Enter your keyword

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

The Small Secessions of the New Civil War

By On June 22, 2021
That a battle over Atlanta would play nearly as pivotal a role in the country’s second civil war as it did in the first might have surprised few historians. What might have surprised them is that the battle would involve civic meetings rather than bullets. There are plenty of bullets in Buckhead, a part of Atlanta coping with runaway crime under the pro-crime rule of Mayor Keisha Bottoms, and those bullets have inspired local residents to secede and form their own police force.

Buckhead is not the first part of Atlanta to try and secede. Sandy Springs had already successfully seceded from Atlanta and a number of cities in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, have tried to break away to form Milton County. These efforts to escape the blight and corruption of Atlanta aren’t new, but Buckhead’s fight to escape Atlanta’s pro-crime government has captured the imagination of millions of Americans from one coast of the country to the other.

The cold civil war is being shaped not by national, but local secessions like the one in Buckhead as neighborhoods try to secede from cities, cities from counties, and counties from states in a powerful struggle by conservative and centrist communities to define their own way of life.

Most Americans might associate Roswell with UFOs, but a proposed bill by Senator Cliff Pirtle of Roswell would have allowed it and other counties located near Texas to secede with the possible intention of joining the Lone Star State. In Oregon, 7 counties voted to secede and join Idaho, Weld County is considering seceding from Colorado to join Wyoming, and western Minnesota has seen proposals for its counties to leave and unite with South Dakota.

Secession talk isn’t new. Northern Californians have kept the dream of a breakaway state named Jefferson alive for generations. The Democrat machine illegally suppressed a ballot measure that proposed to split California in three. The secession proposals that succeed are more modest and limited in scope. Breaking up states may be a moonshot, seceding from states might be an uphill battle, but the rate of local secessions is growing rapidly.

The most popular form of secession is also the smallest and involves school districts.

An average of 5 school districts secede every year. And while such secessions may get less publicity than plans to split up entire states, they’re commonplace and effective. They also represent the same trend of communities escaping the social and political wreckage of urban rule. Even as Democrats go to war against the suburbs, the suburbs are fighting back.

The political geography of the new civil war is a tug of war between Democrats seeking to concentrate authority in as few places as possible and an opposition seeking independence.

While Democrats and their media complain about the electoral college and the composition of the Senate, the nation and its states are largely ruled by a handful of metropolitan areas. The wealth that buys and sells elections nationwide mostly flows out of New York and California, and, more specifically, out of New York City and Silicon Valley. Geographic regions of less than 1,000 square miles in total rule a nation of 3.8 million square miles with an economic fist.

The meltdown of the urban areas drove suburbanization. And the spreading blight of urban areas into suburban communities due to the concentration of statewide political power in the cities has led to a secondary exodus from suburban bedroom communities to other states.

California not only went blue, but it ‘blued’ Colorado, Wyoming, and a range of other states. The final casualty of California’s blue wave may even end up being Texas. New York has had a similar effect, not only regionally, but even to the south, driving an exodus to Atlanta.

The tide of blue state invasions has the potential to transform the state of states and the nation.

Neighborhoods and school districts seceding from failed urban centers are trying to halt the problem at its source. Rural counties, especially in western states, are pushing back against larger demographic invasions that have transformed smaller states into miniature Californias.

Polls show that most people prefer to live in communities with people that share their values. As politics becomes more tribal, the number of neighborhoods with an even share of lawn signs for both parties is decreasing. In a political system that forces cake makers to bake cakes, indoctrinates elementary school students with radical views on race and sexuality, and cancels anyone who doesn’t go along, coexistence with a radical leftist system is no longer an option.

Secession is. The new civil war is being fought locally. It’s not a regional movement, but a communal one. What brings together rural areas and suburban communities is a desire to control their own way of life and escape the destructive centralization of urban regimes.

The new civil war isn’t being fought between the North and the South, but between the cities and the rest of the country. It’s an economic and social war whose objective is independence.

That’s why the smallest scale secessions have paradoxically been the most successful.

Whether it’s the Buckhead movement or the Texas Senate passing a bill allowing Lake Austin residents to secede from Austin only to see it die in the House, the secessions are gathering strength. But so is the Left's battle to stop them through lies, racism smears, and judicial fiat.

Just because the public votes to create a separate school district or a city doesn't mean that it won't be blocked by Democrat activist judges who decide to override the will of the people.

The attempt by Gardendale to secede from the failed Jefferson County Public School system in Alabama was illegally blocked by federal judges. The Left is struggling to block the creation of the city of St. George in Louisiana with equally illegal lawsuits. But the pace of secession proposals is only growing as more communities struggle to escape abusive governments.

And as Democrats seek to illegally rig elections across the country with H.R.1, to transform the government city of Washington D.C. into a state, and to exercise total control over every local decision through its massive urban bureaucracy, the rate of secessions is only increasing.

Some only seek to restore control over local schools and police forces to communities, while others strive to reconfigure the borders of states to enable rural representation.

Though the term ‘secession’ and the idea of dividing a land summons to mind civil war, the more apt analogy may be the original secession of the United States from British rule.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another," Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence.

America’s revolutionaries wanted self-government on their own terms. Their modern descendants are breaking away from New York and San Francisco, from Big Tech and Wall Street, the way that their ancestors sought to escape from London and its mercantile interests.

The fundamental issue at stake in the secessions is whether communities will be governed centrally or locally. Democrats and their media have worked to cloud the issue with false accusations of racism, but it’s not only white neighborhoods that are talking secession. A generation ago, black Boston residents proposed to create the breakaway city of Mandela. That movement has recently come in for a reexamination. It’s time to reexamine all of them.

The new generation of secessionism is driven by the unbearable pressure imposed on communities by the expansive ideological programs of radical leftist technocrats which leave little room for either individuality or human needs. Rather than learning from the profound failures of urban areas during the pandemic, all they learned is a need for greater control.

Secession is the natural human response to the control freak madness of cities which control entire states. Communities are confronting radical power grabs by taking back the power.

The cold civil war is being fought in civic meetings. The battles are local and the battle maps cover streets rather than continents, but it is a conflict driven by the impetus of revolutions and civil wars in which one people, as Jefferson wrote, seeks to part ways with another, not to rule over them, but to be free of their thievery, their abuses, and their tyrannical rule.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, June 21, 2021

Biden’s Terror Strategy Defines Republicans as the New Terrorists

By On June 21, 2021
As the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaches, Joe Biden has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to fight Al Qaeda. Instead he’s going to fight other Americans.

The Biden administration’s newly released National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism mentions Al Qaeda only once in its 30 pages. Even though the FBI continues to break up Islamic terrorist plots against America, the document only defines Muslims as victims.

Just last month a Seattle Muslim convert was arrested. The convert had discussed driving a "semi-truck" through "the gay pride parade in downtown Seattle". Even though the arrest came shortly before the anniversary of the ISIS massacre at the Pulse nightclub, both Biden and the media ignored the potential plot and the fact that the Pulse shooting was Islamic terrorism.

“I wish to see the kuffar (non-Muslims) as I kill them, I want to strike terror in them and make Allah pleased for doing so,” the Seattle convert had boasted.

That same month another Muslim convert pled guilty to plotting to attack an Ohio synagogue and murder a rabbi. A third Muslim convert in Brooklyn was also sentenced that month for promoting terrorist plots against Americans. American converts to Islam are a major source of recruits for domestic terrorist plots. Despite that, Biden’s strategy ignores their existence.

In a flashback to the Clinton era, the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism claims that the only serious terrorist threats come from the militia movement and racists.

And the only racists whose existence the Biden administration will admit to are white racists.

Micah X. Johnson, a black supremacist who murdered 5 police officers in Dallas, is described as an “anti–authority violent extremist”. Racist and supremacist terrorism can only be practiced by members of the majority against “minority populations”. It can’t work the other way around.

Antifa is also rolled together into “anti-government”, a category that encompasses the militia movement, black supremacists, white anarchists, and everyone who isn’t a white racist.

Islamic terrorists, like the three in May, don’t even make the list.

The two categories, anti-government and racists, tell us little about the actual domestic terrorist threat, but a great deal about the Biden administration’s agenda for exploiting terrorism.

Either you’re with the Biden administration or the “anti-government extremists”.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism redefines the terrorist threat as coming first and foremost from political opponents of the Biden administration. And it defines that threat as a primarily political and ideological battle rather than a violent threat.

The new strategy doesn’t come up with any new ideas for fighting terrorism. Its ideas fall into the murky territory of preventing terror through everything from internet censorship to critical race theory. Biden is rebooting Obama’s CVE or Countering Violent Extremism program to target Americans in a battle of ideas against “misinformation” and “racism”.

This also defines the administration’s two approaches: indoctrination and suppression.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism redefines domestic terrorism as a domestic ideological struggle against people who disagree with Biden and his partisan party.

The strategy’s concluding sentence speaks of “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories that can provide a gateway to terrorist violence.” It warns of “an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse” and cautions that, “today’s digital age requires an American population that can utilize essential aspects of Internet–based communications platforms while avoiding vulnerability to... harmful content deliberately disseminated by malicious actors online.”

The binary model is a choice between people who believe everything the media tells them or terrorists. Fighting terrorism requires a national security system that indoctrinates its citizens.

The strategy blithely notes that “the Department of Homeland Security and others are either currently funding and implementing or planning... digital programming, including enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills, as a mechanism for strengthening user resilience to disinformation and misinformation online for domestic audiences.”

A one-word term for this is ‘propaganda’.

The “broader priority” is “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation” on the internet.

Elected officials don’t address “polarization”, they’re a product of it. They enhance faith in government by keeping their promises instead of indoctrinating and censoring the people.

Governments that suppress “misinformation” to fight “polarization” are totalitarian states.

The Democrats and their media had previously blamed President Trump’s election on “misinformation”. The new strategy blames “misinformation” for domestic terrorism.

And the best way to fight “misinformation” is with suppression and indoctrination.

The strategy document suggests that the Biden administration will be engaging in more “robust” efforts to “assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service”. It defines “private–sector online platforms” as the front line in this new suppression campaign.

But censorship is very 2016. The 2021 terrorism strategy is much more ambitious than that.

The Biden administration will only acknowledge two terrorist threats. The first threat comes from “anti-government extremists” which justifies a crackdown on any kind of political opposition and a suppression of “conspiracy theories”. The second threat comes from racists which creates an urgent need to tackle “the threat posed by domestic terrorism” with “substantial efforts to confront the racism that feeds into aspects of that threat”.

That “means tackling racism in America” with a civics education that covers “when racism and bigotry have meant that the country fell short of living up to its founding principles”.

That’s code for embedding critical race theory in schools to teach students that America is evil.

It’s hard to think of anything more likely to encourage new recruits to ISIS and other terrorist causes than divisive racist materials that devalue our country and our common heritage.

But the strategy is also much more ambitious than that, “prioritizing efforts to ensure that every component of the government has a role to play in rooting out racism and advancing equity.”

It’s easy to miss the significance of what the Biden terrorism strategy is doing here.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism has defined domestic terrorism as being caused by conspiracy theories, misinformation, racism, and hostility to the government. Fighting domestic terrorism means recreating the government bureaucracy and its policies around “equity” and the agendas of “critical race theory” while rooting out their opponents.

Just as Biden’s purge of the military defined military readiness and national security around a willingness to embrace critical race theory, identity politics, and hatred of America, this new counterterrorism strategy makes it the basis for national security across the government.

Every arm of the government is not only being tasked with imposing the racial discriminatory and wealth redistribution elements of “equity”, but with viewing any opposition as terrorism.

Or a gateway to terrorism.

The Obama administration abused national security to target its Republican political opponents by falsely accusing them of treason and acting as foreign agents of Russia. With Biden appeasing Putin, the Russian smear is no longer viable, but the domestic terrorist smear is.

The new strategy document will serve as a basis for using national security to target Republicans as domestic terrorists.

The Biden doctrine creates a phantom terrorist movement of conspiracy theories and misinformation that is as vaporous as the Russia smear and seeks to tie any violence to political opponents who engage in “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”.

Since the Democrats and their media have defined virtually any disagreement as “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”, most conservatives can be accused of terrorism.

What that will do is make it much easier to surveil and monitor political opponents by manufacturing networks that are based around “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories”.

The strategy document begins by redefining terrorism from an organized, even in the loosest sense, movement to “lone actors” who “mobilize to violence with little or no clear organizational structure or direction.” The document skips over the vital question of whether they are part of any movement calling for terrorism, instead it claims that their “fluid” ideologies “connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation”.

The Biden administration has turned away from dealing with domestic Islamic terrorists with a clear connection to a terrorist movement like ISIS to defining ideas as dangerous without regard as to whether those ideas, theories, or movements are actually calling for violence.

By discarding the existence of any actual terrorist movement or infrastructure, the Biden administration has set a very low bar for defining terrorism and an even lower bar for complicity.

There doesn’t have to be any linkage between the perpetrator of a violent attack and the conservatives who will be blamed for acting as a “gateway” with their “conspiracy theories”.

This will mean censorship and deplatforming, but also surveillance and worse things.

The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism defines political opponents and anyone resistant to critical race theory or who questions the government as either a gateway to terrorism or possibly even inciting terrorism. This strategy will be used to target conservative non-profits through the IRS, to remove conservative speech from the internet, and to surveil hundreds of thousands of conservatives on the pretext of fighting domestic terrorism.

While Islamic terrorists continue to plot actual attacks, Biden is plotting to terrorize Americans.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, June 20, 2021

How HBO Max Went Woke and Broke on BLM

By On June 20, 2021
After a former Hollywood Foreign Press Association president shared my Front Page Magazine article about the BLM Hollywood connection, WarnerMedia executives sent a boycott letter to the foreign press organization behind the Golden Globes. Their outrage was understandable.

My article had cast a light on the ties between Warner and Black Lives Matter. No one had crawled harder and deeper into bed with the racist black nationalist hate group than the company that shared little more than a name with one of Hollywood’s signature studios whose name to most people still brings to mind everything from Bugs Bunny to Casablanca.

The Warner brothers were conservatives while a typical billboard for HBO Max, Warner’s streaming effort to compete with Netflix, urges audiences to subscribe and tune in to an adaptation of Ta-Nehisi Coates's racist black nationalist tract “Between the World and Me”.

“Between the World and Me” featured Coates describing the firefighters and police who risked their lives to rescue people on September 11 as “not human to me” and “menaces”.

"Their new name has no real meaning divorced from the machinery of criminal power. the new people were something else before they were white--Catholic, Corsican, Welsh, Mennonite, Jewish," Coates writes in “Between the World and Me”.

While HBO Max pulled and then restored “Gone With the Wind” over its "racial prejudices" complete with a disclaimer lecture, and Turner Classic Movies, owned by Warner Bros, launched a series condemning classic movies like “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” (Mickey Rooney's buck teeth), "My Fair Lady" (misogyny), and "Psycho" (transphobia), it promotes the worst possible hatred of white people with million dollar contracts and massive billboards.

Warner Bros rewarded Coates’ racism further by having him write the script for a black Superman. Possible directors include Shaka King, the director of the Black Panthers propaganda flick, “Judas and the Black Messiah”, who had declared, “I haven’t needed white people to care about what I do in years now” and “a centrist is, in many ways, more dangerous than a white nationalist, because they’re really silently propping up the system”.

HBO Max’s’ Between the World and Me includes Alicia Garza, a co-founder of BLM. Garza is one of two BLM co-founders who is at home at Warner Bros. The Warner Brothers Television Group had signed a production deal with Patrisse Cullors: a self-described Marxist.

The BLM deal happened the same month that Channing Dungey became the Warner TV chair.

As ABC Entertainment boss, Channing Dungey had made the decision to fire Roseanne from her namesake show for comments critical of Obama crony Valerie Jarrett. Dungey jumped to Netflix, bringing along Scandal’s Shonda Rhimes who went on to create “Bridgerton” for Netflix, and worked with Barack Obama’s Higher Ground agitprop production company.

Dungey was one of the signers of the boycott letter.

“Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, all those deaths coming in quick succession — I think it’s opened up an entirely different conversation that particularly in Hollywood, coming in the wake of #MeToo, I think everyone is realizing that the business has been built on some systemic wrongs that need to be righted,” Dungey told Variety.

The nature of the systemic wrongs in an industry that took Dungey from a production assistant to the destroyer of genuinely talented people like Roseanne may be harder to define. But she’s a symptom of a larger problem at Warner Bros which has gone all in on black nationalism.

Along with Dungey and Rimes, Warner Brothers lured away black nationalist director Ava DuVernay with a $100 million deal. DuVernay’s “13th” series for Netflix had falsely accused America of slavery due to the high number of black people convicted of crimes in prison.

But Warner Bros also had no problem scraping the very bottom of the black nationalist barrel.

After signing Cullors, it cut a deal with Kimberly Latrice Jones, a BLM activist who made a viral video in support of looting.

"There’s a social contract that we all have, that if you steal, or if I steal, then the person who is the authority comes in and they fix the situation. But the person who fixes the situation is killing us. So the social contract is broken. And if the social contract is broken, why the f*** do I give a shit about burning the f***ing Football Hall of Fame, about burning a f***ing Target?" the activist ranted.

"Far as I’m concerned, they could burn this bitch to the ground, and it still wouldn’t be enough."

The unhinged racist rant helped get her a book deal, a movie deal, and a deal with Warner which under AT&T has been happily burning the company and its brand down to the ground.

Warner also signed a multi-year deal with Phillip Atiba Goff whose thesis adviser was Cornel West and is the author of "Saying 'No' to Whiteness", to produce social justice content. Dungey described Goff as “a leading voice of moral clarity on critical issues facing our society”.

In the rush to elevate anyone shouting about the evils of white people, HBO Max is littered with basement garbage that looks like the work of college students laboring on public access TV.

You can find “Random Acts of Flyness”, a typical episode of which is titled, "They Got Some S___ That'll Blow Out Your Back". The Terence Nance variety show features a "family mourning a high-profile case of police violence" and asks "does the Second Amendment apply to black people". One mock commercial features Mad Men’s Jon Hamm touting “White Be Gone” which promises to help those who are suffering “from white thoughts”.

In a sign of just how far Warner had toppled its intellectual properties into the gutter of black nationalism, it tried to turn over the Looney Tunes franchise to Nance to direct “Space Jam” with Ryan Coogler, of the anti-police agitprop “Fruitvale Station”, acting as producer. Coogler, who went on to direct Marvel’s black nationalist Black Panther fantasy, also produced “Judas and the Black Messiah” for Warner celebrating Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton.

But you can also find HBO pushing “Beah: A Black Woman Speaks” about Communist activist Beah Richards who played a major role in the We Charge Genocide smear to divert attention from Soviet crimes by falsely accusing America of genocide.

And if you thought John Oliver or Stephen Colbert weren’t political enough, Wyatt Cenac's “Problem Areas” is a string of diatribes about racism and social justice. Cenac is a Daily Show veteran who jettisons much of the format and instead lectures audiences about racism.

HBO Max is struggling to catch up to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+, but the actual numbers show that it's far behind. While the service claims 44 million subscribers and touts ambitious plans to reach 150 million people by 2025, these numbers are suspect.

Earlier this year, activations stood at only 17 million. HBO Max no longer reports activations making its numbers meaningless. By the spring, AT&T had disposed of HBO Max and the rest of its Warner package by merging the whole mess with Discovery’s programming.

The deal also dumps CNN into Discovery under its CEO, Democrat donor David Zaslav.

While AT&T put the best possible face on this move, the $4 billion dollar bet had not paid off. And Warner’s massive investment in black nationalist programming had thoroughly failed.

HBO Max’s biggest bump came from its decision to dump “Wonder Woman 1984” on the platform at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. The movie, starring Gal Gadot, a pro-Israel actress under fire by critical race theory activists, was the antithesis of the new intersectionality. The second biggest came from the Friends reunion: a show under fire for its lack of diversity.

Despite HBO Max’s massive investment in black nationalism, its successes were all too white.

While all of its big streaming platforms rivals, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Disney+, and Paramount+ invested in black nationalist narratives to varying degrees, none did so as belatedly, futilely, and relentlessly as HBO Max which threw away its brand and its future.

WarnerMedia may have boycotted the Golden Globes, but subscribers boycotted its service.

Warner bought into Black Lives Matter and built its content brand around militant black nationalism and anti-white racism. While AT&T’s CNN was touting the looters, AT&T’s HBO Max was being looted. Like so many other companies, after the woke comes the broke.




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

The Whiteness of Woke

By On June 16, 2021
“If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention” the bumper stickers on a thousand SUVs in the upscale bedroom communities of dysfunctional cities read. “Deutschland Erwache,” the National Socialists used to shout in the streets of Munich. Woke compresses it all to one word.

Wokeness means believing that politics is all there is to life. And nothing is whiter than that.

Those minorities who form the backbone of the activists and voting blocs of identity politics don’t care about politics. Identity politics is politics to white wokes and identitarianism to minorities. Critical race theory is only a theory to white people. To everyone else, it’s tribal hatred.

Political theories are abstractions. Tribal identity is very real. Wokeness is concerned with getting white people to buy into tribal identity as a political abstraction rather than a real force.

White wokes turned race into the abstraction that is whiteness. What is whiteness? It’s unconscious cultural habits and ways of thinking. The notion that race is a set of ideas rather than a tangible reality would be vocally denied by both white and black racial identitarians.

The consequence of race as an abstraction is the transracial idea that minorities can become infected with internalized whiteness and the spread of multiracial whiteness. If minorities can become white, it follows that white wokes can become minorities by shedding their whiteness.

Whiteness is a racial consciousness, but based on Marxist power relations, not blood and soil, or genetics, let alone the crude resentment of the ‘other’ that lurks at the heart of raw tribalism.

Critical race theory hijacks racism and racial identity to replace it with Marxist theories.

White wokes use critical race theory the way that elites always used Marxist theories to compete with more successful people of their own upper class. Class warfare was never about the rise of the oppressed: Lenin was a member of the nobility, Mao’s father was a landlord and a money lender, and Castro was a wealthy law student whose father owned a plantation.

Critical race theory is designed to thin out the overproduction of elites. It’s a weapon against meritocracy by the same mediocre cliques looking for a shortcut in the competition. Executives force critical race theory into workplaces to shut down ambitious younger rivals. Suburban soccer moms of dumber kids go woke and push it into schools to even the playing field.

What's whiteness? As the Smithsonian Museum of African-American Culture's chart of "white culture" put it, whiteness covers everything from a serious work ethic to self-reliance, rational thinking, delayed gratification, achieving goals, being on time, and, finally, "competition".

Get rid of academic standards, intellectual seriousness, punish success, and the mediocre woke white elites who first created quota systems a century ago have much more of a shot at the top.

The inherent assumption of class warfare was that the proles were too backward to be a competitive threat. The racist assumption behind critical race theory is that black people can’t compete. If the wokes thought otherwise, they would be denouncing black people as racist the way that Asian-Americans and Jews are repeatedly accused of racism and privilege.

Being accused of group privilege isn’t an insult: it’s a backhanded compliment. Wokes pander to those groups they think of as inferior and attack those groups they see as competition.

White wokes embrace anti-white racism the way that wealthy white lefties championed class warfare. It’s not self-hatred, but hatred of more successful members of their group by enlisting those below them whom they don’t see as competitors to bring down more successful rivals.

But the identitarian racism they’re cultivating among minorities is not theoretical or hypothetical. And neither is the response among working class whites whom they once courted and abandoned. Racial consciousness may only be a theory to woke elites, but it’s not theoretical to the people they’re pitting against each other. Identity politics is only politics to elites, it’s identity to everyone else, and in a country losing the commonalities of religion and patriotism, it’s lethal.

Building a Marxist flavor of racism makes elites Marxists and everyone else racist.

Critical race theory is meant to force white people to see themselves as an ‘other’ and to legitimize the idea of minorities viewing white people that way. Whiteness studies as an academic discipline exists to ‘other’ white people and minorities who can be accused of suffering from multiracial whiteness on account of their success or resistance to dogma.

Otherness undermines empathy and ethics. It licenses everything from hatred to violence to genocide. The more we view people as less than human, the more likely we are to do everything from cut them off in traffic to steal from them and even kill them. National media narratives demand sympathy for George Floyd or Breonna Taylor while refusing to cover the victims of crime because critical race theory denies that they deserve sympathy or humanity.

Ideas have horrifying consequences and leftists have a long history of failing to understand the murderous implications of their self-serving abstract intellectualizations. Only when millions of bodies start piling up do they occasionally begin to wrestle with some sort of moral reckoning. And even then, the reckoning is quickly shelved before it ever really comes into being.

Some Communists turned on the Soviet Union after the Hitler-Stalin pact and the revelations of Stalin’s crimes. Fewer have accepted any kind of moral reckoning for the millions killed by Mao, or the Cambodian genocide, not to mention generations of massacres in Latin America. Nearer to our own time, you won’t find a proponent of Obama’s foreign policy who has even dared to suggest that the Arab Spring was a catastrophic disaster that may have killed a million people.

The body count for Black Lives Matter is estimated as at least 4,000 when you account for the massive increase in murder and crime rates. Most of those would likely be of black people.

Being recruited into a war of liberation by white wokes comes with a high body count. And the blood price isn’t being paid by corporations who sent out emails about George Floyd or sorority sisters holding up ACAB signs. Just as they’re not the ones who paid the price for the collapse of the family or the social structure of both black and white working class communities.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Great Gatsby, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness." But there are fewer places to retreat to in a completely polarized society.

Elites retreat into abstractions. They buy a copy of Robin DiAngelo’s book and Zoom into the latest call of the white allies caucus at their workplace knowing that they may not be good at much, but they are good at undermining those who are actually good at something. But the rising tide of tribalism is not an abstraction for those for whom identity becomes humanity.

Woke is very white, but its vastness is illusory. The woke elites control corporations and institutions, but what woke is feeding isn’t abstract discrimination, but violent racism.

In California, an Amazon driver beat an older lady who asked her about a package. The minority driver had accused her victim of possessing "white privilege" before attacking her from behind. This is what critical race theory actually looks like outside the suburban bubble of social justice dinners and struggle sessions which, grueling as they are, are at least non-violent.

Last year, Amazon forced every employee to take diversity and inclusion training. Even as the Big Tech monopoly is looting the American economy by selling it out to China, it's doubled down on virtue signaling, promising to go 'green' by 2025 and building an HR infrastructure of 'equity'.

Amazon's new CEO Andy Jassy is a militant leftist who had previously ranted that, "If you don't hold police depts accountable for murdering black people, we will never have justice and change.”

The monopolistic tech giant subjects workers to Conversations on Race and Ethnicity (CORE) when it isn’t forcing them to urinate into cups. The speakers at a Big Tech CORE hatefest included BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, Farrakhan fan Carmen Perez, and Robin DiAngelo.

But critical race theory looks very different in the conference room of a monopoly trying to launder its destruction of the country’s economy so that its former CEO can go off into space by bringing in a few racism profiteers to berate managers about their white privilege than on the street where abstractions of whiteness give way to vicious beatings of elderly white women.

Beyond academic wokeness is the gritty racial identitarian reality of tribal violence and murder.

While Amazon and other Big Tech monopolies compete with each other on woke virtue signaling, and Robin DiAngelo adds another million to her bank account, people are being beaten and murdered in the streets of American cities. While Jeff Bezos and other woke elites go off to space, woke translates into tribal hatred and violence down here on earth.




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, June 14, 2021

Kamala Went to Guatemala for Regime Change, Not Illegal Migration

By On June 14, 2021
In March, Joe Biden announced that Kamala Harris was going "to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle" to stem illegal "migration to our southern border".

Why?

According to Biden, "she’s the most qualified person to do it."

This confused everyone including the White House, Kamala Harris, and even the media which spent the next few months clarifying exactly what her job was and how she was going to do it.

Anonymous officials told CNN that afterward, "Harris' aides appeared to 'panic'".

At their joint press conference, Kamala Harris dubiously claimed that "we can chew gum and walk at the same time". While Texas officials demanded that she visit the border, Kamala instead vowed to focus on diplomacy with the countries the migrants were coming from.

Unlike President Trump, Biden was not going to secure the border. The border would be wide open and illegal aliens would be dispersed across the country. An agreement to keep the migrants in Mexico, Trump’s biggest immigration win, was shredded. The only plan to deal with the huge border surge was addressing the “root causes” of migration. But the only real root cause is that America is richer than Mexico and other countries south of the border.

While the Biden administration got to work making America as poor as possible, Kamala was dispatched to impose Marxist regime change on Latin America in the name of the illegal aliens.

The trip didn’t go well from the start.

Air Force Two took off and then had to come back due to a landing gear problem.

Just like in the primaries, Kamala has always had trouble sticking the landing.

"We all said a little prayer, but we’re good,” Kamala told reporters.

Kamala claims to be a black Baptist, is married to a secular Jewish man, grew up attending Hindu temples, and asked an aunt before an election, "Please pray for me, break coconuts at the temple." It’s hard to imagine what she was praying to. Probably the only one thing she believed in that has come through for her: Willie Brown.

The media told us that Kamala Harris was a member of Amos Brown's leftist Third Baptist Church. That's fine, except that the church is in San Francisco, and Kamala has lived in a Brentwood mansion, and the church is in decline due to the lack of black people in the area.

But if you can believe that Kamala is “the most qualified person” to engage in diplomacy with countries she can’t find on a map and solve their social problems, believing that she’s a devout parishioner of a church 350 miles away should be a breeze for any devout Democrat.

On the second Air Force Two, Kamala finally landed in Guatemala to jeers from an angry mob.

"We are not on the same side of the coin. It is obvious," Guatemala's President Giammattei had earlier told CBS.

After President Trump left office, Giammattei complained that, "The message changed to, 'we are going to reunite families and we are going to reunite children'" and "the very next day the coyotes here were organizing groups of children to take them to the United States."

He urged the Biden administration "to send more of a clear message to prevent more people from leaving."

President Giammattei is a staunch law and order conservative, and if he appeared to be undermining Kamala, it was because she had spent months undermining him.

In May, Kamala met with a number of leftist opponents of Giammattei, including former Attorney General Thelma Aldana, who had targeted conservative politicians with corruption charges, before herself being charged with corruption. Instead of returning home to face those charges, she received political asylum in the United States. Her social media is full of praise for Kamala Harris’ trip to Guatemala, and her promises to end "corruption" in Guatemala.

Behind the mutual charges of corruption is a struggle between the Left and Right, with socialists and narcoterrorists on one side and military officers and free marketers on the other.

Kamala and the Biden administration are choosing to stand with the Left.

That’s not exactly surprising. Neither were the angry protesters that greeted Kamala at the airport waving banners and signs reading "Kamala, Mind Your Own Business", "Kamala, Go Home", "Kamala Trump Won", and “Kamala Stop Funding Criminals".

Those signs might have been confusing to Americans who get their news from the media bubble which left them completely unprepared to understand what was really going on.

Guatemalans saw her as prepping a leftist coup by backing leftist organizations and activists.

And they were fighting back.

Kamala Harris blamed the migrant crisis on "corruption, violence and poverty, the lack of economic opportunity, the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience, the lack of good governance." Two of those are very obvious code words for regime change.

A few days ago it was announced that Kamala’s trip would be about “anti-corruption” efforts.

Aside from some leftist prosecutors, Guatemalans are not coming here over government corruption. But did anyone really think that Biden wanted to reduce illegal migration?

The Left is adept at killing two birds with one stone.

In this case, it’s using a border crisis to impose leftist regimes on Latin America.

Behind the anti-corruption push is a movie to restart the UN’s International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) backed by Soros activists. Most Guatemalans would prefer to be ruled by their own elected officials, not by the United Nations, Soros, or Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris quickly announced that the DOJ will create an anti-corruption task force that will provide "case-based mentoring to the Guatemalan Public Ministry, including the Special Prosecutor Against Impunity (FECI)" and "a rapid response capability to deploy U.S. prosecutors and law enforcement experts to provide mentorship to develop corruption cases."

This amounts to deploying DOJ assets to help local lefties take down conservative politicians.

That’s why Biden described Kamala as “the most qualified person to do it." Unlike much of the administration, she has a background as a prosecutor. And that’s her real job in Guatemala.

“One essential ingredient of our priorities must be to fight corruption,” Kamala Harris declared, while standing next to President Giammattei . “That has been one of our highest priorities.”

Everyone who’s seen the leaked Hunter Biden material knows how committed Willie Brown’s girlfriend is to fighting corruption. It’s been a while since there was a dirtier administration.

But fighting corruption in Latin America doesn’t have anything to do with corruption. In a thoroughly corrupt system where everyone steals and takes bribes, it means regime change.

Kamala isn’t in Guatemala to stem the flow of illegal aliens, but to impose a leftist regime. And that regime will create the crisis conditions that will lead even more migrants to come here.

It’s a win-win scenario for the Left. And a lose-lose crisis for America.

Republicans need to understand what the Guatemalan protesters jeering Kamala’s visit were telling us. The Biden administration isn’t fighting to stop illegal migration: it’s plotting to make it worse while turning over much of Latin America to Marxist narco-terrorists and Iranian allies.

If Biden and Kamala succeed, then a dozen Venezuelans will rise south of the border. And millions of illegal aliens will cross an unprotected border to overrun the United States.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Biden’s War on Jerusalem

By On June 13, 2021
A decade ago, Vice President Biden paid a visit to Jerusalem.

Like any trip by an emissary of the Obama administration, it wasn’t a goodwill tour, but a combination of a provocation and a shakedown. While Biden was in Israel, two construction projects received partial approval in a multi-stage process from the City of Jerusalem.

Biden responded by staying up in his hotel room and refusing to come down for an hour.

When he did come down, he hugged Netanyahu and assured him, “Just remember that I am your best f____ friend here.”

Biden’s definition of friendship is the backstabbing kind because after that he and the entire Obama administration began attacking Israel over a decision made by a local urban agency.

"It was not only an insult to Biden, but an insult to the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ranted. Then she spent two hours yelling at Netanyahu over the phone.

“I was often the ‘designated yeller,’” Hillary would later brag about her relationship with Israel.

"There was an affront, it was an insult," David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser falsely claimed.

The media launched a disinformation campaign falsely claiming that Prime Minister Netanyahu had deliberately caused a Jerusalem urban planning committee to reach a decision on housing in two areas that until then no one had even been paying much attention to.

One of those housing projects was going up in the Shimon HaTzadik (Simon the Righteous) neighborhood named after the last true high priest who had dissuaded Alexander the Great from putting up an idol in the Temple.

The Jewish neighborhood had been built in the 19th century. In 1936, Muslim rioters drove out the community while shouting, "Allahu Akbar" and "Ibtach Al Yahood" or "Kill the Jews".

This was the first modern Muslim attempted genocide of the indigenous Jewish population of Israel. A British truck driver recollected a massacre in Tiberias in which "the bodies of children, apparently set alight with gasoline in a nursery, were still smoldering" and "the naked bodies of the women exposed the evidence that the knives had been used in the most ghastly fashion."

In 1947, the Muslims came for the Jews of the neighborhood again and they fought back with the few weapons they had. Then British forces came along and disarmed the Jews to "keep the peace". The Jewish population fled again. Jordan's Arab Legion, under British officers, seized half of Jerusalem, and ethnically cleansed its Jewish population Some of the homes in Shimon HaTzadik (referred to by Muslims as Sheikh Jarrah after one of Saladin's colonizing invaders) were used by the UNRWA to settle Muslims in violation of international law.

The other housing project in Jerusalem in Ramat Shlomo was set to be built on uninhabited land that not even the PLO was claiming as its own.

This was what Biden, Hillary, the Obama administration and the media were howling about.

Obama used fake outrage over Jews living in Jerusalem to engineer the beginning of the Democrat Party’s break with Israel. Biden played a key role in staging an international incident to manufacture a narrative in which Israel was somehow provoking a conflict with Obama.

11 years later, Biden is so short of ideas that he went right back to the same neighborhood.

The Muslim squatters planted by UNRWA in Jewish homes have refused to pay rent to their owners or leave. After two generations of court cases, Israel’s Supreme Court was moving to issue a final decision. The Islamic terrorists of the PLO and Hamas used this as a pretext for a murderous campaign against Israel. And everyone from Biden on down has warned Israel against actually following the law and allowing the Jewish owners to reclaim the property.

Biden funded Iran, backed the terrorists inside Israel, and then warned the Jewish State against “provoking” them by allowing Jews to take part in a parade or allowing courts to follow the law.

On May 10th, well before the fighting began, Biden's people ordered Israel not to evict any of the Muslim squatters and to cancel the annual Jerusalem Day celebrations. Netanyahu tried to appease Biden by rerouting the parade and asked the Supreme Court to postpone a decision.

Despite these efforts at appeasement, the Islamic violence escalated anyway. But that hasn’t stopped the Biden administration and its media allies from blaming Israel anyway.

That’s how this game of diplomatic Catch 22 with Israel always works.

The Supreme Court, which is independent and doesn’t answer to either Biden or Netanyahu, refused to halt the eviction case. That hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from continuing to make illegal demands that another nation’s supreme court should refuse to follow the law.

But Biden is also moving to open a consulate for the ‘Palestinians’ in Jerusalem to counteract the embassy that President Trump moved to Jerusalem. The consulate would violate Israeli sovereignty and would be illegal under United States law. Neither bothers Biden.

There’s also no reason to set up a consulate to the terrorists in Jerusalem except to violate Israeli sovereignty over the city and stake a claim to the Jewish city for Hamas and the PLO.

The Palestinian Authority operates out of Ramallah. The Russians and Chinese have their diplomatic missions in Ramallah. That’s not out of sensitivity to Israel, just common sense.

Biden wants to set up a consulate to the PA miles away from the terror state regime that he wants to have close diplomatic relations with. State Department personnel told the media that during the war they thought they were “flying blind” without a consulate. But a consulate in Jerusalem puts them no closer to Abbas and the Palestinian Authority’s government than the embassy they already have in Jerusalem does. If Biden wants a consulate close to Abbas, he could erect one in Ramallah. Otherwise the consulate could operate out of the embassy.

Secretary of State Blinken claims that Biden wants a consulate in Jerusalem "to be able to more effectively engage not just the Palestinian Authority, but Palestinians from different walks of life, the NGO community, the business community, and others.”

Countries don’t have diplomatic relations with NGOs and businesses, but with countries. France doesn’t operate a consulate to Coca Cola or the Sierra Club.

But if Biden and Blinken want to “engage” the non-profit NGOs that are funded by the State Department, the European Union, George Soros, and other anti-Israel billionaires to wage a campaign against Israel, they can just open a consulate in D.C., Brussels, or the Open Society Foundations in Berlin. And the Muslim “business community” of the 600 Hamas millionaires in Gaza, (falsely depicted as an “open air prison” in the media’s disinformation campaign) would be best engaged by opening a consulate in Gaza City right next to the AP’s offices.

There’s no legal or rational reason for Biden to open a “Palestinian” consulate in Jerusalem.

Biden wants a terrorist consulate in Jerusalem for the same reason that every Democrat White House insisted on keeping the US embassy in Tel Aviv 40 miles from the actual location of the Israeli government in Jerusalem. The State Department didn’t complain it was “flying blind” through multiple wars by refusing to have close access to the Israeli government.

It was more important to make a point by refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The Soviet Union and European media made a point of referring to Tel Aviv as shorthand for Israel’s government the way that we would refer to London as shorthand for the British government which was like insisting that the White House is really in Boston.

Deutsche Welle, Germany’s state-owned broadcaster, falsely captioned a recent photo of Blinken and Netanyahu meeting in Jerusalem as “Blinken met with Netanyahu in Tel-Aviv”.

It’s not just Iran that refers to Israel as “the regime in Tel Aviv”.

That’s the denialist mindset behind Biden’s push to open a terror consulate in Jerusalem. Biden’s people, especially his pro-terrorist point man Hady Amr are, as the State Department often accused Israel of doing, “creating facts on the ground” for the PLO and Hamas.

And no politician has been more hypocritical and dishonest about Jerusalem than Biden.

In 1990, Biden co-sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 which condemned "ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem".

Two decades later, Biden became a key figure in attacking the right of Jews to "live in all parts of Jerusalem".

In 1992, Biden co-sponsored Senate Consecutive Resolution 113 stating that "Jerusalem must remain an undivided city" and in 1995 co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act declaring that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city" and "be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel". All the way back in 1984, Biden was saying, “I happen to support this move”, but “I think it is the wrong fight to make it this time.” And it always went on being the wrong time.

When President Trump called Biden’s bluff by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, Biden conceded that “I wouldn’t reverse it. I wouldn’t have done it in the first place.”

Biden promised to open a consulate to the “Palestinians” in Jerusalem and he’s on it. The proposed consulate has no legitimate government function because it’s not in Ramallah.

The only purpose of the consulate is to undermine President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem.

After years of enthusiastic speeches at AIPAC, Biden offered a sonorous video in 2020 warning of a "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza and telling Israel that it needed to stop Jewish "settlements".

Biden threatened Israel that if it didn't keep Jews from living on land claimed by the terrorists, it would "choke off any hope for peace" and undermine support from Democrats.

During his campaign, Biden promised, “I will reopen the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem”.

He’s not reopening it to “engage Palestinians”, but to counter Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. After decades of pretending that he supported recognizing a united Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel, Biden is doing everything he can to undermine Israel’s presence in Jerusalem.

In 2013, Biden told AIPAC that he was jealous because Obama "gets to be the one to say ‘This year in Jerusalem'". In 2021, he’s promising, “This year in Jerusalem” to the terrorists.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, June 09, 2021

How Democrats Created a Carjacking Outbreak

By On June 09, 2021
Carjacking is booming like no form of crime in Biden’s America. Homicides are up, especially in those cities that defunded their police, pharmacies are going out of business in San Francisco and other cities where shoplifting was legalized, but stealing cars is where it’s really at now.

Carjackings more than doubled in Chicago, and increased 537% in Minneapolis, the capital of police defunding, and around 500% in Washington D.C.

In Atlanta, mayoral candidate Antonio Brown, who had advocated defunding the police, was leaving a ribbon-cutting ceremony when he was carjacked and dragged for a block.

“These kids were in my opinion somewhere between 7- and 11-years-old," Councilman Brown said, after calling the police.

They probably weren’t 7, but 11 is all too plausible because the carjackers are getting younger.

The nation was briefly shocked when four children, including an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old, were busted for armed robberies and carjackings in California. A 12-year-old was arrested for four armed carjackings in an hour in Washington D.C. In Pittsburgh, a carjacking crash ended in the deaths of three teen carjackers: the youngest of whom was a 14-year-old.

In one of the worst teen carjackings, two teenage girls, a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old, carjacked and killed a Pakistani Uber driver.

(One reason Ubers have become harder to find is that drivers are afraid of being carjacked.)

In Philly, a Lyft driver avoided a similar fate by pulling out his gun and shooting a 14-year-old carjacker.

The media, which assured the country that defunding the police, freeing all the criminals, and ending bail would reform public safety, claims to be baffled by the rise in carjackings.

Some are blaming the increase in teen carjackings on the teachers’ union shutdown of schools.

That’s certainly a factor, but the teens turning to carjacking would otherwise be moving drugs. The pandemic lockdowns however made stealing cars more profitable than running drugs.

The lockdown’s destruction of the economy has made new homes unaffordable, and also increased the price of cars. Fewer people and businesses could afford to make big new purchases during the shutdown, and instead held on to their existing cars.

The price of new cars is sharply up, but used car prices have shot up by as much as a quarter and inventory is low. That’s where the carjackers come in. Supply is meeting demand.

It’s not just the consumer market. There are severe rental car shortages and Uber shortages.

Even after the economic devastation of the Democrat lockdowns, Biden’s signature program is pushing subsidized electric cars. Car manufacturers are waiting to see what sort of mandates and rewards they’ll be dealing with under Biden’s infrastructure program. And with the supply of chips low and prices rising, they’re in no hurry to roll out cars they may not be allowed to sell.

Under Obama’s disastrous Cash for Clunkers environmentalist program, used car prices shot up 10% and used SUVs rose 30%. Inventory dropped and people were no longer able to afford used cars. Biden is helping bring back Obama’s economic woes in a bigger way.

While the luxury housing and car markets are thriving, the lower end has locked millions of Americans out of buying a home or a car. Car manufacturers are happy to push luxury electric SUVs to buyers who can afford to pay whatever the asking price may be. Working class and middle class car buyers and businesses that depend on fleets of vehicles are out of luck.

Urban organized crime is meeting the demand for used cars with underage carjackers.

Democrat municipalities dismantled law enforcement, destroyed police morale, and shut down much of the justice system in response to the Black Lives Matter riots over the overdose death of George Floyd. The arrest and prosecution of teens, already unpopular, went by the wayside.

The same drug rings exploiting children to run drugs began using them to steal cars.

Organized gangs employed young recruits to shoplift from stores when it became clear that even the most brazen daylight robberies would not be prosecuted in major urban areas.

Especially if the perpetrators were teens. And the younger the teens, the better.

Gangs that had used children to run drugs because they were unlikely to face serious charges moved them into robbery and then, as cars became a hot commodity, into carjacking.

The criminal justice reform movement has fought against prosecuting teenagers, even those who commit murder, as adults. And, indeed, the two teen girls who killed an Uber driver in D.C. reportedly reached a plea deal. Teen carjackers know that even if they kill their victim, the worst thing that will happen is they’ll be in the custody of the state until they become legal adults.

Teen carjackers assault drivers while fearlessly brandishing guns like it’s hunting season because they know the police won’t shoot them and district attorneys won’t lock them up.

While criminal justice reformers claimed that trying teens as adults ‘criminalized’ children, it dissuaded teens and, more importantly, the organized gangs using them as pawns. The decriminalization of teenage crimes led to a boom in teens being recruited by organized crime.

The more Democrats refuse to prosecute teens, the more teens become criminals. And their crimes escalate until they destroy someone else’s lives or just their own.

These kinds of unintended consequences are typical of criminal justice reform.

The carjacking boom is the outgrowth of the two worst Democrat policies from 2020. The lockdowns wrecked the economy and created a booming black market for criminals. The BLM movement and its race riots helped spur a decriminalization that led to a massive crime wave.

If Biden’s electric car push implodes, the auto market may begin to stabilize and recover. But the carjackings will just give way to other lucrative criminal enterprises. Decriminalizing drugs and prostitution won’t decrease crime or make society safer. The most basic level of crime is still theft. Legalizing immoral social ills will just shift criminal resources over to various forms of theft.

Democrats have become socialists and their obsession with controlling markets is leading to artificial shortages that criminals are happy to meet by redistributing some wealth. Like cars.

Socialism, whether in the USA or the USSR, feeds a black market as consumers try to get hold of whatever is no longer available in the controlled legal marketplace. And since those socialists criminalized legal sales of many products, while decriminalizing crime, the criminals are filling niches by stealing from those who have a product in order to sell it to someone who doesn’t.

When capitalism becomes a crime, then criminals become capitalists.

The nightmare of 11-year-olds stealing cars at gunpoint in Washington D.C., Chicago, Philly, and other major cities, was born from the pandemic lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter riots.

Everything that Biden and the Democrats are doing will only make the new crime wave worse.

In Biden’s America, carjacking is how used car sales work. And 11-year-olds hijacking cars at gunpoint are the new used car procurers of a broken economy that prints worthless money.

The Democrats are happy to write everyone a check. But pieces of paper with Biden’s signature on them are only worth what they can buy. Biden’s checks can’t buy you a car or a home. But they’ll buy a car stolen by an 11-year-old boy being run by Biden’s base of urban criminals. If he gets caught, he’ll be out the next day. And you’ll still be out of a car. You may not be able to find a new or used car you can afford to replace it with on the lot, but the carjackers will find one.

That’s the Biden economy.




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Monday, June 07, 2021

Jewish Studies Has an Anti-Semitism Problem

By On June 07, 2021
When Sultan Doughan signed a hateful letter falsely claiming that Israel and Zionism were based on "Jewish Supremacy", a term popularized by Neo-Nazi leader David Duke, that ugly rhetoric wouldn’t have attracted much attention in an antisemitic time... except for one thing.

Doughan is a Muslim postdoctoral associate at Boston University's Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies.

Her work at a center named after one of the most prominent writers about the Holocaust includes the “case of a German-Palestinian museum guide who lost her job over a controversy that was triggered by her comparing her own family’s traumatic past in the Nakba with Jewish experiences during the Holocaust.”

More accurately, the guide compared the Jews to the Nazis at the Anne Frank House.

In her thesis, Doughan complains that "Muslims have to submit to the Holocaust" and that the "Holocaust remains an exceptional event in German discourse, authorizing immigration policies, citizenship tests and discrimination" against Muslims.

Muslims emerge as the "new Jews" who are being victimized by the Holocaust, not just in Israel, but in Germany, where they are asked not to spew hate at Jews as a condition of citizenship.

Doughan appears to suggest that compensation funds for the Holocaust be used for Muslims.

She smears a Muslim social worker fighting antisemitism over his shock at a woman declaring, “I’d rather send my daughter to Tel Aviv to blow herself up." Doughan accuses him of being a "driver of imported 'Muslim anti-Semitism'” because his worry over "the idea of killing Jews was greater than his worry for this concrete girl possibly dying in the course of such an act."

This would be a moral abomination anywhere, but it’s especially horrifying within the context of a Jewish Studies center named after Elie Wiesel.

But the hateful anti-Israel letter using Neo-Nazi language toward Jews reveals just how deep the rot in Jewish Studies has become. While African-American Studies departments promote positive narratives about black people, Jewish Studies departments do the opposite to Jews.

Often they’re used to attack Jews from the inside while advancing anti-Jewish narratives.

Pratima Gopalakrishnan, another signatory to the "Jewish Supremacy" letter, is a post-doc at the Duke Center for Jewish Studies who rants about Israel on Twitter and ponders "how intro classes on the ancient Near East can make intentional connections to Palestine today".

Pratima claims to be studying "ancient Judaism" using "theoretical approaches drawn from feminist and queer theory". That hostile lens is supplemented with a column on the Torah for Jewish Currents, a former Communist publication that celebrated the Muslim rape and murder of Jews, and firing off social media blood libels about “Israel’s military aggression against the people of Gaza”, and false claims about the “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians”.

Lila Corwin Berman, who holds a chair in American Jewish History at Temple University, is also one of the more prominent figures in Jewish studies as chair of the Academic Council of the American Jewish Historical Society. Her signature on the hateful letter is unsurprising considering her opposition to anti-BDS measures, and support for anti-Israel groups.

Berman has appeared with Peter Beinart, who has called for the destruction of Israel, and supported him, and promoted material from the JVP pro-terrorist hate group.

She also took part in a webinar for the former Communist Jewish Currents anti-Israel site.

Beyond her anti-Israel activism, Berman has labored to rid Jewish Studies of Jews.

In "Jewish History Beyond the Jewish People", Berman argues that "Jewishness may help us interpret a person, a place, an idea, a text, an object, or a relationship without first having to meet any preexisting condition of being Jewish." What then makes Jewish Studies, Jewish?

"Is it possible to think of Jewishness as anything other than real Jewish bodies and spaces?" Berman wheedles. "When we write Jewish history beyond its foundational claims—the Jewish people or a Jewish space—we must announce that these claims are neither inevitable nor eternal." That is a prerequisite to the destruction of the Jewish people.

Mostafa Hussein, another signatory to the "Jewish Supremacy" letter, has a PhD in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis. He's currently teaching at the Department of Judaic Studies at Michigan University where he's working on a book arguing that Zionism was based on Arab and Islamic ideas. Hussein, a graduate of Egypt's Al-Azhar University, claims that Jews constructed "the identity of the new Jew and his sense of belonging to the Land of Palestine/Israel" by having "exploited Arabo-Islamic knowledge".

The problem is not simply that some people involved in Jewish Studies hate Israel in their own free time, or even that they sign letters using the language of David Duke, it’s that they center their own extremist agendas at the expense of the Jewish people, whose heritage and legacy they exploit in a broader campaign to attack Jews using Jewish Studies as their weapon.

At the University of Massachusets, Alon Confino acts as the Pen Tishkach Chair of Holocaust Studies when he isn't complaining that Germany isn't antisemitic enough.

"The situation in Germany today is absurd. Any harsh critique of Israel’s occupation or its policies is deemed antisemitic. Is this really a lesson Germans want to draw from the Holocaust?" Confino whined in an article equating Israel with Nazi Germany and urging that, as "Holocaust scholars", it was important to listen to the voices of Israel's Muslim “victims”.

Amos Goldberg, the co-author of the article with Confino, and another signatory to the “Jewish Supremacy” letter, is the co-editor of “The Holocaust and Nakba: Memory, National Identity and Jewish-Arab Partnership.” The Nakba is the Arab Muslim name for their failed genocide of the Jews that has become an annual “Lost Cause” commemoration and an orgy of racist violence.

The abuse of the Holocaust to attack Jews and support antisemites is routine in Jewish Studies.

Atina Grossmann, a Cooper Union professor and a fellow the United States Holocaust Museum, is a signatory to the letter that uses the Neo-Nazi trope of “Jewish Supremacy”. But when the Museum protested Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s description of illegal migrant detention as “concentration camps”, Grossman rushed to the defense of the antisemitic leftist who is allied with Jeremy Corbyn and whose blood libels have encouraged hatred toward Jews.

The letter signed by Grossman wailed that “the Museum’s decision to completely reject drawing any possible analogies to the Holocaust, or to the events leading up to it, is fundamentally ahistorical.” But comparing American immigration policies to the Holocaust is entirely historical.

Grossman was also one of the signatories to a letter warning Facebook not to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. As were Amos Goldberg, Lila Corwin Berman, Alon Confino, and multiple other signatories to the “Jewish Supremacy” letter including Hasia Diner.

Diner, an NYU prof of American Jewish History, and another member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Center for Jewish History, is refreshing in that she makes no effort to disguise her raving hatred for the Jewish State behind the obscure academic jargon of other academics.

In a hatefilled rant, Hasia Diner wrote that though she abhorred “bombings and stabbings”, the murder of Jews is what “oppressed individuals resort to out of anger and frustration”.

“I feel a sense of repulsion when I enter a synagogue in front of which the congregation has planted a sign reading, ‘We Stand With Israel’”, Diner wrote. She described Israel as “a place that I abhor visiting, and to which I will contribute no money, whose products I will not buy”.

She also complained that, “it is impossible to have a conversation about Israel or BDS because one is accused of being anti-Semitic.”

Maybe that’s because they are.

Jewish Studies has an antisemitism problem and it’s only been getting worse.

The signatories to the “Jewish Supremacy” letter are many of the same ugly figures in Jewish Studies who sign on to every anti-Israel letter that comes their way. They signed the letter opposing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the letter opposing campaigns against campus antisemitism, opposing the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and opposing, well, Jews.

Jewish Studies, as Lila Corwin Berman implies, ought to have little to do with actual Jews. But it’s not enough for Jewish Studies to displace Jews, burying a people in a mass grave of academic verbiage and social justice buzzwords, it must also set out to eliminate the Jews.

As has happened so often, the theft of Jewish ideas and narratives is sealed with genocide.

Jewish Studies has become an academic war on the Jews. And no matter how good the intentions of the donors subsidizing chairs in Jewish history, Holocaust studies, and religious studies were, the academics who seize them adopt an eliminationist ideology, resenting the confines of Jewish identity, and seeking to destroy it by satanizing the Jews.

The same old narrative of Jewish history is playing out on campuses where the physical body of the Jewish people and the bodies of Jews are being ideologically separated from “Jewishness”.

Academic ‘Jewishness’ is constructed to mean anything and everything but actual Jews. Jews are reframed as the enemies of true Jewish values and ideas who must be destroyed to save “Jewishness” from the Jews.

Divorcing the study of Jewish history and ideas from Jewish communal institutions and peoplehood has repeatedly created monsters, whether it’s Holocaust museums that promote Black Lives Matter and accuse Jews of Nazism, or Jewish Studies departments that are friendlier to Hamas than to Israel. Donors have to stop funding academic organizations detached from connection and accountability to the people whose peoplehood they exploit.

Academics have rediscovered the old notion that Jewish ideas are appealing, but actual Jews are not. Jewish ideas are pitted against real Jews, and the idea is used to beat to death the reality proving once again that the students of history are the last to learn from the past.

Antisemitic academics may not be able to learn from the past, but Jews don’t have that luxury.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.



Sunday, June 06, 2021

The Democrat Model for the Future is the Worst City in America

By On June 06, 2021
Rochester has the second highest urban murder rate in New York with killings up 56% and shootings up 90%. Once the 32nd largest city in the country. Rochester is at number 111 and falling. Its population shrank 6.2% since 2000. The poverty rate is at 31% and the only thing going up is STDs with gonorrhea up 77% and chlamydia rates placing second in the state.

So the Democrats are using Rochester as a model for America.

Hardly a week goes by without someone in the media, who has never been to Rochester and wouldn’t go there at gunpoint, describing it as the first city to conduct some socialist experiment.

Last month, the media was promoting Mayor Lovely Warren’s push to use drug revenue for racial reparations and basic income even though the last thing a city with open air heroin markets needs is the government handing out free money financed by drug sales.

Last week, the New York Times touted Rochester's war on highways under the headline, "Can Removing Highways Fix America's Cities?"

If Rochester is the model for fixing anything then the answer is always, “Hell no!.

But Rochester is always doing something excitingly progressive like defunding the police or being designated by Governor Cuomo as a "model EV city” and setting up electric car charging stations across a city with few electric cars and a plague of deadly carjackings.

The cheapest Tesla costs $35,000. That's also the average household income in Rochester.

Before Rochester became Cuomo’s model city for charging the electric cars it doesn’t have, it was his pick as a "model city" to fight global warming by building 10 miles of bike routes.

Those routes give Rochester’s bike thieves different options for making their getaway after over 100 bikes were stolen from a neighborhood biking program giving away free bikes.

“I just want to ensure that the people that did this know I love them and that our program is open to them,” Mayor Lovely Warren assured the thieves. “We’re just extremely sorry that life’s circumstances led them to a place in which they had to make a decision like this to rob a free neighborhood program of bicycles."

The free bikes program shut down this year.

Fresh off the efforts to make Rochester into a model city for electric cars and bikes, Mayor Lovely Warren embarked on a social justice spree of police defunding and reparations.

In 2020, Rochester police tried to restrain Daniel Prude, a career criminal who had been arrested 37 times and convicted 9 times,who had taken PCP and was wandering the streets. Prude shouted, "Give me that gun". Police tried to restrain him by hooding him and he died.

Morbidly obese white socialists showed up naked in white hoods and sat on the steps of City Hall with “Black Lives Matter” written on their on their bottoms to protest a black mayor.

Not even the most dedicated white supremacist could have come up with anything more racist.

After that the Black Lives Matter race riots and arson almost came as something of a relief.

Mayor Lovely Warren and the Rochester City Council defunded the police, cutting millions from law enforcement in a city with hundreds of shootings. Police Chief La’Ron Singletary warned that this would hurt the black community, but the media cheered Warren’s move. A Black Lives Matter organizer insisted that, “police make neighborhoods more dangerous.” Really?

"Murder, Carjackings, Violent Crime Surge in Rochester NY. Why?" a Democrat Chronicle article inquired this year.

It was a mystery no one could solve. Especially the police who weren’t allowed to solve crimes.

As murders rose 56% and shootings shot up 90%, Rochester decided to offer iPads in exchange for “working handguns and assault rifles”. No questions asked. A week after the “largest gun buyback in Rochester history”, four people were shot in just one day.

Five months after announcing that she wanted to reimagine the police, Mayor Lovely Warren was indicted on campaign fraud charges. Last month, her husband was busted in the takedown of a drug ring. The cops found a semi-automatic rifle in her home. Warren, who had allied with Bloomberg’s Everytown gun control group, claimed that she knew nothing about the weapon.

It couldn’t have been too shocking since her husband had already been convicted of armed robbery.

Mayor Lovely Warren blamed the whole thing on racism. “Things are not that different from the 1860s and 1950s,” she insinuated. It’s just like the 1860s in Rochester under its black female mayor, black female police chief, and 60% black city council with only two white members.

Warren then doubled down on racial reparations and police defunding.

It’s important to “invest in the people, in the neighborhoods that suffered from the criminalization of marijuana," she had claimed earlier.

Rochester isn’t suffering from excessive criminalization, but decriminalization. And the last thing a city overrun with drugs needs is more drugs, or police defunding, EV chargers, demolishing highways, or any of the other “progressive” gimmicks that Democrats keep jumping on.

The media is right. Rochester is a model. And a cautionary tale.

The former booming industrial city is a model for what the Democrats want to do to America, gutting industrial bases, replacing work with welfare, and then using black people as lab rats for radical social experiments like drug legalization and police defunding with deadly results.

Being a “model city” now means having every toxic leftist policy idea tested on you.

Democrats have failed at the most basic elements of governance in Rochester. And yet they keep rolling out exciting new ideas to fight global warming or transform society when they can’t even handle their existing responsibilities.

Rochester is the 5th poorest city in the country. It’s also one of the dirtiest, it has the worst schools in the state and some of the lowest literacy rates. The graduation rate hovers between 40 and 50 percent. 75% of Rochester's children are being raised by single parents.

If Mayor Lovely Warren really wants to “close the wealth gap between Black and Brown people and our White neighbors”, then she might want to start there, instead of writing checks for black people from drug money while turning Rochester streets into war zones with police defunding.

But this is the Democrat model that devastated cities and communities. The only thing that they have added to this mix since the seventies is electric car chargers and police defunding.

And then they blame the corrupt, violent, and impoverished hellholes their economic and social policies created on “systemic racism”. Like the naked socialists wearing white hoods to protest racism, they’re right about the racism, but the naked leftist emperors could use a mirror.

Whatever happens to Mayor Lovely Warren, her city will go on chasing every new progressive policy idea (and the cash and publicity that comes with it) even as life keeps getting worse.

And Democrats will try to turn every city, town, and village into another Rochester.




Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, June 03, 2021

Big Tech's 'No Free Speech' Amendment

By On June 03, 2021
A few years ago the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) was demanding government regulations that would force internet providers to carry the content of members like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Now it's suing Florida to fight regulations that would force some of those same members to carry the content of ordinary Americans.

Net Neutrality, or forcing cable and DSL companies to carry all content without picking and choosing, "helps preserve free speech, access to information — and democracy," former CCIA boss Ed Black argued two years ago.

But when Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law barring Big Tech monopolies from deplatforming candidates for public office and journalists, and forcing Big Tech to adopt clear and consistent standards for how they treat users, including deplatforming, as is the norm in every other industry, the CCIA went to war against free speech, access to information -- and democracy.

Governor DeSantis says that Big Tech is suppressing free speech. Big Tech argues that DeSantis is taking away its free speech which it defines as censoring people’s speech.

“We are bringing this suit to safeguard the industry’s free speech," current CCIA boss Matt Schruers claimed. “A digital service that declines to host harmful content is exercising its own First Amendment rights.”

Does Facebook have free speech? And can speech consist of denying service to conservatives? Should Mark Zuckerberg’s speech nullify the speech of millions of Americans?

In 1948, the first program ran on a computer. It was also the year that George Orwell finished 1984 with its infamous slogan, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Slavery is Freedom.” Big Tech’s version of it is, “Free Speech is Censorship” and “Censorship is Free Speech.”

When Big Tech censors millions of Americans, it’s engaging in free speech. And when those Americans rise up and fight back against their illegal monopolies, that’s censorship.

But Big Tech already dismantled all the arguments it’s putting forward with Net Neutrality.

If a digital service picking and choosing its content is a First Amendment right, then why don’t cable companies have the same right to bar access to the harmful content on Twitter?

A trade association whose members include Twitter and Facebook insists they have a right to ban the President of the United States and any conservatives because that’s free speech, but that AT&T or Comcast don’t have the right to ban access to Twitter because of free speech.

If censorship is also free speech then that cuts both ways. Otherwise it’s free speech for me, but not for thee, which is exactly the argument that Big Tech’s lobbies and front groups are making.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter want to force internet service providers to have no choice about carrying them, but they want to pick and choose whose speech they carry. And yet Google, Amazon, and Facebook have much broader monopolistic powers than internet service providers. The cable provider market has too little choice, but it’s incredibly diverse compared to an e-ecosystem with Google, whose search engine controls 80% of the market, Facebook, which controls 80% of the social media market, and Amazon’s massive ebook dominance.

If any aspect of the ‘net’ needs more neutrality, it’s the platforms, not the providers.

If Comcast’s control of 40% of the broadband market gives it so much power that it can’t be allowed to pick and choose what content it carries, what about Facebook’s 80% control?

And if Comcast potentially deciding not to carry Twitter is an assault on “free speech, access to information — and democracy”, then why isn’t Twitter’s decision not to carry President Trump and other conservatives an assault on “free speech, access to information — and democracy”?

Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the Big Tech crew want to argue that denying access to platforms is an attack on free speech, but that platforms denying access to users isn’t.

Big Tech’s position is that only its monopolies have free speech and they should use that speech to deny everyone else free speech. That’s a surreal mockery of the First Amendment.

Big Tech’s trade group is relying on the same compelled speech argument that Christian bakers have used to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding. But there’s a multitude of bakeries, most of whom will be happy to bake a cake for anything if you pay them enough.

How many Facebooks and Googles are there?

Christian bakers and photographers argued that they’re artists and taking part in a gay wedding would compel their speech. Are Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey artists? Are Facebook and Twitter their artistic creations that would be spoiled by allowing conservative speech?

And yet the same media that ridiculed the idea that a Christian baker should be allowed to pick and choose which cakes he bakes is insisting that telling a social media monopoly not to censor candidates for public office is a violation of Zuckerberg and Dorsey’s free speech rights.

But if the speech on Facebook and Twitter is the speech of these billionaires, then they can be held accountable for it. If it’s not their speech, then free speech isn’t an issue. The CCIA is in the absurd position of arguing that speech on platforms is and isn’t really theirs speech. And that platforms express their speech by taking away the ability of others to speak.

Call it the No Free Speech version of the First Amendment.

If Big Tech speaks by eliminating the speech of others, then maybe we would be better off without this novel black hole theory of speech on whose basis it’s going to war against Florida.

The CCIA was advocating for the so-called “Save the Internet Act” to impose Net Neutrality. But the internet appears to be in no particular danger from the lack of Net Neutrality. Despite all the alarmism about the end of the internet and even death threats (one activist was sentenced for threatening to kill the family of Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai), little has actually changed.

That’s not the case with Big Tech censorship which silenced millions of people from POTUS on down, influenced the outcome of a national election, and defined the national debate. Net Neutrality advocates could not point to any measurable harm caused to them, but opponents of Big Tech censorship can easily point to the harm being done to them and to the United States.

Florida is bringing real Net Neutrality to the table. Unlike Net Neutrality, which was an effort by platforms to enlist the government and dumber lefty internet users into their war against broadband providers, real Net Neutrality begins with monopolistic platforms not providers.

“The internet has been historically neutral. After decades of legal battles by those who want to either make money from discrimination or look the other way, we are glad to see legislation to protect consumers’ and businesses’ access to the open internet," the CCIA argued a mere two years ago in defense of Net Neutrality and the “Save the Internet Act”.

Unfortunately the internet hasn’t been neutral. It’s dominated by a speech cartel which deploys the rhetoric of an open internet and free speech when it serves its business interests, but is fighting tooth and nail when Governor DeSantis and Florida asked Big Tech to be neutral.

Conservatives looked the other way while Big Tech consolidated its control over the internet. They’ve gotten tired of looking the other way, but Big Tech is just as eager to gaslight them, to hire Republican lobbyists to argue that speech is censorship and censorship is speech.

We need a real Net Neutrality and a real Save the Internet Act.

The CCIA has unintentionally made some great points over the years. Americans paid for the internet, from the earliest networks down to Google. We put our economy and our political system on the internet. Now Big Tech monopolies are consuming our wealth and our freedom.

Americans deserve an open and neutral internet. Consumers and businesses need access to an open internet, but so do elected officials, journalists, and anyone who cares about the way that our country is run and has an opinion about government, culture, and education.

Big Tech engaged in blatant election rigging and voter suppression in the 2020 election. And it’s marginalizing and suppressing the views of half the country from the marketplace of ideas.

Its front group laughably claims that it’s suppressing half the country in the name of free speech.

A true net neutrality applied to the CCIA’s Big Tech bosses would "preserve free speech, access to information — and democracy." Florida’s move is a good first step in the war to take back free speech on the internet and force platforms to host political speech in an open and neutral way.

Big Tech claims that it loves free speech. Governor DeSantis and Florida are showing what real free speech looks like.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Popular

Categories

Follow by Email