Not far from where I live is a place called Sosua. It’s a thriving, touristy and picturesque area, with a reputation for licentiousness – at least in the past…
But going back a bit further, we find that Sosua was the epicenter of Jewish life in this part of Dominican Republic. During WWII, when most countries shut their doors to European Jewish refugees, Dominican Republic welcomed them:
In the late 1930s, few countries were willing to accept Jewish refugees. One nation—the Dominican Republic—opened its doors. Working with the Dominican government, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee provided passage and support to establish a small agricultural settlement in Sosúa—an abandoned banana plantation on the northeastern shore of the Dominican Republic. Jewish settlers built a community that still exists today.
Created in cooperation with the Sosúa Jewish Museum, this bilingual exhibition (in English and Spanish) showed how settlers were recruited, how they came to Sosúa, what awaited them there, how the settlement grew, and the evolution of this small Jewish community.
It seems that there were more men among the settlers than women, so some of the Jewish men ended up marrying local women. I met an Israeli here who said he met the daughter of one such couple a few years ago. I tried to arrange a meeting with her, but the Israeli never followed up, and he’d met her a few years ago, when she was already in her 80s.
A couple of days ago, I visited Sosua, and was fortunate enough to meet an English-speaking local. He showed me some various signs of the Jewish connection, which I photographed for your benefit:
Wall art. The Hebrew reads “I love Sosua*.”
The synagogue/Jewish musuem
The Synagogue/Jewish museum were supposed to be open when I was there, but it was closed, so all I could do was photograph the outside.
I’m told there’s a kosher restaurant in Puerto Plata. Stay tuned for a report on that.
*Interestingly, the Hebrew word for “love” is in the male gender.
A man was killed after he was pushed “into an oncoming train, without provocation,” police in San Diego said Saturday, as a homicide investigation was launched…
Detectives have learned that both the man and the suspect had just exited the southbound trolley at the city’s Old Town Trolley Station “and were walking on the platform when the suspect pushed the male into an oncoming train, without provocation,” police said…
The suspect, who has been described as a light skinned male, 5’7” to 5’9” with a thin build, was wearing all black clothing when they fled the scene on foot, police said.
The victim, whose identity was not released, was described “a white male in his 60’s.”
Apparently, it goes without saying that the perpetrators of such crimes are black, and the only additional information we need is his specific skin color.
Note: There’s a remote possibility that I’m wrong about this, and that this is simply a knee-jerk reaction from me, based on so many previous media deceptions. If this turns out to be the case, I’ll remove this post. Let’s wait and see…
An MSN article (the Inc.com article requires an account to read) by a Diversity Hire (Sonia Thompson) complains that the term “Diversity Hire” is demeaning:
It’s Time To Retire the Term ‘Diversity Hire’
Any time you bring in more diverse talent, the goal and messaging should focus on how the new team members will help your organization be better…
But building a diverse team doesn’t automatically guarantee that you will reap the benefits of one. You need to cultivate an environment that makes it ripe for everyone on your team to thrive, especially those who are part of underrepresented groups.
A simple way to start laying the foundation for that inclusive environment where everyone feels like they belong is getting rid of the term diversity hire…
There is a negative stigma asociated with it. Whether said out loud or not, people who are perceived to be diversity hires are often treated differently by both their peers and others within the organization. People assume this talent was hired, not because of their merit, but because of their race, ethnicity, gender, or other criteria. Others assume that standards were lowered to make it possible for diverse candidates to meet job requirements. Thus people labled diversity hires are often resented, rather than respected.
That’s correct Sonia, this is EXACTLY how you are perceived, and for good reason. The moment a company prioritizes “Diverse hiring” there will be incentives to hire based on Diversity, and penalties for failing to do so. We’ve seen this over and over again, and only the willfully ignorant are unaware of this.
… and now, to add insult to injury, we’re being told it’s forbidden to even use accurate terminology for this phenomenon. How Orwellian of you Sonia!
But I’m not here to talk about something I’ve already discussed countless times. What’s most interesting about this article is the claim that “Diverse” companies make more money. The article doesn’t actually present evidence of this. Instead, it links to it:
This is good news. Not only will it better equip you to authentically serve a broader group of customers, but data shows that diverse teams outperform their peers from a financial standpoint.
Let’s follow that link, shall we?
It takes us to an article from Inc.com, whose heading is:
Want to Outperform Your Peers? A Study of 366 Companies Says Do This 1 Thing
Emerging trends also indicate not doing it will soon be a liability for your company.
Specifically, their data showed companies in the top 25 percent of racial and ethnic diversity were 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their industry norm. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15 percent more likely to have greater than average returns.
The article goes on to list the ways your company could suffer if it fails to hire based on Diversity. Interestingly, the risk of discrimination lawsuits is not featured on the list. It also fails to mention government penalties for a lack of Diversity. For example, this recent demand by the Congressional Black Caucus.
Following the link in the article takes us to yet another Inc.com article, with the heading:
Your Business Growth Will Stall if Your Culture Doesn’t Support Diversity and Inclusion
It goes on to make the same claim, and throws in a few examples, but no actual study…
It does, however, contain a LINK to a study:
As a company making decisions about where allocate precious resources and how to create the most value under serious constraints, a short-term hit is hard to swallow. But the data says that diversity does positively impact team performance…
Following the link, we’re taken to yet another Inc.com article with the heading:
404 Page Not Found
The whole affair is like Russian dolls, and it does look like Inc.com is actually a click mill, where each click represents profits. As for the company that did the one available study in the first place, McKinsey & Co., it appears to be a legitimate company, but their conclusions are open to interpretation.
I’d like to see more details on the study, and I’d like to know if it takes discrimination lawsuits and government coercion into account – because otherwise, it’s a circular argument.
On the one hand, they’re penalizing companies that are “too white” through lawsuits, government penalties and boycotts, which will obviously take a financial toll on “non-Diverse” companies – and then they turn around and tell us that Diversity is important, because you’ll make less money without it. It’s a lot like the mafia sending thugs to your shop, and then offering to protect you for the right price. “Nice business you’ve got there… it’d be a shame if anything happened to it. Hire some Diversity, and we’ll protect you.”
Fox News and other conservative news outlets have been highlighting videos of brazen smash and grab incidents in Democrat-run cities. The claim is that there’s been a marked increase in shoplifting this year.
The video, which is mainly in the form of an interview, makes several points:
It’s not fair to compare this year’s shoplifting statistics with those of last year, since much of the economy was shut down last year. When citing increases in crime, we should take context into account. Last year, most people, including shoplifters, stayed home.
The right-wing media lumps this supposed increase in shoplifting (which is an illusion) with the very real uptick in homicide. To paraphrase, “the increase in homicides is very real and tragic, but Fox loves showing videos of black people shoplifting.”
These days, with the prevalence of cell phones, it’s more easy to capture such events on video. “People can now capture folks shoplifting in a way that they couldn’t before…”
Such reports are “propagandistic” and a “media campaign.”
Fox benefited from a real increase in crime in places like San Fransisco, but it’s not accurate to extrapolate from this, and portray it as a nationwide problem.
A wave of “smash-and-grab” crimes is plaguing upscale stores in major U.S. cities, with mobs of thieves making off with expensive goods in brazen raids. The cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles have seen a several high-profile robberies.
Of course, there’s room for differences of opinion within the same network, but the retailers clearly would not agree with the video. In all fairness, this was mentioned in the video.
Point #2 is more problematic. The host accuses Fox News of racism for showing videos of blacks committing theft, even as he acknowledges the reality of increased homicide rates. Does he not realize that a majority of those homicides are also committed by blacks? If he’s going to bring up race in his conversation about crime, then it’s ridiculous for him to omit this fact – but if he did bring it up, then he would come across as even more ridiculous. In other words, he’s guilty of either ignorance or deception.
Point #3 is laughable. Cell phones have been ubiquitous for several years now. Is he really claiming that people lacked the ability to easily capture video with their cell phones 2 or 3 years ago? Come on man!
Point #4 really takes the cake for hypocrisy. After all, didn’t NBC, and other leftist news organizations, create a media campaign, and propagandize, the death of George Floyd? How dare NBC accuse right-wing news outlets of “propagandizing” these smash-and-grab crimes, when it did far worse with BLM? How many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019? Nine. The police killed 9 unarmed blacks in that year – and this does not automatically mean that all those killings were unjustified. In that same year, 19 unarmed whites were killed by the police.
Point #5 doesn’t even start. Firstly, who cares if “Fox benefits?” Either the news accounts are accurate, or they’re not. If a news outlet “benefits” by doing its job, then so much the better; this should be encouraged. Also, Fox does not portray it as a “Nationwide problem;” it’s portrayed as a problem in Democrat-run cities – and this seems to be accurate. It effects areas where state/local governments have made bad decisions regarding crime.
Hat tip to The Mad Jewess, for bringing this video to our attention:
Actually, this is an addendum to yesterday’s post. The vaccine mandates have little, or nothing, to do with public safety or health; they’re about concentrating power in the hands of the ruling elite, and subjugating the rest of us.
If they were about health or safety, then we would not be seeing the Biden administration encouraging millions of unvaccinated migrants to violate our southern border, and then dispersing them throughout the US. If it were about health and safety, then the ruling elite would not be allowing hospital staffing shortages – as we saw in yesterday’s post. If it were about the public welfare, then we would not be seeing governments, such as in Australia, orchestrating a famine.
You can’t credibly claim that you’re working for public health and safety, and at the same time do everything in your power to spread Covid and cause famine.
The retired Iowa school superintendent died in late November, nearly a month after he was diagnosed with sepsis, a dangerous, blood-borne infection unrelated to the coronavirus.
His daughters think he might have survived if he’d been admitted immediately to a large medical center, where he could have received advanced testing and prompt surgery.
But he stayed for 15 days at Newton’s relatively small hospital because the bigger Iowa facilities said they couldn’t spare a bed for him, his family says. Iowa’s short-staffed hospitals have been jammed for months with patients, including people severely sickened by coronavirus.
“It’s infuriating that people who are not vaccinated are clogging it up,” said Jenifer Owenson of Des Moines, who is one of Weeks’ four children…
On Nov. 17, after 15 days, he was taken to the University of Iowa Hospitals by ambulance. Doctors there determined on Nov. 25 that he needed surgery to clear out a severe infection of an artery near his stomach, where years earlier he’d had a stent installed to repair an aneurysm.
“They said he really had no choice. He needed to have this surgery, or he would die in a few days,” said Owenson’s twin sister, Julia Simanski of Ankeny…
He died on Nov. 28 at age 78…
Representatives of the hospitals declined to comment on Weeks’ case, but they acknowledged the frustration caused by hospital crowding.
“In addition to an increased number of COVID-19 cases and spread of the delta and omicron variants, hospitals across the country are dealing with traumas and experiencing multiple types of illness,” MercyOne spokesperson Marcy Peterson wrote in an email to the Des Moines Register. “This demand is coupled with a reduced number of staff to care for patients. These challenges can strain available resources and contribute to delays in care or other complications for patients.”
She noted that unvaccinated people make up a large percentage of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
We’re told that the likely cause of his death is “overcrowding of hospitals due to Covid, and exacerbated by the large number of unvaccinated people” – but did you notice another factor that is brought up in passing? It’s in paragraph 14, very close to the end of the article (which few people bother to read):
This demand is coupled with a reduced number of staff to care for patients
One wonders what caused this “reduced number of staff,” and if it might have something to do with vaccine policies rolled out just prior to Mr. Weeks’ death.
Citing Concerns Over Staffing Shortages, Some Health Care Providers Hesitate To Issue COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
Kari Gates was one of the protest’s organizers leading chants against the hospital’s recently-announced vaccine mandate for its employees.
She’s a registered nurse at another large Des Moines hospital that’s requiring all employees to be vaccinated this fall. She wouldn’t say which one. But Gates said she opposes all employee mandates.
“Because, you know, medical freedom is very important. You should always be able to decide, you know, what goes into your body, what is done to your body,” Gates said.
Gates said she’s applied for a religious exemption, and if she doesn’t get it, she’s ready to quit.
“I’m not stopping. I feel very strongly about this. And I know a lot of people in this group — all these people behind you — feel the same way,” she said. “So hopefully hospitals think about that, because I think that they might lose a lot of employees.”
The Daily Caller just published an excellent article on what it calls “Race Marxism” in medicine. The entire article is worth reading; it provides many examples of how Critical Race Theory is taking over medicine, and how dangerous this is.
Activists in the medical field are urging doctors to prioritize patients on the basis of race to resolve racial disparities in health outcomes.
Doctors who question this practice or suggest that personal choices drive racial health disparities are punished and silenced.
The highest institutions of medical research, including organizations in the federal government, are pushing a radical, racist ideological takeover of medicine.
The Biden administration proposed giving bonus payments to physicians who acknowledge systemic racism as the primary cause of health differences between racial groups and incorporate so-called “anti-racism” into their medical practices.
The move to pressure healthcare professionals to repeat the claim that racial health disparities are caused by racism and not lifestyle choices is part of a broader, years-long push to hardwire “race Marxism” into the medical field. The effort stretches from medical schools and research institutions to patient care and medical administration, with potentially devastating effects for patients and the healthcare system as a whole.
“Race Marxism,” analogous to “anti-racism” as popularized by Ibram X. Kendi, seeks to promote equal outcomes across racial groups, as opposed to a “colorblind” approach which favors equal opportunity and does not take race into account.
Dr. Erica Li, a pediatrician, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that “race Marxism” — a phrase for which she does not take credit — pits “classes” of people against each other on the basis of race, gender or sexuality rather than economic class, as classical Marxism did.
The ideology’s newfound popularity caused a frenzy in the medical community in 2020 as doctors, researchers, medical schools and other medical institutions sought to infuse “anti-racist” practices into their work.
PATIENT CARE
Doctors and medical institutions are questioning how they allocate limited resources in crisis situations in light of unequal health outcomes for different racial groups. Specifically, some medical professionals have advocated for prioritizing black and Latino patients on the basis of race when rationing limited, life-saving medical resources.
When deciding which groups would receive the first vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended prioritizing essential workers over the elderly — despite the elderly facing higher risk of death from COVID-19 — in order to be more racially equitable (the elderly tend to be more white while essential workers tend to be less white, demographically), according to the Los Angeles Times.
The CDC walked back the suggestions after public outcry, according to Dr. Sally Satel, but Vermont explicitly granted vaccine priority on the basis of race to non-white households before the general public became eligible. The vaccination rate for white residents (33%) had been outpacing that of non-white residents (20%); Republican Governor Phil Scott said this gap was unacceptable at the time.https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/cacheableShow?aid=2SUjiFgnKP&templateId=OTKNCQOEIXFA&offerId=fakeOfferId&experienceId=EXWKP4FOM02Z&iframeId=offer_d1dff69da469c9392330-0&displayMode=inline&pianoIdUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fid.tinypass.com%2Fid%2F&widget=template&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com
Dr. Harald Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania medical school advocated for updating guidance for rationing ventilators to account for race and other socioeconomic factors in April 2020. He suggested that hospitals use a zip code-based “Area Deprivation Index” to avoid the “legal complications” of explicitly race-based allocation of medical resources. Dr. Schmidt and the University of Pennsylvania medical school did not respond to DCNF’s requests for comment.
Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston considered a pilot program which would prioritize patients for cardiovascular care explicitly on the basis of race. Described by doctors Michelle Morse and Bram Wispelwey in a March article in Boston Review, the program would have given preferential admissions to black and Latino people for cardiological services to reduce heart health gaps between white and non-white patients.
Morse and Wispelwey argued that health gaps between different racial groups are driven by racism, and they viewed their plan as a form of racial reparations. The proposal drew from the 2010 proposal titled, “Critical Race Theory, Race Equity, and Public Health: Toward Antiracism Praxis.”
Brigham publicly distanced itself from Morse and Wispelwey’s article following public outcry, and it released a statement denying that the hospital offered or planned to offer preferential care on the basis of race, repeatedly stating that the pilot program was merely under consideration.
Brigham’s statement said news stories about the proposal were misleading, but it did not denounce the Boston Review article or its authors or contest the article’s claim in the article that “[racial reparations are] exactly what we have tried to achieve in the design our new pilot initiative at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.” Brigham also did not challenge the authors’ claims that the colorblind approach to medicine was insufficient.
Mark Murphy, a Brigham spokesman, told the DCNF the final version of the pilot program set to be implemented later this year to address racial health disparities would give “educational notices” to clinicians admitting patients with heart failure to the hospital. The notices would educate employees that black and Latino individuals are historically less likely to be admitted to cardiological services, but they would not restrict clinicians’ individual judgement and decision-making, according to Murphy.
Murphy told DCNF the Boston Review article was “an opinion piece and reflects the perspective of these two physicians,” but the article’s authors, who work at Brigham, called the pilot program “our pilot program,” a fact Brigham has not disputed. Murphy confirmed that both Morse and Wispelwey helped create the final pilot program going into effect this year.
More than 1,000 health professionals publicly supported mass protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death in June 2020 despite COVID-19 concerns, arguing that racism was a public health threat which superseded the medical community’s social distancing advice. Jennifer Nuzzo of Johns Hopkins argued at the time that “in this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
RESEARCH
Three scientists argued that “researchers must name and interrogate structural racism and its sociopolitical consequences as a root cause of the racial health disparities we observe” in the prominent Journal of the American Medical Association in September 2020. Their insistence that researchers ignore the impact of personal choice and environmental factors is part of a broader effort within medicine to erase individual agency and blame all health disparities on systemic racism.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, has also turned its attention to racial issues. Its plan for ending structural racism in biomedical sciences includes pouring funding into research projects on structural racism and expanding diversity and inclusion programs for NIH administrators.
The NIH plays a major role in determining what kind of scientific research goes on in the U.S., funding more than $30 billion of biomedical research each year. Its new emphasis on race has driven important research on racial health disparities and their causes. It has also resulted in millions of taxpayer dollars being poured into research which is distinctly ideological rather than scientific.
The NIH gave $3.4 million to a Tulane researcher in October to develop an app that helps white parents teach “anti-racism,” as opposed to color-blindness, to their children. It also gave $600,000 to a University of Michigan professor to teach “anti-racism” to middle school students, Campus Reform reported.
ACADEMIA
A 2020 study on racial disparities in birthing mortality for newborns found that black newborns cared for by black doctors are half as likely to die compared to black babies treated by white physicians. The study failed to note that, in cases of a bad NICU outcome, the department chair or division chief is more likely to be listed as the doctor of record regardless of whether that doctor was ever involved in the care of the newborn. Department chairs and division chiefs are more likely to be white, according to Li.
“It’s garbage data in, garbage conclusion out … but what the public takes away is that white doctors are killing black babies. How is that going to create trust among our African American patients? I worry they will stop going to the hospital if they get sick,” Li said. (RELATED: Professor Sues UCLA After Refusing To Grade Black Students’ Work Differently)
Dr. Norman Wang, a program director at the University of Pittsburgh medical school, was removed from his position after publishing a paper which questioned the efficacy of race-based affirmative action.
Dr. Edward Livingston, an editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), argued on a podcast that socioeconomic factors, not structural racism, held back communities of color. Livingston and the top editor at JAMA both resigned after public outcry, with the latter being suspended for three months before his resignation.
The Association of American Medical Colleges wrote that leaders in academic medicine “are weaving content and experiences throughout their curricula to significantly boost awareness of social inequities and structural drivers of health” and argued that equity-related “social drivers need to be woven into the very fiber of medical education.”
Doctors are noticing a decline in newly-graduated medical interns, Li explained.
Li also worries that doctors may be asked in the future to pledge allegiance to “race Marxism” ideology in the maintenance of license process, meaning that doctors who do not comply would risk losing their medical licenses or board certifications. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), which controls medical licensing in the U.S., already incorporates diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) content into its continuing certification programs.
ABMS member boards, which license doctors in specific fields, such as family medicine or pediatrics, collect racial data on candidates and physicians to evaluate certification exams and incorporate the data into “ongoing improvement efforts,” according to the ABMS website. Most of these boards also provide implicit bias training for item writers and examiners and plan to expand these trainings further, the website states.
ABMS did not respond to the Daily Caller’s requests for comment.
INCENTIVES
Dr. Carrie Mendoza, a Chicago-based emergency medicine physician and Fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians, spoke with the DCNF about how new ideas travel from academia into patient care and medical administration using the example of the opioid crisis.
Doctors use CPT codes, which are owned by the American Medical Association (AMA), to bill insurance and government programs such as Medicare. Since the AMA derives income through doctors’ use of CPT codes, there is an incentive to create more codes, Mendoza explained.
In the early 2000s, widespread concern that patients’ pain was not being adequately addressed led regulators to require doctors and hospitals to measure pain, introducing the pain scale as the “fifth vital sign,” Mendoza said. Doctors’ improvement of their patients’ pain scores was used to determine whether doctors were “meeting goals,” and it even impacted doctors’ bonuses, according to Mendoza. Doctors were incentivized to prescribe more pain medication, and the AMA’s CPT codes for pain treatment were the structure through which those financial incentives were fulfilled.
“In emergency medicine we quickly saw that people were getting inappropriate prescriptions for things like ankle sprains and then becoming addicts, then there were diversions and overdoses,” Mendoza explained.
Mendoza sees a link between the early stages of the opioid crisis and the current popularity of racial essentialism in the medical field. By creating CPT codes for Social Determinants of Health (SDH), a new umbrella term adopted by the medical industry to focus on patients’ education and their experiences with discrimination, poverty and incarceration, among many other factors, the AMA is incentivizing a bureaucracy to focus on issues outside the doctor’s control, Mendoza argued.
“There’s a parallel here where admission requirements for medical schools and residency are being loosened. When these factors converge, you get into an environment where there can be patient harm,” Mendoza said.
Mendoza speculated that the government could use data collected through SDH codes to justify its priorities in healthcare. For example, the University of Illinois, citing data on homelessness as a social determinant of health, partnered with the Center for Housing and Health to provide housing for homeless patients.
The AMA, which develops CPT codes, released a 2021-2023 “strategic plan to embed racial justice and advance health equity” which aims to “understand and operationalize anti-racism equity strategies … develop structures and processes to consistently center the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized … and minoritized (Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian and other people of color) physicians” and “amplify and integrate often ‘invisible-ized’ narratives of historically marginalized physicians and patients in all that AMA does.”
The American Medical Association did not respond to DCNF’s requests for comment.
Deep in the bowels of the DC swamp lurks a creature so vile that its very name elicits revulsion in polite company. Obviously, I’m referring to Jerry Nadler.
Many of y’all are familiar with Nadler’s recent outrage over the Rittenhouse acquittal. He declared
This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ.
I’m not sure which is more outrageous, that Nadler made this public announcement without even familiarizing himself with the details of the case – or the possibility that he was well aware of the details, but chose to leverage the trial for political gain. Ruining the life of an innocent young man is not something that concerns Nadler at all.
Nadler is an exceedingly evil man, and here’s the exchange that first made me realize this:
He was probably thinking at the time, “Who cares; it’s mostly white people who will die because of this policy!” As for me, I think about the bereaved parents and spouses whose anguish can be laid at the feet of this monster.
It was Nadler who sponsored the MORE act, which taxes marijuana sales to line the pockets of blacks. In other words, it’s sneaky reparations.
Unfortunately, not only is Nadler Jewish, but he attended yeshiva at one time. In an article that discusses Nadler’s possible retirement, titled “Not Soon Enough,” Yeshivaworld goes on to say:
Despite his Jewishness, Nadler supported the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, drawing the ire of many in the US and Israel, including some who accused him of stabbing the Jewish State in the back.
Nadler also defended Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she compared the detention of illegal migrants crossing into the US to Nazi concentration camps.
Nadler, the only member of Congress with a yeshiva education (he attended Jewish classes in his youth), would provide a political opportunity for NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer, who is searching for options after losing the Democratic primary for mayor to Eric Adams.
The comments on the above article are entertaining; apparently, I’m not the only Jew who hates Nadler.
There was also the incident where Nadler accused Candace Owens of calling Ted Lieu “stupid” when that’s clearly not what she said. Perhaps Nadler should learn to LISTEN before he speaks:
It’s possible that Nadler’s lack of listening skills is linked to his love of censorship.
All told, this swamp creature has created more fodder for anti-Semites than all three previous “This is why they hate the Jews” contenders combined. Therefore, I officially bestow upon him the title “YimaH Shemo” (יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ), which we use in reference to especially evil people. It means, May his name be erased. Congratulations Nadler, you’re a disgrace to Jew and gentile alike.
The post was reported, with the following explanation:
Factually incorrect (explanation: This meme is false. See attached referenced page. The Salvation Army’s Response to False Claims on the Topic of Racism The Salvation Army USA [https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/story/the-salvation-armys-response-to-false-claims-on-the-topic-of-racism/])”
Following the link, we find this statement:
Those claims are simply false, and they distort the very goal of our work.
The truth is that The Salvation Army believes that racism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity, and that we are called by God to work toward a world where all people are loved, accepted, and valued. Our positional statement on racism makes this clear. These beliefs and goals are critically important because we know that racism exists, and we are determined to do everything the Bible asks of us to overcome it.
Racism is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian conviction that all people are made in the image of God and are equal in value. The Salvation Army believes that the world is enriched by a diversity of cultures and ethnicities.
This statement contradicts itself, because if there is value (enrichment) in the diversity of cultures and ethnicities, then it follows that the Last member of the Mohican tribe has more value to his life than a Han Chinese – because when the Mohican dies, the world loses not only the individual, but also the ethnicity (tribe). This is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. If the existence of ethnicities has value, then not all people are equal in value – and if all people are equal in value, then there can be no special value to a diversity of cultures and ethnicities.
The document goes on to reiterate the claim that “racism is incompatible with Christianity:”
The Salvation Army firmly believes that racism is contrary to God’s intention for humankind, and yet we recognise that the tendency for racism is present in all people and all societies. Racial discrimination can take many expressions, including tribalism, casteism and ethnocentrism.
That’s odd, because the Bible is full of tribalism. In fact, it could be fairly claimed that most of it is a manifesto of tribalism. Jews are God’s chosen people, and clear distinctions are made between Jews and non-Jews throughout the Bible. Is the Salvation Army claiming that the Bible is “incompatible with Christianity?” That would be a bizarre claim. It’s evident that it’s the Salvation Army that’s incompatible with Christianity. It has abandoned Christianity in favor of Wokeism.
Also, the two quoted statements above can’t both be correct. If the “world is enriched by a diversity of cultures and ethnicities,” then it follows that members of such ethnicities should do what they can to survive as distinct groups. In other words, nations should fight for their own group interests. Another word for this is “nationalism” or “tribalism.” When Jews work to have our own neighborhoods and a nation-state, this is tribalism. But the second statement claims that tribalism is “racial discrimination” and that it’s “contrary to God’s intention for humankind.” You can’t have it both ways Salvation Army. Make up your mind!
As if that’s not proof enough that the Salvation Army lacks any critical thought, the document then recites Lewontine’s Fallacy:
The concept of race has been used to justify the most appalling policies of discrimination and murder. Science has shown, however, that there is no evidence to support the existence of biologically different human races. There is much more genetic variation within each so-called racial group than there is between them.
There’s another problem with the Salvation Army’s statement: If we’re going to condemn the concept of race because it “has been used to justify the most appalling policies of discrimination and murder” then we must also condemn Christianity – and even more so. Perhaps this is why the Salvation Army has abandoned Christianity, and adopted…
… Marxism, because Marxism has never been the cause of discrimination and murder, has it?
The rest of the document only serves to show how uncritically the Salvation Army has drunk the cool aid of Critical Race Theory:
For many people, decades of racist structures and prejudices have created inter-generational effects and disadvantages. This can be so entrenched in institutions and culture that people can unwittingly perpetuate racial division.
I think the underlying problem is a total, and uncritical, reliance upon “experts” by those in charge of the Salvation Army. In a sense, this might be a flaw that they inherited from their Christian past. A good Christian is supposed to accept divine authority without question or reservation. They simply transferred this deference to the new class of priests: The priests of CRT and fake science.
Back in 1978, the ACLU defended neo-Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, Illinois. They still boast about it today:
In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU’s unwavering commitment to principle.
No, it’s not “principle” that motivates anti-white organizations, such as the ACLU, to defend neo-Nazis. It’s a political move. By taking up the case of unsavory pro-whites, organizations such as the ACLU can claim that they actually defend free speech and freedom of assembly. “See, we even defended some neo-Nazis 40 years ago!” Prominently displayed above the Skokie story, is the ACLU’s donation portal. Defending our liberties can be lucrative business.
The Skokie case was not the only time the ACLU defended pro-white causes. From the Chicago Tribune:
When white supremacists wanted to hold a “Unite the Right” rally at the site of a Robert E. Lee monument in Charlottesville, the Virginia city insisted they gather in a different park. So the neo-Nazis got help from an organization widely vilified on the far right: the American Civil Liberties Union. It sued the city, and a federal judge ruled in its favor. The hateful assembly occurred where it was originally planned.
We all know what happened next. Fighting broke out between protesters and counter-protesters, and a woman was killed after being run over by a car driven by an alleged white nationalist.
The backlash against the ACLU was immediate. Waldo Jaquith resigned from the board of directors of the organization’s Virginia chapter, declaring: “What’s legal and what’s right are sometimes different. I won’t be a fig leaf for Nazis.” K-Sue Park, a fellow at the UCLA School of Law who has done volunteer work for the ACLU, wrote in The New York Times, “By insisting on a narrow reading of the First Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes.”
I don’t believe that the ACLU leadership is stupid; it must have known that the Unite the Right rally would be publicly perceived as a gathering of neo-Nazis, skin-heads and white-supremacists. The Chicago Tribune article concludes by stating:
Thanks to the Constitution, the white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville and Boston had their say. But in doing so, they only stimulated a national debate that they are bound to lose.
Of course, there was no “national debate,” only “lawfare,” suppression of free speech and outright lies from the Establishment Left. You can read about it here and here.
My point in bringing all this up is to point out that it serves the powers-that-be to sometimes give the illusion that the rights of pro-whites matter to them – but this only makes sense to them when the pro-whites in question do not present a threat to the Official Narrative. Neo-Nazis are never going to sway large swaths of the American public to their point of view, and neither are those who publicly chant “Jews will not replace us.”
A friend of mine was once approached by a member of the corporate media. The reporter wanted to know if he was interested in an interview where he could explain his pro-white views… but when the reporter discovered that my friend has all his teeth, and does not sport any tattoos, the interview was off. Showing a well-groomed, normal-looking man, to represent pro-whites simply would not do.
Similarly, when the 2011 American Renaissance, scheduled to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, was shut down, and our First Amendment rights violated, the ACLU was nowhere to be seen. Unlike the neo-Nazis, American Renaissance actually represents a THREAT to the Official Narrative.
Why am I writing all this now? It’s because I’ve been one of the administrators of the Quora space “It’s Okay to be White” since its inception. We’re now closing in on 15,000 followers, and we’ve been around for the better part of a year – this despite the fact that we endure multiple malicious reports against us daily. As you might imagine, we attract a motley crowd that includes conservative-type Republicans, Christians, sympathetic non-whites – and neo-Nazis. We do our best to moderate effectively, so as to remain within the bounds of what Quora considers acceptable. Of course, we’re not perfect, so non-compliant comments slip through now and then.
Normally, a space of our size could earn money – but Quora quashed any such option with the explanation that we “promote our product too aggressively.” Of course, we HAVE no product, so this is just a random excuse that a bureaucrat pulled out of his derriere. He was told to deny advertising funding for our space, but we had broken none of the stated rules, so he just came up with a random one. Requests for clarification remain unanswered.
Be that as it may, our space has so far survived, and it thrives. Visit if you have some time, and make sure you read the rules and FAQ before posting anything. Why are we still around? Well…
My hypothesis is that the higher-ups are so convinced that the very term “It’s Okay to be White” is universally held to be toxic that we pose no threat; instead, they’re using us for virtue signalling, much as the SPLC used the neo-Nazis. Quora’s administrators do not consider It’s Okay to be White to be a threat, because (in their eyes) the name implies that we’re extremists, and few will take us seriously. They might as well take advantage of the situation, so that they can claim that they’re open-minded and tolerant.
One of the most common retorts I’ve seen on our space is the claim that “whites don’t suffer from discrimination.” That systemic anti-white racism doesn’t exist.
This morning I received the following notice from Quora moderation:
Your Space Government and Corporate Anti-White Discrimination has been deleted as it was found to be in violation of our Quora Brand/Logo policy. To learn more about our Spaces policy, click here. If you think this is an error, you can appeal here.
I have no idea what they mean by “Brand/Logo policy,” but I did appeal. We’ll see what happens, but I’m not hopeful; these spaces are powerful, and they do present a challenge to the Official Narrative. While the Personal Accounts space is still up, I’ve backed up the material. Alas, it never occurred to me to do the same with the Government and Corporate space, since I was so scrupulous in following all the rules. How naive of me.
Edit: The space has been restored, and Quora moderation has apologized for the error.
