Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label The Atlantic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Atlantic. Show all posts

Friday, April 6, 2018

The Left Is Driving A Revolution Which Will Wipe Them Out

'The Atlantic' Fires Kevin Williamson. This Is How You Got Trump. Really.

Screenshot: ABC Video
So, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic has now fired former National Review columnist Kevin Williamson. The reason, supposedly, was that Williamson had written a tweet years ago suggesting the death penalty as a punishment for abortion; he also appeared on a podcast wherein he discussed the idea. But Williamson’s tweet was widely distributed on Twitter for years. In other words, this wasn’t anything new. Goldberg merely caved to public pressure from the Left.
In firing Williamson, Goldberg — a pawn of the Obama administration who acted as their front man for selling a series of egregious lies to the American public about the Iran deal — stated that Williamson’s talent as a writer wasn’t enough to save him: “The language he used in this podcast — and in my conversations with him in recent days — made it clear that the original tweet did, in fact, represent his carefully considered views.” So, just to be straight, Williamson’s recommendation of the death penalty for abortion is unacceptable (I disagree with it, of course, as I’ve stated many times), but the Left is fine with abortion-on-demand and eugenic abortion targeting Down Syndrome babies. And The Atlantic is totally fine with Ta-Nehisi Coates, who wrote that 9/11 first responders were “not human to me,” but Williamson is unacceptable.
Here’s why this matters.
The Left’s attempts to shrink the Overton Window — the spectrum of acceptable discourse — will result in the utter polarization of politics in the worst possible ways. In fact, it already has.
First, the Left separates discourse into two categories: the acceptable and the unacceptable. Not three — the acceptable, the unacceptable, and that with which they disagree. Two. You are either acceptable or unacceptable.
Next, the Left shrinks the acceptable down to the opinions located between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. If you are to the right of David Frum, you are unacceptable; you are, in fact, deplorable. This label extends to everyone from Williamson to Bari Weiss (who is not a conservative) to Sam Harris (who sins by looking at data) to Bret Weinstein (a liberal professor) to me. If you’re not within the ambit of acceptable opinion, you are cast out.
This necessarily means that a broad spectrum of people with controversial, interesting, but non-bigoted opinions are now lumped in with actual bigots. This leaves those who are lumped into the unacceptable category alongside truly awful people like the trolls of the alt-right with a choice: they can either resist by attempting to draw distinctions with those awful people, or they can make common cause with those awful people — people they’d disdain under any other circumstances — to take on the Left. This is why so many on the Right were relatively unperturbed by President Trump winking at the alt-right, for example. They rightly saw the Left as unleashing a war on their very existence (after all, even people like Kevin Williamson, a man who termed Trump’s sons “Uday and Qusai,” are now unacceptable to the Left). And these right-wingers were willing (wrongly) to make common cause with truly bad human beings in order to fight back in that war; in a war, you take the allies you can get.
Now, the Left has counted on the virtue of conservatives to keep them from making common cause with truly garbage people. And that’s worked for a certain segment of conservatives, who have maintained the evils of the alt-right whether or not they supported Trump, for example. But counting on the virtue of people you’ve just deemed unacceptable not to band together against you is both stupid and unrealistic over time. This is how reactionary movements are born: you tell people they’re evil even when they’re not. You lump them in with other evil people, and then dare them to make alliances with the actual evil people.
What The Atlantic just did to Williamson — and other moves like it — lead conservatives to side with anyone the Left casts out, good or bad, merely as a form of protection. That shouldn’t happen. But it does. And the Left causes such reactionary politics with its censorship and slander.

Friday, January 12, 2018

Obama Did The Same As Trump. Truth Hurts


FLASHBACK: Obama called this African nation a “sh*t show”


by Stephen Dietrich, Associate Publisher
President Donald Trump allegedly referred to some poor African nations as “sh*tholes” on Thursday — and in response, the mainstream media has whipped itself into a frenzy.
“Unpresidential!” cable news hosts have cried. “Racist,” “bigoted,” “impeachable!” liberal journalists have screamed.

So, where was this hysterical outrage when former President Barack Obama referred to one third-world African nation as a “sh*t show”?
Talking to The Atlantic in 2016, Obama talked about the degrading situation in Libya and blamed U.S. allies for the sad state of affairs.
Obama called Libya a “mess” — and later explained that he specifically meant it had become a “sh*t show” that was too caught up in African tribalism for their own good.
“Mess is the president’s diplomatic term; privately, he calls Libya a ‘shit show,’ in part because it’s subsequently become an ISIS haven — one that he has already targeted with air strikes,” Jeffrey Goldberg reported in the Apr. 2016 edition of Atlantic Magazine. “It became a shit show, Obama believes, for reasons that had less to do with American incompetence than with the passivity of America’s allies and with the obdurate power of tribalism.”

This wasn’t some obscure statement that we’ve cherry-picked, either.
This was The Atlantic’s cover story for the month, and was widely covered in the British press and some American outletsbecause Obama placed the blame squarely at the feet of the United Kingdom’s former Prime Minister David Cameron. That very same month, The Horn News reported that Obama’s actions in Libya had led to the rebirth of the African slave trade.
So… where was the outrage? Where was the angry accusations of racism because Obama had turned a blind eye to the enslavement of thousands of Africans? Where was the media’s fury that he’d dismissed a country where the African slave trade was flourishing as nothing but a “sh*t show” and that he blamed both American allies and African “tribalism” for the problem?
I’ll give you a hint: There was no outrage. Zero. None.

The silence from the left on Obama’s comments was deafening — and the media’s uneven response is undeniable proof that they’ve lost all credibility.
Imagine if Trump did the same? For just a moment, envision the response if Trump publicly blamed our allies and African tribalism for the rebirth of the black slave trade in a “sh*t show” of a country?
There’d be riots in the streets!
Democrats have stoked the flames of anger against Trump, too.

For example, Rep. Elijah Cummings tweeted —

I condemn this unforgivable statement and this demeaning of the office of the Presidency. I will always fight for the vulnerable among us and against bigotry in all its forms. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/951568993458053121 …

So lets be fair. How did Cummings react to Obama calling a third-world country a “sh*t show” on Twitter?
How convenient.
— Stephen Dietrich is the Associate Publisher of The Horn News.

Monday, August 21, 2017

This Professor Has Spent Too Much Time Howling At The Moon!


Law School Professor Pens Essay Explaining How Eclipse Is “Racist”


 Print
Advertisement - story continues below
Are you looking forward to Monday’s solar eclipse — the first full eclipse to hit the United States in decades? You filthy, filthy racist.
That’s at least the take of Brooklyn Law School professor Alice Ristroph, who used a staggering 4,544 words in The Atlantic to explaining why the phenomenon of the moon blocking the sun just wasn’t diverse enough for her tastes.
“On August 21, 2017, a total solar eclipse will arrive mid-morning on the coast of Oregon,” Ristroph writes. “The moon’s shadow will be about 70 miles wide, and it will race across the country faster than the speed of sound, exiting the eastern seaboard shortly before 3 p.m. local time. It has been dubbed the Great American Eclipse, and along most of its path, there live almost no black people.”
Advertisement - story continues below
Yeah, really.
The movements of the firmament are indeed unconcerned with white privilege, although one would imagine Ristroph would be aware of this. To be fair, Ristroph does note that, “(p)resumably, this is not explained by the implicit bias of the solar system. It is a matter of population density, and more specifically geographic variations in population density by race, for which the sun and the moon cannot be held responsible.
“Still, an eclipse chaser is always tempted to believe that the skies are relaying a message,” Ristroph said.
Advertisement - story continues below
Among some of the problematic exclusions the eclipse will alight upon: Oregon, a blue state which had “a provision in the original state constitution of 1857 that prohibited any ‘free Negro or Mulatto’ from entering and residing in the state”; Wyoming and Idaho, which don’t have many minorities and most of those are “Latino, American Indian, and Alaskan”; rural Illinois, where the KKK used to be very active; Leavenworth, Kansas, where “the percentage of blacks among all federal prisoners is close to 40 percent” (all innocent, of course); Missouri, home of the Missouri Compromise, and the Deep South, which… well, do you really need to ask?
While not a particularly difficult article to understand, the overarching argument Ristroph makes is about as coherent as a Pynchon novel is to a second-grader. (For its medium, it’s also about as long, although nowhere near as well-written.) Nearest I can understand it, it’s basically that the Electoral College and two senators per state is a very, very bad thing that disenfranchises African-Americans and stuff. That doesn’t have an awful lot to do with the sun and moon, but people got tired of hearing liberal whingebags rant about the Senate and Electoral College by last December, so I’m guessing leaning on the eclipse for a news peg was the only way she could get her missive published.
“The shadow of the moon doesn’t care where it falls or who lives below. And in certain respects, the federal government designed in our Constitution doesn’t care where people live, either,” Ristroph says.
That’s a bad thing, to Ristroph, because it gives states certain rights — but “the equal power of states was enshrined at a time when states served white people, and never since have states’ rights been a particularly effective mechanism for racial equality.” Let me here point out that Ristroph teaches in the state of New York but apparently feels that state’s autonomy doesn’t allow it the capacity to be sufficiently liberal on issues of race. I’ll leave that one out there for summary judgement.
Advertisement - story continues below
“But perhaps the strange path of the eclipse suggests a need for reorganization,” Ristroph concludes. “We have figured out, more or less, how to count every person. We have not yet found a political system in which every person counts equally.”
This, of course, isn’t the point of a large federal republic that has to balance state and federal interests, and Ristroph’s arguments that this is all set up deliberately to disenfranchise African-Americans are weak — when they even exist at all. Nowhere in her screed does it explain why nobody complained the Electoral College was racist when Barack Obama won it twice or how the Senate was racist when Democrats were in control of it. Don’t bother looking for it.
However, it’s refreshing to see someone vociferate 4,500 words on how a solar eclipse proves the Constitution is racist. I look forward to future missives about how the Mitsubishi Eclipse is emblematic of white privilege, how Eclipse Gum proves that Michael Brown was murdered, and how “Total Eclipse of the Heart” demonstrates how Russians hacked our voting machines. Bonnie Tyler? More like Bonishka Tylerova!
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that Ristroph’s article is bunk.
What are your thoughts on this professor's article? 

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Israel Has A Problem Jewish Infighting

Rethinking Israel-World Jewry Relations

By July 19, 2017


BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 534, July 19, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Much is being written against the ultra-orthodox fiat over prayer and conversion in Israel, emphasizing the potential consequences if the US “diaspora” were to take offense and become irreversibly alienated. But the US is not Israel’s periphery. American Jewry is not Israel’s diaspora, and no Jew in the US lives in exile. Israel must adapt to modern times – in faith, as it does in technology – first and foremost, for the sake of its own citizenry. It must take a firm, fair, and inclusive position on who is and is not a Jew, who is and is not an Israeli, and how the two attributes can reconcile in a modern pluralistic democracy.
Religion in enlightened democracies should not fall within the state’s purview. It is not a privilege granted, withheld, or withdrawn by some self-arrogating moral authority. Religion is a basic human right, the tenor, tone, and boundaries of which acquire form in the strictest intimacy between individual and deity. What the state says you are, because you ticked a box, does not say who you really are.
In his “Defining ‘Evangelical’” (The Atlantic, December 7, 2015), Jonathan Merritt reported that the meaning of a religious identification in the US differed depending on whom you asked. It would therefore not be wrong to conclude that “evangelicals comprise between 7-47% of the US population.”
According to “A Portrait of Jewish Americans” (Pew Report, October 1, 2013), data typifying the religious vs. secular affiliation of US Jewry have shifted from generation to generation. In 2013, 78% of the responding adult US Jews said they were Jewish by religion, but steady annual increases in the yearly figure of Jews self-identifying as non-religious continue to occur at the expense of Jews self-identifying as religious. Also, age groups correlate differently. In 2013, non-religious Jews born between 1914 and 1927 made up 7% of the respondents sampled; 14% were from the 1928-1945 cohort; 19% from those born between 1946-1964; 26% from the 1965-1980 group; and 32% of those born after 1980.  In 2013, 55% of US Jews who self-identified as religious said “ancestry & culture” were causal. The corresponding figure for Jews registering as non-religious was 83%.
In ways reminiscent of Weimar Europe, many cultivated, well-off, well-connected Western Jews, almost all of them assimilated, continue to distance themselves and their families from religion. They do this through intermarriage; self-imposed “ethical duties” vis-à-vis “mixed” offspring; or in reaction to the moral/material impositions of strict rules of orthodox religious observance.
When anti-Semitic peaks fuel fears, those most targeted, and those who in consequence elect to migrate to Israel, more often than not are Jews identifiable by garb, not those with the highest prestige in their societies. The most severely affected tend to belong to the socioeconomically suboptimal and ethno-politically over-vulnerable strata in their country of origin. If they or their offspring have planted roots in the land of their birth (through intermarriage, mores, culture, fatalism, convenience, addiction, language, whatnot), they may in the last recourse migrate to Israel, where they would hope to be taken care of once they master the Hebrew they parrot to pray. In contrast, non-religious Israeli sabras, unable or unwilling to adapt to strict orthodoxy, may choose to move abroad, with diploma in hand or adventure in mind.
These counter-directional flows produce mixed results: a contingent abroad populated by estranged Israeli expatriates; but also a contingent inhabited by indigenous Jews unable or unwilling to leave their countries, much less to settle in Israel. Israel, an increasingly conservative orthodox dominion, thus self-reinforces and expands by default, owing to the influx of less skilled, more religious new citizens with good reason to pray. Put differently, whereas immigration provides positive feedback for religiosity in Israel; emigration by default deepens and broadens that effect by inadvertently relieving the country of non-religious “misfits”.
If this scenario were allowed to dominate, Israel could become increasingly orthodox in mentality and practice. Faraway lands would continue to be havens for “liberal” Israeli exiles, if not so for the lesser endowed, lesser skilled, more religious, indigenous Jews, who live in the lowest but also the highest quintiles of their societies.
What to do? Create an internal environment that integrates a sense of belonging, and an external environment that fosters migrating or returning out of affectionate self-identification. Bonds of solidarity between these two spheres must be compassionately reinforced. There do exist ministries for that, after all.
Jose V. Ciprut is an industrial marketing development engineer by training and profession and a scholar specializing in social systems science and comparative international political economics.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

How Long Will It Take Before The US Has A Coup? Deep State Going Crazy!

DEEP STATE PUSHES COUP AGAINST TRUMP OVER COMEY FIRING

Foreign Policy once again promotes COG rhetoric

3
0
The shadow government is once again pushing its months-old agenda to overthrow Trump, this time using Tuesday’s firing of FBI Director James Comey as the casus belli.
Not long after the news broke that Comey was sacked, a nasty article appeared in Foreign Policy – a premiere globalist mouthpiece – demanding the removal of Trump from office, and “the sooner the better” because America is a “failing state.”
“It will require a bipartisan commitment to truth and justice,” Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf wrote. “Ultimately, and the sooner the better, it will require our system and people to reject Trump and those surrounding him — who have already done so much to disgrace the offices they hold and undermine America’s standing in the world.”
The article is heavily biased even for Foreign Policy’s standards – Rothkopf calls Trump a “tin-pot leader” who displays a “deeply worrisome” pattern of behavior.
Ironically, he also claims Trump is now acting “more brazenly and desperately,” which actually aptly describes the anti-Trump articles coming out of Foreign Policy and other globalist-oriented magazines as of late.
But what’s really significant in the article is Rothkopf describing the U.S. under Trump as a “failing state,” which in itself sounds like hyperventilating rhetoric except for the fact that the deep state is trying to use a “continuity of government” (COG) mechanism already in place to overthrow the entire Trump administration.
To do that, the globalists need to convince the public the US is a “failing state.”
As Infowars’ Clifford Cunningham reported on May 5, Congress was already holding secret meetings about removing Trump from office.
Interestingly, he based his report on an article by the New Yorker, which, like Foreign Policy, cheerleads the policies designed by the upper echelons of establishment power.
“Nobody occupies the White House without criticism, but Trump is besieged by doubts of a different order, centering on the overt, specific, and, at times, bipartisan discussion of whether he will be engulfed by any one of myriad problems before he has completed even one term in office—and, if he is, how he might be removed,” wrote the New Yorker’s Evan Osnos.
And as I reported in March, The Atlantic, another globalist magazine, was also trying to publicly sell the idea of a coup against Trump using COG measures.
“…If the election had been stolen, Pence’s place as president would be no more legitimate than that of Trump,” wrote The Atlantic’s Norm Ornstein. “After Pence — Paul Ryan, the speaker, followed by Orrin Hatch, the president pro tem, followed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.”
“If voters’ collective desires were subverted by foreign interference and a party’s collusion, none would have a legitimate claim — especially since the control of the Senate, at least, would have been affected by the Russian role.”
Of course the article failed to mention Hillary Clinton’s deep ties to Russia – the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal giving Putin 20% of US uranium production, according to the N.Y. Times – but that doesn’t matter because the Trump/Russia conspiracy is a fake narrative used to delegitimize Trump because the deep state’s presidential pick, Hillary Clinton, fell short of the presidency.
The ruling elite can’t fully control Trump like they could have with Clinton, and that scares them.