The Genocidal Elite, Part III: The Trail of ‘White Tears’ By Mytheos Holt

https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/16/the-genocidal-elite-part

Sarah Jeong and her defenders in the media truly have given America a gift. Where once it was only dark speculation that media elites, at best, are ambivalent toward openly genocidal and bigoted statements about white Americans, now we are certain that these sentiments exist.

We know, too, that the most common defense of these sentiments—that they cannot possibly lead to any sort of bad situation, because the privilege of whites is simply too impregnable for attacks on them to land—is deeply flawed. Anti-white rhetorical excesses can and do lead to terrible human rights abuses, and are often used to justify them, particularly in countries with weaker economies and non-white majorities such as South Africa.

For the New York Times, a paper with a global reach, to normalize such rhetoric by placing someone who spews it on their editorial board at the same time they blacklist people for much tamer statements about other races is cavalier and uninformed at best. Further, it suggests that our elite are already prepared to make excuses in case of third world style interracial violence against white citizens. As I noted at the end of my last piece in this series:

[W]hat South Africa shows us is something grimmer: namely, a society where elite status is such a blinder on the wealthiest people of one race that they willingly ignore policies and behaviors that approach genocidal character against what Dickens would have called “their hungry brothers in the dust.” A society where an arrogant elite assumes that its status is so impregnable that they can tolerate hate speech, violence, and persecutory policies explicitly directed at all people like them, just because they assume their own privilege is so great that tolerating that behavior is magnanimous. In other words, a society where Hannah Arendt’s notion of the “banality of evil” is inflicted not by one race against outsiders, but by one race against others like themselves out of sheer indifference, contempt, or desire to reinforce their own status.

This is not only an attitude that we have to fear here, but an attitude I believe already exists among today’s elite. In this piece, I will attempt to establish the existence of this attitude, to explain it, and to provide a warning about how it could become increasingly problematic in the face of future American demographic trends.

Marxism and Marriage By David Solway

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/marxism_and_marriage.html

In its centuries-long efforts to dismantle the load-bearing structures of traditional and classical liberal society, Marxist dogma in its various forms – communism, socialism, neo-Marxism, Cultural Marxism – has embarked on a sustained campaign to weaken and ultimately to abolish the institution of marriage as it has been commonly understood since time immemorial. The dissolution or misprision of marriage, as a contract between a man and a woman committed to raising a family and recognizing its attendant responsibilities, is a prerequisite for the revolutionary socialist state in which the pivotal loyalty of the individual belongs to the sovereign collective, not to the family.

Advocacy and legislation that sunder the intimate love between a man and a woman, that deprive children of male and female parental role models, that compromise the integrity of the family and that dissolve the purpose of marriage as a guarantor of cultural longevity are indispensable strategies essential to realizing the left’s master plan. Dismissing the nuclear family as an archaic and repressive arrangement whose time has passed, the state would then operate in loco parentis.

The problem for the left is that the family is a traditional dynamic that precedes and eclipses the tenure of the authoritarian state, not only because it encourages a prior allegiance, but because it allows for the retention of inheritance and property rights within the generational unit. This is anathema to the Marxist vision of, in historian Jacob Talmon’s phrase from The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, the “all-property-owning state,” a function of “political Messianism.” The Marxist offensive against marriage may be seen, in part, as the ideological version of a corporate takeover.

Barbara Jordan on Impeachment By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/barbara_jordan_on_impeachment.html

With the constant cries for impeachment that swirl around Donald J. Trump, it is incumbent upon us to remember the wise and reasoned words of Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who on July 25, 1974 gave an eloquent and dispassionate speech concerning the impeachment hearings against then-president Richard M. Nixon.

It behooves us all to bear in mind Jordan’s words today. Even though she reminds the nation that in 1787, when the Constitution was completed, African-Americans like herself were “left out,” she also explains that “through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision,” she was finally and irrevocably included in “we, the people.”

Thus, she firmly asserts that her “faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.” She refuses to “be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution” as it concerns “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men.”

In the strongest of terms, Jordan asserts that “the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” In fact, “it is a misreading of the Constitution, for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office.”

Crazy Rich Asians – A Review By Marilyn Penn

Under the guise of being a reversal of the classic Cinderella story, Crazy Rich Asians gives us a super-smart, pretty Chinese-American woman who is a professor of Economics at NYU in love with a super-smart, handsome Chinese man from Singapore. He has to go home to be best man at a wedding and wants to take her along to meet his family. When they get there, she discovers that he forgot to mention that he is the scion of the Chinese Rockefellers – the wealthiest family with the best real estate, most lavish parties and best known name in that part of the world. Of course she cares only about true love, not money.

Our heroine is the daughter of a single mother – both women climbed their respective ladders of success through hard work and determination. Contrast this with the caricatures of vapid Chinese society women of Singapore who live only for conspicuous consumption of clothes, jewels, homes, plastic surgery and slavish imitation of western excess. Even though this movie belongs in the typical rom-com genre, this caricature of the wealthy class is genuinely offensive, particularly at a time when we are not allowed to spoof other minorities and are currently obsessed with parity in film opportunities for minority women. Are Chinese women excluded from this category because they tend to be well-educated, self-directed, ambitious and successful whenever there’s an open opportunity? Are they like the majority Asian students at Stuyvesant who are to be denied entrance in order to share the limited academic space with students without their work ethic who demand entrance based on the color of their skin?

Speak No Evil about Islam Edward Cline

https://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/

Speak no evil about Islam. Or else your so-called allies will roast you and call for your genuflection to political correctness, or insist that you audit a diversity course and absorb some sensitivity instruction. You will be tested upon completion of the course. But nodding off during a diversity lecture would also be offensive, too.

When you mock Muslims or their dress, you automatically mock Islam. Muslims adhere to Islam. If you say a Muslima looks like a bank robber or a mail box in a burqa, you are making a joke about Islam. But there is no humor in Islam.

Likewise, if you acknowledge that Pakistani Muslims are responsible for the unending rapes of white British girls, you will be charged with Islamophobia. You may even be seized on the street and tossed into prison, as Tommy Robinson was.

Boris Johnson, former British Secretary of State, and Labor Member of Parliament, Sarah Champion (for Rotherham), learned too late the negative consequences of freedom of speech in an authoritarian culture.

Champion apologized for her remarks about the Muslim rape gangs in her constituency and resigned from her party’s “shadow cabinet. “ All she said did was make a remark in a newspaper article about the gangs, in which she spoke of the “common ethnic heritage” of the men involved in the town’s sexual abuse scandal. “There. I said it,” she wrote. “Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?”

The “common ethnic heritage” of the rapists is that the rapists are Pakistani, thus missing the fact that they are Muslims. The rapists could just as well be Afghani or Sudanese or Somali.

SYDNEY WILLIAMS: THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“Education is the movement from darkness to light.”

Allan Bloom (1930-1992)

The Closing of the American Mind, 1987

With ten grandchildren, the two oldest of whom will be off to college in the fall of 2019 and the youngest only eight years behind, the state of higher education has been on my mind. Much has been written about the need for greater emphasis on STEM classes – that China and India outstrip us in graduates each year in those fields. We read of cryptocurrencies and cyber theft and recognize the need to understand the former and thwart the second. There are students talented in these fields, and they should be encouraged. Less, however, has been written and said about the decline in humanities and the concomitant attenuation of morals, values and character that are their progeny. When a student at Morehouse College in 1947, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote for the college newspaper: “The function of education is to think intensively and critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”

No country in the world has colleges and universities so well endowed, and so highly regarded as does the United States. Yet, too often, university administrators see their job as letting students design faddish majors that reflect a cultural-relevancy, advocating diversity in all ways, excepting ideas and preparing students for what is their view of a multi-cultural and globally-competitive world. There have been consequences.

One is the politically-correct model they follow. Students are deprived of needed contrary and, at times, uncomfortable, speech and opinions. Thus, there is no open and free debate. Insularity in a world of seven billion people, awash with myriad philosophies and political system, does little to encourage curiosity, increase understanding, reduce arrogance and hone rhetoric. Another consequence is an emphasis on STEM that supersedes humanities. Certainly, we need students to use their creative talents to invent new products and services, but we also must consider the consequences, the “whats” and “whys” of their creations. Why is it needed and what might be its longer-term effects? Much of life is learning to balance and temper the proven versus the unproven, dreams from reality. Humanities help. History teaches perspective. Literature provides insights. Philosophy allows for nuances. Religion makes us think beyond ourselves. Students need to consider all sides of an argument, even to question the wisdom and motives of their instructors and professors. When 90% of the teaching and administrative staff is of one political mind-set, prejudice sets in. And, as Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote in National Review, “…bias is a force multiplier of ignorance.” Why, for example, should trigger warnings and safe rooms be necessary if the cloistered student is to become an unsheltered working woman or man? Do such actions prepare them for the world, or do they only offer cocoon-like protection for the duration of their time at university?

Pearl Jam Briefly Relevant Again with Concert Poster Depicting Trump’s Dead Body By Jim Treacher

https://pjmedia.com/trending/pearl-jam-briefly-relevant-again-with-concert-poster-depicting-trumps-dead-body/

Remember Pearl Jam? They were a popular rock band back in the 1990s, and apparently they’re still kicking around. They’re currently on tour (which is terrific, good for them). And this week, after many years out of the spotlight, the geriatric grungesters have managed to make news again. But alas, it has nothing to do with their music.

Ted Johnson, Variety:

Republicans seeking to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) in one of this year’s most contentious Senate races are trying to tie his campaign to a Pearl Jam poster. It features an image [of] President Trump’s dead body, and was used in the promotion of an Aug. 13 concert that helped raise money for Tester’s campaign…

Tester’s campaign did not immediately return a request for comment from Variety, but a spokesman told The Washington Post that they did not have input on the poster’s design.

“We never saw the poster before the show, and we don’t like it,” spokesman Chris Meagher said. “And we don’t condone violence of any kind. Period.”

Here’s the poster:

And here’s the part that’s got people up in arms:

Looks like that’s supposed to be Trump’s skeleton. See the red tie and thatch of combed-over hair? That is #edgyAF.

Pearl Jam bassist Jeff Ament has put out a defiant statement about it:

“The role of the artist is to make people think and feel, and the current administration has us thinking and feeling,” Ament said in the statement. “I was the sole conceptualist of this poster, and I welcome all interpretations and discourse.”

Now, I’m a free speech kinda guy, so I don’t have a problem with this. If you don’t like a politician and you want to depict bad things happening to him, or you want to otherwise criticize him, go right ahead. Make a faux documentary about George W. Bush being assassinated. Write a novel about people plotting to kill him. Make a comic book about a superhero murdering him. When you get tired of going after Dubya, do a photo collage of a chimpanzee crapping on John McCain’s head, or hang Sarah Palin in effigy, or hold up a bloody mannequin head that looks like Trump, or otherwise lash out at whichever Republican is making you angry today. You have the right to do that because this is the United States of America.

But I also can’t help but recall some of the other times people criticized the president, and it was reported as if it were the end of the world. CONTINUE AT SITE

What Was Bruce Ohr Doing? Justice releases some damning documents, but much of the truth is still classified.By Kimberley A. Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-was-bruce-ohr-doing-1534462447

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department have continued to insist they did nothing wrong in their Trump-Russia investigation. This week should finally bring an end to that claim, given the clear evidence of malfeasance via the use of Bruce Ohr.

Mr. Ohr was until last year associate deputy attorney general. He began feeding information to the FBI from dossier author Christopher Steele in late 2016—after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a confidential informant for violating the bureau’s rules. He also collected dirt from Glenn Simpson, cofounder of Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and employed Mr. Steele. Altogether, the FBI pumped Mr. Ohr for information at least a dozen times, debriefs that remain in classified 302 forms.

All the while, Mr. Ohr failed to disclose on financial forms that his wife, Nellie, worked alongside Mr. Steele in 2016, getting paid by Mr. Simpson for anti-Trump research. The Justice Department has now turned over Ohr documents to Congress that show how deeply tied up he was with the Clinton crew—with dozens of emails, calls, meetings and notes that describe his interactions and what he collected.

Mr. Ohr’s conduct is itself deeply troubling. He was acting as a witness (via FBI interviews) in a case being overseen by a Justice Department in which he held a very senior position. He appears to have concealed this role from at least some superiors, since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that he’d been unaware of Mr. Ohr’s intermediary status.

Lawyers meanwhile note that it is a crime for a federal official to participate in any government matter in which he has a financial interest. Fusion’s bank records presumably show Nellie Ohr, and by extension her husband, benefiting from the Trump opposition research that Mr. Ohr continued to pass to the FBI. The Justice Department declined to comment.

But for all Mr. Ohr’s misdeeds, the worse misconduct is by the FBI and Justice Department. It’s bad enough that the bureau relied on a dossier crafted by a man in the employ of the rival presidential campaign. Bad enough that it never informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of that dossier’s provenance. And bad enough that the FBI didn’t fire Mr. Steele as a confidential human source in September 2016 when it should have been obvious he was leaking FBI details to the press to harm Donald Trump’s electoral chances. It terminated him only when it was absolutely forced to, after Mr. Steele gave an on-the-record interview on Oct. 31, 2016.

Double Religious Jeopardy Colorado targets the Christian baker who won at the Supreme Court.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/double-religious-jeopardy-1534460961

Maybe it’s baked into the cake of modern American progressivism. What else could drive Colorado to go after the same Christian baker less than a month after losing a similar case against him at the Supreme Court?

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the commission violated Jack Phillips’ free-exercise rights when it sought to punish him for refusing on religious grounds to bake a custom cake for a gay couple’s wedding. That decision was handed down June 4 after six years in which Mr. Phillips was dragged through the courts.

On June 28 the state found probable cause that Mr. Phillips had unlawfully discriminated in another case—by refusing to bake a custom cake (blue on the outside, pink on the inside) to celebrate the transgender transition of Autumn Scardina from a man to a woman. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Mr. Phillips in his first case, is now suing Colorado’s Governor, attorney general, Civil Rights Division and Civil Rights Commission for what it says is Colorado’s “continuing persecution” of its client.

‘Queer Eye’ Star Warns Democrats Are ‘Done For’ If They Go Too Far Left Jonathan Van Ness angered liberals on Twitter by urging the Democrat Party to push moderate candidates in the midterm elections. By Juliana Knot

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/16/queer-eye-star-warns-democrats-are-done-for-if-they-go-too-far-left/

“Queer Eye” star Jonathan Van Ness angered liberals Wednesday in a tweet urging the Democrat Party not to go “too left.”

According to Van Ness, Democrats need to push moderate candidates in the 2018 midterms that will win over undecided voters, or the party is “done for.”

“Luckily a lot to extreme right people won yesterday, meaning that if we can come up w center left candidates we can take back the house & senate, not to mention many state legislatures,” he tweeted. “It is so important for the left to not go too left or we are done for.”

The popular Netflix show features five gay men who help other men reform themselves by changing their habits. The series has a 93 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has been called “earnest and endearing.” For his part, Van Ness focuses on self-care — teaching men how to take care of their hair and skin.

Some of Van Ness’s followers pushed back on his tweet, saying that going centrist with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2018 resulted in Donald Trump winning the presidency. Van Ness responded by saying that “demanding all or nothing” is what elected Trump.

Shortly afterwards, Van Ness posted a video explaining his positions. He opens saying, “[The Left and the Right] are really being played by people in newsrooms who are just writing things for headlines.”