MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Race’

New York is Using Race to Determine Access to a Limited Supply of Life-Saving COVID Treatments

Posted by M. C. on January 2, 2022

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/new-york-is-using-race-to-determine

Glenn Greenwald

Monoclonal Antibody Treatments Save Lives,” announcedthe New York City Department of Health in an October 26 public notice. These treatments “are available and lifesaving,” the agency said, noting that they “have averted at least 1,100 hospitalizations and at least 500 deaths among people treated in New York City.” The agency urged the public to seek out these monoclonal antibody treatments as soon as possible: “When given early after symptom onset, mAb treatments can decrease the risk of hospitalization and death due to COVID-19, which is why it is crucial to get tested for COVID-19 as soon as symptoms begin – the sooner someone is tested, the sooner treatment can begin.”

The city’s health agency quoted its own Health Commissioner Dr. Dave A. Chokshi: “the science shows that monoclonal antibody treatments work and can make all the difference when it comes to the severity of COVID-19 illness.” It thus urged that “treatment should be given as soon as possible after someone tests positive for COVID-19.” Studies from Pfizer, cited by the agency, independently demonstrated just how effective the company’s antiviral treatment, called Paxlovid, can be: it “decreased Covid-19-linked hospitalisation or mortality risk from any cause by 88%.”

New York City Department of Health Press Release, Oct. 26, 2021

But with the Omicron variant now the dominant COVID strain in New York, both the city and state are facing severe shortages in the availability of effective antiviral monoclonal treatments. While Pfizer claimed its antiviral treatment would work against Omicron, the New York State Department of Health issued a memo to all health care providers this week warning that “Sotrovimab (Xevudy) is the only authorized monoclonal antibody product expected to be effective against the omicron variant.” Yet due to “a significant surge in cases and reduced effectiveness of existing therapeutics due to the omicron variant,” the agency warned that “supplies of oral antivirals will be extremely limited initially.” As of this week, the agency also said the same of its monoclonal antibody treatment: “supplies of Sotrovimab are extremely limited.”

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Our New Religion of Race – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on July 16, 2020

After all, who cares about the safety of little girls these days compared with the suddenly sacrosanct right of a black adult to trespass without any nonblack objecting?

https://www.takimag.com/article/our-new-religion-of-race/

Steve Sailer

St. Paul famously wrote to the Galatians:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

But America in the era of George Floyd (may he rest in power) appears to be inventing a new religion of race.

In accordance with our culture’s declining intellectual prowess, our new creed is a very simple faith, with one black-and-white dogma:

Blacks are best and whites are worst.

In 2020, all you need to know is who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

Everything else follows inevitably. For example, whites are sinners and must be disciplined, while blacks are saints and must be indulged.

As you may have noticed, the spelling of the word “black” has recently been subjected by the mainstream media to “reverential capitalization,” much as in Victorian translations of the Bible, pronouns that refer to God were capitalized.

The point of newspapers now capitalizing “Black” but, pointedly, not “white” is to make clear that blacks are of a higher caste than whites. An Aryan conqueror in ancient India would have immediately understood the purpose of the symbolism.

India now, by the way, has millions of stray sacred cows roaming the streets, causing traffic accidents and devouring crops. (In case you are wondering where sacred cows come from, they are elderly animals that have stopped giving milk. Increasingly, laws in India ban their slaughter, so dairy farmers take them at night to somebody else’s neighborhood and turn them loose.)

“In 2020, all you need to know is who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”

In the past few years, Hindus of the higher sort of castes have become even more obsessive than normal about protecting bovine rights, with vegetarian vigilante mobs lashing out violently at Untouchables, Muslims, and Christians for disrespecting cows. Cow Lives Matter!

Here in America, blacks are currently being reconceptualized as no longer our fellow citizens but now as our own sacred cows, entitled to wander wherever their whims lead them with nobody daring to tell them no.

An amusingly literal manifestation of this trend was the outpouring of antiwhite hate and guilt in Los Angeles this month when a black stuntwoman-actress named Alex Marshall-Brown planted her blanket on the private lawn of St. Paul’s First Lutheran church and school in North Hollywood, Calif., and began painting her toenails.

She could have had all the room to sit that she wanted if she’d walked across the street to the spacious North Hollywood Park (the park where John Cusack holds up the boombox in Say Anything…).

Instead, she began her publicity stunt on the private lawn and then began videoing the reaction she instigated.

Not surprisingly, St. Paul’s workers did not want anybody spreading a blanket on their grass, because a blanket serves as a flag to the many homeless of the NoHo entertainment district that this property has been colonized and is now open for their occupation.

When the attention seeker repeatedly refused to leave the church’s grounds, saying that she didn’t see a “No Trespassing” sign, one church worker eventually nailed a sign to a tree. She egged him into uttering on camera the unholiest words known to the contemporary mind:

“Ma’am. We have to treat everybody the same. All lives matter.”

In the Los Angeles Times, their city beat columnist Nita Lelyveld lamented:

A Black woman sat on the grass outside an L.A. church. The cold welcome she recorded speaks volumes

In contrast to the virtuous Black, Lelyveld castigated the wicked whites for not fully foreseeing their fate and thus falling into her trap:

…That their shameful behavior, which she soon would post on Facebook, might rapidly spread across social media and go viral seems either not to have occurred to or not to have bothered the white church members she filmed.

In reality, preschools like St. Paul’s are extremely concerned about losing control of their property and thus attracting Aqualung-type men “eyeing little girls with bad intent.” As the L.A. Times complained:

Marshall-Brown, wondering who had made the first call [to unarmed security guards whom the intruder had refused to heed], then noticed women in the windows of the church’s preschool across the street, clearly monitoring her without looking at her directly…. Each time I watch the video, that realization hits me like a gut punch—that these people from a church were dehumanizing her….

After all, who cares about the safety of little girls these days compared with the suddenly sacrosanct right of a black adult to trespass without any nonblack objecting?

The L.A. Times exclaimed:

The church members threaten to bring in the police and show no compunction about the potential danger that could come from doing so.

This is a growing doctrine: Because the police, as we all know, constantly slaughter blacks out of their unfathomable racist hatred, white victims of black lawbreaking should abstain from calling law enforcement. For instance, The New York Times reported in June:

Blocks from where George Floyd drew his last breaths, residents have vowed to avoid the police to protect people of color.

A Minneapolis white man told the newspaper that he was ashamed of calling the police after two black youths held a gun to his chest and demanded his car keys:

“I regret calling the police. It was my instinct but I wish it hadn’t been. I put those boys in danger of death by calling the cops.”

In effect, by declaring blacks to be above the law, American elites are suddenly subscribing to a blacks-only version of Satanist Aleister Crowley’s teaching:

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”

Why has America succumbed to black worship at a time of high unemployment?

As L. Ron Hubbard likely said to his fellow science-fiction authors in the 1940s, “Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be to start his own religion.”

But the new belief isn’t, like Scientology, a mere cult. Instead, it’s rapidly becoming the official ruling-class religion of the United States.

Not coincidentally, it provides an ever-growing number of sinecures for its priestly caste of Diversity Inclusion Equity (DIE) staffers.

Because the empirical evidence that, relative to whites, blacks are saints is less than abundant, this theology provides plenty of employment for heretic hunters. Any white person could slip up at any moment and blurt out the truth: that what we are supposed to take on faith is a hoax. Hence, America’s institutions must hire many, many white-collar witch sniffers.

What religion could be more rational than that?

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Keynes on Eugenics, Race, and Population Control | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 16, 2019

Eugenics…it back.

In September 1925, he traveled with the SCR to the Soviet Union and he lectured to the Soviet Politburo. He said, “There is no more important object of deliberate state policy than to secure a balanced budget of population.”

https://mises.org/wire/keynes-eugenics-race-and-population-control?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=a66cb00eae-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-a66cb00eae-228343965

The literature on John Maynard Keynes’s life and ideas is enormous. However, his defenders have neglected his views on population. Why? His ideas in this area are highly problematic. This article provides documentation that shows Keynes advocated extensive government controls on the size and quality of the population.

Keynes was interested in eugenics from the very beginning of his academic career. His first major academic project was his fellowship dissertation, submitted in December 1907. In the dissertation, he refers to Sir Francis Galton’s essay Probability: The Foundation of Eugenics. This shows that Keynes was already interested in eugenics by 1907.1

fuller1.PNG
Image published with permission from ProQuest. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission.

The famous British economist Alfred Marshall was extremely close to the Keynes family. Keynes’s biographers note that he and Marshall debated Karl Pearson in 1910, but they suppressed the debate’s relation to eugenics.2 Marshall wrote to Keynes on July 14, 1910, “I am keeping as clear as I can of your ground & urging every one interested in Eugenics to read your paper. It is splendid.”3 In 1911, Keynes became treasurer of the Cambridge University Eugenics Society. On May 18, Marshall sent Keynes payment for lifetime membership in the society.4

On May 2, 1914, Keynes gave a speech called “Population.” This is perhaps his most important work on population. Unfortunately, this inaccessible speech was not included in The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. A full transcript of the speech is included in the appendix below. After praising Malthus, he declares,

That degree of populousness in the world, which is most to be desired, is not to be expected from the working of natural order. … The natural degree of populousness is likely to exceed the ideal. … In most places the material condition of mankind is inferior to what it might be if their populousness were to be diminished. … In many, if not in most, parts of the world there actually exists at the present time a denser population than is compatible with a high level of economic wellbeing.5

To Keynes’s mind, “there would be more happiness in the world if the population of it were to be diminished.”6 Thus, he advocated government violence to restrict the size of the population. He wanted government to “mould law and custom deliberately to bring about that density of population which there ought to be.”7

Keynes was especially concerned about overpopulation in the East: “India, Egypt and China are gravely overpopulated.”8 He thought his race was facing a “race struggle.”9 He advocated the use of imperialistic government violence against Eastern races to protect the “white population.”

Almost any measures seem to me to be justified in order to protect our standard of life from injury at the hands of more prolific races. Some definite parceling out of the world may well become necessary; and I suppose that this may not improbably provoke racial wars. At any rate such wars will be about a substantial issue.10

fuller2.PNG
Image published with permission from ProQuest. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission.

In the early 1920s, Keynes wrote an outline for a book called Essays on the Economic Future of the World. The fourth essay was on “Population” and the tenth essay was on “Education, Eugenics.” Interestingly, the eighth essay was on Keynes’s “Theoretical socialist framework.”

fuller3.PNG
Image published with permission from ProQuest. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission.

On January 4, 1923, Keynes wrote an article in the press called “The Underlying Principles.” He advocates restricting the number of births with government violence. But this may be insufficient. He imagines “positive policy” to reduce the population.

In the light of present knowledge I am unable to see any possible method of materially improving the average human lot which does not include a plan for restricting the increase in numbers [of population]. … It may prove sufficient to render the restriction of offspring safe and easy. … Perhaps a more positive policy may be required. … [I] would like to substitute [government] schemes conceived by the mind in place of the undesigned outcome of instinct and individual advantage playing within the pattern of existing institutions.11

On June 8, 1924, Keynes wrote an outline for a book called Prolegomena to a New Socialism. As shown below, he lists “Eugenics, Population” as “Chief Preoccupations of the State.” Clearly, government control over the quantity and quality of the population was key to his new socialism, or “rightly conceived socialism of the future.”12

fuller4.PNG
Image published with permission from ProQuest. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission.

In July 1924, Keynes was a founding vice president of the Society for Cultural Relations with the USSR (SCR for short). This socialist society was financed and controlled by VOKS, the Soviet government’s international propaganda agency. In September 1925, he traveled with the SCR to the Soviet Union and he lectured to the Soviet Politburo. He said, “There is no more important object of deliberate state policy than to secure a balanced budget of population.”13 He exclaimed,

I believe that there are many other matters, left hitherto to individuals or to chance, which must become in future the subject of deliberate state policy and centralised state control. Let me mention two — (1) the size and quality of the population and (2) the magnitude and direction of employment of the new national savings year by year [that is, socialization of investment].14

Leon Trotsky attended Keynes’s speech, and he observed: “Even the most progressive economist Keynes told us only the other day that the salvation of the British economy lies in Malthusianism! And for England, too, the road of overcoming the contradiction between city and country leads through Socialism.”15

Keynes was the chairman of the Malthusian League. He declared in his 1927 address to the league: “We of this society are neo-Malthusians,” and “I believe that for the future the problem of population will emerge in the much greater problem of Hereditary and Eugenics. Quality must become the preoccupation.”

fuller5.PNG
Image published with permission from ProQuest. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission.

Keynes was vice president of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. Just 66 days before his death in 1946, he endorsed “the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics.”16

Keynes’s views on population are central to his politico-economic vision. No doubt, he viewed population as one of the most important problems facing humankind: “The question of population is the first and perhaps the most urgent and important of the problems facing those who seek to improve the material condition of mankind.”17 Keynes’s ideas on population must serve as a warning about Keynesian theory and policy. His Malthusianism indicates that he had a defective understanding of the division of labor and the law of returns. Beyond that, his population policies reveal the totalitarianism inherent in the Keynesian vision.

Appendix: “Population” by John Maynard Kenyes (1914)

Robert Malthus, the first of the Cambridge economists, came up to Jesus [College at Cambridge University] in 1784. He is said to have been fond of cricket and skating, obtained prizes for Latin and English Declamations, graduated as ninth wrangler in 1788 and was admitted Fellow of Jesus in 1793. He resided irregularly up to his marriage in 1804, and had the pleasure of signing an order to cut Coleridge off the kitchens for non-payment of his college bill, an indignity not unavenged afterwards by various members of the Lake School. The grandfather or great-grandfather, in his intellectual associations, of some of our own, Malthus was an original member of that Political Economy Club whose dinners still enliven the first Wednesday of every month, and of the Royal Statistical Society whose teas depress the first Tuesday.

In later life Malthus engaged in the controversy with Ricardo, out of which was hatched the Ricardian law of Rent; and the loss of his fellowship through marriage was the occasion of his becoming the first occupant of the first chair of Political Economy established in this country, the Professorship of History and Political Economy in the East-India College at Haileybury.

What we know of Malthus’s father Daniel must be added to these few details relating to Jesus and Haileybury, to complete a picture of ease, reflection, and gentleness. Daniel Malthus had been a friend and correspondent of Rousseau, and, it is alleged, one of his executors. He spent his life at the Rookery, ‘a small but beautiful estate’ between Guildford and Dorking, and is described as ‘a gentleman of good family and independent fortune attached to a country life, but much occupied in classical and philosophic pursuits, and with a strong bias towards foreign literature.’ Diffidence or idleness had prevented his bringing his powers to fruition; he was conscious of this; and anxious that his son should not suffer a like fate. He spent, therefore, peculiar pains on his son’s education, choosing for one of his instructors Gilbert Wakefield, and kept him under his own immediate supervision, until the time came for him to go to Wakefield’s college Jesus; — a course of action commented on thus by Malthus’s biographer Otter — ‘From some peculiar opinions which his father seems to have entertained respecting education, he was never sent to any public school; and in this respect, is one, amongst many other remarkable instances in the present time, of men who have risen into eminence under the disadvantage of an irregular and desultory education.’

A few letters, which have been preserved, written by Daniel Malthus to his son, when the latter was an undergraduate at Jesus, present the father’s character in a strong and amiable light. I will quote from a letter written by his father to Robert Malthus on his election to a fellowship: —

I heartily congratulate you upon your success; it gives me a sort of pleasure which arises from my own regrets. The things which I have missed in life, I should the more sensibly wish for you. Alas! my dear Bob, I have no right to talk to you of idleness, but when I wrote that letter to you with which you were displeased, I was deeply impressed with my own broken purposes and imperfect pursuits; I thought I foresaw in you, from the memory of my own youth, the same tendency to lose the steps you had gained, with the same disposition to self-reproach, and I wished to make my unfortunate experience of some use to you. It was, indeed, but little that you wanted it, which made me the more eager to give it you, and I wrote to you with more tenderness of heart than I would in general pretend to, and committed myself in a certain manner which made your answer a rough disappointment to me, and it drove me back into myself. You have, as you say, worn out that impression, and you have a good right to have done it; for I have seen in you the most unexceptionable character, the sweetest manners, the most sensible and the kindest conduct, always above throwing little stones into my garden, which you know I don’t easily forgive, and uniformly making everybody easy and amused about you. Nothing can have been wanting to what, if I were the most fretful and fastidious, I could have required in a companion; and nothing even to my wishes for your happiness, but where they were either whimsical, or unreasonable, or most likely mistaken. I have often been on the point of taking hold of your hand and bursting into tears at the time that I was refusing you my affections: my approbation I was precipitate to give you.

Write to me, if I could do anything about your church, and you want any thing to be done for you, such as I am, believe me, dear Bob, yours most affectionately,

Daniel Malthus

Malthus’s first essay in authorship, The Crisis, a View of the Recent Interesting State of Great Britain by a Friend to the Constitution, written in 1796, in his thirtieth year, in criticism of Pitt’s administration, failed to find a publisher. Extracts quoted by Otter and by Empson indicate that his interest was already aroused in the social problems of political economy, and even in the question of population itself:

On the subject of population [he wrote] I cannot agree with Archdeacon Paley; who says, that the quantity of happiness in any country is best measured by the number of people. Increasing population is the most certain possible sign of the happiness and prosperity of a state; but the actual population may be only a sign of the happiness that is past.

In 1798, when Malthus was thirty-two years old, there was published anonymously An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the future improvement of Society: with remarks on the speculations of Mr Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other writers.

It was in conversation with Daniel Malthus that there occurred to Robert Malthus the generalization which has made him famous. The story is well known on the authority of Bishop Otter who had it from Malthus himself. In 1793 Godwin’s Political Justice had appeared. In frequent discussion the father defended, and the son attacked, the doctrine of a future age of perfect equality and happiness.

And when the question had been often the subject of animated discussion between them, and the son had rested his cause, principally upon the obstacles which the tendency of population, to increase faster than the means of subsistence, would always throw in the way; he was desired to put down in writing, for maturer consideration, the substance of his argument, the consequence of which was the Essay on Population. Whether the father was converted or not we do not know, but certain it is that he was strongly impressed with the importance of the views and the ingenuity of the argument contained in the MS., and recommended his son to submit his labours to the public.

The first edition, an octavo volume of about 50,000 words, is an almost completely different, and for posterity a superior book, to the second edition of five years later in quarto, which by the fifth edition had swollen to some 250,000 words in three volumes. 250,000 by an elaboration of proof and historical research, without any substantial improvement in the author’s clear and striking statement of the fundamental principles involved. Just as the fruitfulness and originality of Cambridge is largely preserved by the deficiencies of the University library, so the first edition of this book is not really the worse from having been written, as Malthus explains in the preface to the second edition, ‘on the impulse of the occasion, and from the few materials which were then within my reach in a country situation.’

Malthus’s Essay is a very great book. The author was deeply conscious of the bigness of the ideas he was elaborating. It is no case of a man of second-rate powers hitting, more by good fortune than desert, on an unexpectedly important generalisation. Indeed his leading idea had been largely anticipated in a clumsier way by other eighteenth century writers without attracting attention.

The high-spirited rhetoric of a young man writing in the last years of the Directory disappears from the late editions, which are quieter, more businesslike, more strictly attentive to the duties of a scientific pioneer in the study of sociological history.

This is how he begins —

the rest here

Be seeing you

Policy Science Kills - Foundation for Economic Education

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Biden Goes All in on the Race Issue – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 9, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/patrick-j-buchanan/biden-goes-all-in-on-the-race-issue/

By

Those who believed America’s racial divide would begin to close with the civil rights acts of the 1960s and the election of a black president in this century appear to have been overly optimistic.

The race divide seems deeper and wider than at any time in our lifetimes. Most of the aspiring leaders of the Democratic Party have apparently concluded that branding the president a “racist” and “white supremacist” is the strategy to pursue to win the nomination and the White House.

Here is Joe Biden, speaking in Iowa as President Donald Trump was visiting the wounded communities of Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas: “This president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation. … The energetic embrace of this president by the darkest hearts and the most hate-filled minds in this country says it all.

“We have a problem with this rising tide of … white supremacy in America. And we have a president who encourages and emboldens it.”

What had Trump done to invite such a charge?

The key piece of evidence linking Trump to the mass murderer of El Paso, is a single phrase out of a 2,000-word screed posted on social media, allegedly by the gunman minutes before carrying out his atrocity.

Patrick Crusius said he was striking this blow against the “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” And Donald Trump has often used that term, invasion, to describe the crisis on the border.

Yet the word “invasion” to label what is happening on America’s Southern border long predated Trump, and, moreover, is both an accurate and valid description.

Consider. There are, by most estimates, at least 11 million migrants in the United States illegally, the equivalent of the entire population of Cuba. Lately, migrants have been crossing the Mexican border at a rate of 100,000 a month. If one had to choose a word to describe graphically what is going on, would it not be invasion?

What a panicked establishment, and its stable of candidates, is doing is transparent. By declaring “invasion” — a legitimate description of what is transpiring on the Southern border — to be inherently racist, it is conceding the word has power and is an effective weapon in the political arsenal of those the establishment seeks to censor, stigmatize and silence.

Trump’s adversaries want to stop him from using his most powerful and compelling arguments and images, the ones that enabled him to win the presidency and oust them from power. The left is now using “white supremacy” as its new hate term, because “racist” has all but lost its sting from overuse.

But Biden’s raising of the race issue is going to come back and bite him.

Said Joe in Iowa: “Our president has more in common with George Wallace than George Washington.”

Yet, that greatest of the Founding Fathers, George Washington, whom Biden invoked as his beau ideal of a leader, was a slave owner and demonstrably more of a white supremacist than Trump.

And Biden is likely to be reminded of this by Sen. Cory Booker, his rival for the crucial black vote in the primaries, who, as Joe was speaking in Iowa, was at Emanuel AME Zion church in Charleston, South Carolina, tearing into the founding generation of Washington, Jefferson and Madison:

“Bigotry was written into our founding documents,” said Booker. “White supremacy has always been a problem in our American story.”

“Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny — these tactics aren’t a new perversion,” Booker went on. “They’ve been ingrained in our politics since our foundation.”

Are American voters supposed to respond warmly to this?

Biden’s words in Iowa — “We have a president who has aligned himself with the darkest forces in this nation” — appear to be a lift from Robert Kennedy’s attack on LBJ when Bobby announced for president just days after Lyndon Johnson was badly wounded in the 1968 New Hampshire primary.

Said Bobby of the father of the Civil Right Act of 1964: “Our national leadership is calling upon the darker impulses of the American spirit.”

LBJ and his associates, Bobby went on, “have removed themselves from the American tradition, from the enduring and generous impulses that are the soul of this nation.”

“We are fighting for the soul of America,” echoed Biden in Iowa.

As for Wallace, whom Biden disparages, he was a segregationist, much like Biden’s patron, Sen. Jim Eastland of Mississippi, who called Joe “son,” and Strom Thurmond, whom Biden eulogized and who conducted the longest filibuster in history — against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

In George Wallace’s salad days, Joe sang a different tune, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer on Oct. 12, 1975:

“I think the Democratic Party could stand a liberal George Wallace — someone who’s not afraid to stand up and offend people, someone who wouldn’t pander but would say what the American people know in their gut is right.”

Perhaps Joe can become such a fearless leader in 2020.

Be seeing you

Hollywood Who's Who Marched With King in '63 ...

My President. Charleton Heston. Marching with King.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ESPN’s ‘First Take’ on Trump-LeBron Feud: ‘Of Course This Is About Race’

Posted by M. C. on August 6, 2018

Smith said he “completely” agrees with Kellerman, reasoning that Trump has a history of questioning the intelligence of black people like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), former President Barack Obama and CNN’s Don Lemon.

Pot/Kettle!

I turned to NPR (sadly, out of drive home boredom) and the talk was about Trump foreign policy. The expert commentator was Bernie Sanders. I thought Wow! Bernie and foreign policy expertise-you will be hard pressed to find to stranger bedfellows.

I was wrong. ESPN and expert political commentary. How does that work?

Anyone taking ESPN/First Take seriously likely has their channel change button frozen in place. CNN headline news (sports segment of course) on an airport TV screen would be a treat. In HD too!

You have to admit ESPN is multicultural, they gladly accept dog torturers and wife beaters as one of their own.

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/08/06/espns-first-take-on-trump-lebron-feud-of-course-this-is-about-race/

by Trent Baker

During Monday’s broadcast of “First Take” on ESPN, co-hosts Max Kellerman and Stephen A. Smith claimed race was behind President Donald Trump bashing LeBron James after the Los Angeles Lakers star criticized him earlier in the week.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Race vs. America – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 16, 2017

Multiculturalism and Progressivism do not work.  Sure ethnic organizations and celebrations have been in the US for generations but those generations have considered themselves Americans.  But now progressives,radical Imams and Raza members grow in number and want to turn America into something else.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11/no_author/doug-casey-on-why-race-will-break-the-u-s-apart-part-ii/

The racial element is still there, but the ideological element is even more pronounced.

In those days, people at least talked to each other. You could have a disagreement, and it was a simple difference of opinion.

It’s much worse now. Today, there’s a visceral hatred between the left and the right, between the people that live in the so-called red counties and blue counties.

You add that to the racial situation. Then throw in the fact that the rich are getting richer at an exponential rate while the middle class is disappearing. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on Why Race Will Break the U.S. Apart, Part I – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on November 15, 2017

https://www.caseyresearch.com/doug-casey-on-why-race-will-break-the-us-apart-part-i/

This post can be reduced to one sentence, which is… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »