China vs. America

The longer the West placates China and pretends that

 it is not being aggressively challenged by China 

and is currently losing that challenge, 

the more the future of the West will be in doubt.

by Conrad Black for American Greatness

There can be little doubt the United States is now in a contest with China over which will be the most important country in the world. In important respects, we are replicating the German challenge to the United Kingdom prior to World War I and the renewed German challenge of the 1930s, or the Soviet challenge for 45 years after World War II. As China grows stronger and bolder, and especially as the United States fumbles its way through periods of great distraction and internal political strife, the Chinese—like Hitler—become more brazen and provoking. 

Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 when the French easily could have forced him back, but did not. He swallowed Austria whole in early 1938 and the French and British regarded it as nothing more than the expression of Austria’s national wishes. They recognized that they could not go to war to prevent German Czechs (Sudetenlanders) from becoming Germans, but their action at the Munich Conference destroyed the state of Czechoslovakia that their leaders, along with President Woodrow Wilson, had created not 20 years before. Only when Hitler seized what is now the Czech Republic as well, did the British begin to respond seriously. Even then, their prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, entered World War II only reluctantly after the invasion of Poland.

Of course, Chinese leader Xi Jinping is not remotely as psychotically belligerent as Hitler, who was a deranged genocidal romantic who actively sought war as long as it was in advantageous circumstances. Hitler had professed to have enjoyed his four years of trench warfare in World War I, in the course of which he was wounded, gassed, and twice decorated for bravery. He felt that he must unleash aggressive war on Europe according to a strict timetable because his obsessive hypochondria led him to believe that he would die prematurely. (He did, but only because he had provoked irresistible forces to destroy him.) 

Nor could Xi be even slightly compared to Kaiser Wilhelm II, who had a childish ego and impetuosity and gave the decrepit Habsburg empire in Vienna the infamous “blank check” to plunge all of Europe into war. The comparison with Stalin must also be used with great caution; barbarous though he was, and intent though he and his successors were in stirring up Communist revolutions in different countries from Greece to the Congo to Cuba to Indonesia, neither Stalin nor any of his successors ever dared a military confrontation with United States.

There is no reason to believe Xi would either, but the whole world has seen China steadily raising the ante and becoming more brazen and provoking in its behavior. For decades it has exploited the belief of the well-meaning leaders of the West that good treatment would be reciprocated. But China has ignored its trade and monetary commitments and made a mockery of Western concepts of human rights by its oppression of the Uighurs and of all forms of religious practice. And it has torn up the Hong Kong treaty with the United Kingdom, which remains one of the world’s most important and respected countries. To judge from the Chinese regime’s public announcements, it only wishes to cuff its would-be rivals around a little and make the point that it is actually the world’s leading power to whom all other nations owe great deference. 

While this is undoubtedly less onerous than what Hitler or Stalin or possibly even the Kaiser had in mind for us, no one should imagine that the overlordship and general suzerainty of Communist China is anything the West would wear lightly. 

The West has been guided by Greco-Roman and then Judeo-Christian values since about 600 B.C.. No one should underestimate how demeaning and demoralizing it would be if those values were effectively subordinated to an ethos dictated by the Chinese Communist Party. The humiliation implicit in such an epochal upheaval of the world would shatter the morale of our society and we might enter a period of eclipse as lengthy and profound and miserable as that from which China has just emerged. 

The Kaiser and Hitler managed to convince themselves that the leaders of the rival powers were weaklings, and Xi seems to have come—at least in the last few months—to a similar conclusion. On the facts it is hard to fault them for that conclusion, but what the German emperor and Führer did not take into account was that H. H. Asquith and Paul Painlevé and Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier would shortly be replaced by Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, Winston Churchill, and Charles de Gaulle, and life would become much more complicated. Communications and diplomacy are now much more informative than they were then and the ubiquity of nuclear weapons imposes a sobriety upon all world leaders unlike anything that obtained in the pre-nuclear era.

All three regimes, Wilhelmine Germany, the Third Reich, and Stalin’s Soviet Union, foundered on the identical and immense strategic error of underestimating the United States. With World War I in stalemate on the western front between Germany and the French and British Empire armies, the Kaiser made the catastrophic mistake of agreeing to attack American merchant shipping on the high seas to try to strangle Britain and France. The United States had no choice but to go to war against Germany, which President Wilson portrayed as a “war to end all wars” and a way to “make the world safe for democracy.” Though he was the principal founder of the League of Nations, he failed to gain United States adherence to it, and though he was the first person to inspire the masses of the world with a vision of enduring peace, he produced the Treaty of Versailles, which was admirably described by the supreme commander of the Allied armies, France’s Marshal Foch, as “not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.”

Hitler had learned the lesson of not attacking American shipping, even after President Franklin D. Roosevelt extended American territorial waters from three to 1,800 miles and ordered the U.S. Navy to attack, on detection, any German ship (as, under Lend-Lease, he sold the British and Canadians anything they wanted on generous terms). Hitler did not take the bait, but he didn’t coordinate with the Japanese either. And when Roosevelt shut off oil supplies to Japan—which imported 85 percent of its oil, mainly from the United States—Hitler did not devise any plan for supplying them from the Middle East and coordinating his planned attack on Russia with the Japanese attack from the Far East. And when Japan, rather than accept the humiliation of suspending its barbarous invasion of China and Indochina, attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the United States. In doing this on the heels of his invasion of the Soviet Union he found himself at war with the United States, the USSR, and the British Commonwealth and Empire, which between them possessed, as Churchill said at the time, “twice, or thrice the power of Germany.” And when Stalin declined Roosevelt’s offer of an immense economic recovery program and recognition as a coequal superpower in the world, and ignored his Tehran and Yalta commitments to free elections and evacuation of Eastern Europe, he entered into a Cold War that the USSR ultimately could not win.  

Xi Jinping does not seem to possess any of the childishly intemperate and reckless tendencies of Kaiser Wilhelm, nor any of the madness of Hitler, and possesses a much subtler and more patient concept of advancing the Chinese interests than Stalin and his successors had about Soviet interests. He must have some recognition of the American reserves of national purpose and manifest destiny to maintain its unique standing in the world. 

But people generally—especially very powerful people unaccustomed to being contradicted—tend to believe what they want to believe. The longer the West placates China and pretends that it is not being aggressively challenged by China and is currently losing that challenge, the more the future of the West will be in doubt. The next president of the United States will have both a mandate and a duty to restart this contest and to contain China within tolerable parameters. The longer we wait the more difficult it will be.

W³P Open Thread: Founder's Edition

Our Founder has arrived!

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

 

'French Trump' May Make Bid For President

Eric Zemmour

 

   

In the wake of the runoffs in France’s regional elections Sunday, there has been fresh talk that best-selling author and television panelist Eric Zemmour — often dubbed the “French Trump” — would run for president of France in 2022 on a strong nationalist platform.

The “Zemmour for President” talk came as Marine LePen, considered the leading nationalist hopeful against President Emmanuel Macron, suffered a major blow at the polls Sunday.

LePen’s Reassemblement Party’s high hopes of winning the government in the southern Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur (PACA) were dashed. This would have been the first-ever victory for the nationalist party above the level of local city halls since LePen’s father founded it as the National Front (FN) in 1974.

But it was not to be. The Reassemblement candidates in PACA trailed the incumbent center-right Les Republicans candidates by 10 percentage points. 

LePen was not the only national party leader to have a bad night. Macron’s Ent Marche party failed to score wins in any of France’s 13 regions, as roughly two thirds of French voters abstained from voting.

 

 

So, talk has begun of a candidacy by Zemmour — 62, author of the prize-winning book “The French Suicide” (likened to James Burnham’s conservative epic “Suicide of the West” in the U.S.), and a polarizing fixture on TV for two decades for his spirited opposition to illegal immigration and political correctness. 

“Eric Zemmour is a very interesting phenomenon in France,” Laure Haim, spokesman for Macron’s winning presidential campaign in 2017, told Newsmax, “The arguments we heard in 2015 about Donald Trump, we are hearing about Zemmour one year before the French presidential election — and they’re exactly the same. He doesn’t have a chance, he’s a clown, he’s on TV, he doesn’t have a political party. ... It’s what I heard about Trump a year before he became president.”

 

 

 

Noting that Zemmour has dueled in the televised arena with many traditional politicians and emerged triumphant, Haim said he would make a superior candidate for the right than LePen.

“LePen comes from a political family and she is from the civil society,” said Haim, “Zemmour is very different from LePen. He is new in politics, and the attraction of someone new to politics is true all over the world — for better or for worse.”

“I will say that Zemmour at this moment is a French phenomenon. He likes provocation. He’s a writer and has written very successful books. You either love him or you hate him but there is no middle.”

Laure Mandeville, formerly U.S. correspondent for the venerable French publication LeFigaro, said the regional elections “didn’t clarify anything. Quite the contrary, it shows the weakness of Macron, the limits of Le Pen, and the open window for a sudden surprise candidate. The game is very open.”

 

 

 

Regarding Zemmour, who wrote for LeFigaro from 2009 to 2013 and is a fixture on TV and radio talk shows, Mandeville said: “He is a nationalist, has a huge number of fans from his shows and books, but also very divisive — a bit like Trump and Tucker Carlson — but a super intellectual.”

“It’s a very strange situation,” she added, “There’s a feeling here of a growing anxiety and dislocation of the French society, with huge divides and harsh ideological fights.”

 

 

https://www.newsmax.com/john-gizzi/zemmour-lepen-macron-trump/2021/06/27/id/1026614/ 

 

The Cruel Progressive Creed Undoing Civilization

The Left’s progressive wasteland is an acceptable price to pay

 for the terrifying visions of its anointed.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Debt is suffocating us. Our currency is on its way to being Lebanonized. 

Most major American cities are broke, dirty, unsafe, and run by either corrupt incumbents, neo-Marxists, or both. The law is optional,  and applied asymmetrically on the basis of race and ideology. The past is found guilty by the laws of the present and so it is being undone.

The military budget is on a trajectory to be the smallest in terms of GDP allotment since World War II; its careerist officers, for their own short-term interests, are now demonizing and will soon be driving away the very demographic that has suffered percentage-wise the greatest casualties in recent wars and was once unquestionably the foundation of the military. 

There is no U.S. border; it is an abstract construct that millions will illegally cross in the next few years, ostensibly because they will become future soldiers in the progressive wars for America to come. The idea of merit that built America is a dirty word, replaced by medieval tribalism of hiring and promotion by superficial appearance. 

In just five months, Joe Biden created a desert and called it progress.

Progressivism is billed as many things. But its foundational brand is devotion to supposedly “scientific” principles to improve the human condition. That Enlightenment project demands greater social welfare expenditure and therapeutic education to “improve” human nature itself. And all this can sometimes require necessary force.

Such utopian dreams of mandated equity attract all sorts to the cause. There are the naïve who feel socialist redistribution, if at last done right just this once, can really, really create social equity and inclusion. Many of the sympathetic rich assume they will be exempt from the tough medicine that follows from their own guilt or sense of civic duty. Some are opportunistic and parasitical careerists piggy-backing on the chaos. Others are social and psychological zealots who find meaning and relevance as wannabe soldiers marching to utopia.

But inherent in such 20th-century hubris is the concession that there will be lots of collateral damage in reordering society. When imposing abstract, but uncompromising theories onto the otherwise unenlightened people, eggs will have to be broken to bake the new omelet. And from what we have seen in the last few months, the progressive toll is becoming every bit as excruciating as our woke custodians are indifferent to it. 

As a general rule, anytime anyone anywhere announces that he has a master plan to reorder society and “fundamentally transform” or “reset” it by creating larger government, more rules, and an elite hierarchy to oversee compliance for the recalcitrant, then run. You can rest assured ultimately the architect will change the language, demonize and marginalize new opponents, given the omelette always needs more eggs. They will subvert institutions, and, if need be, resort to violence to ensure change.

The Progressive Scorecard

Take the border. Human nature over the eons has assumed the world functions according to deterrence. People make choices, good and bad, based on their own cost-to-benefit analyses. In other words, they balance incentives against disincentives about whether to enter the United States illegally or stay home.

Perhaps nearly 2 million illegal aliens will cross the border over this calendar year. Most would never have attempted to do so last summer. 

Why? Because after January 20, 2021, they believed the border was open. Now, meeting a border security guard ensures no detention, much less deportation. 

Now arrivals assume a fast track to permanent residence as “political refugees” and a future of government subsidy and alleviation of the miseries of life south of the border. 

So they rightly believe the risks of illegal entry are far fewer than the rewards of being not just American residents, but protected by a new progressive paternalism that finds advantage in illegal immigration.

Progressives believe, at least in theory, that breaking federal law to usher in millions of poor into the United States reveals to us their own morally superior commitment to improving the lot of mankind. Cynics counter that progressives wish to import not so much people as constituents and voters, to turn more red counties and states blue. 

Who worries much about the ensuing collateral damage: squalid conditions in border halfway stations, cartel predation on the vulnerable, the overtaxing of social welfare services at the expense of American poor, greater rates of crime and gang violence, the diminution in entry-level wages, and less integration and assimilation of newcomers who come en masse?

The crude ideology applies to current spiraling crime—the direct result of progressive rhetoric, policies, and political agendas. It is not that the Left wants violence in the streets, only that it is a small price to pay to implement never-let-a-crisis-go-to waste ideas that normally would have no support. 

Progressives obsess over stop-and-frisk, supposedly inordinate incarceration and racially asymmetrical arrests, but they have little concern for keeping the streets safe for the young, the elderly, the weak, the inner-city poor and the vulnerable from the attacks of history’s archetypical predator, the unbound young male between 15 and 40. 

So naturally crime spikes throughout the country, given deterrence is lost. Criminals prove far better students of human nature than do the professors, lawyers, and politicians. Who would have thought the criminally minded would interpret state laxity as the timidity of a bankrupt establishment to be exploited rather than reciprocated? 

Given that progressivism is the cachet of the rich, the secure, and the influential, rarely does the damage of implementing progressivism law enforcement befall its exempt architects. 

Translated in the real world, the progressive mind fixates on the lone suspect shot in a police confrontation, the rare white on black crime, and almost any anomaly that “proves” the deductive idea of the perennially victimized. It cannot tolerate news or video accounts of the violence in Chicago, now-routine theft in San Francisco, or the street executions in New York. So such norms are simply cut out of the narrative. 

Last week in Portland, Antifa and Black Lives Matter were poised to protest and riot over the police shooting of a supposed “victim” of color—only to dissipate when the victim was announced to be white and the shooter a black officer. The media covers a white policeman shooting an unarmed black suspect as a teachable moment of systemic racism, but smothers the story of an officer of “unknown” race who shot and killed unarmed Ashli Babbitt attempting to climb through a window inside the Capitol Building—and shows its own racist proclivities. Again, the correct revolutionary narrative matters, not the facts or details, in the manner humanity must be saved even if the truth—and some humans—are sacrificed.

Transgendered sports are another example of the callousness of progressivism in all its glory. It believes “science” has rendered passé biological sexual differences between male and female. 

The Left then trumpets its liberation of the transgendered by popularizing a new third sex, as mothers become “birthing people” and men need not have male genitalia. But in the concrete, progressivism cares little that transgenderism is utterly destroying women’s sports. Those born biologically male compete with innately physical advantages over biological females in size, stature, and strength. 

But then who cares about women athletes anyway? Why are not women transitioning to males not also competing successfully, if at all, with men? Again, the aspirations of millions of young female athletes is a tiny charge to pay for the larger transformation, liberation, and equitization of sexuality itself.

Racism can be defined as the ancient and eternal pathology of assessing and stereotyping humans in all manner of human life as inferior. The entire pathology fixates on superficial collective appearances rather than unique individual character, talent and achievement. By that definition, the new wokeism is again racist to the core. The BLM brain trust rails about innately pernicious “whiteness,” and the pathologies that all “whites” share, and the universal need for all “whites” to become “reprogrammed” and “reeducated.” 

Yet racism and igniting tribal wars are small progressive prices to pay for achieving an equity society characterized by an engineered equality of result in all spheres of life and insured by the government. Why worry about individual lives ruined by racial preferences and institutionalized prejudices? 

We know that those with COVID-19 antibodies usually have nearly as much or the same immunity as those vaccinated. We know also that those previously infected may run somewhat greater risk of side effects from vaccinations than those uninfected. And we know that those under 15 may run even more risks from vaccinations than they would coming down with a case of COVID-19 infection. 

Yet progressive science will tell us all that is not true or at least of no interest given the need to vaccinate all 330 million American—or else and until the progressive narrative changes for the greater good as it did with Dr. Fauci and his changing “science” of masks. 

Once progressive science decides what constitutes herd immunity—defined by one of Dr. Fauci’s noble lies of 60, 70, 80, or 90 percent protection with antibodies—then whatever means necessary to achieve the collective good are justified. That can entail everything from vaccinating the very young and the previously infected to misleading the public that white deplorables rank as the most dangerous to us all by their disproportionate resistance to vaccination, or ignoring quarantine violations by large numbers of the right sort of protestors. 

Meanwhile, progressivism’s noble lies assure us that most minorities, who on average actually have fewer vaccinations per capita than do whites and Asians, are not as culpable as working-class whites who are demonized for resisting vaccination. Instead, minorities have no free will and are “underserved” and “marginalized” as they understandably balk at vaccination due to “historic and legitimate suspicions” or “fear of deportation—and the prior 2020 castigations of the vaccinations by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as “experts” warning that being vaxxed still means masks and quarantines, will not really go away.

We know that defunding the police erodes deterrence, encouraging criminals to believe in a cost-to-benefit gamble that the chances of arrest, indictment, conviction, and incarceration are small and the rewards or delights in criminality are ample. But we do not care because it is far more important to advance the narrative that particular groups are victims, and others deductive victimizers. And only the government can apply the power and morality to punish and reward accordingly. If it is a choice between reducing the some 700 shooting deaths of blacks in Chicago by increasing the police presence to protect inner-city residents, and thereby losing the progressive narrative of an epidemic of out-of-control racist rogue cops, then inner-city violence is a tolerable price.

Our Progressive Guardians

Progressivism is also at its basic level elitist. Sweeping reengineering of society, micromanagement of millions of lives, and elimination of individual pathologies require exemptions. For example, crusaders such as John Kerry and Al Gore have offered a valuable window into the progressive heart and mind. 

Kerry reminded us that he often leaves a huge carbon footprint from his wife’s private jet. Indeed, he jets to get a climate change award since such gas-guzzling travel was “the only choice for someone like me” who had to travel the world quickly and in comfort “to win the battle.” This was the progressive bookend argument to his earlier advocacy for higher taxes, as he moved his luxury yacht from its Massachusetts dock to one in low-tax Rhode Island to save nearly $500,000. 

Al Gore once trumped even Kerry’s progressive exemptions in a twofer of rushing to sell his failed cable TV company to carbon-rich, oil-exporting Qatar’s Al Jazeera—in hopes of avoiding projected rises in capital gains taxes. As Platonic Guardians, progressives must have the time, the resources, and the multifarious exemptions to plan and care for the rest of us. 

Think for a minute. In the cases above, if illegal aliens now crossing the Rio Grande proved to be more right-wing than Cubans, the border would be closed tomorrow. If criminals focused their efforts on Presidio Heights, Malibu, Martha’s Vineyard, or Newport, Rhode Island, there would be progressive outcries to fund more police. If transgendering muscular “female” teenage athletes demanded the use of women’s gym showers and restrooms in the nation’s top prep schools, progressives would likely recalibrate their new theories of trisexuality. 

The new progressivism is not the old Democratic Party, or even 1960s’ liberalism. It is a cruel creed, a faith-based ideology that allows no apostasies. Progressivism envisions humanity as a marbleized abstraction, not incarnate humans. If need be, it will alter language, change names, cancel people, erase events, and destroy elements of existing civilization. It stereotypes both adherents and opponents as either useful or disposable. And the carnage it wreaks on the masses is always acceptable damage for these terrifying visions of the anointed. 

 

In Joe Biden’s America, Whites Are the Enemy

Americans confronted with brazen, in-your-face racism have started 

pushing back on what is self-evidently a genocidal teaching.

by Matthew Boose for American Greatness

What are those silly white people so nervous about? Republicans are in a panic over critical race theory! They’re afraid of things they don’t understand! Don’t they know that racism against whites, according to our phony-baloney definition of racism, is a logical impossibility? 

We’re hearing a lot of talk like this these days. The Left is in a huff that Americans have started to notice the nonsense story we are constantly fed about race in America is precisely backwards. While we are told we live under “white supremacy,” dehumanizing, anti-white racism is increasingly pervasive in American life. It’s in schools across the country, where white children are indoctrinated to hate themselves because of their skin color. Corporations subject their workers to ritual humiliation about “whiteness” and what must be done to purge themselves, and society, of this evil. The federal government, under Joe Biden, is prosecuting a new draconian “war on extremism” that is, in reality, a shot across the bow at recalcitrant whites who refuse to accept this hostile treatment. 

As Biden recently explained in Tulsa, white people are basically terrorists. 

“Terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today—not ISIS, not al-Qaeda, white supremacists,” he said. 

The exact nature of this threat is never fully explained, but that is beside the point. Wild claims about “white supremacy” are to be taken on faith, never questioned. Surely, Biden knows that the shoe is firmly on the other foot: racism toward whites is now encouraged, even rewarded. This is why Biden and the Left always talk about race as if America had frozen in time 150 years ago. They are not describing reality. Does any serious person believe that Republican voting laws are comparable to Jim Crow? 

Collective Guilt

Biden is using a ridiculously exaggerated, anachronistic, bogus threat to gin up hatred against an entire race, who still comprise, for now at least, the nation’s majority. He does this often and casually, with a viciousness that makes Barack Obama seem moderate. It’s doubtful that Biden believes the nonsense he’s spouting, assuming he even understands it. He’s a demoralized sock puppet. 

But his handlers clearly do not see any risk in Biden engaging in anti-white demagoguery. They have made the cynical, but not stupid, calculation that stoking anti-white hatred only has benefits: it motivates the nonwhite part of the liberal coalition, and the white part of that coalition is too dumb or demoralized to realize or care they’re being lined up against a wall. 

The Left will deny this, of course, and insist that Biden is militating against a “system” of “oppression” and not white people as a group. But this is disingenuous, as they constantly charge white people with collective guilt. And in fact, this is exactly what Biden’s new “war on terror” does.

At the end of his strange report on countering this “terror” threat, Attorney General Merrick Garland admits the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” is not about national security at all but rather sending a message that opposition to anti-white racism will be met with force. We can surmise this is no joke after Biden’s threat that Americans who take on the government don’t stand a chance against its nuclear arsenal (which also appeared to be, as some noted, an admission that maybe this white supremacy thing isn’t as scary as he’s making it sound). 

The Triumph of “Equity”

It’s an ideological crusade. We know this because a core pillar of Garland’s “strategy” is “tackling racism in America” with “equity” at every level of government. Equity, as the term implies, has nothing to do with equality, but rather hierarchy. It’s a pretentious term for anti-white discrimination. And Biden has made it the lodestar of his domestic agenda. Anyone who opposes this agenda, like the parents in Loudon County who are fighting critical race theory, are “domestic terrorists” in Biden’s book. 

Biden’s “equity” agenda makes no apologies about giving favors to the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituent ethnic groups. This is not the liberalism of “equal opportunity,” but something more akin to Marxism: the brazen redistribution of wealth from a racial “oppressor” class to the “oppressed.” “Equity” is also the reason Biden is refusing to enforce America’s immigration laws. Saddled by centuries of blood guilt from colonization, whites now have an obligation to accept unlimited and endless reverse colonization from the Third World.

This is perhaps the best proof that Biden’s unhinged “white supremacy” talk is bogus: whites, and only whites, are prohibited from noticing that they are becoming a despised minority. It is a simple and widely acknowledged fact that America will become a majority-minority nation in just a few decades. The Left doesn’t deny it, in fact they loudly celebrate it. But they shout down anyone who notices their gloating as a “racist conspiracy theorist.” 

Under the circumstances, one cannot say in good faith that white anxiety is “irrational.” Yet for the Left, demographic replacement is a positive good, a “source of strength,” says Biden, speaking with triumph about this transformation just a few years ago. “Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America [in the future] will be white European stock,” he boasted.

When did it become the case that “fewer white people” equals “good?” Could it be that white people are evil, and having fewer of them around will improve society, and set history right? This has clearly become the central idea of the leftist project, and their attempts to deny it are increasingly dissonant.

Just Another Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Despite the stranglehold that anti-white ideology (and that is all critical race theory really is) has on our institutions, the Left now says that backlash against it is an overreaction borne out of the irrational fears and ignorance of privileged, evil whites consuming “misinformation” from Fox News. Barack Obama said so himself: Whites who complain about being turned into a scapegoated minority with nowhere to run have been misled by “right-wing media venues . . . that monetize and capitalize on stoking the fear and resentment of a white population that is witnessing a changing America and seeing demographic change.” 

Nothing of the kind is taking place. Rather, Americans confronted with brazen, in-your-face racism have started pushing back on what is self-evidently a genocidal teaching. Obviously Obama is offended by this, or thinks it’s somehow against the rules, but he cannot explain what makes it irrational. 

As he himself acknowledges, things are changing, and it isn’t just demographics. A New York psychiatrist discoursing on the “psychopathy of the white mind” at Yale recently shared her wish to “unload a revolver” into random white people. A different New York psychiatrist published a paper comparing white people to flesh-eating parasites, for which there is “no permanent cure.”  In Georgia, a black man recently charged with randomly shooting white men admitted that racial hate was the reason. 

But hey, never mind all that! Those whites are just scared of progress!

 If these teachings are not stopped, we will end up with generations trained to hate, with fanatical passion, an increasingly vulnerable racial group. What will America look like then? 

 

Article by Jack Cashill in The American Thinker

If Joe Goes, What Next?

Everywhere other than in Big Media newsrooms, Americans speak openly of President Joe Biden's cognitive decline and wonder whether he can last out his four-year term.  If he cannot last, there are certain things we can be confident will happen and other things about which we can only speculate.  The latter will be much more intriguing.

Should Biden leave office, willingly or otherwise, Kamala Harris will become president.  This is a given.  Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution makes clear that in "case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President."

The Constitution, as written, did not address what happens next.  The 25th Amendment, adopted after the assassination of President Kennedy, answered that question, at least in principle.  It reads, "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

In recent memory, there have been two precedents, both involving Richard Nixon.  On October 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew pleaded no contest to charges of tax evasion and money-laundering and resigned.  Despite Nixon's landslide victory in 1972, Democrats retained firm control of Congress, with a 50-seat majority in the House and a 14-seat majority in the Senate.  This mattered.  The Democrats all but dictated Nixon's choice of the congenial, moderate House minority leader, Gerald Ford, to assume the vice presidency.  Ford was nominated two days after Agnew stepped down and confirmed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress.

 At the time of Ford's confirmation, Democrats had good reason to suspect that Nixon would soon be forced out himself.  The coordinated Democrat-media plot to oust Nixon as a result of his presumed involvement in the Watergate affair was well underway.  The plot climaxed on August 9, 1974, with Nixon's resignation.  Ford was sworn in later that same day.

It now fell to Ford to choose his vice president.  Given the composition of Congress, he excluded any conservatives from consideration and settled on the GOP's most prominent liberal, former New York State governor Nelson Rockefeller.  For Rockefeller, the confirmation hearings were considerably rougher than they had been for Ford — less for ideological reasons than for personal ones — but he was eventually confirmed despite opposition from conservatives in both parties.

As history shows, the "when" of a vice presidential opening can determine the "who."  Right now, Big Media remains deeply in denial that there will ever be a "when."  In his well-sourced book on the 2020 campaign, Battle for the Soul, Edward-Isaac Dovere makes only one reference to Biden's mental state and suggests that the dementia rumor was a conspiracy theory cooked up somewhere deep in a Bernie Sanders soup kitchen.

Last week, White House physician turned Republican congressman Ronny Jackson forced the mental health issue into the news.  He challenged Biden to undergo a cognitive assessment, much as President Trump had successfully done.  Rushing to Biden's defense, the Washington Post recruited a professor of public health — his Ph.D. is in sociology — to assure Post readers, "With Biden, not only are there not warning signs, the signs that you see show he's in exceptional health."  In truth, the warning signs for Hurricane Katrina were less obvious.

In the movie version, reporters with access to the White House would be showing their audiences evidence of Biden's mental meltdowns and probing their sources to find out what happens next.  In real life, they take their own cultish vows of omertà more seriously than did the Corleones.  Their emperor remains fully clothed.

Those insiders who do talk, like Dr. Jackson, get punished.  The fact that President Obama appointed Jackson admiral for his service as White House physician won him no reprieve.  Although entirely irrelevant to the state of Biden's mind, the Post reminded its readers that, according to the Defense Department, "[Jackson] had bullied and intimidated staff and made inappropriate sexual remarks."

Lacking access to the White House, I take my cues from presidential history and the extensive research I have done on Barack Obama, including his presumed third term through proxy Joe Biden.  One historical given is that timing matters.  During the 2020 campaign, having finessed Bernie Sanders out of the race, the Democrats' leaders knew they had to ride the seemingly moderate Biden as far as he could take them.  With the help of the media, they were largely able to conceal the erosion of Biden's mental facilities.  Unless the polls show an impending disaster, Democrats have no more motive to dump Biden before the 2022 election than they did in 2020.

After the election, party leaders will have a decision to make.  If they hold majorities in both Houses, they can put that decision off indefinitely.  If they lose control decisively in either House, they will be wise to give the media a prompt green light to highlight Biden's cognitive issues.  Once the ground is softened, they can move to usher Biden out through the complex process described in the 25th Amendment.  They will have to be quick.  There are only two months between Election Day and the installment of a new Congress.

Until January 2023, the Democrats will control the House and share power in the Senate.  In 1973 and 1974, Republican senators proved more pliable to Democrat wishes than did GOP House members.  Little has changed.  For a half-dozen GOP senators, pliability is their vocation.  If Democrats wait until a new Congress is seated, they sacrifice much of their negotiating power.  The Republicans will insist on an unelectable milquetoast of the Gerald Ford model.

If Biden leaves office when the Democrats still have leverage, that's when the fun begins.  The competing power blocs within the party will stage a quietly vicious knife fight for that second spot.  Knowing Harris's weaknesses, they understand its potential.  Until six or so months ago, no one could have denied that spot to New York's rock star, Governor Andrew Cuomo.  His stardom collapsed quicker than Milli Vanilli's.  The Democrats' values being what they are, his lethal indifference to the fate of thousands of old women did not diminish his star nearly as much as his "unwanted advances" toward a handful of young ones.

Cuomo's fall had to surprise him.  That's not supposed to happen to Democrats.  Dovere speaks at some length about how the Democrat-media "ecosystem" managed to keep the charges of sexual assault leveled against Biden by Tara Reade — Tara who? — out of the news.  Although Reade's accusation was more serious and substantial than any brought against Cuomo, the ecosystem encouraged Cuomo's accusers.  Someone gave the media permission.  Someone wanted Cuomo gone.

With Harris as president, this may be the last time in the foreseeable future that a white male will be the preferred Democrat nominee for anything.  Although the pickings are slim, Ted Cruz spokeswoman Erin Perrine unwittingly summed up the qualifications of the one white man with a good shot at the job.  Said Perrine, "Terry McAuliffe is a swampy career politician who sold his soul to Nancy Pelosi and the radical left to bankroll his fledgling campaign."  Given those qualifications, if McAuliffe wins the Virginia governor's race in November 2021, he might even be the betting favorite for vice president.

If the party is willing to put two women at the top, the contest gets much more interesting.  According to Dovere, the selection for Biden's VP came down to six women: Harris; Massachusetts's Sen. Elizabeth Warren; Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer; Biden's domestic policy council director, Susan Rice; California's Rep. Karen Bass; and Georgia's self-appointed governor in exile, Stacey Abrams.  Other than Warren and Whitmer, all of these women were in the running to add literal color to a Biden ticket.  With Harris as president, they are all redundant.  Warren does not have friends enough to put her on an all-female White House team, and Whitmer will be lucky if she doesn't get recalled.

Only two women have friends enough and ambition enough to get the nod: Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.  Obama's friends are younger.  Hillary's are crueler.  May the best and baddest win.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/06/if_joe_goes_what_next.html

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Fauci Book Author Has A History Of Targeting Kids With Anti-American Propaganda

Catherine Salgado reporting for The National Pulse

Kate Messner, the children’s book authoress who wrote Dr. Fauci: How a Boy from Brooklyn Became America’s Doctor, has a history of promoting critical race theory, far-left news sources, and Democrat politicians and activists.

Messner pushes critical race theory and praises leading Democrats in her “non-fiction” books targeted at American children.

Two of the women Messner highlights at the end of her book History Smashers: Women’s Right to Vote, are DeJuana Thompson, founder of Woke Vote, and LaTosha Brown, of the Black Voters Matter Fund.

Black Voters Matter received cash from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and LaTosha Brown endorsed Elizabeth Warren during the last presidential campaign. DeJuana Thompson formerly worked for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and was a senior level staff member for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, among other Democrat Party-connected positions.

Another woke politician Messner celebrates in the women’s suffrage book is Stacey Abrams.

“In Georgia, Stacey Abrams launched a voting rights organization called Fair Fight Action after she ran for governor in a controversial 2018 race. Some people challenged her white male opponent’s win, partly because of a large number of uncounted votes in Black communities.”

As The National Pulse revealed in April, Abrams serves on the board of the Center for American Progress (CAP), which has “collaborated extensively” with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Messner includes many other Marxist politicians at the end of this book, including “Squad” members Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Her book closes with a quote from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who continues to spread misinformation about January 6th.

Another of Messner’s children’s books pushing the critical race theory view of American history is The Next President.

In one of the first pages, Messner explains of John Adams: “[he] was known for having a short temper and getting into arguments. He was the only one of the first five presidents who didn’t enslave people.”

CRT IN KID’S BOOKS.

Messner continues to look at the first five presidents through the lens of slavery.

“Thomas Jefferson… had written the Declaration of Independence, which includes the words ‘all men are created equal’—even though Jefferson enslaved hundreds of people on his Virginia plantation,” Messner moans.

Jefferson’s monumental historical achievement is only referenced to make him look like a racist hypocrite.

For the synopsis of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” Messner does not mention the Constitution at all.

At the end of her book, Messner claims: “The truth is America’s earliest presidents weren’t all that different from one another. Most were wealthy, white, Protestant men who might have been surprised if they’d been around to see a Catholic or an African American man elected president… or a woman nominated by a major party for the highest office in the land.”

The illustration behind this paragraph is a picture gallery, with three portraits hanging on the walls: JFK, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, who had lost the election by the time the book was published.

And Messner has always trusted the corporate media.

In a 2017 article, she provided a chart from a 2014 Pew Research Center poll which claimed to rank news sources from most trusted to least trusted. Messner advised this as a standard for “reliable and reasonable” news to share on social media. The chart cites NBC, CNN, NPR, and Google News at or toward the top. It lists conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh below the Qatari government-run propaganda outlet Al Jazeera America.

This past year and a half, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Messner has publicly endorsed misinformation.

She has promoted vaccines for children, and wrote in a March 2021 article of Mr. Fauci, “I realized his story was one that would inspire young readers and scientists.” In the same article, she made a comparison which characterized everyone worried about the COVID-19 vaccine as conspiracy theorists.

“Even Edward Jenner had to deal with anti-vaxxers,” she wrote. “They warned that his smallpox vaccine, which was derived from cowpox, might cause people to grow horns and hooves!”

Messner’s interview of Mr. Fauci focused primarily on kids getting vaccinated:

“Being vaccinated sort of makes you a disease-fighting superhero,” she claimed.

Messner’s “non-fiction” children’s books and articles have for years pushed critical race theory and Democrat propaganda. Her latest hagiography on Fauci represents a continuation of a long tradition, supported by large, corporate book publishers attempting to politically influence young children.