Observations From the Back Row

Leftist Hate and Violence is Universal

By Rich Kozlovich

 

Let's start out today's edition with this quote: 

Liberal Democrats exhibit a profound deficiency in introspection, rendering them incapable of meaningful self-examination. The Democratic Party, in its rigid ideological conformity, brooks no deviation from its prescribed orthodoxy—it is an all-or-nothing political enterprise. In their strategic miscalculation, party leaders aligned themselves with the radical left, believing it would secure electoral success. Instead, this Faustian bargain has led them astray, leaving them adrift and directionless in a political landscape they no longer control.  Bob Thomas at American Thinker 

The Democrats are now completely unhinged even deliberately setting fire to the New Mexico Republican Party.  While "Daniel Garcia, a spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico issued a statement that the party hopes whoever is responsible is found and held accountable,” ... saying.....“We firmly maintain that this sort of act has absolutely no place in our democracy, and that peaceful discourse and organization are the only ways to approach political difference in our country”.  Who is this "we" he's talking about?  He must have a mouse in his pocket, because the Democrat party is rife with those who applaud this kind of insanity. 

Leftist television host Bill Maher was invited to the White House, and he accepted, and the left went nuts.  Dr. Michael Hurd makes this observation regarding the outrage and abject hate being thrown at Donald Trump, and just about everyone who works for him quoting Bill Maher saying:  

You have to respect that, the guy did win. It’s more than half the country… you can not like Trump, you can hate him, but you can’t hate everybody who voted for him… I don’t hate half the country and I don’t want to hate half the country,........... 

 

Having lost the election has turned the Democrats into crazed animals.  Hate, and the attending violence it insures, are the foundational moral convictions of the left, as Hurd goes on to say: 

Here’s another unhinged Democrat inciting violence: @RepJasmine Crockett says you should “punch” your opponents, then says Senator @tedcruz “has to be knocked over the head, like, hard.” Of course this freak is violent. She’s a Communist and a fascist, and violence is what Communism and fascism are all about. My question is: Why are people who threaten violence even permitted to hold office? 

We went to dinner last night and as I pulled out into traffic there was a Tesla just ahead of us with a sticker assuring anyone who wanted to throw a bomb at them they despised Elon Musk.  My thought was any car that looks that ugly might possibly be improved by being fire bombed, but that's neither here nor there.  The point is these people are nuts, even busing Rent-a-Mobs to protest at the "Southlake Texas Tesla building and yelling “Hands Off, Climate Science.” They were saying Musk should be deported and were screaming “Nazis” and “fascism.”'

Is there any doubt the left is nuts?  But why didn't they use local nutrolls?  They couldn't find any, or enough, so they imported them.  The question is, who's funding that?  It turns out there are as many as 24 organizations funding the Tesla Takedown madness.  More here.

Then there are the self funding lunatics.   One woman was was cut off while driving and then assaulted because she was driving a Tesla.   It turns out she was a 61 year old female Tesla driver was boxed in and beaten sitting in her car, by a man who hit her with a closed fist.

There is No Politics Without an Enemy - What is going on with the latest fashion for educated Democratic voters to key the DOGE-adjacent Tesla in the Whole Foods parking lot? As Elon Musk asks: who is pushing this propaganda to teach people to firebomb Teslas? What is it all about?  I will tell you what it’s all about. There is no politics without an enemy.....

Get a load of this Democrat as he Explodes in Rage at GOP Colleague After Gun Control Bill Defeat.  His reason for such outrage?  His brother committed suicide with a gun, and so society must rid itself of guns to assuage his pain.  

My thought was why did he commit suicide? Did he abuse drugs?  I wondered, and especially based on this losers actions, what his family life was like?   Was it as devoid of the discipline he clearly displayed?  Did he come from a totally dysfunctional family with no father figure and a lot of half brothers and sisters. 

I have no idea, about any of that, but if someone wants to commit suicide whether guns are available or not is meaningless.  Single parent families is the single greatest issue in black America,  not guns.

Then there's the question, "What do people needs guns for anyway, we have the police to protect us?"  Well, how about this.  Mike McDaniel posted this piece,  Criminal attack? You're on your own, showing how the police are becoming less and less effective by simply not doing the job society has set for them, and innocent people are being slaughtered especially in America's major cities where crime is running rampant and and the courts are allowing it.  The Supreme Court has ruled the "police have a duty only to the general public to deter crime by their presence and to investigate it after it occurs. They owe no duty of protection to individual citizens."  

But the police, the FBI, and others are more than happy to kick in the door of innocent people exercising their Constitutional rights, which is exactly what is happening in Europe, where they have no Constitutional rights, but they do have a lot of government tyranny. 

This Is Why We Must NEVER Give Up Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. EVER! - Famously, 60 Minutes did a segment where they followed German law enforcement as they kicked in doors over memes. A more recent example is British police showing up at people's doors to investigate them for criticizing their children's school. Another example is that yes, you actually can be arrested for praying inside your own home. It's not a blanket ban on prayer in your home or anything, even if you live in close proximity to places like abortion clinics, but you can if you're visible and something thinks it's "performative," meaning they think you're protesting with that prayer. Pray in front of your living room window, and the cops might show up. That's a violation of people's freedom to worship.............Europeans, however, gave up their guns. They bought into the idea that security was more important than liberty, and now they are getting neither.  Would these European despots--even if they happen to have been democratically elected, they're still despots--have considered any of this if the people had the means to fight back?

 

In  South Africa their Supreme court has decided, ‘Kill the Boer’ isn't hate speech.   So now legally in South Africa to demand white genocide isn't really a call for white genocide, it's free speech!  But ironically, according to "Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, a lawyer representing Malema, also appeared at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last year to argue that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the Bible to inspire soldiers was incitement to genocide against Hamas after the October 7, 2023, terror attack.   All in an attempt to justify all the vile murderous behavior Hamas perpetrated on innocent and unarmed  civilians, even roasting a baby alive in an over, even recording it with great joy.   

The minds of leftists are twisted beyond help, and everyone needs to understand that.  There can be no fellowship between darkness and light.  Why is that so hard to grasp?

Debunking Hate-and-Envy Tax Policy

September 26, 2024 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

On tax policy, our friends on the left are motivated by envy and hatred. As shown in this Stossel video, Robert Reich is a sad example of this mindset.

John Stossel understates his argument. It’s not that Reich is wrong. He’s wildly wrong.

There are four points in the video that deserve attention.

 

1. It is possible for everyone to get richer at the same time, showing that we don’t have a zero-sum economy. 
2. The rich get richer by making the rest of us richer (my favorite part because I make a cameo appearance).
3. Excess money creation by governments is what causes inflation, not mysterious  outbreaks of corporate greed.
4. There is nothing wrong with inequality if it is the result of some people producing more value than others.

The last point is especially important because we have a presidential candidate who believes in equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunities.

For today’s column, I’m going to cite an unusual source. I normally criticize the U.K.-based Economist because of its establishment-left perspective on policy.

However, an article in May did a very good job of debunking the hate-the-rich mentality. Here are some excerpts.

How, exactly, can one abolish the rich? …that implies something very close to a marginal tax rate of 100%. Such a policy would provoke tax-avoidance on an epic scale. …many rich folk would emigrate. And if governments all adopted similar wealth-banning policies and enforcement was tight, as the authors desire, the effects would be even worse. …

Highly productive people—such as surgeons and engineers, never mind word wizards like J.K. Rowling—would have no financial incentive to keep working after that point was passed. …many would be tempted to kick back, relax and deprive the world of their exceptional skills, drive and imagination. Consider, too, the incentives such a system would create for entrepreneurs.

You have an idea for a better mousetrap. Under the old system, you might mortgage your house to raise cash to build a mousetrap factory, in the hope of making a fortune. …Even if your mousetrap is so good that the world might reasonably be expected to beat a path to your door, it would be irrational to borrow money to expand production. The financial risks of trying to build a global business fall on you. The rewards go to someone else.

In other words, marginal tax rates matter. As shown in my four-part series (here, here, here, and here), when governments grab larger shares of our income, the inevitable result is less prosperity for people.

And sometimes even less revenue for government (which shows the awful motives that sometimes exist on the left).

The Main Victims Of Progressive Racism Are Blacks

December 06, 2021 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

Currently, America is afflicted by a scourge of overt racism often going under the name “Critical Race Theory,” or alternatively under the even more Orwellian term “antiracism.” I call these doctrines “overt racism” because they squarely fit the definition: they accuse people of evil not on the basis of any act those people have committed or of any statement they have made, but rather solely on the basis of their skin color.

The most patent manifestations of the overt racism of Critical Race Theory and “antiracism” doctrine are found in their accusations of evil against people of the white or Caucasian race. Whites are “privileged”; they are engaged in “oppression” of people of other races; they are “white supremacists” — all of which claims are made without reference to anything the individual accused has ever done or said. Indeed, often the accusations are made to children as young as kindergarten age, as indicated in race training materials now spreading like a cancer through the American public education system.

But where do blacks fit into the CRT/”antiracism” worldview? The stated purpose of the CRT/”antiracism” project is to advance the position of black people, and people of other non-white races, supposedly by overcoming alleged white racism of the past or present. As these things are being practically implemented in the real world, is that what is happening?

For some reason, only a small number of commentators have been willing to take on what I consider to be the obvious negative and even disastrous effects on blacks of the CRT/”antiracism” project. Probably, if you find yourself in the hothouse of one of today’s universities, even mentioning this subject would get you canceled before you could make it to your office in the morning. I have myself broached this subject on a few occasions, notably here (an August 2018 post discussing progressive efforts to resist ever removing anyone from the food stamp roles, and thus continuing government dependency indefinitely) and here (an August 2020 post discussing progressive efforts to reduce or eliminate school discipline against misbehaving black students).

But the guys who currently really own this issue are John McWhorter and Glenn Loury. Those two are prominent tenured faculty members at Ivy League schools (McWhorter at Columbia, Loury at Brown), in fields unrelated to the current race obsession (McWhorter in linguistics, Loury in economics). Both — not coincidentally, I would submit — are black themselves. And both have found themselves spending more and more of their time speaking out specifically on the subject of the deleterious effects of progressive neo-racism on blacks. The two collaborate regularly on podcasts and articles on this subject. In addition, McWhorter has just come out with a new book on this specific subject, with the title “Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.” (I have ordered that book, but haven’t received it or read it yet.)

For today, I’ll highlight a couple of recent postings from McWhorter and Loury. On December 4 McWhorter was interviewed by Yascha Mounk at the Persuasion website. Excerpts (McWhorter speaking):

A[n] example is what anti-racism means in education, where the idea is that school boards and teachers propose that to be anti-racist, you can’t submit black people to real challenges, because the sorts of things that involve real challenges are white things such as precision, punctuality and having to raise your hand; that those are wrong, that you need to turn your whole field upside down in order to adjust to the presence of people of color, such that, for example, a classics department makes Latin and Greek optional. That’s all harmful to black people, because it’s treating black Americans as if they aren’t as bright. In arguing that it’s racist to submit black people to standardized tests because black kids often aren’t as good at them, you’re effectively saying black kids shouldn’t be subjected to a test of abstract cognitive skill. . . . Or assuming that if a disproportionate number of black boys are suspended from schools for violence, it must be because of bias. What happens in schools where people take that anti-racist counsel into account is that more black kids, not to mention teachers, get beat up. . . . This stuff hurts black people.

On November 30, McWhorter appeared with Loury on Loury’s regular podcast, called The Glenn Show. The title of the November 30 episode was “Taking the Race Debate Seriously.” On that occasion, both Loury and McWhorter spoke out on why they feel compelled at this time to divert their attention from their main specialties and devote so much of their attention to speaking out on the issue of progressive neo-racism. Loury:

So much of what is said about race today—in newspapers and books, on cable news and social media—is flat out wrong, both factually and morally. And I can’t let it stand unchallenged. If these errors are taken as truth, this country risks abandoning a lot of hard-won progress on race. I care about my country and my people, and if getting the truth out means taking off the green eyeshade and speaking to the issues of the moment, then that’s what I’ve got to do.

McWhorter:

I'm fighting for the dignity of my people. I actually want racial equality, not a client patronage regime. Incompetent and mediocre black people get passed over and patted on the head instead of developed to their full human potential. Where criminals are looked askance at as they murder their own people in the scores, in the hundreds, on the streets of the cities of this country, and everybody pats them on the head and says, “No, no, no. You didn't do anything wrong. You're poor. You're marginal. And it's all about the police.”  

So I'm fighting for the dignity of my people, because I don't think Americans, on the whole, are fools. I think they actually know what violent, criminal, savage behavior on the streets of America looks like. They know to fear it, and they know that the people who do it are beneath contempt. The fact that editorial writers at major newspapers are prepared to give them a pass doesn't mean that America is giving them a pass. The equality that I want is an equality of black people standing on our own two feet. 

So the reason I talk about race is because I'm not a fool.

To me, what McWhorter and Loury are saying seems completely obvious. How can a “client patronage regime” that won’t “submit black people to real challenges” and treats them like they “aren’t as bright” (McWhorter’s words) possibly be the right system to advance blacks to full equality? And yet that is exactly the path being followed with full unanimity by the progressives, with their black allies only too willing to go along.

We’re going to need a lot of other people joining Loury and McWhorter in speaking out on this subject before we can start to turn the disaster around.

 

Irrational Hatred Drives the Progressive movement

July 17, 2021 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: |  Print This Article

Paul Craig Roberts This Appeared @ Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy

Rob Kall, proprietor of OpEdNews on July 17 posted this comment on the death of William Regnery:

“Fascist Funder William Regnery Dead; A Grave to Piss On"

“I’m not one who does not speak ill of the dead. This maggot feeder white supremacist fascism funder deserves to rot in hell and be reviled, his grave desecrated. It might even make urination a protected first amendment free speech right.

“Multimillionaire white supremacist William Regnery who financed fascists and fascist, white supremacist organizations, has, happily, dropped dead and is now rotting in hell. May his burial place be added to a list of places where despicable people are buried for tourists to pee or spit or throw garbage on their graves. These ugly sociopaths deserve to have their graves given such treatment. There is not much that separates people like Regnery from other monsters in history.” 

William Regnery was a mild-mannered moderate conservative. His sin is that he was not anti-white. The vitriolic hatred spewed against him by progressive Rob Kall who did not know him shows that the progressive movement is driven by irrational hatred and regards all white conservatives as white supremacist scum whose graves are to be pissed on.

How can a country survive this extreme form of hatred?

Following the New York Times, progressives use terms such as white racist and white supremacist so loosely that the terms are devoid of meaning. Anyone who has anything positive to say about Western civilization or the founding of the United States is considered a white supremacist.  In contrast, Aruna Khilanani’s vitriolic expression of hatred for white people is considered free speech and, moreover, is applauded:   

“I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f***ing favor.”

 Aside from being untrue, the liberal/progressive/left’s denunciation of Regnery as the founder of white supremacy makes no sense according to their own doctrine of “systemic racism.”  According to this doctrine, every white person is a white supremacist by virtue of skin color.  So why single out one white person as a culprit when all whites are culprits?  According to “systemic racism” there is no difference between William Regnery and any other white person.  Even mathematics is guilty of racism.

White people need to comprehend that the doctrine of “systemic racism” means that every white person is a white supremacist.  It does not matter what you say or do or write or if you are married to a “person of color” and have mixed-race or rainbow children.  By definition, every white is a “systemic racist.” 

One wonders if those enforcing this regimen will follow the Nazis and American Indian tribes in deciding how much of a Jew or Indian does one have to be to qualify as Jew or Indian.  Will a half-white or quarter-white person still be a “systemic racist”?  If memory serves, some Indian tribes allow you to be a member if you are one-sixteenth Indian. Will demonized whites last long enough to be watered down to less than one-sixteenth white?

White Americans desperately need to wake up to the fact that hatred of them is institutionalized in education, entertainment, media, and the Democrat Party.  Systemic racism and critical race theory do not apply only to white, Christian, straight, Republican Trump supporters.  The terms include every white person, including those whites who mandate the teaching of white hatred in school systems and apply it to prosecutions.  

What is being done to white people is precisely what the Nazis did to the Jews.  First you demonize them.  Then you remove them from the population.  Don’t think “it can’t happen here.”  It is already happening.  White Americans, like Jews were in National Socialist Germany, are being removed from university admissions, occupations, and promotions by racial quotas. The white majority is being replaced in their own country.

"Settler Colonialism": More Of The Usual Progressive Racism And Hatred Of Freedom

May 22, 2021 Francis Menton

Several years ago, in connection with a family trip to Israel, I looked into the issue of Israeli “settlements” in the areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. I then had a post in June 2017 titled “Do You Know The Difference Between ‘Settlers’ And ‘Immigrants’?” .

The Israeli settlements, and the “settlers” who inhabit them, have come in for constant attacks from the international left, culminating in condemnation from a UN Security Council resolution in 2016. The resolution was approved by a 14-0 vote in 2016 (on which vote the U.S., during President Obama’s tenure, abstained, rather than exercising its right to veto). Yet viewed in a broader context, the Israeli settlements are a tiny part of annual migrations of millions of people around the world, going from one political jurisdiction to another. All, or nearly all, of these other migrations are applauded by the international left. Indeed, these other migrations are applauded even when they are clearly violative of the law of the destination — illegal immigration into the United States being the most prominent example.

So what makes the Israeli settlers so subject to widespread condemnation while other migrants are applauded? I thought the answer was not difficult to discern, but the intervening years made things even more obvious. In those years we have seen the ascent of another one of these trendy academic concepts, this one going by the name of “settler colonialism.” The basic idea is that you can tell the difference between (bad) “settler colonialists” and other (good) immigrants by a combination of racial identity and hatred of places that practice freedom-based economic systems.

But how do we know where to draw the line between the “settlers” and the “immigrants”? You can count on the left to take this immediately to the extreme. On May 19 the Black Lives Matter group tweeted its support for “Palestinians” in the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, and in the process associated Israel itself with the term “settler colonialism”:

Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians. We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation. (always have. And always will be.)

So it’s not just those few hundred thousand Jews who have moved into East Jerusalem and the West Bank who get branded with the derogatory term “settler”; it’s all of Israel, presumably because most of the Jews there have immigrated from elsewhere (although they might have roots in the Holy Land going back many generations).

Which probably leaves you wondering, what about the United States? We are often referred to as a “land of immigrants.” But are we really instead a land of “settler colonialists”? You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the academic left has long since beaten us to this conclusion. Google “settler colonialism” to find long lists of academic articles, conferences and books on this subject, most within the last few years. For example, here’s detailed information on a conference with the title “Settler Colonialism in the United States,” that was held at Carnegie Mellon University in 2019. The lead-off speaker was one Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz on the topic of “Settler Colonialism as Genocide.” From the abstract:

The history of the United States IS a history of settler colonialism. The objective of settler-colonialism is to terminate and replace the presence of Indigenous Peoples as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of genocide.

If you start reading some of these things, you can quickly go from the merely self-loathing to the completely insane. Here is a piece from the California Law Review in November 2020 (author: Monika Batra Kashyap) that somehow manages to link up “U.S. Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy, and the Racially Disparate Impacts of COVID-19.” I’ll give you an excerpt from the conclusion to see if you can make heads or tails of it:

When settler colonialism is viewed as a social determinant of health, the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 in Indigenous communities can engender reform efforts that acknowledge and compensate for the lasting health-related impacts of the residential boarding school program––impacts that increase susceptibility to COVID-19. Similarly, the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 in Black communities can engender reform efforts that acknowledge and compensate for the lasting health-related impacts of slavery, Jim Crow, and mass incarceration––impacts that increase susceptibility to COVID-19.

Anyway, the good news for Israel is that what are called the “settlements” in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are a tiny part of the issue almost to the point of irrelevance. In the eyes of the progressive left, or at least a large swath of it, all of Israel is a “settler colonialist” enterprise, and therefore fundamentally illegitimate in the same way as the settlements. But that’s OK, because the entire United States is the same. And how about Canada? I can’t think of why not.

But meanwhile immigration of large numbers of people into the U.S. from the south, or into Europe from the east, get viewed in an entirely different light. It’s the usual progressive racism and hatred of anyone who practices a freedom-based economic system.

Nazis and Democrats share the stain of hatred -- Part 2: Democrat Hate

They have achieved what they desperately wanted: Power.  And going forward they will do whatever it takes to keep it. And that should concern all Americans

By Lee Cary ——Bio and Archives--May 7, 2021

Cover Story | 5 Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

 The title of a Canada Free Press post on September 18, 2018 read: “When it ends, where will all the [Democrat Party] hate go?” 

We now know the answer to that question.  The hatred went into a four-year campaign to destroy the President of the United States, his supporters, and his plans for America. The campaign culminated in a fixed election enabling the ‘victory’ of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Democrat Party’s hatred for Trump and all things Trumpian

The Democrat Party’s hatred for Trump and all things Trumpian went into high gear in the early morning hours after Trump’s election in 2016.    While the youngest of the Hillary supporters were wiping away their tears of defeat, the older and more experienced Obama/Clinton operatives were planning a resistance movement that would relentlessly attack Trump.

Resistance started after the election, and did not start to begin to abate until after his defeat in November 2020.  Its last public demonstration, to date, was Trump’s Second Impeachment associated with the alleged “insurrection” at the Capital Building.  Trump was a civilian by then. 

Trump hatred was not limited to Democrats. ............To them, Trump was an interloper. A foreign invader.  An existential threat to their status quo. He was not fit to live in the White House.  So, the Democrat Party launched the Resistance, while Republicans watched from the sidelines. A relatively few members of the House, and fewer from the Senate, occasionally offered soft push-back as the Democrat assault on President Trump gained momentum. But, on balance, Republican resistance to the Democrat Resistance was…limp. ...............

The evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion was non-existent. It that regard, it was akin to the Nazis’ “stab-in-the-back” meme.  Frequent repetition of the fake meme gave it traction.  Trump-Russian Collusion became a media mantra for—not weeks, not months, but years...........These, and other Show Trials based on fake memes, displayed Democrat political hatred on steroids. Unrelenting, fabricated ‘facts,’ sustained by solemn rituals with choreographed outrage. Events worthy of the Third Reich, but not of the United States of America. That is not until now. 

The level of hatred in the American Democrat Party has abated some since their victorious election.  They have achieved what they desperately wanted: Power.  And going forward they will do whatever it takes to keep it.  And that should concern all Americans..........To Read More.....

The Racist Sound of 'Whiteness Is a Pandemic'

Tim Graham | Mar 19, 2021 

The Root is obviously a hyperbolically racial magazine, since its slogan is "The Blacker the Content the Sweeter the Truth." It's not surprising that it frequently publishes writer Damon Young, author of the memoir "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Blacker." We're told he asked important and dramatic questions like "Will this white person's potato salad kill me?"

Young's memoir was honored as "required reading" by NPR and celebrated by Entertainment Weekly and The Washington Post, among others. He became a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times.

The paranoia overflowed from this self-described "professional Black person" on St. Patrick's Day. Young posted a piece titled "Whiteness Is a Pandemic." This was not a joke. It began: 

"Whiteness is a public health crisis. It shortens life expectancies, it pollutes air, it constricts equilibrium, it devastates forests, it melts ice caps, it sparks (and funds) wars, it flattens dialects, it infests consciousnesses, and it kills people -- white people and people who are not white, my mom included. There will be people who die, in 2050, because of white supremacy-induced decisions from 1850."

We can all imagine what might happen professionally to a writer if he were to pen this kind of foam-flecked copy but instead talk about "Blackness." It'd be denounced as virulently racist. But to hate everything about the infestation of Caucasians is not defined as "hate speech." It's somehow "anti-racist."............To Read More....

 

 

Verizon Cut Off Donations to Republicans, Partnered With Antisemitic Farrakhan Pal

Daniel Greenfield February 24, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Verizon is a $200 billion corporation and Cornel West is the author of “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”. Verizon is one of the biggest companies in America, while West claims to hate corporations so much that he taunted Obama as a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface”.

But Verizon’s Yahoo subsidiary is working together with the infamous socialist who had praised Venezulean butcher Hugo Chavez as part of its #YahooAllyshipPledge which vows to connect “diverse creators” with “thought leaders, nonprofits and activists, including Dr. Cornel West.”

West got a doctorate in philosophy for his aforementioned dissertation on the ethical dimensions of an ideology that killed millions of people in which he mentioned “the profound tragedy of the epochal change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe” and argued that, “Marxist thought becomes even more relevant after the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union.”

Verizon has not publicly stated its position on the relevance of Marxist thought except perhaps through its relationship with the extremist author of multiple works dealing with Marxism.

Recently, Cornel West blamed the Jews for his failure to get tenure at Harvard. Verizon had no comment on that either.

When West wrote that his academic career had been partly concerned with, "defending sophisticated Marxist theory as an indispensable, though by itself inadequate, weapon in the struggle for individuality and democracy", who knew it would be brought to you by Verizon.

As John Perazzo at Discover the Networks documented, West has a very ugly radical history.

Verizon, a massive multinational gobbling up countries and companies until it ended up owning Yahoo, should be everything that West hates. And Cornel West’s Marxist thought, should worry Verizon. But ‘woke’ multinationals can unite with socialists around power and identity politics.

It would be hard to call it fighting racism when West has been one of Farrakhan’s biggest allies, appearing with him at events and defending him against charges of antisemitism.

That's the deranged bigot who had declared at Madison Square Garden that, "The germ of murder is already sewed into the hearts of the Jews in this country" and warned, "If you rise up to try to kill me, then Allah promises you that he will bring on this generation the blood of the righteous. All of you will be killed outright."

"You cannot say, 'Never Again' to god because when he puts you in the oven, 'Never Again' don't mean a thing,” the Nation of Islam leader had ranted.

Cornel West has veered between denouncing antisemitism and blaming Jews for antisemitism.

In Black Anti-Semitism and the Rhetoric of Resentment, an article that West wrote for Michael Lerner's Tikkun, he blamed black antisemitism on, among other things, "the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza... and the visible conservative Jewish opposition to... affirmative action."

It’s doubtful that black antisemitism has anything to do with Israel’s fight against Islamic terrorism. Even the Nation of Islam’s antisemitism predated the rebirth of the Jewish State.

But West has a particular obsession with hating Israel that is all his own.

Cornel West repeatedly falsely accused Israel of killing “Palestinian babies”. In one broadcast, he spoke of, "500 Palestinian babies killed in 50 days" and in another interview blasted, "a right wing government that allows for the killing of 427 precious Palestinian babies."

To paraphrase The Manchurian Candidate, it might have been helpful if West had decided exactly how many “Palestinian babies” the Jews had killed while opposing affirmative action.

These numbers, like “ethical Marxism”, were of course garbage. But that didn’t stop West from pushing them anyway. Or describing Israel’s defense against Hamas as “Jewish racism”.

“The rockets of Hamas indeed are morally wrong and politically ineffective – but these crimes pale in the face of the U.S. supported Israeli slaughters of innocent civilians,” West argued.

Hamas has actually slaughtered innocent civilians, not just with rockets, but with suicide bombers in buses and pizzerias, and with the kidnapping and murder of Jewish teenagers.

But West has never cared about such details when there’s a terrorist regime to support.

West had joined a solidarity tour to Venezuela. "We need this in inner-city America," he had gushed. "Look at all the needs being satisfied." A decade later, the socialist utopia had reduced Venezueleans to eating household pets and running out of gas with which to burn the bodies of the dead. Much of the country fled as the industries were nationalized and the people starved.

Did America’s inner cities really need people waiting half the day for their milk ration?

West had tweeted, "I love that Hugo Chavez has made poverty a major priority", he had met with the brutal tyrant, and had co-signed a letter of support for the socialist tyranny which had urged President Bush to "put an end to U.S. funding of opposition political groups".

As mobs rioted in the street demanding food, Cornel West blamed America’s “ugly” policies toward the socialist dictatorship, rather than conceding that he had been wrong.

Cornel West’s radicalism has never stopped him from being embraced by Democrat presidential campaigns, like those of Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, both of which he eventually dumped for being insufficiently radical, by leading academic institutions and the media, and by major corporations which claim to be opposed to extremism, but not from their own side.

Verizon’s Swedish CEO Hans Vestberg had declared, “we support the right for peaceful protests, we condemn the violence and rioting occurring in the nation's capital”.

Vestberg didn’t mean race riots by Black Lives Matter: a Marxist black supremacist hate group, but the protests over the stolen election. In response to the Black Lives Matter race riots, the Verizon boss had announced that the company was donating $10 million to leftist groups, including Sharpton’s National Action Network, which had played a role in racist violence.

However, after the Capitol protest, Verizon announced that it would be stopping donations to Republicans who had voted to challenge the results of the stolen 2020 presidential election.

Vestberg’s politics are not news. The Verizon boss is a member of the board of governors of the United Nations Foundation alongside Soros figurehead Mark Malloch-Brown, Ted Turner, the Queen of Jordan, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway and former Vice President of the Socialist International, who began an article by quoting Karl Marx.

But Verizon hooking up with Cornel West still marks another ugly moment in the ‘wokening’ of the Fortune 500. And if Corporate America has become more receptive to Socialists and Marxists, the radicals have also become more willing to accept corporate sponsorship.

The Yahoo Allyship Pledge claims that it will use its alliance with the likes of Cornel West to help people "better understand the complex topic of race". West has already laid out his understandings of race in pamphlets like "Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism" which began with "conceptions of racism in the Marxist tradition" and claimed that industrial capitalism was built on slavery and imperialism, while multinational corporate capitalism was somewhat better.

As part of its ‘allyship’, Yahoo’s lifestyle section quotes West on “white privilege”.

Cornel West, whose father was a defense contractor and who has a school named after his mother, whose older brother taught at MIT and worked for IBM, who was accepted to Harvard and then Princeton and Yale, knows something about privilege. Cornel West knew Elizabeth Warren when they were both at Harvard, and knew both Kamala and Buttigieg's fathers.

The elites, whatever race they claim (and in both Warren and Kamala’s case, race has been a fluctuating variable) are part of the same privileged circle. Verizon’s sponsorship is just another link in the iron chains that bind ordinary Americans under an oligarchy of elites whose members act out roles like the oppressor and the oppressed to hide their mutual power in the system.

Cornel West was happy to lend his name to bolster Hugo Chavez’s regime. Now Verizon and its Yahoo subsidiary can benefit from the same branding as Venezuela's brutal socialist tyranny.

Strip away the Marxist didacticism and all that’s left is the power of an oppressive machine that disguises its rule as revolution. Whatever logo is etched on the bottom of the boot on your neck, the owner of the boot will be sure to enlist Cornel West to explain to you why you deserve it.

Preferably, while quoting Karl Marx on behalf of Verizon.

Verizon won’t donate to Republicans who legally challenge elections. But it will work with the author of, “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”.

The real business of ‘woke’ corporations and of socialists is a monopoly on power.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles.  Thank you for reading.

Tags: black nationalism, Corporate America, Left, Racism, recent

 

Share This: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

 

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Are Democrats Emerging as the Party of Hatred, Vitriol and Vengeance?

What should be obvious by now is that Biden is in the front of the hate movement and he has little regard for ordinary Americans – dead, living or trying to live

By Rev. Michael Bresciani —— Bio and Archives--February 20, 2021

American Politics, News, Opinion | 13 Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us 

 Regardless of the left’s offensive and redundant mantra that all Americans are racist – we are not. But, more to be feared today, is the growing number of haters, and vengeance seekers.  We don’t expect the party that has blocked their ears to hear it, but all cries of racism are being drowned out by the lefts driven hatred of Donald Trump and his followers.

While they are calling every American a racist, has it become an obsession resounding so loud in their conscience that they have lost sight of their own transformation.  All the racists in the nation would now be a minority compared to the new leftist, liberal, and democrat haters. Racists are a dying reality from our past – haters are an emerging reality of the present.

Let’s see.

Putting forth a new bill in the house, Democrat lawmakers have decided that it would be expedient, to keep President Trump’s body out of Arlington Cemetery. The bill includes measures to keep the Trump name from public buildings, federal facilities and schools. The attempt to blot out the President’s name is only an inch short of demanding a pogrom against his entire family.

This is deep hatred................To Read More.....

A Tsunami of Hate

Posted on January 31, 2021 by John Hinderaker in Democrats, Leftism, Liberals

Our friend David Horowitz makes the case that our present political crisis is not the result of polarized views on policy, but rather is caused by the Left’s outpouring of vicious hate and determination to crush all opposition.

Everybody agrees that our country is in crisis – and agrees that it is the worst crisis since the Civil War. But at the same time, we tell ourselves a comforting tale about the source of the crisis that perpetuates the problem instead of providing a path to ending it. We say our politics are “divisive” and talk about “unity and healing” as though that would miraculously be achieved if everybody stopped … what? Disagreeing? All politics is divisive. That’s the healthy basis of our constitutional order: the freedom to disagree. To suppress disagreement, to outlaw it – as many Democrats and their Big Tech and media allies – are demanding these days, is to end democracy as we know it.

The problem is not that we disagree. We are not suffering as a nation from healthy disagreement. We are suffering from a Tsunami of Hate emanating from the Democrat Party that seeks to demonize, criminalize and extinguish dissent from the 75 million supporters of Donald Trump. It is now official Washington dogma that to question an election result – something the congressional Democrats have done in the face of every Republican presidential victory since 2000 – is now “insurrection” and “domestic terrorism,” or the incitement thereto, and needs to be prosecuted and suppressed...........To Read More....

 

The Left closes in

January 13, 2021 By Eric Utter

It happened in a hurry. The Left is, apparently, attempting to impose the complete destruction of First Amendment rights of roughly half of America’s citizens. In cases large and small, massive multinational corporations with no particular allegiance to the United States are colluding with members of the media and Democratic politicians to permanently silence dissent and cement their own power.

To wit: LeeAnn Miller founded PatrioticMe, an online retailer that sells patriotic clothing items, in September of last year. The business advertised on Facebook and was quite successful from the outset. She donates a portion of every sale to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, a charity founded to honor the sacrifice of New York City firefighter Stephen Siller, who gave his life to save others as a first responder on Sept. 11, 2001. But, on Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the presidential election, she received an email from the Facebook Ads Team informing her that her advertisements did not comply with Facebook's advertising policies or other standards. The subject line of the email stated: "Ad Account Disabled for Policy Violation.” She was stunned. 

She assumed the advertisements were disabled in error, so she immediately contacted Facebook and requested a review of her account. She received a second email saying virtually the same thing. After two more requests for a review or explanation, the Facebook Ads Team sent Miller a final notice on Nov. 24 telling her that her restricted account would not be re-enabled. Miller says that she was never able to speak with a live human being. Facebook’s decision has resulted in PatrioticMe losing 94% of its traffic. She believes her ad account was disabled simply because of her products’ patriotic message.............

Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank and New York-based Signature Bank have both reportedly cut ties with President Trump and will no longer do business with him............... 

Republican former Congressman Ron Paul was locked out of his Facebook account by the social media giant on Monday, after he dared to share a column blasting Big Tech.......To Read More.......

 

Libs Take Things To The Next Level With Their Persecution Of Conservatives

Magnus McCoy - January 11, 2021 

Our Forefathers set up a bill of rights guaranteeing every American liberties. In recent years it appears our first and second amendment are constantly in danger. The Freedom of speech seems to only count to liberals when they agree with the opinion/facts otherwise they seem to feel we should be silenced. Just look at Universities. Liberal students/teachers have been preventing conservative speakers from expressing themselves on campuses, preventing students from getting a different perspective.

This anti-conservative trend is becoming more and more prominent in our culture. They did a huge purge of conservative pages back in 2018 on Facebook during the Kavanaugh appointment hearings and more recently social media platforms have censored the president of the United States claiming his rhetoric caused a raid on the U.S. Capitol Building. If they can censor the president of the United States is any conservative safe?............To Read More.....

Impeachment? Pelosi's Gotta be Nuts!

"If there is one thing that is bipartisan in Washington, it is brazen hypocrisy".  Thomas Sowell 

By Rich Kozlovich

As insane as I think Pelosi and her mob are, I didn't think they were this nuts, or this vicious. I should have known better.  Attempting to impeach a sitting President with days left in office?  Really?  How nuts is that?   But can it happen?

"Alan Dershowitz said Democrats have virtually no chance of successfully impeaching and removing President Donald Trump before Inauguration Day on Jan. 20. “The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office,”

Then there's even more insane talk about impeaching him after he leaves office.  Dershowitz goes on to say:

“And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else,

Does Pelosi and her mob know that?  Of course, which is probably why they're demanding V.P. Pence invoke the 25th Amendment to remove him (more here).  And then there's this stunt with Pelosi calling the military expressing concern Trump has the nuclear football, which allows the President to launch a nuclear strike.  Clearly a stunt to imply he's nuts, and dangerous, and can't be trusted to finish out his days in office without some insane action.  

Pelosi is totally contemptible!  However, I guess we can be grateful she's praying for him all the time!  Right?  Nah, that's rank lying hypocrisy coming from a

.

This is just another round of Pelosi stunts for publicity, and an effort to humiliate a President that overcame everything they threw at him for four years.  A President who was an amazing success domestically and internationally, clearly deserving a Nobel Peace Prize, for accomplishing in a few years what previous Presidents couldn't accomplish in decades.   All that in spite of the fact his administration was filled with Never-Trump deep staters.   

The massive levels of and corruption of the courts and lack of courage of the state legislatures certifying that fraud was the only thing thrown at him he couldn't overcome.  

The consequences?   The nation is going to install two incredibly incompetent, corrupt left wing lunatics, who will fill their administration with equally insane, if not more insane leftist lunatics.  And the Senate will not be able to stop it.  Be very afraid!

Update:  Is Nancy and her mob nuts?  Of course, everything they're doing is antithetical to the continuation of the United States as a sovereign nation, working to destroy the American culture, the American identity, the American economy and overthrow the Constitution.  How can that be anything but nuts?  But it's a Machiavellian kind of nuts.  What she and the Democrat party are really up to with this effort to humiliate and destroy Trump is based on fear.  That's right, fear! 

Here's a piece that appeared in the New York Sun, also on the 11th saying:

The idea that the Senate can wait until after President Trump leaves office to try him on any articles of impeachment from the House is the latest gambit of the Democrats. We understand that scholars differ on whether that would be constitutionally kosher. Count us as among those who see it as an unconstitutional and thuggish strategy calculated to prevent Mr. Trump from challenging the Democrats in 2024.

It’s not our purpose here to suggest that Mr. Trump should run in 2024 or could win. He’s hinted, though, that he might try, and it’s easy to see why, given that 74 million voters cast ballots for him in November. The only candidate who’s ever bested that number is President-elect Biden, who may not seek a second term. So the Democrats are desperate to find a way to bar Mr. Trump from making another attempt at the presidency.

It's all about 2022, and then 2024, not about Trump being too dangerous to continue in office for a few more days. Fear he could run again and actually be re-elected, and if that were to happen he wouldn't be going in without a following as he did this time.  His administration was filled with deep staters and Never-Trumpers, including holdovers from the Obama administration, and he would definitely get a real Attorney General that knows how to go after high level criminals in government.  

Whatever Happened to "Women Can Have it All"?

Rule #2. Dunn’s First Law. With enough idiots, you don't need a conspiracy.

By Rich Kozlovich

On Oct 1, 2020 Don Irvine posted this piece, Vanity Fair writer questions Supreme Court nominee’s mothering, with 24  comments you might wish to view, some of them appearing in this piece.

Amy Coney Barrett, husband and 7 children stand with President Trump and the First Lady.

 

Irvine starts out saying:

 

Even before it was officially announced that Amy Coney Barrett would be nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Vanity Fair and New York Times Magazine contributing writer Vanessa Grigoriadis attacked her mothering skills, comparing her to the Kardashians and accusing her of lying about how much she spends with her seven children.

Grigoriadis wasn’t the only liberal who went after Barrett’s family life.Dana Houle, a self-described political consultant to Democrats, questioned whether Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti was somehow not completely above board in a tweet that he subsequently deleted after a barrage of criticism...........

And then there was Boston University’s Ibram Kendi, who compared Barrett to “white colonizers” for adopting black children in a couple of tweets on Saturday.

So, how much time is she supposed to devote to her children?  Who decides that?  Is there some kind of government formula based on academic clap trap? 

Bluebird12345 posted this comment about that:

Right on cue. I sometimes think you so-called journalists never learned manners at home, but only learned to hand off the hateful baton from one liberal socialist to the other.

Vanessa, who are you to judge Amy Coney Barrett on her mothering skills? Do you have full evidence that Amy is not a good mother? I remember many articles saying women could have it all. A wife, mother and a professional job, and though i preferred being at home with my children, other women chose to use their educations to help their husbands and families. From what I saw and the people who are close to Amy have said, she is an outstanding wife, mother and a professional. She has an outstanding resume. Above all, she loves God, her family and the Constitution. Why are you so jealous and have your poisonous fangs out for her?

Without evidence to support your hateful statements, without knowing Amy and her husband and children, you formed an opinion without proof. Some journalist you are. You just treated Amy in a way you yourself would never want to be treated, much less written about. You don’t think any farther than your own article and who might be hurt by your stinging and unfounded words.

You wrote this trash to impress all of your socialist buddies and far be it from you to encourage another woman, especially when they are pro-life. They don’t get a say in the matter, only you socialists are the arbiters of right.

My first thought was: Isn't this in reality an attack on fundamental feminist arguments?  Did they question that of the fathers appointed to SCOTUS?  How much time are fathers supposed to devote to their children?  What if the children are good children, never cause trouble, always please their parents and always do the right thing?    Are they supposed to spend more time or less time with them under those circumstances?  And what is that number? 

Apparently I wasn't alone in seeing it in this light. Here's what usafoldsarge said

Yes and it was the feminists that claimed they could do all things, that the nominee is being disparaged about. Writing for Vanity Fair is about all Vanessa whatsherface has done. Which automatically qualifies her to comment about a woman’s mothering ability, unless she was of the same ilk as the Great Vanessa. Then the praises would be nauseating to read. Always find experts such as this, with zero qualifications and even less experience running off at the mouth.........

praireliving expanded on this thought saying: 

But I thought the left was all about feminism, women being able to work out of the house, and having it all. They spend a great deal of time disparaging SAHMs. Now the truth is out. It isn’t about being a working mom or a SAHM it is about whether or not you toe the liberal party line.

DrGadget commented: 

 

 “I guess one of the things I don’t understand about Amy Comey Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids?” So if I’m hearing you correctly Vanessa, it sounds like you’re admitting the whole Feminist “I can do anything a man can do” lie needs to be tossed out the window because it’s simply not possible for a woman to do everything. Not even an extremely gifted woman with a loving husband............

The feminist narrative is that women can do all things and have it all.  Do I understand and remember  that correctly?  If that's true, and it is, why is the nominee being disparaged for doing all things? And with no evidence to the contrary, it certainly seems she's doing it all successfully.  So, are we do think this writer is a traitor to her gender, to feminism and to what's now a fundamental leftist narrative? 

I wonder how much time these people spend with their children, and what is the conduct of their children?  Maybe if we knew that we could opine that makes them unqualified to spend so much time writing about the actions of others?  If not, why not?  These writers need to answer that don't you think?  Or as Dan Rather would famously intone......:"Questions Remain!"

Here's reality.  

This attack on this woman is a common practice known as a logical fallacy.   This logical fallacy is known as an ad hominem attack, meaning,  “against the man."......"sometimes called "name calling" or the "personal attack" fallacy.  Again, we see the underlying moral foundation of leftism is hate.

stlmark commented:

It’s the old practice of throwing everything up against the wall and seeing what sticks. Judge Barrett could be the next Mother Teresa and it wouldn’t matter; they would still look for anything to attack her. The politics of abortion trump (pardon the pun) everything else. It has become the new sacrament to this crowd. Forget the Bible, the Constitution, and anything else; all that matters is allowing women to kill their unborn children for any reason. This crowd is scared to death that she will provide the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, so that means it’s war and anything is allowed. To them, the ends truly do justify the means.

This has nothing to do with her qualifications as a federal jurist, and in point of fact, if she had aborted seven children they would have praised her for her "bravery" and commitment to women's "health", and right "to choose" and the right to "control their own bodies". 

So here's the thrust of their position.  Murdering her innocent unborn would qualify her in their eyes, but adopting children from that hell hole in Haiti is racist and makes her a bad mother.  No evidence any of that's true, but they're leftists, what does truth have to do with the bigger picture?  And their "noble cause" that represents their bigger picture is what?  Keeping the murder of the unborn innocent the law of the land! 

So, what happened to Women Can Have it All?  If it doesn't fit today's leftist narrative, it's out!  But don't worry, they're leftists.  Tomorrow it can just as easily be back, and back and with passion, and a vengeance filled with self-righteous moral indignation and condemnation of those who oppose them. 

Must be nice to be a leftist, that way you're never wrong no matter what you think or say, even if it's corrupt, contradictory and devoid of facts.