Jewish Influence in 2018 Midterms

I've often said the JQ is like a bad car wreck: once you see it, you can't unsee it. Therefore, when I read USA Today's article, 10 Super-Rich People Dominate giving to Super PACs active in Midterm Elections for Congress, I couldn't help but wonder how many of the ten were Jewish. A quick search produced the following results:

• Richard Uihlein: non-Jew
• Thomas Steyer: Jew
• Fred Eychaner: non-Jew (gay-rights activist, Democrat's “Mystery Man,” possible Jew)
• S. Donald Sussman: Jew
• George Marcus: non-Jew (Greek Orthodox)
• Charles Koch: non-Jew
• Steven Cohen: Jew
• Bernard Marcus: Jew
• Geoffrey Palmer: Jew
• Deborah Simon: Jew

According to USA Today's analysis, these “10 super-rich individuals” account for more than 20% of the money that is funding federal super PACs:

Donations from 10 super-rich individuals account for more than 20% of the money filling the bank accounts of federal super PACs, a USA TODAY analysis shows, highlighting how a small group of wealthy patrons is racing to influence which party will control Congress for the remainder of President Trump’s first term.

In the United States, 1.7% of the population is Jewish. Yet, six of the ten “super-rich” people who are using their wealth to influence American politics are Jewish. It's also important to note that half of those on the list support Republicans, and the other half Democrats. So, although Jews collectively vote 70% Democrat, three of the five Republican lobbyists mentioned are Jewish. As are three of the five Democrat donors. Therefore, not only are Jews disproportionately represented on the list in general, but they are also significantly disproportionate on each side of the political aisle.

On one side of the political spectrum you have Left-wing liberalism, which is widely endorsed (and often led) by Jews. In the status quo, the terms “liberal” and “Democrat” have essentially become synonymous. And considering 32% of Jewish Millennials aren't religious, the argument has been put forth that liberalism has become a replacement for Judaism:

Beginning in the 1930s, but accelerating from the 1950s, there came a new manifestation of "Americanized" non-Orthodox Judaism. Not only would Jews be transformed into a denationalized segment of the general national ethnic majority, practicing a sanitized and palatable "in" version of Judaism. But Judaism itself would be recast as part and parcel of the new political thinking gaining popularity in the West, the wave of liberalism. American Jews - the main Diaspora community surviving World War II - would advance themselves in Western society and promote their acceptance to an ever greater extent by allying themselves with liberal political causes, indeed would largely take over the leadership of American (and to a lesser extent non-American) political liberalism.

There emerged a new form of Jewish assimilationism, the "Liberalism-as-Judaism" form of pseudo-Judaism. Especially in the United States, this "school of thought" held that Judaism was nothing more nor less than the American liberal political agenda, including the advocacy - in the name of Judaism and "Prophetic Ethics" - of liberal fashionable political ideas. The beginnings of this were in the New Deal era, when American Jewish support for Franklin D. Roosevelt was nearly unanimous. It continued after World War II.

The "Liberalism as Judaism" School argued that all of Judaism and Jewish tradition could be boiled down into a search for civil "justice" and secular "freedom". Since it was axiomatic, in the eyes of Jewish liberals, that the liberal political agenda was synonymous with justice, freedom, and righteousness and that the opponents of liberalism were evil and unjust, "Judaism" itself could be conscripted in the cause of promoting liberal partisanship.

On the other side of the political paradigm we have “Right-wing” neoconservatism. A movement founded in the mid-20^th century by Jewish intellectuals who had become increasing dissatisfied with Stalin's Communism. Ideologically, they were on the political Left. But they didn't like the direction the “New Left” was headed, due mostly to Black anti-Semitism and the lack of regard for Israel. The former “Trotskyites” rebranded themselves as conservatives, and by the late 90's had become a strong force within the Republican party:

The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons—including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter—belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics. As early as 1963 Richard Hofstadter commented on the progression of many ex-Communists from the paranoid left to the paranoid right, clinging all the while to the fundamentally Manichean psychology that underlies both. [Half a century] later the dominant strain of neoconservatism is declared to be a mixture of geopolitical militarism and “inverted socialist internationalism.”

As the neoconservative movement evolved, their primary focus became the welfare of Israel. It is a widely accepted theory that NeoCons served as the fundamental driving force behind Bush's war in Iraq in 2003, which many considered a war for Israel:

Previously terming themselves “leftists,” and now calling themselves “conservatives,” in actuality neo-cons seem to be neither. Rather, their ideology largely revolves around passionate devotion to Israeli interests.

The point I'm trying to establish is that regardless of one's affiliations with either Republican or Democrat, the policies in both parties are greatly influenced by Jews. Honestly, I don't think the majority of Americans care if it's a Jew or Gentile that is influencing political policy as long as that person's loyalty is to America. And with regard to Jews, that often seems to be a conflict of interest.

Just me pointing out the discrepancy between Jew and non-Jew is considered a form of anti-Semitism (calling a Jew a “Jew” because they're Jewish). Because if one recognizes an obvious demographic disparity within the sphere of political influence, their observation has to be fueled by hatred and not inquisition.

Those ignorant to the Jewish Question don't differentiate the correlation between Jewish elites and Gentile elites. All they see is rich people doing what rich people do (more specifically, they see rich “White” people). Which is exactly how Jews are able to discreetly infiltrate institutions of power and insert their dominance on Gentile society.

But what gullible Gentiles don't seem to grasp is that Jews are an ethnically cohesive tribe who operate on an in-group/out-group dynamic as part of an inherent evolutionary survival strategy. This strategy is often deceptive (name change, masquerading as “fellow White people,” etc), in the sense that it's rooted in paranoia and victimhood. And rightfully so. Jews have been expelled from 109 countries in the last 2,000 years (it's almost impossible to logically conceptualize that every single one of those 109 countries were just anti-Semitic, and that Jews were always the innocent victims of circumstance):

American Jews overwhelmingly say they are proud to be Jewish and have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, according to a major new survey by the Pew Research Center.

The JQ is often perceived as intellectually complicated. And it certainly can be. Particularly to altruistic, egalitarian, individualistic Whites who don't possess the innate trait of group loyalty. But the JQ can be analogously simplified. For example, the primary distinction between Jews and Blacks (with regard to their social hierarchy) is IQ. Both groups are tribal, to the degree that their loyalty lies with the in-group. Blacks might even be more racially loyal than Jews (98% of Black women voted for Doug Jones in the recent Alabama Senate election). However, high Jewish IQs help enable them to generate wealth and status, which places them in positions of prominence and power. Positions that allow Jews to pursue Jewish interests that often don't align with American interests.

Jews have the only ethnostate on the planet. Yet, there are almost as many Jews in the United States as there are in Israel (6.5 million vs 5.3 million). The USA and Israel are home to 90% of the world's Jews. Does the amount of foreign aid ($3.8 billion per year) we send to Israel coincide with American interests, or Jewish interests?

The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for Israel over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said.

The package will provide an average of $3.8 billion a year over the next decade to Israel, already the largest recipient of American aid, including financing for missile defense systems that defend against rockets fired by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Under a previous 10-year agreement that expires in 2018, the United States provides about $3 billion a year, but lately Congress has added up to $500 million a year for missile defense.

Looking ahead to the next decade, Mr. Netanyahu initially sought as much as $45 billion, but Mr. Obama refused to go that high. Money for missile defense is included in the package, and the two sides agreed not to seek additional funds from Congress over the next decade unless both agree, such as in case of a war.

Certainly nobody is naive enough to think that Israel is the “largest recipient of America aid” based exclusively on need, and without any persuasion by the Jewish lobby. To emphasize my point, lets hypothetically replace the Jewish elite in America with Japanese elites who possess the same attributes as Jews. Which country do you think would receive more American aid? Japan or Israel?

All to often we perpetually rant about problems without mention of a solution. It's one thing to cognitively identify an issue, but it's another to hopelessly obsess. With that being said, as powerful as the Jews are, they're not omnipotent. They're a small minority with a seat at the table. It's important that we don't negatively stray down the path of “anti-Semitism,” but rather positively fixate on being pro-American.

Perhaps some may deem my next sentence as contradictory to the premise of this thesis, but “It's the Jews!” is slave morality with an end game of demoralization. We can't claim ourselves the genius behind world history in one narrative. Then write another version that describes us as an easily manipulated mass of morons.

Instead of cucking to the Jew's cries of “Nazi” and “anti-Semite,” the narrative needs to be reframed and deflected: “There's a homeland for Americans, and there's a homeland for Jews. Which are you?”

Hyphenated-Americans are un-American. Therefore, Whites are the only true “Americans” (White men created America for White people). As America becomes more-and-more racially diverse, and Whites become a dispossessed majority, we will be forced to become more ethnocentric. Which is a good thing. Because before we can build walls, we have to build loyalty.

Fauxcahontas Strikes Back

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, addressed her claims of “Native American heritage” in a surprise speech to the National Congress of American Indians on Valentine's Day:

But now we have a president who can’t make it through a ceremony honoring Native American war heroes without reducing Native history, Native culture, Native people to the butt of a joke.

The joke, I guess, is supposed to be on me.

I get why some people think there’s hay to be made here. You won’t find my family members on any rolls, and I’m not enrolled in a tribe.

And I want to make something clear. I respect that distinction. I understand that tribal membership is determined by tribes — and only by tribes. I never used my family tree to get a break or get ahead. I never used it to advance my career.

But my mother’s family was part Native American.

Senator Warren's “Native American ancestry” has been a topic of much debate. The clear consensus is that she's misrepresenting herself. One can only speculate as to the motivation behind her claim. Perhaps she truly believes she's an American Indian and doesn't care that most people know what an American Indian looks like. Typically, they don't have pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes. As a general rule of thumb, people with those characteristics are considered “White.”

Aside from being delusional, the major controversy regarding Warren's revelation is whether or not she deceptively made the claim to achieve minority status in order to advance her career (what about that White privilege, though?).

That narrative made headlines in 2012, when Warren acknowledged that she listed herself as “Native American” on her Harvard and Penn applications. Both she, and officials at both universities, denied that Warren's minority designation played a role in her hiring. However, Harvard Law School paraded Warren as a “Native American employee” in the 90s when the school was under fire for a lack of diversity.

A spokeswoman for Warren said that she classified herself as “Native American” because she's proud of her heritage, and not for career advancement. And that's fine. Be proud of who you are. But if you're at least 97% European (she says that she's 3% American Indian), how do you rationally identify as Native American? Remember, before she was a politician, Warren was a professor of law at Harvard. It's not like she's some low IQ hillbilly who just doesn't know the difference.

Interestingly, when she was asked to select the racial identity she most closely identified with while employed at the University of Texas from 1981-1991, she only chose “White.” Even though multiple boxes could be checked, and “American Indian” was one of the options (for what it's worth, she was a Republican back then).

Warren's knowledge of her Native American ancestry doesn't come from DNA testing, or any documented tribal affiliation, but rather “family lore.” I'm sure she's been asked countless times why she doesn't just take a DNA test. She's obviously fascinated with her heritage, so why not have a scientific understanding of it? If not to satisfy her own curiosity, just to shut her naysayers up. Personally, I suspect that she has taken one and the results didn't support her claim. Therefore, as opposed to admitting that she was wrong, she just sticks with “that's what momma told us.”

For a brief time, it appeared that Warren's claim had an alibi when an amateur genealogist reportedly found evidence that Warren was 1/32 Cherokee (great-great-great grandmother). But that was later determined to be a fabrication:

Lynda Smith, the amateur genealogist who unknowingly found herself at the root of the false “Elizabeth Warren is 1/32 Cherokee” meme introduced to the media by “noted” genealogist Chris Child of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, acknowledged in an email...that her statement in a March 2006 family newsletter upon which Mr. Child based his claim of Ms. Warren’s Cherokee ancestry was made with no supporting documentation. It was, in fact, an honest mistake that Ms. Smith now acknowledges is entirely without foundation.

Many on both sides of the political aisle have been highly critical of Warren's claim. Perhaps most notably, President Trump. Trump recently referred to Warren as “Pocahontas” at an event honoring Native American code-talkers:

"You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas."

Warren's response was exactly what we've come to expect from liberals. She accused Trump of, what else, “racism”:

"It is deeply unfortunate that the president of the United States cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without having to throw out a racial slur"

Warren primarily used her platform at the National Congress of American Indians to address Trump's nickname for her. She did so by lecturing real American Indians on the difference between the fictional character of Pocahontas and the one that really lived (whose name wasn't even Pocahontas):

Not Pocahontas, the fictional character most Americans know from the movies, but Pocahontas, the Native woman who really lived, and whose real story has been passed down to so many of you through the generations.

Pocahontas — whose original name wasn’t even Pocahontas.

In the fairy tale, Pocahontas and John Smith meet and fall in love.

Except Smith was nearly 30, and Pocahontas was about 10 years old. Whatever happened between them, it was no love story.

In the fairy tale, Pocahontas saves John Smith from execution at the hands of her father.

Except that was probably made up too.

In reality, the fable is used to bleach away the stain of genocide.

As you know, Pocahontas’s real journey was far more remarkable — and far darker — than the myth admits.

As a child, she played a significant role in mediating relations between the tribes ruled by her father and the early settlers at Jamestown. Those efforts helped establish early trade relations between the two peoples. Without her help, the English settlers might well have perished.

Notice how Mrs Warren is the arbitrator of reality and fantasy? It's as if she was there. Which is likely what Trump was insinuating with his comment (“Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago.”). Warren's speech provides us another prime example of how the Left rewrites history by turning fable into fact.

Warren even credited the real Pocahontas with the literal survival of the English settlers (ironically, at the expense of her people's “genocide”). Because those stupid Englishmen would have never been able to figure out how to grow corn if the American Indians hadn't taught them. Thanks, Pocahontas!

How disheartening it must be for American Indians to have a fraud like Elizabeth Warren representing their interests. Not only is a fake Indian representing them, but she is educating them on their own history. As if they're not only blind, but dumb also. Too bad Obama didn't pardon Leonard Peltier. He and AIM would have organized a pow-wow in protest of Fauxcahontas.

Warren's behavior personifies the essence of liberalism. If there's common ground I can find with Black Lives Matter, it's that “liberalism is White supremacy” (although BLM is just parroting propaganda, fundamentally it's true).

Warren not only humiliates the common sense of the American Indian, by assuming they aren't smart enough to know their own mythology, or even what an American Indian actually looks like. But she nominates herself to speak on their behalf, because she's a smarter Indian than they are. And if she didn't speak for them, they would just sit around and drink themselves to death. Or they'd do rain dances instead of watering their gardens. All because the White man stole their land and killed all the buffalo. So it's up to the Elizabeth Warren's of the world to right the wrongs of Whitey and save the American Indians from their own devices. Hallelujah!

Keep in mind, there's a possibility that Senator Warren will be the Democratic nominee in 2020. Which would certainly be entertaining, if nothing else. I can see it now: Trump vs Fauxcahontas. How fun would that be?

How the Left Rewrites History

For those unaware, February is “Black History Month.” A month dedicated to the achievements of black people. Ironically, it's only observed in four predominately white countries: USA, Canada, UK, Netherlands. Why a country that's 2% black (Canada) observes “Black History Month” is somewhat bewildering (like the 95% white school in Vermont that flies the “Black Lives Matter” flag). But, whatever. I assume the purpose is to inform racist white people that black people accomplished a few things, too. How demoralizing that must be for a black person. Basically, “Black History Month” is like a participation trophy for the guy on the championship team who never played.

I believe “Black History Month” was actually conceived with good intentions. It's an evolution of “Negro History Week,” which was created by a black American named Carter Woodson in 1926. He chose the second week of February in honor of the birthday's of Abraham Lincoln (12^th) and Frederick Douglass (14^th). Woodson's intent was to devote a week out of the year to teach the history of American blacks in public schools with the purpose of establishing a black racial identity. He contended that black history was paramount in the physical survival of the black race:

"If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization.”

While Woodson's desire of historical relevance for his people's existence is admirable, his vision has snowballed into a politicized abomination. It's no longer about acknowledging black history for the sake of racial preservation, it's about rewriting history for political correctness.

This recent tweet by black inferiorist Tariq Nasheed (who was humiliated in a recent debate with Jared Taylor) exemplifies my point:

Those familiar with Mr Nasheed know that he's an anti-white activist, and king of the term “suspected white supremacist” (a label he uses for white people). He posts rhetorical nonsense on social media constantly. And it's almost always exaggerated or fabricated in a way that fits his anti-white narrative. But that's just what he does and who he is. So when someone with an obvious agenda like Tariq makes a provocative statement, you take it with a grain of salt and move on.

However, today I just so happened to be reading the Dallas Morning News online and ran across an article titled, “A Slave Taught Jack Daniel How to Make Whiskey...” Unlike Tariq, the Dallas Morning News is a reputable news source; the largest circulated newspaper in Texas. Therefore, if they publish a piece that claims a slave taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey, that undoubtedly adds an element of credibility to the story.

Curious, I read the article. I was hoping to capture that warm fuzzy feeling that white people get when they can feel a little less guilty about slavery. Plus, I wanted to find out how this 150-year-old secret suddenly came to light. Was Tariq actually telling the truth for once?

The article in summary:

Daniel learned how to make the spirit from a slave named Nathan "Nearest" Green, who worked on a farm near where Daniel grew up in Lynchburg, Tenn., according to author Fawn Weaver, who uncovered the story. Green is the country's first documented African-American master distiller, Weaver's research found, and he was first at the helm when Daniel opened his distillery.

Weaver spent more than a year collecting documents and artifacts and speaking to Green's descendants. One, she remembers, was 106 years old.

Both the aged whiskey and upcoming silver version of Uncle Nearest 1856 are created using the Lincoln County Process, a charcoal mellowing filtration method that distinguishes Tennessee whiskey from other bourbons. Charcoal mellowing was Green's specialty, according to Weaver, who traced the process back to its origins in West Africa.

"Whiskey in general, we can track every bit every of it back to the Scottish or the Irish, every aspect of it, except charcoal mellowing," Weaver says. "Why? Because we were property, not people. ... It just came out of thin air, as far as what we've always said."

"People don't mind rewriting history with a story that's positive. They don't want to rewrite history if it's going to put people at odds," Weaver says. "In this case, we're not putting people at odds, we're bringing people together."

Wait. That's it? An author decided to rewrite history because people don't care as long as it's “positive?” That's not journalism, that's fake news! I didn't read one shred of evidence that supports this theory. Not to mention, the entire premise is based on the “research” of a black entrepreneur who has a financial interest in “her” claim:

Weaver's original plan was to write a book about Uncle Nearest, tell his story through a movie and "cement" his place in history with a network of whiskey bars across America, she says. The mission statement for the Nearest Green Foundation that she incorporated promises to "shine a light on those who have been forgotten." The book and movie are still forthcoming; Weaver nixed the idea to open bars in his honor after speaking with relatives.

Uncle Nearest 1856 is produced by a third-party distillery in Nashville, at least until Weaver can open a proprietary operation. She recently purchased a 270-acre farm in Shelbyville, Tenn., about 20 miles from Lynchburg, that will be the site of a new Nearest Green Distillery, complete with a tasting room, bottling plant and barn-turned-rickhouse where the whiskey will be stored. Plans include planting a 100-acre corn "field of dreams," and revitalizing an onsite arena as a country concert venue.

Another barn will be converted into a museum called the Nearest Green History Walk, which will spotlight African Americans' contributions to whiskey making, including the charcoal mellowing process.

The only thing I read in the article that could possibly support the author's theory was that Nearest Green was the first documented African-American master distiller (“according to Weaver”). But does that mean that Mr Green “taught” Jack Daniel how to make whiskey? Who's to say Daniel didn't teach Green how to make whiskey and then hired him as his master distiller?

The article does cite a New York Time's piece from 2016 titled, “Jack Daniels Embraces a Hidden Ingredient: Help From a Slave.” Unlike the Dallas Morning New's article, the New York Time's piece doesn't insinuate that a slave “taught” Jack Daniel how to make whiskey, but rather helped in the form of a “hidden ingredient.”

Fair enough. Maybe this piece will provide some empirical insight into the secret recipe:

This year is the 150th anniversary of Jack Daniel’s, and the distillery, home to one of the world’s best-selling whiskeys, is using the occasion to tell a different, more complicated tale. Daniel, the company now says, didn’t learn distilling from Dan Call, but from a man named Nearis Green — one of Call’s slaves.

Frontier history is a gauzy and unreliable pursuit, and Nearis Green’s story — built on oral history and the thinnest of archival trails — may never be definitively proved. Still, the decision to tell it resonates far beyond this small city.

The quote in bold confirms what I had suspected when I initially read Tariq's tweet. It also verifies that this theory is all based on conjecture (ie fake news).

But more importantly, the narrative progression enables us to see how the Left uses its institutions of power (in this case the mainstream media) to shape the perception of their audience. First, the idea was possible. Then that idea was plausible. Finally, the idea was presented as factual. Nothing changed except the headline. These institutions are deceptively willing to use their sphere of influence to pass folklore off as fact.

Nonetheless, the article continues:

In deciding to talk about Green, Jack Daniel’s may be hoping to get ahead of a collision between the growing popularity of American whiskey among younger drinkers and a heightened awareness of the hidden racial politics behind America’s culinary heritage.

Some also see the move as a savvy marketing tactic. “When you look at the history of Jack Daniel’s, it’s gotten glossier over the years,” said Peter Krass, the author of “Blood and Whiskey: The Life and Times of Jack Daniel.” “In the 1980s, they aimed at yuppies. I could see them taking it to the next level, to millennials, who dig social justice issues.”

That's interesting. So Jack Daniel's could possibly profit if it were suddenly revealed on the 150^th anniversary that a slave taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey? Certainly sounds like a strategic marketing tactic. And the revelation would definitely increase publicity. As P.T. Barnum once said, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”

I wondered who else had picked up on this story. I searched and discovered that NPR also did a piece in 2016 titled, “Jack Daniel's Heralds a Slave's Role In Its Origins.”

The NPR article is the most unbiased and insightful of the three articles in reference:

It's not clear exactly what parts of the process Daniel picked up from Green. "There's a lot of mystery there," says Jack Daniel's company historian Nelson Eddy. One book says Green was pastor Call's master distiller.

"We don't know exactly what he taught Jack," Eddy says. "But we do know that Jack had a great deal of respect for that family. Because I think the best part of this story is the photograph."

The photograph he refers to is one that shows Jack Daniel, with a gray goatee, around 1895, surrounded by his crew, including two African-American men believed to be the sons of Nearis Green.

Much of the hoopla about this theory is surrounded by the photograph you can see in Tariq's tweet. It's assumed that the two black men in the photo are the sons of Mr Green. But nobody knows for sure.

I want to reiterate what “Jack Daniel's company historian” stated. There's a photo with about 15 men gathered around Mr Jack Daniel. It's “believed” that the two black men in the photo are Mr Green's sons. And that's “the best part of the story.”

We've already established that Jack Daniel's is embracing this theory. Yet their “company historian” is saying the “best part” of this story is a photograph that may, or may not include two of Mr Green's sons.

The NPR article appropriately ends as follows:

The most prominent keepers of the Jack Daniel's story are the tour guides. They have no script to follow — just a batch of tales to pick from. And not all are convinced that Nearis Green's role is worth mentioning. On the tour I attended, guide Ron Craig didn't bring it up until I asked. He says he only talks about Green if visitors inquire.

"There is no hard truth," Craig says. "I can't tell you exactly for sure what everything was back in the day, and no one else can, either."

To be honest, I don't think it really matters if a slave taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey. Maybe he did. Who knows? But that's my point. Nobody knows for sure. It's one thing to have people like Tariq tweeting propaganda to support their agenda. But it's a completely different thing when a reputable news source allows its “journalists” to cite hearsay as fact in an attempt to rewrite history. No matter how you package it, fake news is still fake news.

Trump is a "Racist." Good!

The New York Times recently published an “op-ed” piece titled, “Trump is a Racist. Period.” by Charles Blow.

Charles Blow is an angry middle-aged Black man who writes a column on Monday and Thursday for the New York Times. He's divorced with three kids, and openly bisexual. Mr Blow graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grambling.

Professionally, Mr Blow is definitely infatuated with “racism.” Which is pretty much the prerequisite for Black “op-ed” writers in major newspapers (scream racism and scream it loudly). Come to think of it, I can't recall the last time I read an “op-ed” piece by a Black columnist that wasn't in some way correlated with racism. As a matter of fact, the last one I read was in the Dallas Morning News, in which the author theorized that high Black mortality rates were due to a combination of “cruel treatment by White doctors,” and an overall lack of Black doctors. She even went so far as to cast blame on the City of Dallas for not aiding in the quest to produce more Black doctors. All encompassed in systemic racism, of course. And nothing to do with competency. Such as the fact that a minimum of 120 IQ is needed to meet the intellectual requirements to procure an MD (85 is avg Black IQ).

If you review Mr Blow's articles, the title's subject matter may change to some degree, but the premise is usually the same: “Racism” this. “White supremacy” that. Trump called Haiti a “shithole” and played golf on MLK day, so that proves once and for all that he's a racist. Blah, blah, blah. Nothing of substance, only stale garrulity.

Even when Mr Blow opined about Russia, he couldn't help himself. He just had to fantasize about radical racism:

If this were Barack Obama, Tiki-torch-toting Nazis would have descended on the White House and burned it to the ground. Not only that, America’s racist folks masquerading as religious folks would have used Obama’s moral failing as proof of a black pathology.

However, my purpose isn't to critique Mr Blow's efforts of perfecting a Nietzschean slave morality writing style, but rather his opinions. After all, freedom of speech is one of the pillars of “White supremacy.” Which, ironically enough, enables people like Mr Blow to publicly call the most powerful man in the world racial epithets on a daily basis. In the same way it affords me the right to define racism as the essence of blackness. To the extent that if Mr Blow couldn't write about “racism,” he wouldn't have anything to write about.

Technically, racism is just a word that represents an abstract concept (as with all isms). But in reality, it's a word that has been hijacked and weaponized for political gain by those with an anti-White agenda. A word that has transcended its literal definition and evolved into a slur used relentlessly against non-conforming Whites as a modus operandi for character assassination.

Similarly, the word “faggot” was used on the playgrounds in the 80s and 90s. The term was used to insult a boy's masculinity by implying that he was weak. Although the implications weren't based on sexuality (nobody thought the accused was actually gay), it was elementary psychological warfare. Once a boy was labeled a “faggot,” he might as well have been one in the eyes of his peers. The term “racist” works in the same way.

The reason that racism is such a powerful concept is because it provides legitimacy to the inadequacies within the Black community. In other words, racism is an excuse for Black failure. So if Black people couldn't blame White people for their failures, it would force accountability for their own actions. Actions that have determined them a significant liability to the prosperity of American society.

Mr Blow knows this, which is why he hyper-focuses on racism. Because if the racists he redundantly chastises were actually the racists of his lore, he would likely be experiencing “White supremacy” in Liberia. And contrary to what the cuck Lindsey Graham said, America is more than just an idea. “White supremacy” just isn't the same without White people at the reins.

But Mr Blow doesn't want to debate the existence of racism. That's useless to a man whose sustenance is dependent upon such bigoted idealism. He prefers to use his paid platform as a bully pulpit to cast judgment in the name of tolerance.

I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown.

The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky.

So, let’s strip that away here. Let’s be honest and forthright.

Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices.

Racism can only exist if race exists. That's what race is; a degree of variance within the species.

I may not be a Magna Cum Laude from Grambling, but even I understand that race just means differences. And, as with anything, differences shape perception. We don't need scientific theory to justify observable reality. It is what it is.

Mr Blow's definition of racism is somewhat acceptable. Race does render “some inferior and others superior.” That's kinda the whole idea. It's a two-sided coin. Either we're all the same (one race, the human race), or we're all different (race is real).

One of the typical questions racial realists get asked when dealing with anti-racists is: “Do you think Whites are racially superior?” To which the reply should always be: “Superior in what?”

Specificity and statistics can generate data, such as with IQ or genetic predispositions for disease. But there is no algorithm that formulates racial inferiority/superiority on a universal scale. And there will always be outliers that contradict the stereotype.

Furthermore, racial differences have the tendency to be moralized. But they shouldn't be. It's not always a case of right or wrong, and good or bad. Even if White people were scientifically determined to be an inferior race, that shouldn't eliminate Whites from collectively pursuing self-determination as a people (nor any other race for that matter). Whites are roughly 7% of the world's population, and according to current fertility rates, that number is dropping by the day.

The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged others.

The history of America is one in which European settlers braved the unknown and carved out the greatest nation on the planet with their bare hands and innovative minds. It was a nation created by White men for White people. To this very day, non-Whites from all over the world are literally dying to leave their “shithole” countries and come reap the benefits of “White supremacy.” And make no mistake about it, “White supremacy” is why non-Whites come to White countries.

It is not a stretch to say that Trump is racist. It’s not a stretch to say that he is a white supremacist. It’s not a stretch to say that Trump is a bigot.

Those are just facts, supported by the proof of the words that keep coming directly from him. And, when he is called out for his racism, his response is never to ameliorate his rhetoric, but to double down on it.

I know of no point during his entire life where he has apologized for, repented of, or sought absolution for any of his racist actions or comments.

Instead, he either denies, deflects or amps up the attack.

Trump is a racist. We can put that baby to bed.

“Racism” and “racist” are simply words that have definitions, and Trump comfortably and unambiguously meets those definitions.

We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism, to the point where the only people to whom the appellation can be safely applied are the vocal, violent racial archetypes.

The problem with rhetoric is that it's just an empty hole. It doesn't mean anything; it's just name-calling. Mr Blow has to know this. He's a really smart man (did I mention he was Magna Cum Laude of Grambling?), which is why he attempted to define his rhetoric before he fired it repeatedly. He wanted to make it seem like what he was saying actually meant something. He even tried to explain his progression from logical “racism” to rhetorical “racism” (“We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism...”).

The truth is that “racist” is just an anti-White epithet. There's no difference in calling a White person a “racist,” and calling a Black person a “nigger.” It's the exact same thing. If you don't believe me, conduct an experiment. Call a non-White person a “racist” and watch them carelessly shrug it off. It doesn't mean anything to them. They're not White. But call a White person a “racist” and observe their reaction. They'll immediately get tense and defensive. Then do the same thing with “nigger.” I don't recommend saying it to a Black person, because you might get assualted. But try it on a White or Asian. They'll probably giggle. Or just look at you funny.

The simple acknowledgment that Trump is a racist is the easy part. The harder, more substantive part is this: What are we going to do about it?

First and foremost, although Trump is not the first president to be a racist, we must make him the last. If by some miracle he should serve out his first term, he mustn’t be allowed a second. Voters of good conscience must swarm the polls in 2020.

Of course it's easy to call someone names. It's also ignorant.

We know exactly what “they” are going to do about it: Call Trump names. Pretend like the economy isn't booming. Call Trump names. Ignore the fact that the Black unemployment rate isn't at its lowest in decades. Call Trump names.

What do you think Mr Blow will say when that “miracle” happens? You know, the miracle of democracy. Where an elected official (in this case the POTUS) gets to perform the duties the American people elected him to do. Do you think when that “miracle” happens, and Trump serves out his first term, Mr Blow will use his privileged platform to unite the country, as Blacks so often claim they want to do? Or do you think he'll divisively peck away at his six favorite keys (r-a-c-i-s-t)?

See, people like Mr Blow only respect democracy when democracy produces the results they want. So when they can't get the votes organically, they import them inorganically. Everybody knows that illegal immigration is about two things: capitalism and demographic change. Simply put, money and votes.

As a person of “good conscience,” I'll be at the polls in 2020 (God willing). I'll be voting for the candidate who doesn't apologize to liberal rag race-hustlers. But most importantly, I'll be voting for the candidate who doesn't have desires to turn America into Amexico.

And finally, we have to stop giving a pass to the people — whether elected official or average voter — who support and defend his racism. If you defend racism you are part of the racism. It doesn’t matter how much you say that you’re an egalitarian, how much you say that you are race blind, how much you say that you are only interested in people’s policies and not their racist polemics.

As the brilliant James Baldwin once put it: “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.” When I see that in poll after poll a portion of Trump’s base continues to support his behavior, including on race, I can only conclude that there is no real daylight between Trump and his base. They are part of his racism.

When I see the extraordinary hypocrisy of elected officials who either remain silent in the wake of Trump’s continued racist outbursts or who obliquely condemn him, only to in short order return to defending and praising him and supporting his agenda, I see that there is no real daylight between Trump and them either. They too are part of his racism.

When you see it this way, you understand the enormity and the profundity of what we are facing. There were enough Americans who were willing to accept Trump’s racism to elect him. There are enough people in Washington willing to accept Trump’s racism to defend him. Not only is Trump racist, the entire architecture of his support is suffused with that racism. Racism is a fundamental component of the Trump presidency.

It's impossible to eliminate “racism” from democracy in a multiracial society. What really scares people like Mr Blow is the possibility that Whites will awaken from their egalitarian stupor and enter the game of identity politics. Because if that happens, Whites will have realized that it would be democratic suicide to become a demographic minority in their own countries. Particularly when all other groups (Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks) correlate their political affiliation with their racial identity, to the rate of at least 80%.

I suspect that Mr Blow and his cohorts know that it's not if, but when the sleeping White giant awakens. My guess is that he'll be hungry. And history has shown us that the White giant has a voracious appetite for power. As Eduardo Galeano once put it: “History never really says goodbye. History says, 'see you later.'”