Articles

Sunday, August 19, 2018

South Africa Goes Zimbabwe

"Strongman politics are ascendant," Barack Obama warned in South Africa. He spoke passionately about "the politics of fear and resentment" at the Mandela Lecture. He worried that we were entering a world, “where might makes right and politics is a hostile competition between tribes and races and religions.”

While the media used the remarks to attack Trump's meeting with Putin, Obama had shared a stage with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who had come to power promising to seize land from white farmers. Ramaphosa was the latest in a series of ANC strongmen, including his predecessor, an alleged rapist, beginning with the Communist terrorist whose legacy Obama was commemorating.

President Ramaphosa had vowed early on to seize land from white farmers without compensation. "The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans,” he had declared. And denied that such racist Communist tactics were unconstitutional. Now he’s moving to modify South Africa’s constitution.

Initially, the ANC, which is partnered with the South African Communist Party, had claimed that seizing land would not violate the law. Now it’s actually going to change the South African constitution.

“It has become pertinently clear that our people want the constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation,” President Ramaphosa announced.

When your only rule is mob rule by ANC thugs, it doesn’t really matter what a piece of paper says.

“We will accelerate our land redistribution programme not only to redress a grave historical injustice, but also to bring more producers into the agricultural sector and to make more land available for cultivation,” Ramaphosa claimed in his State of the Nation address.

Zimbabwe had already made great strides in improving agriculture through land seizures.

Land was stolen from the farmers who knew how to work it and handed out to politically connected thugs. Soon the former "bread basket" of Southern Africa was starving. Black groups pleaded with the white farmers to remain. Rural Zimbabwe died. Hyperinflation made the currency worthless. A trillion dollars might not be enough to buy one egg. A former food exporter was forced to rely on food aid.

"If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it," Mugabe had declared, "we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it."

Ramaphosa’s rhetoric is an echo of one of Africa’s worst racist strongmen. Land seizures won’t bring South African land into “full use”, as he claims. It will mean productive land falling into the hands of ANC thugs who will be too corrupt, incompetent and greedy to do the hard work of working the land.

South Africa’s agricultural sector will go the way of Zimbabwe.

Cyril Ramaphosa is one of South Africa's richest men and has an estimated net worth of $550 million. How did a socialist student activist make a mint? The answer is an inevitable as it is unsurprising.

South Africa’s agricultural sector has been steadily in decline. Farms used to provide millions of jobs. Now they offer less than a million. Wheat planting has fallen to a third. Cotton to a tenth. A country that once exported wheat, is now importing millions of tons while its agriculture sector fails.

The decline of South Africa’s agriculture has gone hand in hand with what it euphemistically calls its land reforms. White farmers have been murdered or driven off their land. But land seizures, legal and illegal, with compensation or with a hatchet, haven’t made South African agriculture more productive.

Instead South Africa is becoming increasingly dependent on agricultural imports to feed its people.

Like Zimbabwe, South Africa is due to revisit the same implacable economic consequences of land seizures that took the Soviet Union down the road to famine and terror. Toward its end, the USSR, despite possessing territories that had once bulged with rich harvests, had gone deep into debt to buy food from the United States. The African National Congress’ Communist roots are taking South Africa down the same path as its fallen Communist masters. And with the same miserable results.

Comrade Ramaphosa, as Comrade Mandela liked to call him, is less of a strongman, than a weak man. More afraid of thugs like Julius Malema and the greed of his ANC comrades than of dooming his people to hunger. The ANC is populated with thugs who are impatiently waiting to loot South Africa’s corpse. And they’ve grown tired of pretending that they are anything more than a failed state’s Marxist mob.

The constitutional gambit is a desperate attempt to legitimize racist mob violence and ANC corruption. It takes the constant assaults on white farmers and tries to disguise lawlessness under the color of law.

1 white farmer in South Africa has been murdered every 5 days. This ethnic cleansing has been going on with the same regular clockwork as the tributes to Nelson Mandela and his even more murderous wife. The racist violence, the murders, rapes and land seizures, the chants of, “Shoot the Boer” are backed by lies about a shadow white majority somehow still ruling South Africa even after all the years of ANC rule.

The media frequently repeats fake news statistics which claim that white farmers own 70% or more of the country’s farmland. The actual number is less than a quarter. Some of the best land in South Africa is already in black hands. And, just as in Zimbabwe, it hasn’t remedied the agricultural or social problems.

South Africa’s agricultural sector is already on its deathbed. Its corrupt economy is incapable of competing on the world stage. Its exports are not at issue, its ability to feed its own people is. Aggressive land seizures won’t do much more damage to South Africa’s economy, though it will discourage investors and drive out more white farmers, but will bring its society to its knees.

Meanwhile the plight of South Africa’s white farmers continues to be ignored. The ANC genocide has been slowly unfolding for a generation with the complicity of the same leftist leaders who covered up Communist genocides in the Soviet Union, Communist China and Cambodia. But this latest legitimization of land seizures by the ANC will only encourage a further outpouring of racist attacks on white farmers.

Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has urged helping the persecuted white farmers of South Africa receive political asylum. But while every “persecuted” group is fast tracked for asylum, the door still remains shut for a productive population that has been targeted for economic ethnic cleansing.

In his State of the Nation speech, President Ramaphos declared, “We are building a country where a person’s prospects are determined by their own initiative and hard work, and not by the color of their skin, place of birth, gender, language or income of their parents.” Seizing land from people because of the color of their skin and giving it to those who haven’t worked for it is the opposite of that vision.

And yet it’s easy to see why Obama was so comfortable with a politician who could twist the language of equality to justify identity politics theft and the verbiage of tolerance to justify racial oppression.

South Africa, like the Soviet Union and Venezuela, like Cambodia and Cuba, is not just an atrocity, it’s a cautionary tale. Ideology, more than race, connects the scattered strands of the leftist killing fields. To pretend that what happened there cannot happen here would be ignoring the lessons of history.

And a new red famine is growing where the red blood of white farmers flows into the dying 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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.



Thursday, August 16, 2018

Omarosa and Peak Trump Bashing Hits Publishing

Did a major publishing firm waste seven figures on Unhinged, Omarosa Manigault’s fake book?

A parody tweet featuring a faked except from Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury book created the Gorilla Channel meme as media types quickly fell for the idea that President Trump spent 17 hours a day watching an imaginary cable channel where gorillas fight each other.

But that's nothing.

A Simon and Schuster subsidiary paid Omarosa Manigault a reported seven figures for a book in which she claims that Trump wanted to take his oath of office on a copy of The Art of the Deal instead of the bible. The source of the story appears not to be Trump, but a popular Trump impersonator.

Someone should have noticed that. But when fake news meets fake books, there’s no time to check the stories that are too good not to print. The seemingly endless appetite of lefties for Trump bashing touched off a gold rush in the media and its allied publishing companies to mint new bestsellers.

Unhinged, the Omarosa book in question, was apparently sold in July and published in August.

That’s a ridiculously quick turnaround that would have made any serious fact checking impossible. Nor, apparently, was any serious fact-checking attempted, according to subjects like Frank Luntz and George Conway, who are named in the claims that she makes about President Trump using racial slurs.

Simon and Schuster is a subsidiary of CBS. The entanglement between fake books and fake news is a phenomenon that pervades the various sectors of the media as reporters write and report on books.

Simon and Schuster, like many other publishers, has been cashing in on Trump Derangement Syndrome. Samples include Bob Woodward's 'FEAR: Trump in the White House' to be published on 9/11, 'It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America', a book whose title just doesn't know when to stop, and Michael Ian Black's 'A Child's First Book of Trump'. "The beasty is called an American Trump/Its skin is bright orange, its figure is plump," Black clumsily rhymes.

Simon and Schuster had also published Hillary Clinton’s ‘What Happened’.

Woodward’s FEAR is an obvious answer to the success of Wolff’s Fire and Fury. Both are similarly themed pseudo-journalistic insider accounts. Book sized volumes of the type of fake news that have made lots of money for Bezos’ Washington Post and Sulzberger’s New York Times.

FEAR comes out in September. Before Woodward’s FEAR, though there was more fear at Simon and Schuster with the July release of The Monarchy of Fear by Martha C. Nussbaum. But the pop philosophy attack on Trump misfired. And the two S’s had a hole in August between Monarchy of Fear and FEAR.

So the publishing giant quickly signed a deal with Omarosa and filled its August hole with her crazy claims. Like Fire and Fury, and FEAR, Unhinged plugs into the fake news cycle. Even as the Manafort trial is petering out, leading to snide media attacks on Judge Ellis for restraining the prosecution’s antics and denying them the show trial that their ratings and Chartbeat graphs so badly needed, Unhinged arrived.

The titled of Unhinged could easily refer to Omarosa and the bizarre claims that a major publishing house decided to pay her seven figures for. Aside from the quest for a tape of Trump’s racial slur (Omarosa had spent enough time around media lefties to know that even hinting at the existence of such a thing would unleash a feeding frenzy that would make sharks chasing bloody meat seem sedate), and the suggestion that Trump wanted to take his oath on The Art of the Deal, there’s her claim that Melania uses her fashion choices to “punish” her husband. That’s yet another media conspiracy theory.

Unhinged really isn’t a crazy book. It’s a deeply cynical one. It takes media conspiracy theories and feeds them right back into the media. Omarosa was flushing fake news into the media’s fake news sewer. Omarosa cashed a seven figure check by giving lefty conspiracy theories, no matter how bizarre, the stamp of approval of having an ‘insider’ in the Trump White House tell them their beliefs are really true.

That’s why Simon and Schuster signed the deal and made Unhinged its August anti-Trump pick. Unhinged is unhinged nonsense. But what’s better for fake news than a fake book?

And why shouldn’t Omarosa work the same side of the street as Michael Wolff? Despite his journalistic credentials, Wolff’s narrative was full of holes, his claims dubious and his credibility shot. Fire and Fury contains an admission early on that the book is probably full of lies, but blames those lies on Trump associates. When he tried to extend his 15 minutes by using the same strategy to accuse Nikki Haley of having an affair with Trump, while blaming her for his own implication, even the media turned on him.

And then stopped inviting him on.

Omarosa is working her way through the Wolff slime trial, making dubious claims, invoking a journalistic journey, contradicting herself, blaming the contradictions on everyone else and distorting the events that she supposedly witnessed to make bizarre and inflammatory claims about President Trump.

Meanwhile she keeps dropping illegally recorded tapes that only address her own egotistical careerism.

And that’s where the misfire began.

Instead of getting a #1 bestseller, Simon and Schuster had to settle for #5. As CNN notes, even Rick Wilson’s anti-Trump rant made it to #2. Pro-Trump books by Jeanine Pirro and Gregg Jarrett got to #1. And that’s despite the millions of dollars in free media coverage lavished on Unhinged.

Without the backlash from the White House, Omarosa might not have even gotten to #5.

What went wrong with Simon and Schuster’s seven figure investment?

Unhinged is a self-serving book. Omarosa’s tapes were her big ticket item but they’re there to back up her own narrative of being unfairly fired. The left-baiting claims are just the chocolate coating for the creamy center of her own careerism. And in her past, she had alienated the media badly enough that plenty of big media talking heads were eager to pounce. Not all were as hysterical as April Ryan, who dubbed Omarosa “evil”, but no one in the media was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Instead the media has been unhelpfully calling Omarosa out on the contradictions in her story.

The media isn’t investing too much in Omarosa. But like Wolff, she feeds the fake news media cycle, doling out the material that the media will amplify in its daily hysterical coverage for a Democrat demographic that is obsessed with Trump and has even less selectivity about what it consumes.

Simon and Schuster’s August anti-Trump bid appears to have misfired. The publishing giant is no doubt hoping that the misfire had more to do with Omarosa’s personal qualities than the end of the gold rush.

Bob Bender, a Simon and Schuster VP, predicted back in May that the Trump rush in publishing is about to fade. “Nobody’s going to do that for the second year—assuming there is a second year.”

If Bob Woodward’s FEAR misfires, then the era of fake books may be fading. And that’s bad news for fake news. Both fake news and fake books were a media gold rush fed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. But the golden age of Trump bashing may be ending. And then the soaring sales of the Washington Post and the New York Times, not to mention the few reporters still writing political books who weren’t named in #MeToo scandals, will crash down to earth as the golden age dies.

Omarosa’s Unhinged may be the fake book that broke the fake publishing camel’s back.






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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Sarah Jeong and the Media's Alt-Left

Ever since the New York Times decided to hire racist blogger Sarah Jeong, despite her history of hateful tweets about white people, “the world could get by just fine with zero white ppl and the thing stopping POC (people of color) is...a disinclination toward genocide?”, white women, men, heterosexuals and Christians, and then refused to part ways with her (unlike its treatment of previous hire, Quinn Norton, whom the left had accused of homophobia based on a few tweets, despite her being gay), the debate has been about all the wrong things.

Jeong isn’t really the issue. Her racism is typical of an influential subset of the left.

Some of the pro and anti Jeong essays briefly circle around the actual problem before quickly zooming away. Andrew Sullivan writes in his anti-Jeong essay of the “extent to which loathing of and contempt for ‘white people’ is now background noise on the left”. Vox's Zack Beauchamp, wrote in his pro-Jeong essay that comments such as hers in the "the social justice left" about "white people" are typical.

But what part of the “social justice left” or “left” is really producing Sarah Jeongs?

To answer that question we have to talk about what no one really talks about, the alt-left. Unlike the alt-right, a subject of numerous essays, news reports and investigative pieces, the internet culture of racism, misandry and heterophobia that is the millennial alt-left is mostly undocumented.

The alt-left’s norms of discourse are defined by the same harsh contempt and winking racism that appear in Sarah Jeong’s tweets. It’s an internet culture where “white people” is an inherently derogatory term and new slurs, such as “caucasity”, are coined. Ironic racism is defined as “resistance” to whiteness. And what better way to resist whiteness than with racial slurs aimed at white people?

Sarah Jeong’s hateful tweets aren’t extraordinary examples of one woman’s bigotry. They’re variations on the typical memes and jokes on the alt-left. When we talk about Jeong’s racism, we’re really talking about the bigotry of an intersectional movement that is obsessed with punitively destroying the “privilege” of white people and other majority groups with racist memes, taunts and harassment.

The alt-left preceded the alt-right. The features of the alt-right that the media has attacked are mirror images of its origins counter-trolling the alt-left. When Sarah Jeong’s critics and defenders claim that she was “counter-trolling”, they hilariously get the origin of the internet culture species completely wrong.

Long before the alt-right (at least in internet years), the alt-left was weaponizing racist memes (“white tears” was a popular one) and harassing targets with online mobs (today’s social justice mobs are alt-left online harassment coordinated with alt-lefties in the media). The current trend of media stories that dox targets on the right almost all tend to come from media millennials aligned with the alt-left.

This isn’t the first time that the alt-left’s ironic racism has gotten its members in trouble. There was plenty of outrage when Drexel University's George Ciccariello-Maher had tweeted, "All I want for Christmas is white genocide". Just like Jeong, the defense was that Maher was just kidding.

The claims by Vox lefties that Sarah Jeong and the “social justice left” are being ironic in their racist remarks about white people, is not a defense, it’s an indictment. Ironic racism was prevalent on the alt-left before it was mirrored by the alt-right. It’s also a misuse of the term. Non-ironic irony is typical of millennial internet culture that uses humor as a distancing mechanism to normalize repellent views.

That’s not ironic. It’s cowardly and disingenuous.

The “ironic” alt-left humor of Sarah Jeong uses absurdity and winks to convey actual hatred for white people. But the same “ironic racism” that the media condemns when it appears on the Twitter accounts of the alt-right is somehow acceptable when it appears on alt-left accounts like Jeong’s. Even the argument that Jeong and the alt-left are just joking is the same “wrongfooting” defense that the media never accepted from the alt-right, even as it now tries to “wrongfoot” the right on Jeong’s racism.

Even the 1488ers, the Neo-Nazis who are the most noxious part of the alt-right, had their original counterparts in the tankies (Communists) in the internet culture of the alt-left. (You’re less likely to have read about them because the media loves writing about Neo-Nazis, but not its own Neo-Commies.)

When we talk about the alt-left, it’s often in terms of antifa, but Black Lives Matter owes as much to the alt-left as it does to the black nationalist thugs it adores and worships. And the violent activists are just a tiny portion of the larger internet culture that is the alt-left. But neither is the alt-left composed of minorities. Most of the alt-left, like the rest of the left, is white. Its racism isn’t the outcry of an oppressed minority, as the pro-Jeong pieces have contended, but of an ideological bigotry.

As John Perrazo notes in the Freedom Center’s pamphlet, “The War on Whiteness”, “The ultimate objective in stigmatizing whiteness is to intensify racial tension. But the anti-whiteness movement also intends to destroy whites’ comfortable assumption that their skin color is ‘normal’ or ‘neutral,’ without consequences, and to make them color-conscious and ultimately rub their noses in their whiteness.”

The left politicizes race. The alt-left’s war on whiteness is an overt rejection of post-racial neutrality and the grand bargain of civil rights. The stream of racist abuse aimed at white people is meant to politicize whiteness. And to force white people to align with racist movements on one side or the other.

What the alt-left fears above all else is post-racial coexistence. And so it fights tolerance with racism.

Why do we hear so little about the alt-left? For the same reason that the media throbs with defenses of Jeong’s ironic racism and the leftist internet culture that birthed it. The media’s millennial new guard is drawn heavily from the alt-left. It seeks out and destroys media millennials who are not alt-lefties.

The alt-left is the media. Gamergate, frequently referenced in the defenses of Sarah Jeong, was a clash between the alt-left entrenched in gaming journalism (tech journalism, and especially gaming journalism, were the parts of the media most likely to hire and quickly promote millennials) and gamer culture. But the alt-left now pervades the entire media from foreign affairs to sports journalism.

Jeong’s past tweets are just one of numerous examples of millennial media hires who had been caught spewing toxic alt-left rubbish. Jugal Patel and Fahim Abed kept their gigs with the New York Times after their old and ugly tweets came to life. There was no reason to think that Jeong would lose hers.

Sarah Jeong’s alt-left racism wouldn’t have dissuaded the New York Times. It was the reason she was hired. Being a vocal alt-lefty on social media while blogging about social justice issues has been part of the Tumblr-to-Times pipeline for a while now. The media looks for a social media background in its millennial hires. Broadcasting alt-left memes in those circles makes you more likely to be retweeted, recognized, quoted and hired to fail upward with more racism at major media orgs.

Gamergate used to be a debate about the alt-left’s takeover of journalism. Now that the alt-left controls journalism, period, it’s become a national debate about fake news.

Sarah Jeong’s racism isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a culture that is taking over newsrooms. The complete disregard for facts, the pervasive contempt for the political opposition, the impassioned victimhood, and the ravening hatred poorly disguised as comedy now defines the media.

And so we don’t talk about the alt-left, because when we talk about the alt-left, we’re talking about the media.







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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.




Sunday, August 12, 2018

The Media Shouldn't Fear Conservatives, It Should Fear Itself

Trump's criticism of the media “is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence,” claims Artie Sulzberger, the latest scion of the New York Times dynasty.

Artie, who got the chairman job because of his last name, earns $5 million a year. The only threat to him came from a shameless bootlicking Washington Post article praising his journalistic humility.

“Yeah, we get it, you don’t like us. Fine. But do you have to put our lives in danger?" MSNBC's Katy Tur whined. “He wants to endanger the lives of journalists,” columnist Connie Smith wailed at Trump.

How endangered is the modern media hack?

Reporters, pundits and other fake news media gobbers have been claiming that Trump is endangering them for a while now.

"How long before someone is seriously hurt, or worse?" New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg demanded last August.

How long? It’s been over a year now.

"Someone is going to do something awful to a journalist," Jeffrey Toobin claimed on CNN. And they have. They’ve mocked, ridiculed and humiliated the media for its hysterical fake news nonsense.

The number of reporters shot by Trump supporters because of his attacks on the media currently stands at zero. And counting down. So the media has shifted gears of predicting that Trump’s criticism will cause reporters to die overseas. Sulzberger warned about the threat to the media overseas. "Trump slams CNN in potentially dangerous way," claims CNN. But agreed that the real threat is overseas.

Reporters are dying overseas. At the hands of Muslim terrorists.

The vast majority of massacres of reporters in recent years were carried out by Muslim terrorists. Of Reporters Without Borders’ own list of the deadliest attacks on the media in the last 10 years, including the most recent suicide bombing which killed 9 reporters in Afghanistan and the obscure Maguindanao massacre, dubbed the "single deadliest event for the press" since the Committee to Protect Journalists started keeping records, were carried out by Muslims.

The only non-Muslim attack on the list was carried out by a faction of the leftist FARC narcoterrorist group whose leadership was able to meet with John Kerry despite having a reward placed on their heads by the United States. As the media likes to mockingly sneer, “thanks Obama”.

In America, the single greatest death toll for media personnel in the last generation occurred on 9/11.

Maybe the media ought to reconsider its mindless ideological opposition to a terror state travel ban?

The statistical evidence very clearly shows that media personnel are far more likely to be murdered by attackers shouting, “Allahu Akbar” than “Make America Great Again.” They’re also more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a Trump supporter angry over the latest fake news smear of the president.

The media’s hysteria about the Trump threat is as baseless and groundless as the rest of its fake news.

There’s been no outbreak of violence against reporters in this country. Instead reporters have come more under physical threat from Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other leftists.

Leftist doxer Taylor Lorenz, formerly of the Daily Beast and currently of The Atlantic, who doxed the daughters of a female counterjihad activist, exposing them to potential harm, was punched in the face in Charlottesville. But the puncher was a fellow leftist counterprotester inflicting collateral damage. He got off with a slap on the wrist, a suspended sentence, anger management and community service.

While the media blew up every incident where a reporter in Ferguson inhaled tear gas, actual physical attacks on reporters by Black Lives Matter racist thugs were mostly swept under the media’s dirty rug.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Paul Hampel was beaten bloody by Ferguson thugs.

CNN devoted a fraction of the time to its own correspondent, Sara Sidner, being hit by rocks than it has to all the imaginary dangers of violence from Trump supporters.

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel intern described a mob scene in which reporters were threatened and assaulted.

“When they threw me to the ground, I reflexively curled up into a ball. Blows landed on my back, head and torso. 'Stop! He’s not white! He’s Asian!' I wasn’t sure who said it, or how they knew my race, but within seconds, the punches stopped."

Then he blamed Asians for being insufficiently supportive of the racist black nationalist movement.

Despite all the media’s hysteria, the violent attacks on their ranks in this country aren’t coming from Trump supporters at rallies, but from their fellow leftists who are actually driving the violence.

And the media has covered up the scale of those attacks, especially after Ferguson, while refusing to address the ideological motives of the attackers. It’s made little to no effort to bring those attackers to justice or to challenge the culture of radical impunity that has led to physical attacks on the media.

If Trump supporters had assaulted a white reporter, beat him, and then let him go because he was white, we would never have heard the end of the story. There would already have been a bestselling book, a movie, a memorial and an annual award inspired by those events. And if Republicans were regularly beating reporters to a pulp, we would be hearing about it too. Non-stop. On every channel.

Instead the media wails about the hypothetical threat of one day being attacked by a Trump supporter.

Maybe overseas.

The groups most likely to kill reporters overseas are Latin American drug cartels and Muslim terrorists. These are the two groups that benefit the most from the media’s leftist advocacy against border security and immigration security reform.

Domestically, the media’s greatest violent threat comes from leftist activists. Overseas, its greatest threats come from the two types of migrants whom Trump wants to keep out and it wants to let in.

Trump isn’t threatening the media. He’s protecting it from the consequences of its own ideology.

If the average media type had enough brains to fill a flash drive and enough common sense to stock a highlight reel, he would be thanking Trump for keeping the media safe from its own stupidity.

Instead the media can’t wait to get blown up, shot, beheaded and beaten by its own political allies. And once it’s through covering up the latest attack on it by Muslim terrorists, black nationalists, Marxist narcoterrorists or lefty thugs, it spreads dire warnings about the consequences of Trump’s rhetoric.

The media’s shameless lying hacks can’t stop the fake news long enough to save their own lives.




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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Thursday, August 09, 2018

Rename America

Austin’s Equity Office has recommended renaming the Texas city because of Stephen F. Austin's alleged views on slavery. But why stop at just renaming Austin when Amerigo Vespucci took and sold slaves.

Austin, Texas is named after Stephen F. Austin, but America is named after Amerigo Vespucci.

New York City has been on its own anti-history binge, demoting the statue of the ‘Father of Gynecology’ and tearing out plaques memorializing Robert E. Lee attached to a tree that he had once planted, but it’s got bigger problems. The city is named after King James II whose Royal African Company branded thousands of slaves with DY for the Duke of York.

And New York’s problems don’t end there. Its Bronx borough is named after Jonas Bronck, who was likely killed in an Indian raid. Queens is named after the wife of King Charles II (James’ brother) whose husband was also quite active in the slave trade. New York is full of places named after Charlie and his relatives, like Richmond County, and the city and the state would both have to be renamed.

So would South and North Carolina, named after Charles I, and Maryland, named after his wife, who had authorized a trade in African slaves. The Maryland charter was received by Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, whose family owned slaves. Anne Arundel County is named after Cecil's wife.

New Jersey was named by George Carteret under a grant from Charles II. Carteret was connected to the African slave trade through the Royal African Company. A number of areas in New Jersey are named after him and his family. That includes the city of Elizabeth, New Jersey, named after Carteret’s wife.

Royal names are a problem that bedevils even the leftist parts of the country.

Prince George’s County is a reliable Dem area in Maryland populated mostly by African-Americans. And it’s one the wealthiest black areas in the country. But it’s named after Prince George of Denmark. What’s a Danish prince doing in Maryland? George was married to Queen Anne. Anne’s extensive shares in the South Sea Company and his formal role as High Lord Admiral tied him to the slave trade.

Virginia and (West Virginia) are named after Elizabeth I who authorized a trade in slaves and at least one of whose ships carried slaves. Delaware is named after Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr, who served as governor of Virginia. His tenure in office predated the importation of African slaves but, was current with the use of indentured servants and Indian slaves. Louisiana is named after Louis XIV, the Sun King, whose Code Noir (Black Code) set out the parameters of slavery.

But leaving behind royals doesn’t help. William Penn, the Quaker and liberal role model after whom Pennsylvania is named, owned slaves. Nor does heading west offer any escape from history.

Over in California, Comandante General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo’s name rests on the city of Vallejo, that of his wife on the city of Benicia. He was also the founding father of Sonoma and San Francisco was also allegedly nearly named after his wife. Vallejo relied on Indian slave labor to maintain his ranch and oversaw an Indian slave labor system. (Vallejo was also responsible for naming Marin County.)

California itself is appropriately enough named after a fictional character, Queen Calafia, who was both black and a slave owner. West Coast political correctness becomes even more confusing as we head up north. Washington is obviously named after a slave owner, but what about Seattle? It’s named after Chief Seattle, an American-Indian leader, environmentalist icon and a slave owner. (Slave ownership by Indian tribes was not uncommon and has led to debates and lawsuits over tribal membership.)

But back in California, its leftist city has an even bigger problem. Berkeley is named after the Irish empiricist George Berkeley. Berkeley was not only a slave owner, but a vigorous advocate for the enslavement of Africans and Indians. His name has touched off controversy at Yale and UC Berkeley.

Denver is named after James W. Denver, whose tenures as Commissioner of Indian Affairs and as Territorial Governor of Kansas during the struggle between pro and anti-slavery forces were controversial. The same would be true of anyone involved in politics at the time, but the entire anti-history movement is animated by a refusal to see things in any shade other than black or white.

So we can start off by renaming New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, California, Washington, and Maryland. That’s eleven states.

Not to mention the name of the entire country.

And we’ll have to rename Berkeley, New York City, Seattle, Marin County, Austin, Elizabeth and thousands of other cities, town and county names all across the breadth of the United States.

Or we can stop the insanity right now.

The left starts its culture wars with wedge issues. It began with the statues of Confederate generals. But if this goes on, it’s going to end with the renaming of cities, of states and then finally the renaming of the entire United States of America.

These are the stakes.

Either we stop the left’s assault on history or we lose our country. Every time a statue is taken down, a school is renamed, a building is vandalized, a holiday is abolished, we move one step closer to the final undoing of our history. We should not be afraid of the truth. And the truth is that history is complex.

Judging the past by the present is its own form of cultural appropriation. Long after a revolution against the British Crown, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, New York and many others maintain royal names not because Americans have any allegiance or respect for those dead rulers, but because these places are a part of our history. As are the Indian tribes, the French, the Spanish and all those others too.

Names are not necessarily a form of respect. Identity is, more importantly, a form of memory.

The cultural revolutions of the left promise to purify history by purging it. But that Stalinist solution is a lie. History cannot be purified, only learned from. We are all the descendants of flawed heroes. And we can hope to find the truth of our heroism through our flaws, not by the light of the book burner’s fire.

A hundred nations were plunged into dystopian horrors in search of the garden path to the left’s utopia. That’s all that the left’s rituals of purification and mortification of history, the vandalism of statues and facts, offer America. And it is America. Not Marxville, Leninstadt or Maostan. The flawed explorers, generals, and nobles whose names our cities and states bear are far better than the monsters of the left.

The American Revolution, unlike the French, was based not on a murderous search for leftist revolutionary purity, but on accepting our faults and flaws while trying to still live as our best selves. Those who search for a better future by destroying the past will move on to destroying the present.

Our choice is clear.

Reject the left or rename America.



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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Tuesday, August 07, 2018

Who Really Stands Up for America?

On October 1962, destroyers from the Second Fleet streamed out to intercept Russian vessels suspected of delivering missiles to Cuba. Under the shadow of DEFCON 2, Vice Admiral Alfred Ward, commander of the Second Fleet, watched over a blockade of Cuba. The Navy men putting Russian ships under their guns knew that they were the tip of the spear in what might at any moment become the next world war.

The Russians had ordered their ships to keep going. It was up to the Second Fleet to hold the line.

"Admiral, it looks as though this is up to the Navy," President Kennedy told Admiral Anderson.

“Mr. President,” the admiral replied, “the Navy will not let you down.”

On September 2011, under the leftist politico whose admirers tried to sell him as another JFK, the flag of the Second Fleet was taken down. The fleet that had taken point against the Russians was no more.

The justification for the disestablishment of the Second Fleet was the diminished threat from Russia. The Navy was being cut to pieces while Obama focused on boondoggles like the “Green Fleet”.

“Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917,” Mitt Romney had objected next year during a presidential debate. "We also have fewer horses and bayonets," Obama sneered, to the cheers of the media. "The question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships."

When Romney brought up the Russian threat, Obama sneered some more. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

These days, Obama’s party is mired in a haze of Russian paranoia. But it was their leader who dismantled our first lines of defense and Trump who is restoring our military deterrence.

Seven years after Obama shuttered the Second Fleet, its flag is flying again. The fleet isn’t green any more, it is mean. And it will watch over the East Coast and the Atlantic to checkmate Russian subs.

The shutdown of the Second Fleet was part of Obama’s failed pivot to Asia which ended with a humiliating apology to China for flying a plane too close to one of the Communist dictatorship’s fake South China Sea islands. (Trump has since dispatched B-52s, outraging China, with no apology.)

That was December 2015.

On January 2016, the complete collapse of naval credibility led Iran to seize two United States Navy boats, steal classified information, hold their crews hostage and humiliate them on television.

Obama had forced the Navy to grovel to China. Why not Iran?

Instead of taking decisive action against this second Iran hostage crisis, the appeasement administration instead used it to spin the success of the Iran Deal. The humiliation of the Navy was complete.

But the humiliation of the United States Navy and the United States of America ended on Jan 20, 2017.

The restoration of the Second Fleet is an important step in the revival of America’s Navy. But the full scope of the harm Obama inflicted on our readiness will take generations of hard work to repair.

The USS Enterprise, the descendant of a fabled history stretching back to the American Revolution, which took part in the Cuban blockade, was scrapped by Obama. The Enterprise was one of six carriers scrapped by Obama who wasn’t interested in counting ships or horses and bayonets.

Or in fulfilling the congressional mandate to maintain at least eleven aircraft carriers at all times. Scrapping the USS Enterprise took us to ten even though 10 U.S. Code § 5062 specifically states, "The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers."

Obama broke the law. He undermined our national security. And once again, he got away with it.

The great dismantling of our military fueled Chinese, Russian and Islamic aggressive expansionism. But now the Second Fleet will be headquartered in Norfolk along with NATO’s Joint Force Command for the Atlantic. While media pundits wailed about Trump’s commitment to NATO, Norfolk sends a clear and direct message to the Russians and to NATO about American capabilities and determination.

Under Obama, Russian attack subs and spy ships showed up on our coastlines, approaching naval bases, coming close to our waters, occasionally passing undetected, testing our capabilities and our nerve. While Obama did nothing about the threat to our naval forces, Trump shut down the Russian consulate in Seattle to stop its spying on Naval Base Kitsap, one of the homes of our underwater nuclear arsenal.

Our capabilities have room to regrow, but no matter how much the media lies, our nerve is not lacking.

President Trump nominated Vice Admiral Andrew "Woody" Lewis, a former fighter pilot, who had served on the Enterprise, the Truman, and the Roosevelt, to head the Second Fleet. The Lewis pick demonstrates the administration’s commitment to projecting naval and air power in the Atlantic.

There are no horses and bayonets here. Just Trump’s vision for restoring carrier power. While Obama scrapped carriers in his own game of Battleship, Trump wants 12 supercarriers and a fleet of 350 ships.

"American ships will sail the seas, American planes will soar the skies, American workers will build our fleets," President Trump had declared at the dedication of the USS Gerald R. Ford.

Ford brings the Navy up to 11 carriers. Obama took the Navy below its mandated minimum strength. Now for the first time since those terrible years of appeasement, American naval power is recovering.

By the time Trump is ready to leave office, the Navy should be back up to twelve carriers again. A few years later, the People’s Republic of China expects to have four carriers. Its advanced new vessels will likely rely on stolen technology ripped off by Chinese hackers in the weak and feckless Obama years.

These include the Littoral Combat Ship and Aegis system designs.

The Democrats and the media howling about the national security threat from Russian hackers remain uninterested in the Chinese hacks that stole some of our most vital and advanced national security secrets. They expect us to believe that hacking John Podesta and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s emails, and posting spam on Facebook, was a bigger threat than China making off with the F-35 plans.

China’s ambitious new supercarrier designs take advantage of our failures during the Obama era. These carriers show that the People’s Republic is thinking of projecting force beyond its territories and islands.

And China has worked closely together with Russia. Its first carrier is an unfinished Russian model. Russian and Chinese vessels are also participating in joint naval maneuvers because they know that seapower hasn’t, despite Obama’s assertions, gone the way of the era of horses and bayonets.

Not a day goes by without Democrat politicians and media ranting that President Trump is failing to protect us from Russian attacks. The return of the Second Fleet is an example of how Trump is doing just that. It doesn’t take the military to protect Democrat email accounts from hackers. The DNC could have spent 20 bucks on physical security keys for its people, instead of on lavish dresses for Debbie.

A single one of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s dresses would have paid for 200 security keys.

Or the Democrats could have spent the money to maintain the military and deter foreign enemies instead of believing that empty speechifying and diplomacy could take the place of aircraft carriers.

While Obama cut the US Navy, the Russians added warships with cruise missiles. They’re adding an amphibious assault ship capable of carrying 13 tanks. Their missile patrol boats are being hailed for their innovative designs. Putin has announced 26 new ships will be added to the Russian Navy this year.

Where are all the Democrats who shout about how we need to challenge Russia? Nowhere.

In 2016, a Russian warship made it to within 300 yards of the USS Gravely. The Gravely was protecting the USS Harry S. Truman. The warship pointed at the Truman. As usual, Obama did nothing.

These days, the Harry S. Truman Carrier Group is already sending a message to Russian subs in the Atlantic. If the Democrats want to see Trump standing up to Russia, they can look to the waves.

Before long, they will see the flag of the Second Fleet flying once more over the Atlantic Ocean. 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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.



Thursday, August 02, 2018

San Francisco Bans Everything

Here are a few things that are effectively legal in San Francisco: drugs, public defecation and shoplifting. And here are some of the things that are banned or will be banned in the City by the Bay.

Straws. Fur coats. Bottled water. Eating at work. Vaping liquids. Upholstered furniture. Plastic bags. Pet stores. Electric scooters. Coffee cups and packing peanuts. Tropical fish. The McDonald’s Happy Meal.

If you can think of something, San Francisco has already banned it. Or will be banning it soon.

North Korea with a tech industry and some leftover Victorian architecture (which it’s banning tour buses from visiting) has reacted to the collapse of living conditions and fleeing tourists by banning everything.

Everything except the behavior that’s making San Francisco unlivable.

During the Gold Rush, legend had it that the streets of San Francisco were paved with gold. These days they’re layered with human waste after the socialist city legalized public urination and defecation. A bag of 20 pounds of human waste was deposited on the street. Urine corroded a pole so badly that it fell on a car almost killing the driver. But don’t think that you can get away with anything in San Francisco.

San Francisco decriminalized public defecation, but criminalized plastic straws. While bench warrants for public urination are discarded, the straw fines are real and expensive. A California statewide bill goes further with a threat of six months in the county jail for giving a man a straw. When drugs are legal and straws aren’t, the Mexican cartels will soon switch to smuggling drinking straws into California.

Why ban straws? Because straws, according to the San Francisco ordinance, “may threaten public health” and are bad for the environment? Piles of human waste in the street are great for public health and the environment. But a Chicago medical association disagreed and cancelled its planned conference.

When Chicago thinks your city is dirty and dangerous hellhole, you really have a problem.

But America’s greatest experiment with socialism is coping with its collapse by banning everything. The straw ban isn't the last straw. It’s one of a series of San Fran bans that would make Kim Jong-un wince.

The straw ban was the brainchild of Supervisor Katy Tang. Katy was excused from the straw vote because she had to take her bar exam. She had previously won a proposal to ban sales of fur coats. In her press release, Katy noted that, "fur farming contributes to water and air pollution" because each mink produces "44 pounds of feces in the mink’s lifetime."

The press release doesn’t state how many pounds the Board of Supervisors produces a year. Or how much the homeless population that San Francisco’s insane government has cultivated does.

Statistically speaking, Katy Tang would be personally responsible for around 342 pounds of waste a year. Or 7 times more than a mink could manage over its entire existence. The entire Board of Supervisors, which in true Stalinist style votes 11-0 on its insane bans (except when Katy has to take an exam), would directly account for around 3,700 pounds of waste. Or worse than an entire mink farm.

But that’s not accounting for the true legacy of the Board of Supervisors.

The homeless population of San Francisco increased by around 1,000 in six years. Complaints about human waste rose from 5,685 in 2011 to 18,211 in 2016. A 1,000 increase would mean an extra 342,000 pounds of human waste. San Francisco pols clamored that all the mink farms in this country produce a million pounds of waste a year. The homeless population that they cultivated does that in only a few months with an estimated annual output of well over 2 million pounds.

Mink are rabid, deranged animals that bite everything in sight. But millions of them running loose around Frisco would still do less damage than the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

San Francisco’s budget topped $11 billion for the first time. An increase of almost a billion. Annual spending on the homeless is expected to rise to over $300 million.

None of this would be possible without the tech industry that the city is trying to alienate. And if North Korea with a tech industry loses the dot com firms that feed its tax base, it’ll just be North Korea.

And it’s working hard to make that happen.

Another brilliant ban from the board brains would outlaw new workplace cafeterias.

“You can’t have an industrial kitchen in your office building,” declared Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who along with Supervisor Ahsha Safai, was one of the geniuses behind the idea.

When workers eat in cafeterias, it deprives the restaurateurs of customers. The same lefties who banned straws because of their environmental impact, want to mandate the existence of a thousand restaurants, which were formerly serving those straws, without regard to their environmental impact.

What’s the environmental impact of a straw or an employee taking an Uber for lunch? It’s as disproportionate as the environment impacts of Katy Tang, Aaron Peskin and Ahsha Safai compared to a thousand minks whose senseless aggression is at least the product of instinct, not leftist ideology.

But the great hand of socialism gives and takes away. It just doesn’t make any sense while it’s doing so.

Once the decree passes, the only people entitled to a free lunch in San Francisco will be the same ones defecating on the street. But the workers who actually subsidize the mess aren’t allowed a free lunch.

Socialism will offer you a free lunch. But not if you pay taxes and use the bathroom.

"I urge the Board to focus on making our streets safe. Perhaps then, workers would feel better about leaving their workplace for lunch without having to actively dodge tent camps, human feces, and needles," one San Francisco letter writer suggested.

But that runs contrary to the entire philosophy that turned San Fran into an overtaxed and overregulated public sewer where every problem is solved with a new ban.

“It’s more heavily regulated than the water you’re getting in bottles," a senior advisor to the mayor's office insisted of San Francisco's water in defense of a water bottle ban.

But not everybody wants more regulated water. Some people just want the water that they want.

And the vaping liquids, the goldfish, the upholstered furniture, the plastic bags, fur coats and coffee cups of their choice. Some people just want to drink their bottled water through a straw. They want to wear a fur coat while shopping for tropical fish and upholstered furniture. And then light up a cigarette.

There’s no room for that attitude in San Francisco where each social problem is met with a new ban.

Are restaurants unhappy about the bans on coffee cups, foam containers and straws? Just ban workplace cafeterias to drive customers to them. Are workers and companies fleeing San Fran? Put up a wall made of recycled waste and trash topped with armed homeless encampments to keep them from escaping. Then direct the survivors to eat out at the strawless, coffee-cup less, salt-less and sugar-free vegan restaurant of their mandated choice offering tasteless meals with no more than 40 calories.

It worked for North Korea. It’s bound to work for San Francisco.





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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Monday, July 30, 2018

Only Fake Jews Are Afraid of a Jewish State

The Palestinian Authority’s basic law and draft constitution states that “Palestine” is an “Arab” entity, that “Islam is the official religion”, that “Islamic Sharia” is the basis for its law and Arabic is its official language. Unlike Israel’s nation-state bill which defines the Jewish State as Jewish, there’s been no criticism of this PLO document. And the media has not labeled it as divisive or controversial.

The constitution of neighboring Jordan states, “Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language.” "The people of Syria are part of the Arab nation," Syria's constitution declares. "The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation". That means Syria may only be ruled by a Muslim. "The official language of the state is Arabic."

Egypt's constitution declares it to be an "Arab Republic" and "part of the Muslim world". You will not be surprised to learn that, "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation." These same statements, with minor variations, hold true for most of the Muslim countries in the region, and excluding Arabic, throughout the world.

All of Israel’s Arab Muslim neighbors very clearly define their countries as Arab and Muslim. Their religion is Islam, their identity Arabic, variations of the same document declare, their language is Arabic.

These assertions of Arab and Muslim national identity are not criticized by the same gaggle of organizations, governments and reporters tearing their hair out over Israel’s nation-state bill.

The nation-state bill defines Israel as the "the historical homeland of the Jewish people" and "the nation-state of the Jewish people". Hebrew is its official language with Arabic enjoying a special status. (No Arab constitution bothers offering Hebrew a similar status.)

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the bill as “racist”. The state sponsor of Islamic terror complained that, “human civilization tends to celebrate diversity”. Qatar's own constitution declares that it is an Arab country whose "religion is Islam" and "Sharia law" is the basis for its laws.

So much for celebrating “diversity”. (But the Qatari constitution simultaneously claims that “its political system is democratic” and that “rule of the State is hereditary in the family of Al Thani.” The Qatari constitution also states that, "The Heir Apparent must be a Muslim of a Qatari Muslim Mother" and “there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, race, language, or religion”.)

The Israeli nation-state bill speaks of the "cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people" and of Jewish "religious" self-determination, but unlike the Arab-Islamic constitutions it does not define Judaism as the official religion.

Virtually every media outlet described the nation-state bill as “controversial”. As everyone knows, the definition of a controversial issue is one that the left disagrees with. The Oslo Accords which killed and crippled thousands of Israelis and created an even greater threat to Israel’s existence than Iran’s nukes were described as “optimistic”. Dismantling Israel is “optimistic”. Believing in it is “controversial”.

But if Israel’s nation-state bill is controversial, then what of the PLO’s basic law, and the constitutions of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and nearly every Arab and Muslim country in the world? If Israel declaring itself to be Jewish is wrong, how can the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan declaring that they are Muslim and Arabic be right? The double standard is ubiquitous and has only one possible answer.

There’s nothing wrong with an Arab and Muslim country, but something wrong with a Jewish country.

But this time the criticism isn’t coming from the State Department. Unlike the Obama era where an Israeli sneeze occasioned an angry lecture from Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, and a snippy remark by the State Department spokesperson, America’s first authentically pro-Israel administration is on Israel’s side. Heather Nauert at State has repeatedly deflected media demands that she condemn Israel.

In early July, Nauert responded to media insistence that BDS is a “peaceful movement” and that Israel should be criticized for denying entry to an anti-Israel activist by stating that, “countries are sovereign. They have a right to either admit or deny admittance to individuals at their border, okay?”

Instead much of the furious outrage is coming from lefty anti-Israel groups and leaders whose pretense of being pro-Israel wears particularly thin at times when Israel shows the courage of its convictions.

The American Jewish Committee could not find the time to stand up for Jewish students in New York City being disadvantaged by racial quotas, but did claim to be “deeply disappointed” by Israel calling itself a Jewish country. Perhaps then the AJC should get the “Jewish” part out of its own name.

Rick Jacobs, the anti-Israel leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, denounced the bill for damaging "the legitimacy of the Zionist vision" and "the values of the state of Israel". He vowed to "fight back" by "forging new ties" with Arabs.

"Millions of us," he declared, "are united in our opposition to this new law."

Who those millions are is anybody’s guess. A rally against the bill in Tel Aviv sponsored by 22 organizations (including Socialist Struggle, the New Israel Fund and some pro-BDS groups) only turned out thousands. That’s in a city where you can get 100,000 to protest the price of cottage cheese.

"The law, which celebrates the fundamental Jewish nature of the state, raises significant questions about the government’s long-term commitment to its pluralistic identity," Jonathan Greenblatt, the former Obama staffer turned ADL boss, complained.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs expressed "profound disappointment". It whined that "this new law undermines Israel’s vibrant democracy comprised of diverse religious and ethnic groups".

Perhaps the JCPA then ought to stop undermining its own diversity and dump the “J” part of its title so that it can be better composed of “diverse religious and ethnic groups”. If it’s good enough for Israel, why isn’t it good enough for the AJC and the JCPA who monetize Jewishness while undermining it?

Defining Israel as Jewish is a dividing line that separates authentically Jewish groups from those that are Jewish in name only. The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI), Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and the Israeli-Jewish Congress (IJC) backed Israel. And other true Jewish organizations are joining them.

The scariest thing for a fake Jewish organization is a Jewish State. Establishment groups that have spent generations peddling lefty policy ideas to the clueless by calling them “Jewish” are deeply threatened by the existence of a Jewish State for whom the “J” part is not just a brand, but a meaningful identity.

Nothing threatens a scam artist like the real thing. And Israel, as idea and reality, has always threatened the scam artists of the left who peddle a bowdlerized Jewish history that began in the 19th century, whose messianic age is the Tikkun Olam of socialism and whose messiahs wave red flags.

Despite the clamor and the talking points, “controversial”, “divisive” and “unnecessary”, Israel’s nation-state bill is mostly symbolic. It doesn’t discriminate. It does however make a very clear statement.

And it’s that statement that has blown like a fierce desert wind through the houses of cards of an establishment that views Jewishness as a brand rather than a commitment. It is easy to find Jewish organizations that will sign letters for every lefty cause, from Muslim immigration to illegal migrants. But rarely, if ever, will these organizations stand up for a Jewish cause, even if, like the racial quotas being imposed on Jewish students in New York, the cause has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

Israel, the “Palestinians”, the two-state solution and all the rest of it was never the issue. Jewishness is. The only people who are afraid of a Jewish State either hate Jews or hate being Jewish.





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. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.



Sunday, July 29, 2018

Political Blackface and Marxist Minstrel Shows

"When you attack a Black woman for speaking out about injustice, and when you call for ‘civility’ in the face of blatant racism, you invoke a long history of white supremacist power.”

So reads a letter in defense of the call by Rep. Maxine Waters to harass Trump administration officials.

“The concept of respect is culturally mediated; there is no single, objective standard,” it concludes.

There are clear objective standards. They include not harassing the people you disagree with in their private lives. The only people who think that standard is “culturally mediated” are leftist thugs.

But the lefty letter, which claims thousands of signatories, is not unique. Nor is its message.

A New York Times op-ed declares that civility is the “misguided obsession” of “white America.” According to a CNN analysis, not being harassed while you’re having dinner is a form of “privilege”.

“Civility is a tool of white supremacy," a Samantha Bee writer tweeted.

According to Simran Jeet Singh, a Henry R. Luce Post-Doctoral Fellow at NYU’s Center for Religion and Media, civility is a "power play by those who feel that white supremacy is under threat."

If civility and manners are racist, then rudeness must be the new civil rights movement. But no amount of citing Martin Luther King in defense of harassing Trump staffers having dinner will change his speech to, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day be rude, obnoxious and entitled snowflakes."

Civility arguments predate the recent harassment of Trump officials. After being battle tested in online leftist forums where calls for politeness were denounced as “tone-policing,” they were deployed to college campuses where critics of racist harassment were attacked for imposing a “white -informed civility” on furious protesters.

Two sets of values were in collision. On one side were the basic norms of public behavior, and on the other was the great bigoted crusade against bigotry. It was inevitable that the norms of manners, decency and civility - like everything else that obstructed the great crusade - would be deemed racist.

White supremacy has been redefined as anything that interferes with the left. Beyond civility, the rule of law, equality, due process and freedom of speech have all been deemed the tools of white supremacy.

Racism is the new witchcraft. Just like witches, it’s everywhere and in everything.

"Milk, it has been argued of late, is the new symbol of white supremacy in America, owing to its hue," the Los Angeles Times discourses. At the University of Michigan, wood paneling was accused of marginalizing minorities. In Oakland, racist scooters are threatening the lives of black people. "Mathematics itself operates as Whiteness," a University of Illinois professor claimed.

Are civility, manners and decency racist? As much as milk, wood paneling, math and scooters.

When everything is racist, nothing is racist. And nothing is racist because the leftist obsession with race has nothing to do with black people. This use of racism or white supremacy exploits black people as props, but is actually only a thin pretext for the left to fight the wars that it wants to fight anyway.

And the black people who show up are taking part in a Marxist minstrel show.

Rep. Maxine Waters hoarsely urged a mob, “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

But on the video, the mob being hectored by the world’s oldest millennial is a sea of white.

Aside from Waters, there is one other black person in front of the camera. The rest appear to be mostly older white people from the upper middle class who look like they just stepped out of a mall. Their clothes run to business casual. It’s as far from a crowd of oppressed minorities as you can get.

But that’s typical for Waters whose phony #resistance shtick is sucker bait for angry white lefties who, like the political dumpster diva, are far away from her minority district. Racializing Waters’ call to white lefties to terrorize political opponents is typical of how the left uses minorities to justify its violence.

Dozens of media spin pieces tried to cite Martin Luther King to justify Waters’ rhetoric. That’s not civil rights. It’s political blackface. The issue isn’t race, it’s ideology. The left manufactures a crisis to create a sense of urgency. The norms, legal and social, cannot be allowed to get in the way of the urgent crisis. The petty preoccupations of the bourgeoisie with manners, property, legal rights or their lives can’t be allowed to interfere.

With this same tediously murderous logic, the left took millions of lives in the name of its urgent crises.

Civility and manners aren’t racist, but they are counterrevolutionary. Revolutions kill by urgency. They upend everything, declare an endless national crisis and settle down to solving it with decades of genocide. And there’s no room for civility or manners when your jackboots are full of blood.

The revolutions of the left unleash political terror against those who disagree, then those who insufficiently agree, then those who agree out of thoughtful conviction rather than mindless obedience.

Once upon a time the left used class to justify violent purges by its upper middle class leadership. In the United States, the left uses race to justify violent purges by its upper middle class white leadership.

Otherwise the rhetoric, the predatory crocodile tears for the oppressed, the violent outrage that purports to be rooted in political empathy, when it’s actually based on personal ego, the calls for violence on the behalf of the empathy props, is the same. The left pretends that its hatred is empathy, and the empathy of those who still believe in social norms is actually a form of cruelty.

If you don’t believe in terrorizing those you disagree with, where is your compassion for others?

Political blackface needs its Marxist minstrel show radicals. Auntie Maxine hoarsely bellowing at the population of a Gap store is as silly as anything from the Madea movies. It’s hard to believe that Rep. Maxine Waters (D – Anywhere But Her District) isn’t just a character that Tyler Perry invented.

Maxine Waters, who doesn’t care about anything that doesn’t involve her husband’s bank, is a pretext for white lefties to attack white conservatives in the name of civil rights. Despite winning elections by 70% margins, she’s raised $707,986. Waters doesn’t need the cash to win her inevitable elections.

Using black people as a cover for leftist violence isn’t a new tactic. But leftist violence doesn’t come from the oppressed. It’s perpetrated by the oppressors using social justice as a false flag for their violence.

When you hide your thuggery behind black people, you can denounce civility as a racist conspiracy against black people. But civility isn’t racist. White lefties wearing political blackface to claim that black people are physically incapable of having manners or conducting civil protests are as racist as it gets.

Political blackface is racist. And political violence by any race is terrorism. And a crime.

Civility isn’t racist. The left is.



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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.



Wednesday, July 25, 2018

China Exposes the Recycling Scam's Dirty Secret

The huge dirty secret of recycling was also one of the world’s worst polluters.

Every branch of government from Washington D.C. to your local town council had spent a fortune convincing people that recycling is a magical process that turns your old pizza boxes into new pizza boxes while creating those imaginary “green jobs” in the community. The reality was a lot dirtier.

All of America’s industries, including trash sorting, had been outsourced to China.

And recycling is just a fancy lefty way of saying "trash." All that recycling, which children in progressive communities are taught to sort as the closest thing to a religious ritual, was really being dumped by the ton on dirty ships and sent over to China. We weren’t recycling it. The Chinese were.

But now China is banning foreign recycling because it’s bad for the environment.

Even the Communists got tired of sorting through the trash of American socialists. The recycling scam shipped garbage on dirty ships for dirty industries while pretending that they’re clean and green.

There was never anything clean about it. And only the money it brought in was green.

Now the recycling party’s over. Plastic recycling imports were banned early this year. Even fiber has trouble getting in to the People’s Republic. China’s mixed paper standards mean that most of the recycled cardboard and paper no longer passes muster. Instead it’s piling up in the United States.

The recycling scam used to be an easy trade. China shipped its cheap products made from recycled American junk and scrap here. The empty vessels used to dump Chinese junk products on America were then filled up with tons of recycling for the return trip back to China at minimal cost.

We sent them junk, they sent us junk. As the trade deficit grew, recycling was one of its many parasites.

But China is out of the recycling dump business. And the recycling business depended on it. No other market pays what it did. And no other country has the industrial scale to handle this much recycled trash. The American market is flooded with recycling that no one wants and trash prices have imploded.

And that’s having an immediate impact on the progressive recycling programs in the United States.

California’s trash is going right back to landfills. 62% of exported materials used to go to China. But no more. California’s Department of Resources Recycling sent a letter cautioning that the “economics of recycling” had become “unfavorable” thus “challenging what recycling means to Californians.”

It also warned recycling facilities that, “public health and safety should be their number one priority”.

In Massachusetts, mountains of trash recycling are piling up and there’s talk that trucks may stop picking it up. In Pennsylvania, a "recycling crisis created by China" was blamed for a refusal to accept paper. In Seattle and Phoenix, recycling is going into landfills. Fees are going up in Portland. In Pasco, recycling was abandoned before its start. In a Kansas City plant, one out of four items is going into a landfill. In Sacramento, where all of California’s recycling rules are made, most recyclables no longer are.

Fort Worth’s recycling brought in nearly a million last year. Now, it’s expected to cost $1.6 million.

Recology used to be the epitome of the reinvented garbage hauler, merging San Francisco urban politics with progressive PR about ending waste. But zero landfill talk has given way to a blunter reality, “There’s no market for a lot of stuff in the blue bin. What we can’t recycle we take to a landfill.”

Environmental regulations had already turned garbage collection in California into an expensive disaster, but this is an entirely unprecedented mess complete with mountains of trash and mountains of bills.

Recycling has become economically unsustainable, but that doesn’t mean it’s going away.

There’s too much money in environmental scams. And recycling is the biggest of them. The China crisis is being met with the three R’s of progressive policymaking; rent-seeking, regulations and robbery.

Some homeowners are already seeing higher trash collection fees. Those will only get worse. Especially on the West Coast where the China option helped dull the painful costs of recycling. But the costs will hit everyone as politicians resort to mandating higher levels of recycled content in everyday products.

Want to sell soda, tissues or milk? Pay the politically connected recycling companies for the privilege of using their trash. As recycling costs go up, content mandates will force companies to create an artificial market. And the costs will be passed along to consumers who will have to pay more for everything.

Like higher trash fees, tightened recycling regulations have also only begun to arrive. If you live in a blue state or city, expect to spend a lot more time sorting your trash, cleaning your cans and removing plastic from your envelopes so that they meet China’s new high standards for imported trash.

China will no longer be sorting American trash. So progressives have decided that you will.

We hear about the jobs that Americans won’t do. But this is a job that the Chinese won’t do. And that Americans will be forced to do for free. As China becomes more capitalist, America turns Communist.

Or as a video on the Recology site prompts, “How to be a better recycle because China demands it.”

Environmentalist municipalities have already begun rolling out condescending campaigns berating homeowners for their foolish and lazy recycling practices. ‘Wishcycling’ is a charmless portmanteau you will see more of. But what it really means is that homeowners who are already being taxed to death are being hectored by the environmental activists they subsidize who have never worked a day in their lives.

Will all of that save the recycling scam?

No, but it won’t matter. Most homeowners have no idea how much of their recyclables go into landfills anyway. The dirty business of municipal waste contracts will continue on uninterrupted. The extra fees and costs will be another one of the left’s thousand cuts that are bleeding the middle class to death.

Homeowners will be taxed harder so that crony cash can flow to even bigger recycling operations. You will pay more for everything you buy to subsidize politically connected, but uneconomical enterprises.

Recycling is not a reality, but an idea. Like Communism, it can never be achieved, but must be aspired to.

Smaller towns and cities will be forced to dump their recycling programs. And more conservative areas will be dissuaded from getting on board as the profit margins from recycling turn into pools of red ink. But blue states and cities will never abandon recycling. And if Washington D.C. goes blue again, the dictates of crony socialism and green fanaticism will roll out new compulsory standards nationwide.

Recycling is in crisis. But the environmental scam is too big to fail.

The ships carrying most of the blue state and city “green” trash will no longer be allowed into China. But there are other countries and continents desperate enough to take their socialist trash.

The dirty secret of recycling is that it depended on the willingness of Third World countries to greenwash our trash so that progressives could pretend that their moral garbage was saving the planet.

The smaller countries of Southeast Asia don’t have the capacity to take up China’s slack, but the People’s Republic has progressively been colonizing Africa. Some African countries were already being used to recycle and dump e-waste. The shipping won’t be as cheap, but recycling’s next stop is likely to be Africa where environmentalists will turn it into a trash heap… to protect the environment.



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

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.