General

In Historic First, 5’5″, 130-lb. Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

/12 Comments/in /by

In Historic First, 5’5″, 130-lb. Woman Confirmed to Supreme Court

Weird that the media didn’t cite Ketanji Brown Jackson’s height and weight as her most important characteristics. When it came to THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT, it was all about her race. But after a guy shot up a New York City subway car this week, the last thing the media wanted to tell us was his race.

For more than three hours after the attack, we got urgent alerts: Suspect at large! Police request public’s help! Be on the alert for a male, about 5’8″, 160 lbs.”

In this particular case, the media’s rule of never telling us the suspect’s race (unless he’s white) was more deranged than usual. This wasn’t a carjacking. It wasn’t a shooting at a block party. It wasn’t an attack on an Asian or Jew. This crime had all the earmarks of a terror attack — smoke bombs, fireworks, a gas mask, and about a dozen people shot while trapped in a subway car.

The police desperately needed the public’s help, but most people were looking for a Middle Easterner.

At least we knew it wasn’t a white guy! If it had been, reporters would have worn out the “W” on their computer keyboards. There would have been rampant speculation that it was a Proud Boy, as top administration officials reminded us that “white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not al-Qaida — white supremacists.” (President Joe Biden June 2, 2021)

We’re always told “wokeness” is just about being polite and that those who ridicule it are trying to “discredit the claims of traditionally marginalized groups for respect.” (Thomas Zimmer, history professor, Georgetown University) Or they are engaging in “white backlash.” (Seth Cotlar, history professor, Willamette University)

[SIDEBAR: Don’t go to college, kids!]

No, wokeness is real. And it can get us killed — when, for example, off the top of my head, a murderous psychopath is on the run and the media refuse to tell us what he looks like.

At the New York Police Department’s first press conference on the subway attack, Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell came up with an all-new circumlocution to convey the relevant information without saying “black male.” She said: “… we will describe him as an individual, he is being reported as a male black.”

“A male black”! That’s so much better than “black male” when identifying a criminal.

By the time of the evening press conference, Sewell had settled on an even dumber description, calling him a “a dark-skinned male.” Great, so now we’re back to looking for a Middle Easterner. Or possibly Hispanic. Maybe South Asian or mixed race. Definitely NOT “black male” (or “male black”).

The NYPD must have spent all day crafting that new euphemism, because “dark-skinned male” was the exact phrase used minutes later by the chief of detectives, James Essig. “Black” is OUT. “Dark-skinned” is IN.

Biden Appoints First Dark-Skinned Woman (whatever the hell that is) to Supreme Court!

No, “black” is fine, provided we’re talking about THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, or THE FIRST BLACK FEMALE POLICE COMMISSIONER. Such as … Commissioner Sewell herself!

— “One of Mr. Adams’ first appointments was to name Keechant Sewell, chief of detectives in Nassau County, as the first Black woman to head the NYPD.” (The Christian Science Monitor)

— “New York’s incoming mayor just made history by appointing a Black woman to run the nation’s largest police department …” (New York Daily News)

— “This is truly historic. We heard that word a lot, but it’s 176 years of the NYPD. You’re the first woman, the first black woman to lead the force.” (CNN’s Jim Sciutto to Sewell)

A black person becoming a Supreme Court justice or police commissioner makes black people feel good about themselves! But a black man being identified as the perpetrator of a heinous crime makes black people feel bad about themselves. Therefore, you can’t say it.

As is well known, the sine qua non of a well-run society is factoring in people’s feelings when reporting important events. And if New York City is not running like a top, then I don’t know what your definition of “running like a top” is.

Instead of subway cameras capturing clear photos of the homicidal brute and being broadcast out within minutes of the attack, hours later, the police were climbing up ladders to physically inspect the cameras. They weren’t working.

New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates the cameras, but they’ve been VERY busy promoting diversity. Evidently, “Is our equipment working?” has not come up.

Here’s the MTA’s summary of the last meeting:

3rd Quarter 2021 Report:

“The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present 3rd quarter 2021 update on MTA Agency-wide EEO and M/W/DBE and SDVOB contract compliance activities.

“Status Report on MTA Inter-Agency M/W/DBE and SDVOB Task Force. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights report will address progress made by the Task Force to improve M/W/DBE and SDVOB participation. Master Page # 6 of 108 — Diversity Committee Meeting 9/15/2021

“2022 Diversity Committee Work Plan. The Department of Diversity and Civil Rights will present an updated Diversity Committee Work Plan for 2022.”

Another confidence-inspiring development: The New York Times reports that immediately after the shooting, “Toward the front of the train, three victims were being attended to by bystanders. A uniformed police officer approached, asking passengers to call 911 because his radio was not working.” (Emphasis added.)

The officer’s radio didn’t work. But on the plus side, he’s been through six diversity training sessions.

To top things off, at the evening press conference, the top brass COULDN’T GET ZOOM TO WORK. Mayor Eric Adams was introduced, whereupon every TV in the land broadcast total silence for a solid 60 seconds, while city officials stood around waiting for the mayor to appear. They finally gave up and patched him in later.

At least the mayor is on top of things. Hours after even MSNBC had admitted the perp was a black male, Adams was on TV, vowing to catch the man — “or woman!” — who perpetrated this attack.

Gosh, that makes me feel validated.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

Who Wins, Who Loses Gen. Milley’s Long War?

/3 Comments/in /by
Who Wins, Who Loses Gen. Milley's Long War? By Patrick Buchanan

 

For 40 years of the Cold War, Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, Bush I warned Ukrainian secessionists, who wanted to sever ties to Russia, not to indulge such “suicidal nationalism.” And though we brought 14 new nations into NATO after 1991, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama never brought in Ukraine.

Speaking of the seven-week war in Ukraine ignited by Vladimir Putin, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is warning us to expect a war that lasts for years.

“I do think this is a very protracted conflict … measured in years,” Milley told Congress. “I don’t know about a decade, but at least years, for sure.”

As our first response, said Milley, we should build more military bases in Eastern Europe and begin to rotate U.S. troops in and out.

Yet this sounds like a prescription for a Cold War II that America ought to avert, not fight. For the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, while a declared goal of U.S. policy, is not a vital U.S. interest to justify risking a calamitous war with Russia.

Proof of that political reality lies in political facts.

For 40 years of the Cold War, Ukraine was an integral part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, Bush I warned Ukrainian secessionists, who wanted to sever ties to Russia, not to indulge such “suicidal nationalism.”

And though we brought 14 new nations into NATO after 1991, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama never brought in Ukraine.

Indeed, during the seven weeks of this war, President Joe Biden has refused to transfer to Ukraine the 28 MIG-29s that Poland offered to make available, if the U.S. would replace the Polish MIGs with U.S. fighter jets.

Biden has warned that this could ignite a collision with Russia that could lead to World War III. And he is not going to risk a third world war that could escalate to nuclear war — for Ukraine.

What is Biden saying by denying the MIGs to Ukraine?

That preventing Russia from amputating Donbas, Crimea and the Black Sea coast of Ukraine is not a U.S. interest so vital as to be worth our risking war with Russia. Ukraine is not only outside NATO; it is outside the perimeter of U.S. vital interests justifying war.

This crisis in Ukraine is calling forth the larger question:

For whom and for what should the United States go to war with a nation with a larger nuclear arsenal than our own, but which does not directly threaten us?

Currently, the Beltway war hawks and neocons are bristling with demands the U.S. send the MIGs to Ukraine, and the S-300 air-defense system, and anti-ship missiles to sink Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

They tell us Putin is blustering and bluffing when he suggests that Moscow might use tactical nuclear weapons rather than accept defeat and humiliation in Ukraine.

Yet, looking at a cost-benefit analysis of continuing this war, it would appear that the sooner it ends, the better.

For who would be the likely winners and the losers of Milley’s “protracted conflict” that will last “at least years for sure”?

The greatest losers would be the nation and people of Ukraine.

Already, in seven weeks, 10 million Ukrainians have been uprooted from their homes, and 4 million of them have fled the country. That is a fourth of the nation uprooted, and a tenth lost to Ukraine.

Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have died resisting the invasion. Thousands may have been murdered. Cities like Kharkiv have been horribly damaged, with Mariupol on the Sea of Azov destroyed.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s willingness to negotiate with Putin after the proven atrocities and to accept temporary occupation of part of Ukraine suggests that he knows that, from here on out, Ukraine, which has won the first battles, could steadily lose the longer war.

Indeed, if the known huge losses for Ukraine came from the first seven weeks of fighting, what will be the losses from a second seven weeks, or a third, on the bloody road to Milley’s long war?

Putin’s Russia is a second loser in this war.

The initial invasion failed to capture Kiev or Kharkiv. The Russian army around Kiev has departed and, reportedly, many thousands of Russian troops have been killed, wounded, captured or gone missing.

The Russian economy is suffering from severe sanctions.

Yet over 80% of the Russian people still support Putin and his war. And Russia’s renewed drive into the Donbas and to take the Black Sea coast of Ukraine from Crimea to Odessa is not yet lost.

But while Ukraine and Russia have suffered greatly, the U.S. and NATO have suffered barely at all. Nor has China, which stands to be the major beneficiary when a bleeding, isolated Russia goes in search of support.

What Americans have to worry about is the long war that Gen. Milley is predicting, and the possibility that Russia’s continued bleeding causes it to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to end the losses and humiliation and prevent an outright defeat.

Thus, the sooner this war ends, the better for us and our friends — even if it means having to talk to the man Biden cannot stop calling a war criminal and clamoring for his prosecution.

 

Media Go Wild for Child-Porn Friendly Judge

/3 Comments/in /by
Media Go Wild for Child-Porn Friendly Judge

These were Google’s top headlines this week about the hearings on President Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson:

White House chief of staff Ron Klain hits back at Sen. Ted Cruz — Business Insider, April 4, 2022

Cory Booker demolishes GOP attempts to smear Ketanji Brown — Washington Post, April 5, 2022

Lindsey Graham Throws An Impotent S–T Fit Over Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court Nomination — Vanity Fair, April 4, 2022

Wow, Republicans must have had their asses handed to them! They were “hit back,” “demolish[ed]” — and now they’re throwing “s–t fits.”

(I can trust the media, right?)

The hit-back consisted of the following: Ted Cruz said KBJ would be “the most extreme” justice on the court, and — get ready for the snappy comeback — Klain said that “nothing” in Jackson’s record “supports this assertion.”

Thank God for our free press and the reporters who dig up stories like this!

Sen. Booker DEMOLISHED Republicans (you can always trust the “Watch so-and-so DEMOLISH” headlines), according to Jennifer Rubin of the Post, with this biting rejoinder: “Sen. Cory Booker had heard enough. [HERE IT COMES!] … Booker compared Jackson’s confirmation hearings to the ‘Festivus’ holiday from the sitcom ‘Seinfeld.’ ‘There’s been a lot of airing of grievances.’”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call, “DEMOLISHED.”

Vanity Fair’s attribution of an “Impotent S–t Fit” to Graham reminds me of the sad story about liberals being dropped on their heads as children, so they can’t remember what happened yesterday, or what might happen tomorrow.

Apparently, Sen. Graham is a “petty little bitch” because, as VF’s Bess Levin put it, “Jackson is all but certain to be sworn in to the highest court in the land in short order.” And yet — DESPITE THIS — “Graham took the time on Monday to rage against her nomination.”

Good thing Republicans have never controlled the Senate during a Supreme Court vote and never will again. Oh wait — actually, just three years ago, all 48 Senate Democrats were apparently being “petty little bitch[es]” when they opposed the “all but certain to be sworn in” Amy Coney Barrett.

The media seem to believe their coup de grace against Republicans who have the audacity to vote against KBJ is that three — THREE! — Republicans voted in favor of her nomination to the D.C. court of appeals just last year!

Nuff said.

Although, now that I think about it, four years ago, as it became clear that Brett Kavanaugh’s feminist accusers were lying psychopaths, the entire liberal establishment instructed us: THE SUPREME COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM AN APPELLATE COURT!

To wit:

Ari Melber: “Today’s debate is not about removing Kavanaugh from his powerful perch on the D.C. circuit, [but] … a big decision to promote him to a big job for life.” — “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Sept. 17, 2018

Rachel Maddow: “Obviously, this is not a criminal investigation. … This is about figuring out if somebody is suitable for a big job promotion, basically.” — “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Oct. 2, 2018

Joy Ann Reid: “So, the thing about the Supreme Court is that once you make it there, you are there for life, unless you choose to retire or you pass away.” — “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Sept. 28, 2018

Sen. Richard Blumenthal: “We’re dealing with a United States Supreme Court nomination, an appointment for life to the highest court in the land that makes a real difference in people’s lives in the real world.” — “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Sept. 17, 2018

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: “This is about do you deserve the promotion? Do you deserve this job opportunity to be a Supreme Court justice, to a lifetime appointment, to make fundamental decisions about women’s rights for perhaps decades to come?” — “All In With Chris Hayes,” Sept. 25, 2018

So cut the crap, liberals, about how Lindsey Graham “voted to confirm her in the past, like literally within the past year” (Reid), and therefore is “humiliat[ing] himself” by “only now object[ing] to” KBJ (Lawrence O’Donnell), staging a “reversal” (New York Times) and “magnificently fail[ing]” at “consistency and Supreme Court nominations” (Reid).

You want consistency? Read your own statements from a few years ago on the GIGANTIC difference in confirming someone to an appeals court and making a “big decision to promote him to a big job for life.”

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Insult Diplomacy: Does Biden’s Vilification of Putin Help?

/1 Comment/in /by

Since calling Putin a killer, Biden has progressed to calling him “a war criminal,” “a murderous dictator,” “a pure thug” and “a butcher.” It is difficult to recall an American president using such a string of epithets about the leader of a nation with which we were not at war.

Several weeks into the war in Ukraine, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked President Joe Biden if he agreed with those who call Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer.”

“I do,” said Biden.

Since calling Putin a killer, Biden has progressed to calling him “a war criminal,” “a murderous dictator,” “a pure thug” and “a butcher.”

It is difficult to recall an American president using such a string of epithets about the leader of a nation with which we were not at war.

What is Biden’s rationale? What is his purpose here?

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, to their eternal embarrassment, called Joseph Stalin, a far greater monster than Putin, “good old Joe” and “Uncle Joe” when they sought his cooperation in World War II and the early postwar era.

Richard Nixon toasted the century’s greatest mass murderer Mao Zedong in the Great Hall of the People during his historic trip to China in 1972. His purpose: establish relations with America’s most hostile adversary — to help Nixon advance a “generation of peace.”

But when it comes to depicting Putin, who launched this invasion of Ukraine, Biden repeatedly reaches for the nastiest of insults.

But why?

“Putin deserves it,” say the champions of a Cold War II. We need more truth and candor in diplomacy. When Biden referenced Putin in the closing remarks of his address in Warsaw, Poland — “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” — they were elated.

Biden was calling for regime change in Russia, calling for the people of Russia to administer to the “killer” and “butcher” the fate he deserves and remove him from power by any means necessary.

Within minutes of hearing their president go off-script with his call for regime change in Russia, White House aides and Cabinet officers were scrambling to assure reporters that the president of the United States did not mean what the president of the United States had just said.

Biden was expressing his “moral outrage” at the carnage Putin has unleashed on Ukraine, they said — and not making a change in U.S. policy.

For days, the president and his advisers argued over whether Biden had meant it literally when he said, “This man cannot remain in power.”

Sunday in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Antony Blinken sought to shut down the argument:

“As you know, and as you’ve heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter. In this case, as in any case, it’s up to the people of the country in question. It’s up to the Russian people.”

One problem with Blinken’s statement is that the U.S. has been deeply involved, both during the Cold War and afterward, in “color revolutions” to effect the overthrow of autocrats we did not like.

Indeed, when Biden characterizes America’s cause in the world as leading the global struggle between democracy and autocracy, what is the desired and predetermined fate of the autocrats we oppose, if not their forcible ouster?

In 2014, the U.S. helped finance the Maidan Revolution that ousted a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, in Kyiv. Sen. John McCain and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland had both been seen in the square cheering on the rebels.

A second problem is that Putin is many things other than the terms Biden used to describe him.

He commands the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and 10 times as many battlefield nuclear weapons as the U.S. military. He is the man we must look to if we hope to end the war in Ukraine. For Putin alone can order the Russian army to stand down or withdraw, presumably a goal of U.S. foreign policy.

If the president of the United States is the most powerful man in the world, Putin is up there alongside him, disposing of an arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could bring an end to Western civilization.

Without Putin’s cooperation, the bloodletting goes on in Ukraine.

How does it advance the goal of getting his agreement to end the war in Ukraine for the U.S. president to repeatedly call him vile names?

Already, we have paid a price.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley are finding their secure phones to their opposite numbers in the Russian government have gone silent.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov have not been picking up the phone.

In Moscow, there is talk of severing diplomatic relations with the United States because of Biden’s name-calling.

None of the aspiring peace-makers seeking to broker a cease-fire or truce in the Ukraine war are acting like this or using language like that.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Recep Erdogan of Turkey and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel have not used the kind of public language on Putin as has Biden.

We see the cost of what Biden is doing; wherein lies the benefit?

Pro-Crime Party Nominates a Justice

/6 Comments/in /by
Presidents are entitled to nominate Supreme Court justices who represent their party and its values. Using that as our guide, President Joe Biden picked the Democrats’ perfect Supreme Court justice: Ketanji Brown Jackson.

If you’d given me a thousand bucks to come up with a question that would stump a Supreme Court nominee, I never would have thought of: What’s a woman?

Democratic values.

As Sens. Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham amply demonstrated at the nomination hearings last week, Judge Jackson really likes defendants in child pornography cases. She’s partial to all criminals, but the child porn cases make the point bracingly.

In seven out of seven child pornography cases that came before Judge Jackson, where the sentencing was up to the judge, she imposed sentences that were a fraction of those recommended under the sentencing guidelines. In all seven cases, her sentences were also far below those requested by the prosecutor.

Not 2 1/2 years, instead of three — more like three months instead of 10 years. In United States v. Hawkins, the defendant possessed and distributed multiple images of child abuse of kids, including photos of prepubescent boys engaging in oral and anal sex, a video of an 8-year-old boy masturbating, and one of an 11-year-old boy being anally penetrated by an adult man.

The federal sentencing guidelines recommended eight to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the defendant to three months.

Yes, yes, he was only 18, and he was remorseful. Good for him!

But Judge Jackson also dramatically departed downward in sentencing a couple of ripe perverts — one who attempted to travel across state lines to molest a 9-year-old girl (when his thousands of child porn images weren’t enough); and another who’d distributed more than a hundred pornographic photos and videos of his own daughter.

On average, Judge Jackson gave child porn defendants sentences more than five years below the minimum under the guidelines.

In other words, Judge Jackson is the beau ideal Democratic Supreme Court justice.

In her favor, KBJ is at least a Generational African American (GAA), i.e. Descendant of American Slaves (DOAS) — unlike Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Joy Ann Reid and approximately 90% of the “African Americans” in Harvard’s entering class this year, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Perhaps, there’s hope that, someday, the high court will acknowledge that affirmative action is intended to make up for the legacy of slavery and should be available exclusively to GAAs, as opposed to what it is now, which is affirmative action, set-asides, “plus” factors, and do-nothing diversity jobs for everyone except white Americans.

Apart from the Democrats finally promoting a legacy African American, rather than an immigrant trying to steal the experiences of Black Americans, nothing is unusual here. It’s the media’s response to the questioning Judge Jackson that’s been hilarious.

The media take the position that it’s rude to ask Judge Jackson questions — at least any questions about her record. Republicans are welcome to ask her all the questions they like about her family or her travails.

She is the most qualified human being ever, EVER to be nominated to the Supreme Court! The bravest, the strongest, the most heroic — HOW DARE YOU ASK OUR LITTLE LAMB QUESTIONS!

The media have also issued reams of “context,” “fact checks” and “debunkings” … all to prove that KBJ is a virtual Eliot Ness on crime! Don’t believe your eyes! Forget everything you know about the Democrats! It’s all lies and conspiracy theories!

We got the sneering:

No, Sen. Hawley, Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t soft on child pornography. — NBC News

We got the hysterical warnings about right-wing conspiracy theorists:

Hawley’s attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson fuel a surge in online conspiracy chatter. — NPR

And we got the sophistical “fact checks”:

Fact check: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson child porn sentences “pretty mainstream” — ABC News

The New York Times’ “fact check” noted she was concerned about child porn fiends who were simply motivated by “the technological or social aspects” of child porn.

Totally run on that, Democrats.

What is the point of all these “FACT CHECKS”? For the past two years, liberals have been screaming, “Defund the Police!” “All Cops Are Bastards,” “F—k the Police!” — not to mention actually defunding the police and springing criminals in Democratic-run cities around the country.

We got it: You like criminals and hate the police, Democrats. You’re not exactly flying below the radar.

Of note: Sen. Joe Manchin, your regular, old-time, American values Democrat, is just like the rest of his party when it comes to crime. Same with Arizona’s Sen. Mark Kelly and Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester. Kelly can boast about being an astronaut, and Tester can walk around with that buzz-cut and a piece of hay in his teeth — but give them a guy getting off on videos of 11-year-old boys being anally raped, and they say: Three months. Max.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Odysee Interview with Tom Sunic

/3 Comments/in /by

Dr. Tomislav Sunić discusses the breakup of Yugoslavia, eastward expansion of NATO, and the decay of America under liberalism.

Interview with Tomislav Sunić (odysee.com)

Whoopi and the Professor

/15 Comments/in /by

Thoughtcrime can lead to thought experiments. All it takes is a willingness to go where the less foolhardy are loath to go. What is race? What is an atrocity? When is a racist atrocity neither racist nor an atrocity? The answers may not be as cut-and-dried as you may think.

In what seems like eons ago, what with the Biden Administration’s incitement of the late Ukrainian unpleasantness, Whoopi Goldberg denied racism had anything to do with the Holocaust. She uttered this blasphemy on the Jan. 31, 2022, showing of The View. Cavalierly dismissing so monumental an atrocity with the “man’s inhumanity to man” platitude fell woefully short of doing it justice. To make matters worse, she claimed both Jewish victims and Nazi victimizers were White.

Sorry, Whoopi. When it comes to the Holocaust, we’re talking unparalleled evil. Nothing in history can hold a candle to it. With racism the deadliest of the Eight Deadly Sins, the Holocaust can’t help but have oozed it.

Every schoolboy knows the Jews are a tribe. Every schoolboy knows the Germans are a tribe. The Nazis, a subset of the German tribe, subjected the Jewish tribe to mass murder via gas chambers. Every schoolboy knows that, too. Inasmuch as “tribe” is just another word for race, the Nazis were racist against the Jews. Sure, the Nazis treated fellow Germans and other Europeans shabbily, too. They just weren’t racist about it.

Decent human beings do not conflate complexion and race. One tribe can in fact perpetrate a racist atrocity against another tribe even if the two tribes share the same skin color. Conversely, one tribe cannot fall victim to a racist atrocity, no matter the skin color of the other tribe. Ben Philippe, a Black English instructor at Barnard College, has brought this peculiar phenomenon to the fore. In a segment of his book entitled Sure, I’ll be your Black Friend, he matter-of-factly describes a scene in which he gasses White people:

“When this race war hits its crescendo, I’ll gather you all into a beautifully decorated room under the pretense of unity. I’ll give a speech to civility and all the good times we share; I’ll smile as we raise glasses to your good, White health, while the detonator blinks under the table, knowing the exits are locked and the air vents filled with gas.”

Philippe discusses his fantasized comeuppance in an interview with Canadian radio host Talia Schlanger. The impossibly telegenic Dutch political analyst Eva Vlaardingerbroek provides audio link to the interview and commentary on the exchange.

In the link, you can hear Ms. Schlanger taken aback by the passage and asking him about it. He does not falter in his explanation:

“I guess I was wrestling with the question that, isn’t the result of that, all-out warfare, like, Game of Thrones-style warfare? And what does that look like? And I live in that sort of stray thought for a few pages. And it was disturbing to write, too. Because I’m not a violent person.” Giggling, he hastens to add, “I love all my White friends.”

That’s how we know he’s not a violent person. He has a sense of humor and only wants to gas White people who are strangers.

Ms. Schlanger informs Mr. Philippe her grandparents were Holocaust survivors. “I can’t tell you how it felt to read that sentiment. And I wanted to say to you that I’m sorry that your experience of the world made you feel that way.”

She’s sorry he feels that way? Would Ms. Schlanger feel sorry for a present-day Nazi who fantasized about gassing Jews? Did the historical Nazis have an “experience of the world” that made them “feel that way” about gassing Jews? The exchange leaves Ms. Vlaardingerbroek dumbfounded. She seems to think the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors would push back against a Black man who dreams of perpetrating such an act against White people. Maybe even push back hard.

As if Jews are Whites. Ms. Vlaardingerbroek, please report to your local Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) re-education camp. Take two weeks off. Reflect on the hurt you have caused.

Meanwhile, her insensitivity toward the Jewish people notwithstanding, it occurs to our Dutch correspondent that visceral hatred of Whites has entered the mainstream. “Where are we headed?” she asks. Nowhere good, Ms. Vlaardingerbroek. At least not until our people embrace the same racial consciousness and solidarity long nurtured and taken for granted by our presumed betters.

Let us not apologize for it. Self-preservation is the first instinct of the species.

Tony Pivetta is a longtime pension analyst forced into early semi-retirement by his erstwhile employer’s demand he submit to a highly experimental vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission. He spends his now ample spare time contemplating the chief mystery of the post-Christian West—namely, how do so many otherwise decent and reasoning human beings manage to invoke bodily autonomy when it comes to the thorny baby-killing issue even as they reject it in slam-dunk applications like drug use, seatbelt choice, and vaccine refusal? A disaffected baseball fan, Pivetta still pines for the cozy confines of late and unlamented Tiger Stadium. He can’t help but draw dark parallels between the rise of publicly financed stadiums and the demise of both the Grand Old Game and Western Civilization.