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. 

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.    

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. 

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.   

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.  

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.  

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.

Trump and Putin

I am not upset by the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki.  I am upset by Mueller and the media.  Mueller's decision to release the indictment of the 12 Russian spies appears to have been politically motivated to make the Putin meeting more difficult for Trump.  It's the most overt indication I have seen that Mueller is not being even-handed and unbiased.  This action seemed clearly to benefit the Democrats and to make it impossible for Trump to have the friendly summit with Putin that he wanted. 

I think it is good that Trump likes Putin and wants to form a good relationship with him.  The US and Russia still have the two most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.  It's good that they don't want to use them on each other. While everybody in Washington is saying Putin is a terrible dictator, he is not saying things like Khrushchev's, "We will bury you."  I don't think any American journalists asked any questions at the joint press conference about nuclear weapons.  If so, the media ignored them.  The entire focus was on Russian meddling in the US election, in part because of Mueller's release of the indictments.  In essence the press said, "We don't care about nuclear annihilation, we only care about election hacking." 

The thing is: Russia did hack some stuff during the election; I'm not sure what or exactly who did it.  Putin may have been personally involved, or maybe not.  We know he dislikes Hillary because Hillary had tried to remove him from office.  He probably also doesn't like Hillary because her husband, Bill, was instrumental in expanding NATO up to the very borders of Russia, which Putin saw as an existential threat.  George W. Bush carried on the expansion.  To me, the Baltic countries -- Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia -- are just a nuclear tripwire.  They are on the Russian border.  If Russia attacks them they back up to the Baltic ocean and are only a few miles wide.  NATO defense against a massive Russian invasion looks almost impossible to me.  So the only response by NATO and us "as if the attack had been on the US mainland," is nuclear.  The US will have to launch a nuclear war against Russia in response.  After a massive nuclear exchange, hundreds of millions of people will be dead on both sides.  But the press does not care about that possibility; it only cares about election hacking.  The press is willing for a hundred million people to die, if it means no more hacking.  I don't think they have their priorities right. 

Maybe Trump did let Putin off the hook as far as accusing him of hacking the election.  But does anyone really believe Putin would admit he did it?  It's pointless to try to get him to confess.  Trump was trying to form a working relationship with Putin.  The press was insisting that Trump treat the hacking as if Putin had an ugly wart on his face and Trump had to tell Putin he was so ugly that it made people sick to look at him.  The press was basically yelling at Trump to spit in Putin's face, and when he didn't they called him a coward and a traitor. 

Watching the antics of the impassioned American press at the press conference, I am sure Putin thought, "Thank goodness I don't have a free press and don't have to deal with hate-filled maniacs like this."  The American press did not cover itself with glory.   Do they really believe that nuclear war is the best response to election hacking?  People need to calm down.  

Trump's Character

Trump and Obama are almost like polar opposites.  Obama was an outstanding representative of his black race, while Trump is a pretty sad representative of his white race.  The Obama family behaved itself impeccably in the White House.  Obama presided over the government with even-tempered moderation and spoke eloquently.  Trump has been tarnished by personal scandal and speaks more like a high-schooler than a college graduate. 

One of the biggest Republican complaints about Obama is the creation of ObamaCare, but much of ObamaCare was drafted by Congress which had to haggle over how to make it work.  If the crazies in the Democratic party had not been kept in control by Obama's moderation, it would have been much worse from a Republican viewpoint.  The biggest general criticism of Obama's foreign policy was probably his failure to enforce the "red line" against the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  I support Obama's decision to work with the Russians to remove chemical weapons from Syria, rather than blow Syria to smithereens.  We could not have "won" the war in Syria, and getting Syria to dispose of almost all chemical weapons except for chlorine probably meant that there were many fewer deaths from chemical weapons than there would have been otherwise. 

I think Obama's negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, was a significant accomplishment that reduced the risk of nuclear war in the Middle East.  Trump was very foolish to abandon the agreement.  He may try to get Iranian concession on non-nuclear issues, such as support for Hamas, but he should have left the nuclear deal in place and worked to expand limits on Iran's other activities. 

On the anniversary of Charlottesville, the main Trump issue that I support is immigration and support for white people, including the non-crazies who participated in Charlottesville because they opposed removing the Confederate monuments.  The protesters against removing the monuments should not have tried to look like Nazis, but those in favor of removing the monuments, who had already won on the main issue, should not have violently opposed the marchers.  Charlottesville now has the reputation as a place where free speech is unconstitutionally opposed by violence. 

Trump is right that immigration has significantly changed the United States for the worse, at least for the former white majority.  I support his efforts to get immigration under control.  I also support his efforts to deal with Putin on a friendly basis.  Russia's economy may be weak, but its nuclear weapons arsenal is second only ours.  On the other hand, I do not support his confrontations with our traditional friends in Canada and Western Europe.  And I don't like his bull-in-a-china-shop style. He threatens and blusters, but then (thankfully) often backs down to a more reasonable position. 

I don't blame him for opposing the Mueller investigation.  The Russian collusion investigation was started to try to declare Trump's election illegitimate, and has now morphed into trying to create a basis to impeach him.  It may not be a "witch hunt" but it is a virulent personal attack on him by Democrats led by the intelligencia, Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  It is racist to a significant degree. Trump may have played the race card first, but the response has also been extremely racist, so that the current tension is due to ill will on both sides, not just Trump's.   

Trump is amazing in that he does not let the violent attacks against him deter him.  Apparently they affect him, but mainly by making him angry.  Although Trump is a poor example of what would expect as a representative of the white (formerly) ruling class, no polite, gracious member of this class could or would withstand these withering attacks.  

So far, the Democrats' case seems so weak that it seems to depend mainly on Don Junior's meeting with the Russian lawyer in Trump Tower.  This is thin gruel for an impeachment, although impeachment is really a political act rather than a legal one.  If the Democrats take over the House, and if Mueller comes up with enough other material to convince some Republicans in the Senate, impeachment is possible.  I really don't want Pence to be President, but maybe if he just took on a caretaker role until the next election, the country could survive.  Right now the 2020 election does not look pretty.  

Trump Tower Russia Meeting

The media is making a big deal of Michael Cohen's claim that Donald Trump had advance notice of the Don Junior's meeting with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.   The media talk about this meeting as if it was treasonous.  I don't think it was even improper.  What if the Russians were going to tell Trump that Hillary had given classified information to a Russian spy?  Wouldn't it make sense to see what the Russians were going to say?  If the Russians were going to offer $1 million to the Trump campaign, the Trumps could have refused it.  I don't see what's wrong with listening to what the Russians had to say as long as the Trumps did not act on any illegal proposals. 

The media's efforts to portray this meeting as treasonous are just part of the Democratic Party's effort to invalidate the election and remove Trump from the Presidency.  If it's not an illegal meeting, then it doesn't matter whether Trump had advance notice of it or not, even if he has denied he knew about it beforehand.  Therefore, Cohen's claim is irrelevant.  It just gives the press an opportunity to bring up the meeting again and slander Trump's connection to it.  It's another illustration of how partisan the press is whether it's "fake news" or not. 

Jews and Asians at Harvard

A recent report says that Harvard is discriminating against Asian applicants.  Harvard once discriminated against Jewish applicants, but I believe that Harvard has been discriminating in favor of Jewish applicants for years.  It's difficult to tell, because Jews don't allow themselves to be identified as Jews, except when they want to be.  When they are identified, it's sometimes confusing whether only religious Jews are numbered, or all ethnic Jews, a larger number.  Jews who do not want to be identified as such, identify as white.  Thus, the number of "white" students at Harvard includes many Jews, who are not identified separately.  This means that the percentage of students who are non-Jewish white is much less than the published percentage of "white" students. 

As a consequence, Harvard has become more and more a Jewish school, most recently recognized by the selection of a new Jewish president, Lawrence Bacow, whose mother was a Holocaust survivor.  Of course, he's not the first.  Larry Summers was another Jewish president of Harvard. 

The problem for Asians is that the Jews at Harvard see Asians as competitors.  Jews are not concerned about blacks and Hispanics, whom they see as inferior races easily dominated by Jews.  They probably see whites as inferior, too, but whites remain competitors because they were the original founders of the United States and of Harvard, and of many American institutions, which give whites advantages beyond what Jews may consider their strengths as a race.  Asians, however, appear to be the equals of the Jews in intelligence and industriousness.  Thus, Jews need to dominate prestigious schools like Harvard to help maintain their position in America.  

Of course, it's not only at universities that Jews (and others) see Asians as competitors.  This Bloomberg article reports how Asians are systematically excluded from corporate executive suites. 

It would be interesting if the suit against Harvard by Asians brought out any information about Jews at Harvard, but it is unlikely to do so.  If anything, they will manage to get themselves lumped in with "white" students, so that "whites" will take the blame for any discrimination against Asians.

Fareed Zakaria's June 28 Washington Post column, "Meritocracy is under attack," took on the issue of discriminating against Asians, since he is an example of an Asian who went to Harvard.  He points out that until the 1950s, the US was run by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants or WASPs.  The WASPs were removed from power by the concept of a meritocracy that was created by the educational system.  Fareed, of course, as a South Asian, was a beneficiary of this system.  Who created the system?  I think it was largely Jews who were bettering their place in American society.  However, having gained preeminence, they do not plan to give it up, and thus are discriminating against the new rising meritocracy: Asians.  

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. 

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: 

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/04/05/the-special-jewish-role-in-passage-of-the-1965-immigration-law-a-reply-to-abraham-miller/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/04/11/letter-to-the-wall-street-journal-re-jewish-involvement-in-immigration-policy/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jewish-organizations-had-a-role-in-1965-act-1523374146?shareToken=st865514f3f7364f72b58af8a53dd9e481&reflink=article_email_share

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. 

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.  

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

https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/end-of-history-and-the-last-man/id382680801?mt=11

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 CollegeFacutal.com, 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: 

Group	Percent of Undergraduates
White	45.1%
Asian	16.6%
Non-Resident Alien	11.9%
Hispanic/Latino	10.1%
Black or African American	6.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.3%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.1%
Ethnicity Unknown	9.8%

From <https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/student-life/diversity/chart-ethnic-diversity.html>

And

Group	Percent of Faculty
White	69.2%
Non-Resident Alien	9.1%
Asian	7.6%
Hispanic/Latino	6.5%
Black or African American	6.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.2%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0.1%
Ethnicity Unknown	1.3%

From <https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/student-life/diversity/chart-faculty-ethnic-diversity.html>

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. 

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.  

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/global-commons/1993-12-01/if-not-civilizations-what-samuel-huntington-responds-his-critics

AMERICA UNDONE?
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

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-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.

Cohn & Kushner

Stock futures predicted the stock market would go down today, which It did for a while, because of Gary Cohn's resignation from the Trump White House.  This indicated to me that the Jews who run the US financial industry were alarmed and disappointed that he was leaving.  However the market recovered towards the end of the day, perhaps indicating that they were not too alarmed, or that Jews are not as dominant on Wall Street as I think they are. 

In addition, most of the people that the New York Times reports as corrupting Jared Kushner in the White House are Jews, although the man from Citibank that he was talking to was not. 

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/02/us/ap-us-kushner-meetings-loans.html

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/02/us/ap-us-kushner-meetings-loans.html

https://www.axios.com/the-ny-times-kushner-story-1520017569-aa1880f2-6086-418e-90e2-d51ba7e6307d.html

I have also thought that Jewish financiers are upset because the new chair of the Fed, Powell, is not Jewish.  They wanted a second term for Janet Yellen.  The stock market went down on Powell's first day as chair and again when he testified before Congress, but it has bounced back.  A commentator on CNBC said that Powell would nit be as friendly to investors as Bernanke and Yellen were..  

I can't figure out Trump's relationship with the Jewish community.  They seem not to trust him, but he seems not concerned about any united Jewish influence.  He can take it or leave it.  He clearly is comfortable with Jews, since his daughter has converted to Judaism and his Jewish son-in-law is one of his closest advisers. 

So far, I have not heard any Jewish names in the running to replace Cohn, but we shall see. 

Jews Versus Gentile Fed Chief?

In retaliation against Trump's selection of a gentile, Jerome Powell, as the new chair of the Federal Reserve to replace Janet Yellen, a Jew, the Jews who control American financial markets may have driven the stock market down thousands of points.  I don't know how they did it, but it shows the control that Jews hold over the financial system.  It may not have been consciously planned, but there was a concerted reaction to the fear that the Jewish sugar daddies and mamas at the Fed who had taken care of the Jews on Wall Street for 50 years were going away. This could be a valid fear.  Jews are clearly superior at finance; a gentile may be stupider or more incompetent, and therefore more likely to let the economy get away from him. 

On the other hand, the policies pursued by the Fed for the last ten years have been very beneficial to wealthy financiers.  Trump has Mnuchin and Cohn to protect Jewish financial interests, but Jewish investors may feel like they need a Jew in charge of the Fed to protect their interests. 

The Jews believed that they were going to take over control of the American political system with the election of Hillary Clinton.  Although Clinton is not Jewish, she was the perfect front person for them, and pretty much guaranteed to look out for Jewish interests, since Jews had been some of her biggest campaign supporters.  She would no doubt have had prominent Jews in her cabinet and her White House staff, who would look out for Jewish interests as Jack Lew, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and others did in the Obama administration, and Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Robert Reich, and other did in the Clinton administration. 

Of course, it's possible that the market crash on Powell's first day was just coincidence, but it's very suspicious.  It now looks like the crash is over and the market is recovering, but time will tell.  If the market keeps going up, then maybe there is nothing to the short term crash.  However, something triggered a sell-off after the stock market had been going almost straight up for about ten years.  Powell could just be unlucky, or there could be some racial component to the stock market mini-crash.