vanik amendment facilitated Jewish emigration from Russia.  The amendment was responsible for bringing almost 600,000 Russian Jews to the US, more than doubling the population of Russian Jews in the US, while also facilitating the emigration of about 1 million Russian Jews to Israel. 

Even before this influx, Jews were leaders in the fight to restrict immigration quotas and remove other restrictions which might be detrimental to Jewish immigration and their success in the US.  Henry Ford's collection of essays, The International Jew, describes in detail the efforts of Jewish groups to remove any trace of Christianity from official American life. 

The professor who was attacked in the Wall Street Journal article, Kevin McDonald, has posted several replies: 

In these replies, McDonald points out the role that Jewish organizations have played in resisting limitations on immigration.  Just a few of these lobbying and public persuasion organizations include:  the JDL, ADL, B'nai B'rith, World Jewish Conference, AIPAC, J-Street, and the AJC.  Henry Ford spent a whole chapter discussing the Kehilliah, which apparently was sort of like a Jewish Sharia law court and/or municipal administration, but as far as I know, the Kehilliah has pretty much disappeared or has been subsumed into the activities of the other organizations.    In the WSJ article, Abraham Miller points out that most of  the principal authors of the 1965 immigration act which opened the US to universal immigration were not Jewish.  However, that overlooks the decades of Jewish work to open the US to universal immigration with no racial  or country of origin restrictions.  Jews had lobbied Congress for years, and no doubt made financial contributions to further their goal.  They had worked for years to make white people feel guilty about being a majority of the US population, and created a movement to destroy that majority status.  The 1965 law played on this guilt. 

Ironically the Bible's Old Testament and the Torah say that Jews are God's chosen people, and many or most Jews believe this.  Thus, they have a religious justification for believing that Jews are a superior race to all other races -- whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, whatever.  So, they have a public, propaganda line, that everyone is equal, and an internal Jewish belief, that Jews are superior to everyone else.  Jews probably perceive whites and Asians as the biggest threat to Jewish domination of the United States, and thus are motivated to increase the numbers and power of blacks and Hispanice, whom they believe they can manipulate to support Jewish domination.   That is the real reasoning behind the Charlottesville chant: "Jews will not replace us."  Jews are on a mission to replace whites as the dominate power in the US.  The 1965 immigration act is just one example of that. 

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Brooks on the Intellectual Right

In today's NYT, David Brooks commends the Republican Party for an intellectual rebirth, and lists several authors.  However, the only new book he discusses is "Suicide of the West" by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review.  According to Brooks, the book deals with the modern application of John Locke's ideas about the relationship between the individual and society. 

Brooks Is good about discussing new books and new ideas, but it seems like they are almost always by other Jewish writers, like Goldberg.  Wikipedia says Goldberg's mother is Episcopalian, but that he was raised Jewish, like his father.  It seems from reading Brooks that he thinks the only people doing good, original thinking in the US today are Jews.  This could be true; Jews dominate the American literary world on both the left and the right, although it may turn out that there are some good non-Jewish writers today who are not recognized because all of the critics are Jewish.  In addition to Jewish writers, there is a strong movement to recognize minority writers, especially blacks and Muslims, just because of their race.    

Goldberg's book deals with John Locke, who was not Jewish.  While Locke was writing what turned out to be revolutionary ideas that motivated the British colonies in America to rebel against the King, Jews in central Europe were writing revolutionary ideas about overthrowing their rulers.  It did take a little longer, but their writings, especially Karl Marx's, led to the overthrow of the Tsar and the creation of the Soviet Union. 

Many of the Jews who came to America in the early 1900s were rabid Communists, who were advocating that the US become Communist.  Interestingly one of them was William Browder's grandfather, who was the head of the Communist Party in America.  William Browder is an American financier who made billions playing the Russian economy after the fall of the Soviet Union, until he crossed Vladimir Putin, who cut him off.  In retribution, Browder pushed the US Government to impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs who remained close to Putin, thus extracting his financial revenge.  Thus, US sanctions on Russia are to a significant extent a weapon in a slugging match between billionaire Jews.  After the American government did Browder's bidding, he renounced his American citizenship and became a British citizen.  Browder was the author of the Magnitsky Act, which was the subject of the famous pre-election meeting in Trump Tower between Donald Trump's sons and a Russian lawyer.  William Browder may succeed where his grandfather failed -- in bringing down the United States Government.   

But I digress.  If the United States must choose between Locke and Marx, I choose Locke.  Locke was a member of my tribe, as were the Founding Fathers in the British colonies who embodied his ideas in the new government of what became the United States. At the moment, the ship of state based on these ideas is listing badly.  

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Race and Self-Esteem

The following quotation from Francis Fukuyama sheds some light on the disputes going on about racial equality and Confederate statues. 

“But in addition, human beings seek recognition of their own worth, or of the people, things, or principles that they invest with worth. The propensity to invest the self with a certain value, and to demand recognition for that value, is what in today’s popular language we would call “self-esteem.” The propensity to feel self-esteem arises out of the part of the soul called thymos. It is like an innate human sense of justice. People believe that they have a certain worth, and when other people treat them as though they are worth less than that, they experience the emotion of anger. Conversely, when people fail to live up to their own sense of worth, they feel shame, and when they are evaluated correctly in proportion to their worth, they feel pride”
Excerpt From
End of History and the Last Man
Francis Fukuyama
This material may be protected by copyright.

Jewish Holocaust Worries

Following up on  my last post about how Jews refused to be counted as Jews by any non-Jewish organization, I understand why Jews may be worried.  Nazi Germany made Jews wear stars of David to identify themselves.  They certainly don't want to go through that again, with good reason.  However, if they are so worried about being identified as Jews, they should shut up about calling everybody else "anti-Semitic."  You can't object to other people classifying you as Semitic, if you yourself classified yourself as Semitic.  In addition, Jews are among the worst at classifying and criticizing other racial groups, in particular Southern white men.  If Southern white men are fair game for Jews, then Jews should be fair game for Southern white men.  Better would be to get off this racist kick altogether. 

I'm sure, people will say, "What about Charlottesville, with white men chanting, 'Jews will not replace us'?"  My answer is that the Jews and the blacks started the problem by proposing to tear down the Confederate monuments.  Charlottesville mayor Signer was Jewish, and the police chief, who should have maintained order, was black.  Basically, the Jews and blacks said to the whites, "We hate your white ancestors."  The white men did not initiate the hatred, although they did react to it. 

Jews Claim to Be White and Semitic

Jews frequently shout "Anti-Semitism" when anybody says anything critical of them; however, when organizations label their population or membership, Jews claim to be white.  They oppose adding "Jewish" as a racial category anywhere.  As a result, if you look at population figures, it is difficult to figure out what the Jewish population is.  You frequently see estimates of 2% or 3%, but is it?  Is Jewishness a race or a religion or both?  For population figures, it has to be a race, rather than a religion, unless you are specifically counting members of religions.  In general, people think of white people as European.  Jews have lived in central and eastern Europe for a thousand years; yet, they have refused to assimilate and have remained, by their own declarations, Middle Eastern Semites.  They insist that they are not European.  And thus, I believe they insist that they are not "white." 

I began thinking about this when looking at diversity statistics for elite universities.  These days diversity is everything, and Harvard claims to be one of the most politically correct, diverse universities in existence.  According to, Harvard is one of the most diverse universities.  It ranks 11th out of 2,475.  Here are two of the charts from CollegeFactual, one for undergraduates and one for faculty: 

Percent of Undergraduates
Non-Resident Alien
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Ethnicity Unknown

From <>


Percent of Faculty
Non-Resident Alien
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Ethnicity Unknown

From <>

Note that neither chart has a group called "Jewish" or "Semitic."  Therefore, Harvard has clearly labeled Jewish students and faculty as "white"  On the other hand, the Jewish organization Hillel says 12% of the undergraduate population is Jewish, and 67% of the graduate students are Jewish.  If a total of 12% of all undergrad Harvard students are Jewish, then about 27% of the total "white" students are Jewish, and only about 33% of all Harvard students are whites of European ancestry, as opposed to Semitic ancestry.  If Jews make up only 2% or 3% of the US population, then Jews are overrepresented at Harvard by several hundred percent, and European whites, who make up about half of the US population are seriously underrepresented.  No one really knows, because Jews refuse to be counted as Jews; therefore, they can be Jews when they want to be, and whites when they want to be.  It's dishonest and cruel, but that's what Harvard stands for and teaches. 

Because Jews refuse to be identified as Jews except in Jewish circles (e.g., the Hillel statistics), this same technique is used everywhere.  The US Census may ask about immigration status and whether someone is black or white, but it will not ask if someone is Jewish.  Jews won't allow it. 

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Samuel Huntington on Multiculturalism in Ameria

The following is from Samuel Huntington's 1993 essay in Foreign Affairs in reply to criticism of his 1991 essay.

One function of a paradigm is to highlight what is important (e.g., the potential for escalation in clashes between groups from different civilizations); another is to place familiar phenomena in a new perspective. In this respect, the civilizational paradigm may have implications for the United States. Countries like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia that bestride civilizational fault lines tend to come apart. The unity of the United States has historically rested on the twin bedrocks of European culture and political democracy. These have been essentials of America to which generations of immigrants have assimilated. The essence of the American creed has been equal rights for the individual, and historically immigrant and outcast groups have invoked and thereby reinvigorated the principles of the creed in their struggles for equal treatment in American society. The most notable and successful effort was the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1950s and 1960s. Subsequently, however, the demand shifted from equal rights for individuals to special rights (affirmative action and similar measures) for blacks and other groups. Such claims run directly counter to the underlying principles that have been the basis of American political unity; they reject the idea of a "color-blind" society of equal individuals and instead promote a "color-conscious" society with government-sanctioned privileges for some groups. In a parallel movement, intellectuals and politicians began to push the ideology of "multiculturalism," and to insist on the rewriting of American political, social, and literary history from the viewpoint of non-European groups. At the extreme, this movement tends to elevate obscure leaders of minority groups to a level of importance equal to that of the Founding Fathers. Both the demands for special group rights and for multiculturalism encourage a clash of civilizations within the United States and encourage what Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., terms "the disuniting of America."
The United States is becoming increasingly diverse ethnically and racially. The Census Bureau estimates that by 2050 the American population will be 23 percent Hispanic, 16 percent black and 10 percent Asian-American. In the past the United States has successfully absorbed millions of immigrants from scores of countries because they adapted to the prevailing European culture and enthusiastically embraced the American Creed of liberty, equality, individualism, democracy. Will this pattern continue to prevail as 50 percent of the population becomes Hispanic or nonwhite? Will the new immigrants be assimilated into the hitherto dominant European culture of the United States? If they are not, if the United States becomes truly multicultural and pervaded with an internal clash of civilizations, will it survive as a liberal democracy? The political identity of the United States is rooted in the principles articulated in its founding documents. Will the de-Westernization of the United States, if it occurs, also mean its de-Americanization? If it does and Americans cease to adhere to their liberal democratic and European-rooted political ideology, the United States as we have known it will cease to exist and will follow the other ideologically defined superpower onto the ash heap of history.
What follows next is from a Brookings Institution study:

The U.S. will become “minority white” in 2045, Census projects
New census population projections confirm the importance of racial minorities as the primary demographic engine of the nation’s future growth, countering an aging, slow-growing and soon to be declining white population. The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations....
Among the minority populations, the greatest growth is projected for multiracial populations, Asians and Hispanics with 2018–2060 growth rates of 175, 93, and 85 percent, respectively. The projected growth rate for blacks is 34 percent.* The demographic source of growth varies across groups. For example, immigration contributes to one-third of Hispanic growth over this time span, with the rest attributable to natural increase (the excess of births over deaths). Among Asians, immigration contributes to three quarters of the projected growth.