vdare--2020-10-17--The Intersectional Totem Pole Of Pokemon Points Is Finally Documented

For years , we ’ ve been wondering if any authorities will ever officially document exactly who is on top @ @ @ @ @ Points .
Clearly , cisgender straight white males are at the bottom , but among @ @ @ @ @ whom ?
So , don ’ t put down your race as “ Unknown.
” @ @ @ @ @ and will relegate you to even lower than the White/Caucasian untermenschen .
Since 2010 , @ @ @ @ @ Individuals are asked to provide “ Which of the following groups best describes your background @ @ @ @ @ as may apply ” .
In the following list , the italicized headings indicate the @ @ @ @ @ headings represent the categories listed on the Undergraduate Application .
The bullets represent the choices @ @ @ @ @ like Yemenis and Libyans are at least listed above the line , European untermenschen are @ @ @ @ @ right corner .

For years, we’ve been wondering if any authorities will ever officially document exactly who is on top in terms of diversity Pokemon Points. Clearly, cisgender straight white males are at the bottom, but among the privileged, who outranks whom?
From UniversityOfCalifornia.edu:
So, don’t put down your race as “Unknown.” They hate wiseguys like you and will relegate you to even lower than the White / Caucasian untermenschen.
Since 2010, the following ranking applies:
Individuals are asked to provide “Which of the following groups best describes your background. Check as many categories as may apply”. In the following list, the italicized headings indicate the reporting category. The bold headings represent the categories listed on the Undergraduate Application. The bullets represent the choices available.
While interesting Whites/Caucasians like Yemenis and Libyans are at least listed above the line, European untermenschen are isolated down in the lower right corner.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-10-17--Foreign Election Interference—Daily Mail: Former UK Liberal Democrat Supremo Nick Clegg Censored Bid

Foreign Election Interference—Daily Mail: Former UK Liberal Democrat Supremo Nick Clegg Censored Biden Scoop at Facebook

Nick Clegg was leader of the UK third party centre-left Liberal Democrats from 2005-2017 and deputy Prime Minister to David Cameron from 2010-2015 .
He is currently cashing in big time as head censor for protecting his ideological counterpart Joe Biden at Facebook .
From the Daily Mail : Nick Clegg ‘ was involved in Facebook ’ s decision to hush-up story about Joe Biden ’ s son ’ that led to social media giant being branded the Democrat ’ s ‘ PR team ’ by Republicans Nick Clegg is vice-president of global affairs and communications at Facebook Facebook was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s PR team ’ by top Republicans Decision to ‘ reduce the distribution ’ came before the US election on November 3 For moderation issues that hold political significance Sir Nick will look into it It is not known who had the final say in the distribution of the Joe Biden story By JEMMA CARR FOR MAILONLINE and JENNIFER SMITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM Former British Deputy Prime Minister Sir Nick Clegg was involved in Facebook ’ s decision to ‘ reduce the distribution ’ of a New York Post Joe Biden story , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was accused of ‘ acting as Joe Biden ’ s PR team ’ by top Republicans for hushing up the story just days before the US election on November 3 .
Sir Nick , who left the UK government in 2015 , is now the vice-president of global affairs and communications at the social media giant .
The Post story alleges that Biden met with a Ukrainian businessman in 2015 – when the businessman was paying his son Hunter $ 50,000-a-month .
Months later , Biden – then the US Vice President – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was investigating the businessman , it claims .
Facebook announced on Wednesday that it had started ‘ reducing distribution ’ of the New York Post ’ s story until their army of third-party ‘ fact checkers ’ had vetted it .
Most of Facebook ’ s decisions are made by automatic software – or by moderation staff , The Daily Telegraph reports .
But , for sensitive moderation issues that hold cultural or political significance , Facebook ’ s vice-president of content policy , vice-president of global public policy and then Sir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passes up a chain .

Nick Clegg was leader of the UK third party center-left Liberal Democrats from 2005-2017 and deputy Prime Minister to David Cameron from 2010-2015. He is currently cashing in big time as head censor for protecting his ideological counterpart Joe Biden at Facebook. From the Daily Mail:
Nick Clegg ‘was involved in Facebook’s decision to hush-up story about Joe Biden’s son’ that led to social media giant being branded the Democrat’s ‘PR team’ by Republicans
Nick Clegg is vice-president of global affairs and communications at Facebook
Facebook was accused of ‘acting as Joe Biden’s PR team’ by top Republicans
Decision to ‘reduce the distribution’ came before the US election on November 3
For moderation issues that hold political significance Sir Nick will look into it
It is not known who had the final say in the distribution of the Joe Biden story
By JEMMA CARR FOR MAILONLINE and JENNIFER SMITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 21:30 EDT, 15 October 2020 | UPDATED: 02:51 EDT, 16 October 2020
Former British Deputy Prime Minister Sir Nick Clegg was involved in Facebook’s decision to ‘reduce the distribution’ of a New York Post Joe Biden story, reports suggest.
The social media firm was accused of ‘acting as Joe Biden’s PR team’ by top Republicans for hushing up the story just days before the US election on November 3.
Sir Nick, who left the UK government in 2015, is now the vice-president of global affairs and communications at the social media giant.
The Post story alleges that Biden met with a Ukrainian businessman in 2015 – when the businessman was paying his son Hunter $50,000-a-month.
Months later, Biden – then the US Vice President – pressured Ukrainian officials into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the businessman, it claims.
Facebook announced on Wednesday that it had started ‘reducing distribution’ of the New York Post’s story until their army of third-party ‘fact checkers’ had vetted it.
Most of Facebook’s decisions are made by automatic software – or by moderation staff, The Daily Telegraph reports.
But, for sensitive moderation issues that hold cultural or political significance, Facebook’s vice-president of content policy, vice-president of global public policy and then Sir Nick look into the case as it passes up a chain.


vdare--2020-10-17--This Coming Leftist Coup Could Backfire—Like 1991 In Soviet Union

The Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency , August , 1991 Our country seems headed for a political crisis , with the enemies of Deplorable America making noises suggesting they are planning a post-election “ Color Revolution ” -type coup against Trump .
As a long-time Russia-watcher , I suggest that the failed Soviet coup of 1991 , and the collapse that it spurred on , is instructive .
The key point that year came when Soviet military and security units refused to move against Boris Yeltsin and his defenders .
Could something like that happen here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What yours truly has dubbed the globalist Blob has been signaling for some time that it has no intention of yielding to Trump come election day .
Hillary Clinton , in her guise as the post-American Madam Defarge of the present Cultural Revolution , has even stated publicly that Joe Biden should not concede the election to Trump “ under any circumstances.
” [ Morning Greatness : Hillary Clinton Says Biden Should Not Concede ‘ Under Any Circumstances ’ , by Liz Steele , AmGreatness.com , August 26 , 2020 ] Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and David Frum , have been “ wargaming ” scenarios for preventing Trump from taking office should he win , developing a plan for what Trump has correctly described as “ an insurrection.
” [ The Billionaire Backers of the ‘ Insurrection ’ , by Julie Kelly , AmGreatness.com , Sep 14 , 2020 ] The plan is to claim that Trump has stolen , or attempted to steal , the election .
“ As far as our enemies are concerned , '' as I wrote here last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right side of history , and neither election law nor the Constitution or any antiquated notions about fair play will stop them.
” [ Revolution and Resistance : How can elections continue ?
, American Remnant , September 4 , 2020 ] The mail-in balloting plan plays into the Blob ’ s wargaming .
If the Democrats can ’ t swing the election their way by hook or crook , then the lengthy process of accounting for all the mail-in ballots could be used as a means to sow confusion and chaos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aftermath of Election Day .
The Blob ’ s minions have been signaling their intention to drag out the vote count .
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer , for example , declared on Face the Nation that her state would not be held to any “ artificial deadlines ” for reporting election results .
[ MI Gov .
Whitmer : No ‘ Artificial Deadlines ’ for Announcing Election Results , by Jeff Poor , Breitbart , October 11 , 2020 ] In an example of the psychological projection characteristic of Democrats , Whitmer further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expedite the vote count had “ political agendas.
” Meanwhile , the Blob ’ s militant wing has been circulating a plan for post-election disruption .
[ READ : Left-wing Radicals Post Online Guide to ‘ Disrupting ’ the Country if Election is Close , by Joel Pollak , Breitbart , October 12 , 2020 ] A Leftist group calling itself ShutDownDC [ Tweet them ] plans to prevent a Trump “ coup ” —more projection there—by shutting down the country and forcing Trump out if the vote is too close to call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disruptive movements all over the country.
” The militants also state that they intend to demand that “ no winner be announced until every vote is counted.
” ShutDownDC further proclaims that it has no intention of allowing the country to return to normal .
The goal is to “ dismantle ” what it calls “ interlocking systems of oppression.
” This isn ’ t just about an election—it ’ s a blueprint for completing the Left ’ s anti-American Cultural Revolution .
In the chaos that appears increasingly likely after Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear idea of what happened–-and , indeed , that may be part of the Blob ’ s design .
In a recent segment on “ Critical Race Theory ” gaining traction at the Pentagon , Tucker Carlson wondered just why the Left was so intent on capturing the military .
My answer : the Blob was contemplating the possibility of using the military as part of an attempt to block a second Trump term .
It ’ s quite clear that the top military brass has been subject to “ the Great Awokening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the rest of the federal bureaucracy .
The military Establishment has steadfastly resisted Trump ’ s inclination to disengage from foreign interventions .
Moreover , the Pentagon has also resisted Trump ’ s order to stop indoctrinating its personnel in “ Critical Race Theory.
” [ Trump ’ s Anti-Critical Race Theory Order is Necessary But Insufficient , By Timon Cline , AmGreatness.com , October 5 , 2020 ] In his book Rage , Bob Woodward reports that former Defense Secretary and retired Marine General James Mattis once commented to then Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There may come a time when we have to take collective action ” against Trump , since Mattis deemed the president “ dangerous ” and “ unfit.
” [ Mattis told Coats Trump is 'dangerous , ' 'unfit ' : Woodward book , by Tal Axelrod , The Hill , September 9 , 2020 ] It ’ s likely that General Mattis ’ s view of Trump is widely shared among top level military officers .
So how might the military figure into the Blob ’ s wargaming plans ?
Peter van Buren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ temporary ” military government might be pitched as the only way to break an electoral deadlock and end post-election disorder .
[ What if Trump Won ’ t Leave The White House ?
The fearmongers are at it again , this time with their mantle-holder Biden , warning of the coming dictatorship.
, American Conservative , June 30 , 2020 ] Van Buren reminded us that Trump ’ s opponents have never accepted his legitimacy , that “ RussiaGate ” was good practice for them—good practice for a coup , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an all-out effort to dislodge him from the White House .
Obama , Comey And Eric Holder In The White House Van Buren further noted that Joe Biden , who has claimed that it is Trump who “ is going to try and steal this election , ” has also stated quite plainly that if Trump refuses to leave the White House , he is “ absolutely convinced ” that the military would “ escort him from the White House with great dispatch.
” [ Biden : Military Will Remove Trump From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by Julie Ross , Daily Beast , June 11 , 2020 ] It ’ s worth mentioning that van Buren is not a Trump supporter , was a career foreign service officer , and is an honest man , an Iraq war whistleblower who wrote an excellent book , We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , on his experiences in that country .
I reviewed it here ) .
He does not believe that a Pentagon-backed coup is merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a plausible scenario .
Nevertheless , an attempt to use the military to block Trump ’ s re-election could result in the coup plotters stepping into a trap of their own making .
This is what happened in the failed 1991 coup attempt in the Soviet Union .
On August 18 , 1991 , with Mikhail Gorbachev preparing to sign a treaty that would have decentralized the Soviet Union , his hardline political opponents in the Soviet leadership arrested the father of perestroika at his Crimean dacha , proclaiming that the Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in charge .
The conspiracy against Gorbachev had been organized by KGB Chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov , Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov and six other top level political and security officials .
They were alarmed by Gorbachev ’ s reforms , which had already loosed centrifugal forces in the USSR that threatened the power of the Communist party and the Soviet apparatus .
But within three days , the coup attempt collapsed .
The coup collapsed because of resistance by then-Russian Federation President Boris Yeltsin and his supporters , and the refusal of elite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
On August 19 , Muscovites gathered at the Russian “ White House , ” the seat of Russia ’ s parliament in central Moscow , and erected barriers around it .
Boris Yeltsin climbed atop a tank to address the crowd .
Yeltsin condemned the State Emergency Committee as an unlawful gang of coup plotters and called for military and security forces not to support the “ Gang Of Eight.
” Major Sergey Yevdokimov , a battalion commander in the Tamanskaya Division , had already declared his loyalty to Yeltsin ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his historic stand ) .
Yevdokimov later said that early on he had decided that he would not fire on any Russian citizens .
As his battalion approached the “ White House , ” one of Yeltsin ’ s supporters climbed on Yevdokimov ’ s tank and asked him to come over to their side .
The major made his historically-significant choice , setting in motion events that would help thwart the coup .
KGB special forces units never appeared at the scene .
When the planned assault on the Russian “ White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) failed to materialize after a brief skirmish , it was clear that the coup was over .
This was quickly followed by the collapse of the Communist party and the Soviet administrative apparatus ; and the dissolution of the Soviet Union .
That was an enormous surprise to the majority of Western Kremlinologists at the time .
Of course , the situation in the U.S. today is not exactly analogous .
For starters , Trump is operating in a hostile environment ( “ the Swamp ” ) dominated and controlled by his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his side .
It seems unlikely that a large group of citizens from the DC area would quickly materialize to support Trump against some sort of military-backed coup .
It ’ s possible , however , that Trump may not even be in Washington when a coup is set in motion .
This would leave him an opportunity to do what he does best—hold mass rallies to fire up his support base in “ Deplorable ” areas of the country .
Both “ red ” and “ blue ” areas across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the United States and practicing nullification .
The as yet inchoate Middle American resistance has shown it is capable of fighting back .
[ Organizing Middle American Resistance : Who Will Take the Next Step ?
, American Remnant , July 31 , 2020 ] If general disorder and a deadlock over the elections acts as a cover to deploy military units , it raises the same question Soviet officers and men were faced with in August 1991 : Would the “ boots on the ground ” obey orders ?
Trump may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my sense is that he is popular with the rank-and-file .
What if a significant number of them refused to obey a clearly illegal order ?
It may take only one Major Yevdokimov refusing unlawful orders for the whole plot to unravel .
The Deplorables have good reason to think the Blob will rig or otherwise reverse the election results .
The past four years have already taught them that .
And the Blob ’ s Main Stream Media arm has been hard at it selling the Narrative of Trump stealing the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ready and willing to accept drastic measures against Trump and the Middle Americans they loathe .
The potential for a seismic political crisis is clear .
What we are witnessing is what I ’ ve called “ the end of politics.
” [ Chronicles , May 2019 ] American elections are becoming more like the zero-sum games they are in the undeveloped world—and were to some extent in pre-modern Britain .
A post-election crisis , especially a force majeure situation precipitated by military intervention , would accelerate the centrifugal forces already at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure of a coup attempt could do to the Democrats ’ “ Coalition of the Fringes ” what the failure of the August coup did to the Communists in the USSR—opening up room to maneuver for what I call the American Remnant and VDARE.com calls the Historic American Nation .
Given the circumstances , with the demographic ring closing in , that may be a providential outcome .
Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor of Chronicles magazine .
He is the author of The Russian Question : Nationalism , Modernization , and Post-Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Blood .
He writes at American Remnant .

The Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency, August, 1991
Our country seems headed for a political crisis, with the enemies of Deplorable America making noises suggesting they are planning a post-election “Color Revolution”–type coup against Trump. As a long-time Russia-watcher, I suggest that the failed Soviet coup of 1991, and the collapse that spurred it on, is instructive.
The key point that year came when Soviet military and security units refused to move against Boris Yeltsin and his defenders. Could something like that happen here, with Trump playing the Yeltsin role?
What yours truly has dubbed the globalist Blob has been signaling for some time that it has no intention of yielding to Trump come election day. Hillary Clinton, in her guise as the post-American Madam Defarge of the present Cultural Revolution, has even stated publicly that Joe Biden should not concede the election to Trump “under any circumstances” [Morning Greatness: Hillary Clinton Says Biden Should Not Concede ‘Under Any Circumstances’, by Liz Steele, AmGreatness.com, August 26, 2020].
Meanwhile, the Democrats, with help from rabid Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol and David Frum, have been “wargaming” scenarios for preventing Trump from taking office should he win, developing a plan for what Trump has correctly described as “an insurrection” [The Billionaire Backers of the ‘Insurrection,’ by Julie Kelly, AmGreatness.com, Sep 14, 2020]. The plan is to claim that Trump has stolen, or attempted to steal, the election. “As far as our enemies are concerned," as I wrote here last month, "they are on the right side of history, and neither election law nor the Constitution or any antiquated notions about fair play will stop them” [Revolution and Resistance: How can elections continue?, American Remnant, September 4, 2020].
The mail-in balloting plan plays into the Blob’s wargaming. If the Democrats can’t swing the election their way by hook or crook, then the lengthy process of accounting for all the mail-in ballots could be used as a means to sow confusion and chaos, giving them room to maneuver in the aftermath of Election Day.
The Blob’s minions have been signaling their intention to drag out the vote count. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, for example, declared on Face the Nation that her state would not be held to any “artificial deadlines” for reporting election results. [MI Gov. Whitmer: No ‘Artificial Deadlines’ for Announcing Election Results, by Jeff Poor, Breitbart, October 11, 2020]. In an example of the psychological projection characteristic of Democrats, Whitmer further claimed that those who might want to expedite the vote count had “political agendas.”
Meanwhile, the Blob’s militant wing has been circulating a plan for post-election disruption [READ: Left-wing Radicals Post Online Guide to ‘Disrupting’ the Country if Election is Close, by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, October 12, 2020]. A leftist group calling itself ShutDownDC [Tweet them] plans to prevent a Trump “coup”—more projection there—by shutting down the country and forcing Trump out if the vote is too close to call. The plan calls for “sustained disruptive movements all over the country.” The militants also state that they intend to demand that “no winner be announced until every vote is counted.”
ShutDownDC further proclaims that it has no intention of allowing the country to return to normal. The goal is to “dismantle” what it calls “interlocking systems of oppression.”
This isn’t just about an election—it’s a blueprint for completing the Left’s anti-American Cultural Revolution.
In the chaos that appears increasingly likely after Election Day, we may not even have a clear idea of what happened–-and, indeed, that may be part of the Blob’s design.
In a recent segment on “Critical Race Theory” gaining traction at the Pentagon, Tucker Carlson wondered just why the Left was so intent on capturing the military.
My answer: the Blob was contemplating the possibility of using the military as part of an attempt to block a second Trump term.
It’s quite clear that the top military brass has been subject to “the Great Awokening” and Trump Derangement Syndrome as much as the rest of the federal bureaucracy. The military Establishment has steadfastly resisted Trump’s inclination to disengage from foreign interventions. Moreover, the Pentagon has also resisted Trump’s order to stop indoctrinating its personnel in “Critical Race Theory” [Trump’s Anti-Critical Race Theory Order is Necessary But Insufficient, by Timon Cline, AmGreatness.com, October 5, 2020].
In his book Rage, Bob Woodward reports that former Defense Secretary and retired Marine General James Mattis once commented to then Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats that “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” against Trump, since Mattis deemed the president “dangerous” and “unfit” [Mattis told Coats Trump is 'dangerous,' 'unfit': Woodward book, by Tal Axelrod, The Hill, September 9, 2020].
It’s likely that General Mattis’s view of Trump is widely shared among top level military officers.
So how might the military figure into the Blob’s wargaming plans? Peter van Buren has contemplated a post-election scenario in which a “temporary” military government might be pitched as the only way to break an electoral deadlock and end post-election disorder [What if Trump Won’t Leave The White House? The fearmongers are at it again, this time with their mantle-holder Biden, warning of the coming dictatorship, American Conservative, June 30, 2020]. Van Buren reminded us that Trump’s opponents have never accepted his legitimacy, that “RussiaGate” was good practice for them—good practice for a coup, that is—and that they are gearing up for an all-out effort to dislodge him from the White House.
Obama, Comey And Eric Holder In The White House
Van Buren further noted that Joe Biden, who has claimed that it is Trump who “is going to try and steal this election,” has also stated quite plainly that if Trump refuses to leave the White House, he is “absolutely convinced” that the military would “escort him from the White House with great dispatch” [Biden: Military Will Remove Trump From the White House if He Refuses to Leave, by Julie Ross, Daily Beast, June 11, 2020].
It’s worth mentioning that van Buren is not a Trump supporter, was a career foreign service officer, and is an honest man, an Iraq war whistleblower who wrote an excellent book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, on his experiences in that country. I reviewed it here.) He does not believe that a Pentagon-backed coup is merely “paperback thriller material.” It’s a plausible scenario.
Nevertheless, an attempt to use the military to block Trump’s re-election could result in the coup plotters stepping into a trap of their own making.
This is what happened in the failed 1991 coup attempt in the Soviet Union.
On August 18, 1991 with Mikhail Gorbachev preparing to sign a treaty that would have decentralized the Soviet Union, his hardline political opponents in the Soviet leadership arrested the father of perestroika at his Crimean dacha, proclaiming that the Soviet State Committee on the State of Emergency was in charge.
The conspiracy against Gorbachev had been organized by KGB Chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov, Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov and six other top level political and security officials. They were alarmed by Gorbachev’s reforms, which had already loosed centrifugal forces in the USSR that threatened the power of the Communist party and the Soviet apparatus.
But within three days, the coup attempt collapsed.
Boris Yeltsin at the Russian White House, August 19, 1991.
The coup collapsed because of resistance by then-Russian Federation President Boris Yeltsin and his supporters, and the refusal of elite military and security units to move against them.
On August 19, Muscovites gathered at the Russian “White House,” the seat of Russia’s parliament in central Moscow, and erected barriers around it. Boris Yeltsin climbed atop a tank to address the crowd. Yeltsin condemned the State Emergency Committee as an unlawful gang of coup plotters and called for military and security forces not to support the “Gang Of Eight.”
Major Sergey Yevdokimov, a battalion commander in the Tamanskaya Division, had already declared his loyalty to Yeltsin (hence the tank on which Yeltsin made his historic stand). Yevdokimov later said that early on he had decided that he would not fire on any Russian citizens. As his battalion approached the “White House,” one of Yeltsin’s supporters climbed on Yevdokimov’s tank and asked him to come over to their side. The major made his historically significant choice, setting in motion events that would help thwart the coup.
KGB special forces units never appeared at the scene. When the planned assault on the Russian “White House” (“Operation Thunder”) failed to materialize after a brief skirmish, it was clear that the coup was over. This was quickly followed by the collapse of the Communist party and the Soviet administrative apparatus; and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
That was an enormous surprise to the majority of Western Kremlinologists at the time.
Of course, the situation in the U.S. today is not exactly analogous. For starters, Trump is operating in a hostile environment (“the Swamp”) dominated and controlled by his enemies. The generals are not on his side. It seems unlikely that a large group of citizens from the DC area would quickly materialize to support Trump against some sort of military-backed coup.
It’s possible, however, that Trump may not even be in Washington when a coup is set in motion. This would leave him an opportunity to do what he does best—hold mass rallies to fire up his support base in “Deplorable” areas of the country.
Both “red” and “blue” areas across the country are already effectively separating, threatening secession from the United States and practicing nullification. The as yet inchoate Middle American resistance has shown it is capable of fighting back [Organizing Middle American Resistance: Who Will Take the Next Step?, American Remnant, July 31, 2020].
If general disorder and a deadlock over the elections acts as a cover to deploy military units, it raises the same question Soviet officers and men were faced with in August 1991: would the “boots on the ground” obey orders?
Trump may be disliked by top-level officers. But my sense is that he is popular with the rank-and-file. What if a significant number of them refused to obey a clearly illegal order? It may take only one Major Yevdokimov refusing unlawful orders for the whole plot to unravel.
The Deplorables have good reason to think the Blob will rig or otherwise reverse the election results. The past four years have already taught them that. And the Blob’s Main Stream Media arm has been hard at it selling the Narrative of Trump stealing the election. The Democrats’ base appears to be ready and willing to accept drastic measures against Trump and the Middle Americans they loathe.
The potential for a seismic political crisis is clear.
What we are witnessing is what I’ve called “the end of politics” [Chronicles, May 2019]. American elections are becoming more like the zero-sum games they are in the undeveloped world—and were to some extent in pre-modern Britain. A post-election crisis, especially a force majeure situation precipitated by military intervention, would accelerate the centrifugal forces already at work in the United States.
The failure of a coup attempt could do to the Democrats’ “Coalition of the Fringes” what the failure of the August coup did to the Communists in the USSR—opening up room to maneuver for what I call the American Remnant and VDARE.com calls the Historic American Nation.
Given the circumstances, with the demographic ring closing in, that may be a providential outcome.
Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor of Chronicles magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel, Field of Blood. He writes at American Remnant.


vdare--2020-10-18--Police Commissioner Cressida Dick In July: Blacks In London EIGHT TIMES More Likely To Be Murder Per

Police Commissioner Cressida Dick In July: Blacks In London EIGHT TIMES More Likely To Be Murder Perpetrators

Earlier , by John Derbyshire : Dame Cressida Goes To Parliament .
Met carried out 22,000 searches on young black men during lockdown This article is more than 3 months old More than 80 % stop-and-search procedures between March to May led to no further action Young black men were stopped and searched by police more than 20,000 times in London during the coronavirus lockdown – the equivalent more than a quarter of all black 15- to 24-year-olds in the capital .
More than 80 % of the 21,950 searches between March and May resulted in no further action , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the home affairs select committee chair , Yvette Cooper .
The figures equate to 30 % of all young black males in London , though some individuals may have been searched more than once .
The Met increased its use of stop and search during the lockdown , compared with a year ago .
The force carried out 43,000 stops in May , compared to 21,000 a year earlier , and 30,608 in April , up from 20,981 .
Katrina Ffrench , chief executive of Stopwatch , a charity that campaigns against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ The number is shocking and saddening .
How do those young people feel when this is their city , they ’ re going about their daily business , could be caring for parents , all sorts of reasons as to why they ’ re out ?
” The figures emerged after the commissioner for the Metropolitan police , Cressida Dick , apologised for the distress caused to the British athlete Bianca Williams when officers stopped , searched and handcuffed her at the weekend .
But Dick defended her force ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black people were eight times more likely to be perpetrators of violent crime .
The committee heard that in May alone , about one in eight young black males in London were stopped and searched .
Cooper said data showed 10,000 black males in London aged 15 to 25 were stopped and searched in May .
Total population estimates for that demographic in London are between 70,000 and 80,000. Cooper said : “ That suggests in one month alone , more than one in 10 of young black men in London were stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing and found not to be doing anything that required further action .
That ’ s just in one month also at a time when actually most people would have been at home during lockdown.
” Asked if the figures alarmed her , Dick replied : “ I ’ m not alarmed , I ’ m alert.
” Official figures show people who identify as black in England and Wales are nearly 10 times more likely to be stopped than people who identify as white .
However , within some force areas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorset are 25 times more likely to stop black people than white people .
Dick told the committee that some of those searched and not found to have any illicit items were “ very violent repeat offenders who happen not to have it there and then ” .
“ Some of them have stashed it , given it to the other boy or whatever .
That ’ s a proportion of those people .
Because what I can tell you is we ’ re focused in the right areas and focusing hugely on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in violent crime.
” She said black people were not just disproportionately affected by stop-and-search powers but were more likely to be victims as well as perpetrators of violent crime in the capital .
She said 72 % of homicide victims under 25 were black , and that black people were four times more likely to be a victim of homicide and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator .

Earlier, by John Derbyshire: Dame Cressida Goes To Parliament.
From The Guardian:
Met carried out 22,000 searches on young black men during lockdown
This article is more than 3 months old
More than 80% stop-and-search procedures between March to May led to no further action
Jamie Grierson Home affairs correspondent
@JamieGrierson
Wed 8 Jul 2020
Young black men were stopped and searched by police more than 20,000 times in London during the coronavirus lockdown – the equivalent more than a quarter of all black 15- to 24-year-olds in the capital.
More than 80% of the 21,950 searches between March and May resulted in no further action, according to analysis by the office of the home affairs select committee chair, Yvette Cooper.
The figures equate to 30% of all young black males in London, though some individuals may have been searched more than once.
The Met increased its use of stop and search during the lockdown, compared with a year ago. The force carried out 43,000 stops in May, compared to 21,000 a year earlier, and 30,608 in April, up from 20,981.
Katrina Ffrench, chief executive of Stopwatch, a charity that campaigns against the disproportionate use of stop and search, said: “The number is shocking and saddening. How do those young people feel when this is their city, they’re going about their daily business, could be caring for parents, all sorts of reasons as to why they’re out?”
The figures emerged after the commissioner for the Metropolitan police, Cressida Dick, apologised for the distress caused to the British athlete Bianca Williams when officers stopped, searched and handcuffed her at the weekend.
But Dick defended her force’s use of stop-and-search powers, saying black people were eight times more likely to be perpetrators of violent crime.
The committee heard that in May alone, about one in eight young black males in London were stopped and searched. Cooper said data showed 10,000 black males in London aged 15 to 25 were stopped and searched in May. Total population estimates for that demographic in London are between 70,000 and 80,000.
Cooper said: “That suggests in one month alone, more than one in 10 of young black men in London were stopped and searched and found to be carrying nothing and found not to be doing anything that required further action. That’s just in one month also at a time when actually most people would have been at home during lockdown.”
Asked if the figures alarmed her, Dick replied: “I’m not alarmed, I’m alert.”
Official figures show people who identify as black in England and Wales are nearly 10 times more likely to be stopped than people who identify as white. However, within some force areas, this is even higher: police in Dorset are 25 times more likely to stop black people than white people.
Dick told the committee that some of those searched and not found to have any illicit items were “very violent repeat offenders who happen not to have it there and then”.
“Some of them have stashed it, given it to the other boy or whatever. That’s a proportion of those people. Because what I can tell you is we’re focused in the right areas and focusing hugely on people that we know to be involved in violent crime.”
She said black people were not just disproportionately affected by stop-and-search powers but were more likely to be victims as well as perpetrators of violent crime in the capital. She said 72% of homicide victims under 25 were black, and that black people were four times more likely to be a victim of homicide and eight times more likely to be a perpetrator.


vdare--2020-10-18--Will Amy Coney Barrett Vote For The Historic American Nation—Or Worry About Making Her Adopted Haiti

Will Amy Coney Barrett Vote For The Historic American Nation—Or Worry About Making Her Adopted Haitian Kids Cry?

Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few days .
“ We have the votes , '' GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the imminent confirmation vote [ Judiciary Committee sets vote on Barrett 's nomination for next week , by Jordan Cairney , The Hill , October 15 , 2020 ] .
Of course , Conservatism Inc. ’ s chattering class thinks Barrett will champion their causes .
But the Dissident Right has less reason for enthusiasm .
Granted , her record on immigration is fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what lifts more than a few eyebrows is the substantial influence on her thinking she attributes to her adopted Haitian children .
That could affect myriad decisions : not only on immigration , of course , but also on criminal justice relative to the “ systemic racism ” hoax , and free speech/Big Tech Censorship relative to “ racism ” and “ Hate Speech.
” Worst case scenario : Barrett might turn out to be an element in the further dispossession of the Historic American Nation .
On the positive side : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals .
Most legal analysts say she will uphold Trump ’ s immigration priorities and will follow legal precedent .
“ She seems to have the more traditional perspective about judicial review in immigration cases , which is that review ought to be limited , '' said law professor Angela Banks [ Amy Coney Barrett likely would uphold Trump immigration policies , analysts say , by Daniel Gonzalez , Arizona Republic , October 5 , 2020 ] .
“ Judge Barrett leaves policy questions where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies writes .
“ [ I ] f conservatives , or those who favor a more restrictive immigration regime , believe that she would use her position as a Supreme Court justice to advance specific immigration policies , they will likely be disappointed—unless those policies are grounded in statute and precedent.
” Liberals who think Barrett will read open borders into the Constitution will be disappointed , too [ Those Favoring Judicial Activism on Immigration Will Likely Be Disappointed With a Justice Barrett , Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ] .
Three cases in which Barrett sided with the Trump administration put Barrett in a favorable light .
She ruled against aliens who filed dubious asylum claims and against foreigners try to smuggle their children into the country , Arthur observed .
In an outstanding dissent , she affirmed the legality of the Trump administration ’ s public-charge rule that would bar permanent residency to immigrants on welfare .
The one case where she ruled against Trump involved immigration judges .
Trump ’ s Justice Department limited judges from halting deportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authored the opinion overturning that policy .
“ Immigration judges have broad authority to administratively close cases where 'appropriate and necessary for disposition ' of cases , ” she wrote .
So , though it wasn ’ t exactly a major blow to Trump ’ s immigration agenda , she is not a 100-percenter on Trump ’ s immigration priorities .
But three of four ain ’ t bad .
The only time Barrett neared voicing an opinion on immigration in the hearings : answering Sen. Cory Booker ’ s question about “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Obama-era policy .
Is it “ wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S. ?
” the “ fiercely heterosexual ” Booker asked .
That ’ s reasonable , and likely much better than what other jurists would say [ Amy Coney Barrett Declines To Comment On Separation Of Children At The U.S. Border , by Matt Perez .
Forbes , October 14 , 2020 ] .
Happily , she didn ’ t say the question was “ above my pay grade.
” Compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett ’ s record looks better than that of Neil Gorsuch , but not quite as good as Brett Kavanaugh ’ s .
On the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , Gorsuch sided with immigrants against the government .
As a justice , he authored the majority opinion striking down a government provision making it easier to deport criminal aliens .
Gorsuch cucked , perhaps because of his immigrant wife .
He said her immigrant background colors his opinion .
( She is British ) .
[ U.S. Justice Gorsuch sees value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lawrence Hurley , Reuters , September 19 , 2019 ] .
Thankfully , Kavanaugh is different .
As a judge on the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals , he defended American workers from foreign competition , argued against the inclusion of illegal aliens in union elections , and nearly always took the U.S. government ’ s side against immigrants .
“ [ M ] ere economic expediency does not authorize an employer to displace American workers for foreign workers , ” he wrote in one dissent .
He took that immigration-patriot stance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s record alone yields little to complain about .
But a judge , as Gorsuch explained , is more than his record .
Just as Gorsuch ’ s immigrant wife apparently informs his decisions , so Barrett ’ s two Haitian adopted kids might inform hers .
Though she insisted that her multiracial family doesn ’ t “ dictate how I decide cases , ” her answer about George Floyd suggests otherwise [ GOP senator praises Barrett 's 'unique ' experience of having Black children , by Oliver Wills , The American Independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) asked Barrett what she thought of Floyd ’ s death , she replied at length : I have two black children , that was very , very personal for my family .
Jesse was with the boys on a camping trip out in South Dakota , so I was there and my 17-year-old daughter , Vivian , who ’ s adopted from Haiti , all of this was erupting .
It was very difficult for her .
We wept together in my room and then it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Juliette , who ’ s 10 .
I had to try to explain some of this to them .
I mean , my children to this point in their lives , have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence .
And for Vivian to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation .
She also seemed to endorse the existence of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Durbin question .
“ I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement , given as we just talked about the George Floyd video , that racism persists in our country , ” she said .
Then again , she said , it ’ s not her responsibility as a judge to make “ broader diagnoses about the problem of racism.
” Maybe , but it is her responsibility to correctly evaluate evidence .
George Floyd did not die of “ racism.
” He wasn ’ t “ murdered.
” George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was high on fentanyl , a narcotic and respiratory depressant 50 times more powerful than heroin .
That ’ s why Floyd complained he couldn ’ t breathe before cop Derek Chauvin pinned him to the ground .
In short , she and her kids had no reason to cry .
How will she rule if that case or one similar lands in her lap ?
As VDARE.com ’ s Lance Welton argued , Barrett ’ s transracial adoption suggests she is unaware of race realism , as most cookie-cutter Conservatives are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traits not ideal for immigration patriotism .
If a career criminal ’ s overdose causes her to weep with her black children , it ’ s safe to say those children will affect her decisions .
Barrett won ’ t , after all , want to make them cry more .
A court battle over temporary protected status for Haitians , for instance , will end up in the Supreme Court .
How will Barrett rule ?
How will she rule on any similar immigration case that tugs at her heartstrings ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involving charges of “ racism.
” Will she stand up for the law , or will she fret about her kids ’ feelings and make new law ?
Another ill omen : Barrett ’ s apology to the “ LGBTQ community ” for using the phrase sexual “ preference , ” which is now offensive .
The word these days is “ orientation ” [ Barrett says she did n't mean to offend LGBTQ community with term ‘ sexual preference ’ , by Justine Coleman , The Hill , October 14 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hasty retreat is Barrett ’ s wanting to get through the hearings largely unscathed .
She knows stupid .
Then again , it could be a sign she ’ ll cuck on the court .
Last , consider her membership in People of Praise , a charismatic , ecumenical Christian group that more resembles evangelicalism than traditional Catholicism .
It is an emotional faith that stresses a personal God who routinely startles devotees into new ways of thinking .
“ What makes Barrett unpredictable is the possibility that she will interpret God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the broader conservative world , might not have anticipated , ” writes Stanford University anthropologist T.R .
Luhrmann .
“ She has a radical streak and an intensely personal God , and we should expect some surprises from her.
” Luhrmann believes the faith will inspire her to make liberal decisions [ Why Amy Coney Barrett Might Surprise Everyone , T.M .
Luhrmann , The Atlantic , October 13 , 2020 ] .
Of course , if God startles Barrett into a decision Atlantic Leftists like , that will be fine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn Roe v. Wade , there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth .
Leftists only like religion in the public square when it serves liberal ends .
That said , Barrett is , again , a devout Catholic and a committed originalist—she clerked for the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia .
Her record is indeed conservative .
It ’ s just that her clear statement that her black children profoundly affect her thinking can ’ t be ignored .
Will she side with the Historic American Nation on gun rights , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and order , immigration , Birthright Citizenship ?
Or will she side with the “ New American Majority ” —embodied by her adopted kids and consumed with the fear of “ systemic racism ?
” The conservative Catholic ACB is not , of course , the Leftist Jewish RBG .
Indeed , she ’ s quite nearly the opposite .
That alone provides hope .
How much hope is the question .
Washington Watcher II [ Email him ] is an anonymous DC insider .

washingtonwatcherii@protonmail.com (Washington  Watcher II)

Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few days. “We have the votes," GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said of the imminent confirmation vote [Judiciary Committee sets vote on Barrett's nomination for next week, by Jordan Cairney, The Hill, October 15, 2020]. Of course, Conservatism Inc.’s chattering class thinks Barrett will champion their causes. But the Dissident Right has less reason for enthusiasm. Granted, her record on immigration is fairly good and raises few eyebrows. But what lifts more than a few eyebrows is the substantial influence on her thinking she attributes to her adopted Haitian children. That could affect myriad decisions: not only on immigration, of course, but also on criminal justice relative to the “systemic racism” hoax, and free speech/Big Tech Censorship relative to “racism” and “Hate Speech.” Worst case scenario: Barrett might turn out to be an element in the further dispossession of the Historic American Nation.
On the positive side: the 48-year-old was solid on immigration when she sat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Most legal analysts say she will uphold Trump’s immigration priorities and will follow legal precedent. “She seems to have the more traditional perspective about judicial review in immigration cases, which is that review ought to be limited," said law professor Angela Banks [Amy Coney Barrett likely would uphold Trump immigration policies, analysts say, by Daniel Gonzalez, Arizona Republic, October 5, 2020].
“Judge Barrett leaves policy questions where they belong: with the political branches,” Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies writes. “[I]f conservatives, or those who favor a more restrictive immigration regime, believe that she would use her position as a Supreme Court justice to advance specific immigration policies, they will likely be disappointed—unless those policies are grounded in statute and precedent.” Liberals who think Barrett will read open borders into the Constitution will be disappointed, too [Those Favoring Judicial Activism on Immigration Will Likely Be Disappointed With a Justice Barrett, Center for Immigration Studies, October 5, 2020].
Three cases in which Barrett sided with the Trump administration put Barrett in a favorable light. She ruled against aliens who filed dubious asylum claims and against foreigners who try to smuggle their children into the country, Arthur observed. In an outstanding dissent, she affirmed the legality of the Trump administration’s public-charge rule that would bar permanent residency to immigrants on welfare.
The one case where she ruled against Trump involved immigration judges. Trump’s Justice Department limited judges from halting deportation cases through “administrative closure.” Barrett authored the opinion overturning that policy. “Immigration judges have broad authority to administratively close cases where 'appropriate and necessary for disposition' of cases,” she wrote.
So, though it wasn’t exactly a major blow to Trump’s immigration agenda, she is not a 100-percenter on Trump’s immigration priorities. But three of four ain’t bad.
The only time Barrett neared voicing an opinion on immigration in the hearings: answering Sen. Cory Booker’s question about “family separation” at the border, an Obama-era policy.
Is it “wrong to separate children from their parents to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S.?” the “fiercely heterosexual” Booker asked.
Answered Barrett:
That’s been a matter of policy debate and obviously that’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge.
That’s reasonable, and likely much better than what other jurists would say [Amy Coney Barrett Declines To Comment On Separation Of Children At The U.S. Border, by Matt Perez. Forbes, October 14, 2020].
Happily, she didn’t say the question was “above my pay grade.”
Compared to Trump’s other SCOTUS picks, Barrett’s record looks better than that of Neil Gorsuch, but not quite as good as Brett Kavanaugh’s.
On the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch sided with immigrants against the government. As a justice, he authored the majority opinion striking down a government provision making it easier to deport criminal aliens. Gorsuch cucked, perhaps because of his immigrant wife. He said her immigrant background colors his opinion. (She is British.) [U.S. Justice Gorsuch sees value of immigration through wife's eyes, by Lawrence Hurley, Reuters, September 19, 2019].
Thankfully, Kavanaugh is different. As a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he defended American workers from foreign competition, argued against the inclusion of illegal aliens in union elections, and nearly always took the U.S. government’s side against immigrants. “[M]ere economic expediency does not authorize an employer to displace American workers for foreign workers,” he wrote in one dissent. He took that immigration-patriot stance to the high court.
Barrett’s record alone yields little to complain about. But a judge, as Gorsuch explained, is more than his record. Just as Gorsuch’s immigrant wife apparently informs his decisions, so Barrett’s two Haitian adopted kids might inform hers.
Though she insisted that her multiracial family doesn’t “dictate how I decide cases,” her answer about George Floyd suggests otherwise [GOP senator praises Barrett's 'unique' experience of having Black children, by Oliver Wills, The American Independent, October 13, 2020].
When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Barrett what she thought of Floyd’s death, she replied at length:
I have two black children, that was very, very personal for my family. Jesse was with the boys on a camping trip out in South Dakota, so I was there and my 17-year-old daughter, Vivian, who’s adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting. It was very difficult for her. We wept together in my room and then it was also difficult for my daughter, Juliette, who’s 10. I had to try to explain some of this to them. I mean, my children to this point in their lives, have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence. And for Vivian to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation. [Amy Coney Barrett Senate Confirmation Hearing Day 2 Transcript, Rev.com, October 13, 2020]
She also seemed to endorse the existence of “systemic racism” in response to another Durbin question. “I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement, given as we just talked about the George Floyd video, that racism persists in our country,” she said.
Then again, she said, it’s not her responsibility as a judge to make “broader diagnoses about the problem of racism.”
Maybe, but it is her responsibility to correctly evaluate evidence. George Floyd did not die of “racism.” He wasn’t “murdered.” George Floyd died, the autopsy showed, because he was high on fentanyl, a narcotic and respiratory depressant 50 times more powerful than heroin. That’s why Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe before cop Derek Chauvin pinned him to the ground.
In short, she and her kids had no reason to cry. How will she rule if that case or one similar lands in her lap?
As VDARE.com’s Lance Welton argued, Barrett’s transracial adoption suggests she is unaware of race realism, as most cookie-cutter Conservatives are, and she’s extremely altruistic—two traits not ideal for immigration patriotism. If a career criminal’s overdose causes her to weep with her black children, it’s safe to say those children will affect her decisions. Barrett won’t, after all, want to make them cry more.
A court battle over temporary protected status for Haitians, for instance, will end up in the Supreme Court. How will Barrett rule? How will she rule on any similar immigration case that tugs at her heartstrings? What of Big Tech censorship vs. free speech involving charges of “racism”? Will she stand up for the law, or will she fret about her kids’ feelings and make new law?
Another ill omen: Barrett’s apology to the “LGBTQ community” for using the phrase sexual “preference,” which is now offensive. The word these days is “orientation” [Barrett says she didn't mean to offend LGBTQ community with term ‘sexual preference,’ by Justine Coleman, The Hill, October 14, 2020].
The most generous explanation for that hasty retreat is Barrett’s wanting to get through the hearings largely unscathed. She knows stupid. Then again, it could be a sign she’ll cuck on the court.
Last, consider her membership in People of Praise, a charismatic, ecumenical Christian group that more resembles evangelicalism than traditional Catholicism. It is an emotional faith that stresses a personal God who routinely startles devotees into new ways of thinking.
“What makes Barrett unpredictable is the possibility that she will interpret God as speaking in ways that she, and the broader conservative world, might not have anticipated,” writes Stanford University anthropologist T.R. Luhrmann. “She has a radical streak and an intensely personal God, and we should expect some surprises from her.”
Luhrmann believes the faith will inspire her to make liberal decisions [Why Amy Coney Barrett Might Surprise Everyone, T.M. Luhrmann, The Atlantic, October 13, 2020].
Of course, if God startles Barrett into a decision Atlantic Leftists like, that will be fine. If she rules, say, to overturn Roe v. Wade, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Leftists only like religion in the public square when it serves liberal ends.
That said, Barrett is, again, a devout Catholic and a committed originalist—she clerked for the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Her record is indeed conservative.
It’s just that her clear statement that her black children profoundly affect her thinking can’t be ignored.
Will she side with the Historic American Nation on gun rights, “Hate Speech,” Affirmative Action, law and order, immigration, Birthright Citizenship?
Or will she side with the “New American Majority”—embodied by her adopted kids and consumed with the fear of “systemic racism?”
The conservative Catholic ACB is not, of course, the Leftist Jewish RBG. Indeed, she’s quite nearly the opposite. That alone provides hope.
How much hope is the question.
Washington Watcher II [Email him] is an anonymous DC insider.


vdare--2020-10-18--Supermarket Sweep, The Looting Game Show Is Back, Starring Leslie Jones!

So so is Supermarket Sweep : I ’ ve always found Leslie Jones funny , as long as they let @ @ @ @ @ topic—being a black giantess—which they didn ’ t in the Lady Ghostbusters movie .
Does @ @ @ @ @ looting TV game show that debuted after the Watts Riots of August 1965 ?
You @ @ @ @ @ your shopping cart for 90 seconds and the crew that grabbed the most dollar value @ @ @ @ @ Sweep it was called .
It premiered in December 1965 .
It was pretty fascinating @ @ @ @ @ I recall , the winning strategy was to go for the liquor aisle and load @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t much interest us 2nd graders .
But a lot of people instead @ @ @ @ @ they wanted and wasted a lot of time moving around in the store .

Looting is back:
DO YOU KNOW THEM? The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office is asking for help identifying approximately 200 looters who broke into a Tampa Walmart and stole more than $100,000 worth of merchandise. DETAILS: https://t.co/p0nEI0LwPb pic.twitter.com/lxKFhDTodM — FOX 13 Tampa Bay (@FOX13News) June 11, 2020
So is Supermarket Sweep:
I’ve always found Leslie Jones funny, as long as they let her joke about her funniest topic—being a black giantess—which they didn’t in the Lady Ghostbusters movie.
Does anybody remember the grocery store looting TV game show that debuted after the Watts Riots of August 1965? You ran through the store loading your shopping cart for 90 seconds and the crew that grabbed the most dollar value of loot won.
Supermarket Sweep it was called. It premiered in December 1965.
It was pretty fascinating to us 7-year-olds. As I recall, the winning strategy was to go for the liquor aisle and load up on bottles, which didn’t much interest us 2nd graders. But a lot of people instead seemed to go for whatever they wanted and wasted a lot of time moving around in the store.
[Comment at Unz.com]


vdare--2020-10-18--The Question Amy Barrett Wasn't Asked:  "Do You Believe In Disparate Impact?"

Earlier by John Derbyshire : “ Disparate Impact ” —Key Lie In Our Ruling Class Ideology If I were on @ @ @ @ @ I would ask her about the Disparate Impact doctrine .
That would be my first @ @ @ @ @ it up with another , even more impertinent .
Probably Judge Barrett would deflect those @ @ @ @ @ did the many others posed to her this week .
It would be thrilling to @ @ @ @ @ televised hearing , though .
As thrilling as it would be , the event is @ @ @ @ @ , even interrogatively , at race realism in a forum as public as that would @ @ @ @ @ chamber by a baying pack of senators and reporters , bipartisan of course , and @ @ @ @ @ any public platform again .
So deep are we sunk in fantasies about human nature @ @ @ @ @ Radio Derb , now available exclusively through VDARE.com

Earlier by John Derbyshire: “Disparate Impact”—Key Lie In Our Ruling Class Ideology
If I were on the committee questioning Judge Barrett I would ask her about the Disparate Impact doctrine.
Question One: Judge, in current American society, black and nonblack citizens present vastly different statistical profiles on many key indices of socialization, most notably school misbehavior, educational outcomes, and crime. Decades of legislation, numerous Supreme Court rulings, and great social-engineering projects have done nothing to shrink these differences.
Our conventional wisdom, jurisprudentially enshrined in the doctrine of Disparate Impact, says that these differences are caused by malice—conscious or unconscious, past or present—on the part of nonblacks. Do you think this doctrine is sound?
That would be my first question. I might follow it up with another, even more impertinent.
Question Two: Judge, the opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Grutter v. Bollinger seventeen years ago, was that, quote: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
The interest referenced there was the University of Michigan Law School's interest in striving to, quote, "achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone's education and thus make a law school class stronger than the sum of its parts."
Do you agree with the Court's opinion that by year 2028—eight years from now—the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary for the furtherance of those interests?
Probably Judge Barrett would deflect those questions as skilfully as she did the many others posed to her this week. It would be thrilling to hear them asked in a televised hearing, though.
As thrilling as it would be, the event is inconceivable. Anyone who hinted, even interrogatively, at race realism in a forum as public as that would be chased from the hearing chamber by a baying pack of senators and reporters, bipartisan of course, and would never be allowed on any public platform again. So deep are we sunk in fantasies about human nature.
Excerpted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively through VDARE.com


vdare--2020-10-19--Wait A Minute ... When The NEW YORKER  Wargames The Election, Trump Is Played By ... Masha Gessen??

New Yorker Suspends Jeffrey Toobin for Masturbating on Zoom Call The call was an election simulation featuring New Yorker all-stars @ @ @ @ @ “ embarrassingly stupid mistake.
” The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating @ @ @ @ @ between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week .
Toobin says he @ @ @ @ @ was on .
“ I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake , believing I was off-camera @ @ @ @ @ wife , family , friends and co-workers , ” Toobin told Motherboard .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ on Zoom .
I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me .
@ @ @ @ @ the Zoom video , ” he added .

From Vice’s Motherboard section:
New Yorker Suspends Jeffrey Toobin for Masturbating on Zoom Call
The call was an election simulation featuring New Yorker all-stars. Toobin apologized for the “embarrassingly stupid mistake.”
By Laura Wagner
October 19, 2020, 11:07am
The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin for masturbating on a Zoom video chat between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio last week. Toobin says he did not realize his video was on.
“I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers,” Toobin told Motherboard.
“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.


vdare--2020-10-19--A Fair French-Language Survey Of American White Identitarianism! (But When Will It Appear In English

A Fair French-Language Survey Of American White Identitarianism! (But When Will It Appear In English?)

A new French-language book on European and American nationalism has been making waves , with reviews already appearing at American Renaissance and Counter-Currents.VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow asked me to take a look at it .
The title , by Philippe-Joseph Salazar , left me skeptical .
But the slur “ white supremacist ” never occurs in the text of the book itself .
The author , a French academic residing in South Africa , interviewed numerous thinkers and writers associated with the new white nationalism ( more commonly known as identitarianism in Europe ) , and mostly allows them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier chapters is devoted to VDARE.com ’ s own John Derbyshire , whom Professor Salazar visited at his Long Island home .
He describes for his French readership his impressions as the train passes through the “ vibrant ” parts of Brooklyn and Queens , made famous by various racial murders , and on into the more-English-than-England suburbs Mr. Derbyshire calls home .
Mr. Derbyshire meets the professor at the station .
The author does not fail to mention that this “ white racist ” fired by National Review is married to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two mixed-race children .
The two men proceed to Derbyshire ’ s office under the eaves where they chat beneath a picture of George Orwell and surrounded by Mr. Derbyshire ’ s “ modest but powerful ” personal library .
Prof. Salazar realizes he is “ literally at the intellectual sources of white ‘ dissidence , ’ upstream from what the young people of the movement believe , ” and asks his interviewee whether he sees himself as a precursor of the Alt Right .
Prof. Salazar remarks : “ This area where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a high proportion of Jews who , for the radical alt right , are not white .
What do you think ?
” Prof. Salazar : “ What about blacks ?
No many of them around here.
” I have concentrated on John Derbyshire because I know VDARE.com ’ s readers will be interested in Prof. Salazar ’ s treatment of one of our regular contributors .
Other chapters are devoted to Jared Taylor , Counter-Currents ’ Greg Johnson , Tomislav Sunic , Renaud Camus ( the Frenchmen who coined the expression “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist with the American Identity Movement ( AIM ) , and plenty of other significant European and American figures .
The author makes occasional mistakes : Paul Gottfried will get a laugh out of seeing himself described as a “ Straussian , ” and VDARE.com itself is called “ white nationalist.
” I do not believe this indicates malice on the author ’ s part , but only excessive trust in mainstream sources .
In fact , the French reader initially drawn in by the sensational title Suprémacistes may be disappointed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The author stresses that he is only reporting on , not endorsing , the new nationalism .
But some of his readers may be surprised to find their sympathies engaged .
Now let ’ s see if ( unlike Solzhenitsyn ’ s Two Hundred Years Together ) it will be allowed to appear in English .
Martin Witkerk [ Email him ] is an independent philosopher .

A new French-language book on European and American nationalism has been making waves, with reviews already appearing at American Renaissance and Counter-Currents.VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow asked me to take a look at it.
The title, Suprémacistes, by Philippe-Joseph Salazar, left me skeptical. But the slur “white supremacist” never occurs in the text of the book itself. The author, a French academic residing in South Africa, interviewed numerous thinkers and writers associated with the new white nationalism (more commonly known as identitarianism in Europe), and mostly allows them to speak for themselves.
One of the earlier chapters is devoted to VDARE.com’s own John Derbyshire, whom Professor Salazar visited at his Long Island home. He describes for his French readership his impressions as the train passes through the “vibrant” parts of Brooklyn and Queens, made famous by various racial murders, and on into the more-English-than-England suburbs Mr. Derbyshire calls home.
Mr. Derbyshire meets the professor at the station. The author does not fail to mention that this “white racist” fired by National Review is married to a Chinese lady and is the father of two mixed-race children. The two men proceed to Derbyshire’s office under the eaves where they chat beneath a picture of George Orwell and surrounded by Mr. Derbyshire’s “modest but powerful” personal library. Prof. Salazar realizes he is “literally at the intellectual sources of white ‘dissidence,’ upstream from what the young people of the movement believe,” and asks his interviewee whether he sees himself as a precursor of the Alt Right.
Derbyshire replies:
I’d prefer to call myself a dissident of the right. It’s a matter of sensibility, you see. The young people of the Alt Right are satisfied with gestures of deference toward high culture, but they are not especially well-educated. They do not read much, being content to affirm their interest in culture. Another thing happening, which is more interesting: big tech is attracting the young toward science, which is good. But what they are lacking is proselytism for arts and letters. That’s a whole virgin field to be explored.
Prof. Salazar remarks: “This area where you live is white, and with a high proportion of Jews who, for the radical alt right, are not white. What do you think?”
Derbyshire replies:
Toward that family [viz., those who do not accept Jews as white] one can have some sympathy and understanding. On the other hand, no socio-political movement has the shadow of a chance of accomplishing anything without the support of smart Jews. Take, for example, Bob Weissberg and his work on race and IQ in the schools. He got in trouble going against everything inculcated by bien pensant educationists by demonstrating that the different failure rates of different ethnic groups are not the fault of schools, teachers, programs or teaching methods, but the fault of the students themselves.
Prof. Salazar: “What about blacks? No many of them around here.”
Derbyshire replies:
Yes, that is why I live here. But, you see, in spite of living in a secure white community, this is what I observe: there is a subliminal feeling of tension in the life of white Americans which affects even liberals who reject and repress their racial identity. This repression is well-described by the economic theory of revealed preferences: are you familiar with that? The consumption habits of white liberals, despite their pro-black political attitudes, are those of privileged whites. Studies show that their economic choices are opposed to their political opinions. White liberals do not consume black; they consume white.
Martin Luther King is a good example, embarrassing in my view, of the way white Americans really perceive blacks. White Americans have a psychological need for a symbol of the good negro. King did not love this country, that is certain, but most whites are patriots; they are proud to live here. They want everyone to love their country. So white Americans must dream of the good negro, must believe in King. John Wayne once said of his friend Nat King Cole “if only they were all like that.” Most white liberals see Obama in exactly this way. In this way, they refuse to face reality.
I have concentrated on John Derbyshire because I know VDARE.com’s readers will be interested in Prof. Salazar’s treatment of one of our regular contributors. Other chapters are devoted to Jared Taylor, Counter-Currents’ Greg Johnson, Tomislav Sunic, Renaud Camus (the Frenchmen who coined the expression “the Great Replacement”), an activist with the American Identity Movement (AIM), and plenty of other significant European and American figures.
The author makes occasional mistakes: Paul Gottfried will get a laugh out of seeing himself described as a “Straussian,” and VDARE.com itself is called “white nationalist.” I do not believe this indicates malice on the author’s part, but only excessive trust in mainstream sources.
In fact, the French reader initially drawn in by the sensational title Suprémacistes may be disappointed by the insufficiently diabolical nature of the interviewees. The author stresses that he is only reporting on, not endorsing, the new nationalism. But some of his readers may be surprised to find their sympathies engaged.
Now let’s see if (unlike Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together) it will be allowed to appear in English.
Martin Witkerk [Email him] is an independent philosopher.


vdare--2020-10-19--Patrick J. Buchanan: Can America Do It All?

In fiscal year 2020 , which ended on Sept. 30 , the U.S. government set some impressive new records .
The deficit came in at $ 3.1 trillion , twice the previous record of $ 1.4 trillion in 2009 , which was set during the Great Recession , and three times the 2019 deficit of about $ 1 trillion .
Federal spending hit $ 6.5 trillion , one-third of U.S. gross domestic product , a share unrivaled except for the later years of World War II when federal spending exceeded 40 % of GDP .
The U.S. national debt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , now stands at $ 21 trillion , roughly the same size as U.S. GDP .
In fiscal year 2021 , the deficit could be of the same magnitude as 2020 .
Why so ?
First , the economy is not fully recovered from the 2020 depression .
Unemployment is still near 8 % .
Nancy Pelosi has already proposed $ 2.2 trillion in new spending to battle the effects of the coronavirus pandemic in the first month of this fiscal year .
And COVID-19 cases are spiking again .
With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and growing faster now , a question arises : Where does this end ?
How many more multitrillion-dollar deficits can we sustain before the quality of U.S. debt is called into question by Japan , China and the other nations that traditionally buy and hold U.S. debt ?
How long before the value of the U.S. dollar is questioned ?
How long before our creditors start demanding higher interest rates to compensate for the rising risks they are taking in buying the bonds of so profligate a nation ?
According to Stein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers who enunciated it , if something can not go on forever , it will stop .
Or was Herb Stein wrong , and we can borrow and spend forever ?
Consider the built-in engines of spending that were causing trillion-dollar deficits even before the coronavirus hit ?
With the huge baby boomer generation , born between 1946 and 1964 , only half retired and still reaching 65 and 66 in the millions every year , the claims on Social Security and Medicare , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are certain to grow .
So , too , are the claims on Medicaid , health care for the poor , the next largest item in the budget .
With unemployment at 8 % , other social programs that date to the Great Society days of over half a century ago — welfare , housing , education , nutrition — and consume a large share of our budget , are unlikely to shrink .
Interest on the debt , as the U.S. national debt rises and becomes riskier , is also likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up .
Which brings us to that other major budget item : national defense .
The Trump era has already produced a significant increase in defense spending , while defense commitments have seen no reduction .
We are obligated to defend some 30 NATO allies from the Atlantic to the Baltic and Black seas .
In the Middle and Near East , we have troops stationed in Turkey , Syria , Iraq , Jordan , Kuwait , Bahrain , Qatar , the UAE , Saudi Arabia , Oman , Afghanistan and Djibouti on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new strategic `` pivot to Asia , '' U.S. troops and ships have moved into the Indo-Pacific region to contain China in what is being called Cold War II .
Then there are the U.S. treaty commitments to defend Japan , South Korea , the Philippines , Australia and New Zealand dating to the '50s Allies are our strength , we are told .
They are also our dependents .
This morning came press reports that ISIS , whose caliphate in Syria and Iraq we annihilated , is turning up in Africa .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the global war on terror .
The question here is a simple one : Can we continue to do it all ?
Our resources are not inexhaustible .
Already , U.S. GDP is receding as a share of global GDP , and the defense budget is receding as a share of U.S. GDP .
We are being obligated to do more and more , at home and abroad , while our share of the world 's wealth is less and less .
Can we continue to maintain strategic parity and contain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia and China ?
Can we continue to defend South Korea and Japan from Kim Jong Un and his nuclear arsenal , confront and choke the Ayatollah 's regime in Iran and , at the same time , reconstruct George H. W. Bush 's `` new world order '' ?
While doing all this , can we overcome the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago , and deal with a national divide and racial crisis as bad as any since the 1960s , if not the Civil War ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers ; his books State of Emergency : The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America , and Suicide of a Superpower : Will America Survive to 2025 ?
are available from Amazon.com .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ The Greatest Comeback : How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .
His latest book , published May , 2018 , is “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s review : “ Wheel And Fight ” —Pat Buchanan ’ s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump .

In fiscal year 2020, which ended on Sept. 30, the U.S. government set some impressive new records.
The deficit came in at $3.1 trillion, twice the previous record of $1.4 trillion in 2009, which was set during the Great Recession, and three times the 2019 deficit of about $1 trillion.
Federal spending hit $6.5 trillion, one-third of U.S. gross domestic product, a share unrivaled except for the later years of World War II when federal spending exceeded 40% of GDP.
The U.S. national debt, $14 trillion when Donald Trump took office, now stands at $21 trillion, roughly the same size as U.S. GDP.
In fiscal year 2021, the deficit could be of the same magnitude as 2020.
Why so? First, the economy is not fully recovered from the 2020 depression. Unemployment is still near 8%. Nancy Pelosi has already proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending to battle the effects of the coronavirus pandemic in the first month of this fiscal year. And COVID-19 cases are spiking again.
With the national debt already equal to the GDP, and growing faster now, a question arises: where does this end?
How many more multitrillion-dollar deficits can we sustain before the quality of U.S. debt is called into question by Japan, China and the other nations that traditionally buy and hold U.S. debt?
How long before the value of the U.S. dollar is questioned?
How long before our creditors start demanding higher interest rates to compensate for the rising risks they are taking in buying the bonds of so profligate a nation?
According to Stein's Law, named after Herb Stein, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers who enunciated it, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
Or was Herb Stein wrong, and we can borrow and spend forever?
Consider the built-in engines of spending that were causing trillion-dollar deficits even before the coronavirus hit.
With the huge baby boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, only half retired and still reaching 65 and 66 in the millions every year, the claims on Social Security and Medicare, the two largest programs in the U.S. budget, are certain to grow. So, too, are the claims on Medicaid, health care for the poor, the next largest item in the budget.
With unemployment at 8%, other social programs that date to the Great Society days of over half a century ago — welfare, housing, education, nutrition — and consume a large share of our budget, are unlikely to shrink.
Interest on the debt, as the U.S. national debt rises and becomes riskier, is also likely to be headed one way — straight up.
Which brings us to that other major budget item: national defense.
The Trump era has already produced a significant increase in defense spending, while defense commitments have seen no reduction.
We are obligated to defend some 30 NATO allies from the Atlantic to the Baltic and Black seas. In the Middle and Near East, we have troops stationed in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Afghanistan and Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.
With the new strategic "pivot to Asia," U.S. troops and ships have moved into the Indo-Pacific region to contain China in what is being called Cold War II. Then there are the U.S. treaty commitments to defend Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand dating to the '50s.
Allies are our strength, we are told. They are also our dependents.
This morning came press reports that ISIS, whose caliphate in Syria and Iraq we annihilated, is turning up in Africa. A new front may be opening up in the global war on terror.
The question here is a simple one: Can we continue to do it all?
Our resources are not inexhaustible.
Already, U.S. GDP is receding as a share of global GDP, and the defense budget is receding as a share of U.S. GDP.
We are being obligated to do more and more, at home and abroad, while our share of the world's wealth is less and less.
Can we continue to maintain strategic parity and contain the ambitions of the other great powers, Russia and China?
Can we continue to defend South Korea and Japan from Kim Jong Un and his nuclear arsenal, confront and choke the Ayatollah's regime in Iran and, at the same time, reconstruct George H. W. Bush's "new world order"?
While doing all this, can we overcome the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu of 100 years ago, and deal with a national divide and racial crisis as bad as any since the 1960s, if not the Civil War?
We're going to find out.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.
His latest book, published May, 2018, is “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
See Peter Brimelow’s review: “Wheel And Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump.


vdare--2020-10-19--Former Biden Advisor Anna Makanju Is Ukrainian, Nigerian, AND Jewish: What Kind Of "Collusion" Is Sh

Former Biden Advisor Anna Makanju Is Ukrainian, Nigerian, AND Jewish: What Kind Of "Collusion" Is She Committing On Facebook?

A recent story about a former Biden adviser employed by Facebook says she 's not only involved in covering up reported involvement by Biden in Ukrainian corruption , but might have been , in her capacity as Adviser to VP Biden , in committing some of it .
The thing is , it does n't say where she 's from herself .
As Ann Coulter pointed out during the phony impeachment ( see above ) , this is very important when you 're dealing with Presidential Advisors .
The person currently in charge of Facebook ’ s election integrity program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean a lot to you , but it should mean a lot – and in a comforting way -- to Joe Biden ... .
Makanju also worked at the Atlantic Council .
The following is the relevant part of Makanju ’ s professional bio from her page at the Atlantic Council ( emphasis mine ) : Anna Makanju is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative .
She is a public policy and legal expert working at Facebook , where she leads efforts to ensure election integrity on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden , senior policy adviser to Ambassador Samantha Power at the United States Mission to the United Nations , director for Russia at the National Security Council , and the chief of staff for European and NATO Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense .
She has also taught at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University and worked as a consultant to a leading company focused on space technologies .
Makanju was a player in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , when the Democrats were gearing up for the impeachment , Glenn Kessler mentioned her in an article assuring Washington Post readers that , contrary to the Trump administration ’ s claims , there was nothing corrupt about Biden ’ s dealings with Ukraine .
He made the point then that Biden now raises as a defense : Biden didn ’ t pressure Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma ; he did it because Shokin wasn ’ t doing his job when it came to investigating corruption .
Does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revelations ?
by Andrea Widburg , American Thinker , October 18 , 2020 Well , using the `` What Kind Of Name Is That '' investigative technique , I was able to determine that in addition to being Ukrainian , like Colonel Vindman , Ms. Makanju is also Nigerian .
She 's a food enthusiast , in addition to her foreign policy and `` election integrity '' interests , and provided this biographical information to ChefsFeed : Anya was born in the former Soviet Union to a Ukrainian mom and a Nigerian dad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has since lived , studied , worked and eaten all over the world .
She first fell in love with food while studying in France and working in a tiny bistro .
Anya went on to spend many years in the business .
Although her life took a tragic turn many years ago when she accidentally went to law school , she has never forgotten her true love and is excited to share it with you .
Well , that would be great if we were having a dinner catered , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recipe for either American `` election integrity '' or American foreign policy , even under Obama 's America Last administration .
In fact , it sounds like some kind of `` collusion '' might be involved , but it 's difficult to say what kind .

Earlier by Ann Coulter on Immigrant Col. Vindman: He's A One-Man Ukrainian Lobby
A recent story about a former Biden adviser employed by Facebook says she's not only involved in covering up reported involvement by Biden in Ukrainian corruption, but might have been, in her capacity as Adviser to VP Biden, in committing some of it.
The thing is, it doesn't say where she's from herself. As Ann Coulter pointed out during the phony impeachment (see above), this is very important when you're dealing with Presidential Advisors.
American Thinker writes
The person currently in charge of Facebook’s election integrity program is Anna Makanju. That name probably doesn’t mean a lot to you, but it should mean a lot – and in a comforting way -- to Joe Biden.... Makanju also worked at the Atlantic Council. The following is the relevant part of Makanju’s professional bio from her page at the Atlantic Council (emphasis mine): Anna Makanju is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative. She is a public policy and legal expert working at Facebook, where she leads efforts to ensure election integrity on the platform. Previously, she was the special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden, senior policy adviser to Ambassador Samantha Power at the United States Mission to the United Nations, director for Russia at the National Security Council, and the chief of staff for European and NATO Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She has also taught at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University and worked as a consultant to a leading company focused on space technologies. Makanju was a player in the faux Ukraine impeachment. Early in December 2019, when the Democrats were gearing up for the impeachment, Glenn Kessler mentioned her in an article assuring Washington Post readers that, contrary to the Trump administration’s claims, there was nothing corrupt about Biden’s dealings with Ukraine. He made the point then that Biden now raises as a defense: Biden didn’t pressure Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma; he did it because Shokin wasn’t doing his job when it came to investigating corruption. Does this explain why Facebook suppressed Hunter Biden revelations? by Andrea Widburg, American Thinker, October 18, 2020
Well, using the "What Kind Of Name Is That" investigative technique, I was able to determine that in addition to being Ukrainian, like Colonel Vindman, Ms. Makanju is also Nigerian. She's a food enthusiast, in addition to her foreign policy and "election integrity" interests, and provided this biographical information to ChefsFeed:
Anya was born in the former Soviet Union to a Ukrainian mom and a Nigerian dad and raised by her Jewish grandparents. She has since lived, studied, worked and eaten all over the world. She first fell in love with food while studying in France and working in a tiny bistro. Anya went on to spend many years in the business. Although her life took a tragic turn many years ago when she accidentally went to law school, she has never forgotten her true love and is excited to share it with you. Anna Makanju | ChefsFeed
Well, that would be great if we were having a dinner catered, but I don't know that it's a recipe for either American "election integrity" or American foreign policy, even under Obama's America Last administration.
In fact, it sounds like some kind of "collusion" might be involved, but it's difficult to say what kind.


vdare--2020-10-19--Borat Is Back, And He Really Hates Trump

From the New York Times : Reviving his Borat character and playing the political activist Abbie Hoffman , the actor feels he “ had to ring the alarm bell and say that democracy is in peril this year.
” … Ali G pitched Donald Trump about investing in an ice cream glove that would prevent your hand from getting sticky .
Mr. Trump , who walked out of the interview in disgust , told me afterward : “ I thought he was seriously retarded .
It was a total con job .
But my daughter Ivanka saw it and thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cohen , who turned 49 this past week , said , “ Obviously , I ’ ve realized that I ’ ve had a longstanding distaste for the president .
That was why I wanted to interview him as Ali G. ” He added , “ His brilliance was to commandeer the very term that was being used against him , ‘ fake news , ’ and use it against every journalist that had journalistic integrity.
” Anyway , as I ’ ve been pointing out since 2006 , Baron Cohen is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the right .
His main characters have always been satires of Amalekites of various flavors motivated by his deep-seated ethnic animuses : Ali G began as a British Muslim yoof , Borat is a Cossack and the Borat movie is one long Polack joke , Bruno is an Austrian , and The Dictator is Colonel Gadaffi .
Most of the directors and writers he hires come out of the Seinfeld / Curb Your Enthusiasm Jewish Hollywood center-right , like his long-time director Larry Charles .
From Maureen Dowd ’ s interview : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Larry David ’ s wedding to Ashley Underwood , who was a producer on “ Who Is America ?
” A .
Me and my wife introduced him to her at my birthday party .
Together , we have set up three weddings .
Q .
Your favorite Adam Sandler movie is “ You Don ’ t Mess With the Zohan.
” A .
Listen , I actually tried to get that movie , to rewrite it , to appear in it .
But due to his satires of American Republicans , @ @ @

From the New York Times:
Sacha Baron Cohen: This Time He’s Serious Reviving his Borat character and playing the political activist Abbie Hoffman, the actor feels he “had to ring the alarm bell and say that democracy is in peril this year.” By Maureen Dowd
Oct. 17, 2020
Updated 4:38 p.m. ET … Ali G pitched Donald Trump about investing in an ice cream glove that would prevent your hand from getting sticky. Mr. Trump, who walked out of the interview in disgust, told me afterward: “I thought he was seriously retarded. It was a total con job. But my daughter Ivanka saw it and thought it was very cool.” Mr. Baron Cohen, who turned 49 this past week, said, “Obviously, I’ve realized that I’ve had a longstanding distaste for the president. That was why I wanted to interview him as Ali G.” He added, “His brilliance was to commandeer the very term that was being used against him, ‘fake news,’ and use it against every journalist that had journalistic integrity.”
Well, actually …
Anyway, as I’ve been pointing out since 2006, Baron Cohen is an extreme ethnocentrist, by nature a man of the right. His main characters have always been satires of Amalekites of various flavors motivated by his deep-seated ethnic animuses: Ali G began as a British Muslim yoof, Borat is a Cossack and the Borat movie is one long Polack joke, Bruno is an Austrian, and The Dictator is Colonel Gadaffi.
Most of the directors and writers he hires come out of the Seinfeld / Curb Your Enthusiasm Jewish Hollywood center-right, like his long-time director Larry Charles. From Maureen Dowd’s interview:
Q. You gave a Zoom toast at Larry David’s wedding to Ashley Underwood, who was a producer on “Who Is America?” A. Me and my wife introduced him to her at my birthday party. Together, we have set up three weddings. Q. Your favorite Adam Sandler movie is “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan.” A. Listen, I actually tried to get that movie, to rewrite it, to appear in it.
But due to his satires of American Republicans, nobody notices.
[Comment at Unz.com]