Not the one from the 1890s, nor in a hundred years the one from today.
When I was a boy, there was no movie in existence where at least some people might still have been alive no matter how long ago the pictures were taken. No longer true, not even remotely. Everything and everyone disappears into the past.
And then there were the 20’s, you know, a hundred years ago.
Thinking it over, prodded by the sensible comment below, I have to give large consideration to the possibility that the posts commented on below are not intended to be straight but are satirical observations on the attempts to defuse the accusation of anti-semitism of those who attack Jews in the streets or in their businesses, who kill people and draw swastikas on walls and synagogues.
Satire is supposed to make you laugh at the absurd by ridiculing notions that are straight forward idiocy through exaggerations of various kinds. If satire, it is the left that is being made fun of, and their media enablers, for their refusal to condemn the obvious and vicious anti-semitism found among some non-whites – particular among blacks and Islamists – for their undoubted anti-semitism. So the statement that only whites can be anti-semitic is a very clever parody, which I hope it is, or is an actual attempt to absolve those non-whites who hate Jews for being what they are, anti-semitic, but then letting them off the hook because of various extenuating sets of circumstances. The rest, below the line, is my original post.
__________
As anti-semitic as anything I have ever seen, self-hatred and idiocy rolled into one incredible package of disgust, this is not satire, or even intended satire: Only whites can be anti-semites.
They might kill you for being a Jew, they might murder your children for being Jews, they might burn Israel to the ground because it’s the Jewish State, but if their skin colour is anything other than white, they cannot, according to this hateful and deranged woman, be counted as anti-semitic.
And from the comments:
There is no such thing as a hate crime against a White. It is impossible for another ethnicity to be racist against a White. Only Whites are capable of racism. Only Whites are capable of antisemitism. All Whites are White Supremacists. White Supremacists are Nazis; therefore all Whites are Nazis. Nazis are racists against Blacks; therefore it is impossible for Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and other people of color to engage in Nazi thoughts and activities and by extension, these people cannot have Nazi thoughts and actions against Jews. Jews who accuse anyone but Whites of being racist are not “real” Jews but pretenders. The real Jews are Black and were driven from their homes by the Europeans who then took over the title of “Jew” in order to steal the Jewish lands. (I heard about Black Jews months before the attack in New Jersey in, of all places, a small town in Mississippi by a Black man who I had always thought of as having a great deal of intelligence. Before the shooting I read an article in the international press complete with photo of a group of Blacks in traditional African garb who were claiming they were the real Jews, that real Jews were not White. This group was in France. This is a serious issue.
Serious it is, as are all forms of madness. More comment here.
I’ve just finished a quite interesting book on jokes from behind the Iron Curtain: Hammer And Tickle: A History Of Communism Told Through Communist Jokes. It looks at the jokes themselves; the evolution of these jokes as communism aged and new leaders took over; it looks at the different kinds of jokes told in different communist countries; it examines the fate of those who told such jokes and the difference in the fate of those who made such jokes depending on who was the leader of the Party; it asks whether such jokes helped the communists consolidate power or whether they helped bring communism down; it looks into the difference between telling anti-Nazi jokes in Nazi Germany versus telling anti-communist jokes in communist countries; it asks about the psychology of those who told such jokes and whether they helped relieve tensions; and much else. But I will say this, some of I found really funny. This is my favourite.
Khrushchev is walking through the Kremlin, getting worked up about the Soviet Union’s problems, and spits on the carpet in a gesture of disgust.
“Behave yourself, Nikita Sergeyevich,” admonishes the aide. “Remember that the great Lenin walked through these halls!”
“Shut up,” responds Khrushchev. “I can spit all I like here; the Queen of England gave me permission!’
“The Queen of England?”
“Yes! I spat on her carpet in Buckingham Palace too, and she said, ‘Mr Khrushchev, you can do that all you like in the Kremlin if you wish, but you can’t behave like this here …'”
Easy to see this one added to the Donald Trump canon and now that I have pointed it out, I expect it to be.
I therefore thought I might have a look at what passes for Donald Trump jokes. And google all you like, there really is not much although there was this: Donald Trump Jokes. None were funny but I did like this:
Where’s Donald Trump’s favorite place to shop?
Wall-mart!
Mere pun though it is, it seems appropriate. At least it’s policy-related and almost entirely a joke that could only be told about Trump. The rest are re-treads, never specifically about anything related to Trump himself and his policies, but are almost entirely forms of insult than anything with any associated wit or insight. The most interesting part to me about the communist jokes was that the ones that became acceptable were those directed at the failures of communism relative to the promises that had originally been made. Lots like that. The way to end up in the gulag was to tell jokes about actual party leaders, especially Lenin and Stalin. Very few like that.
As for Trump jokes, there was also this from Quora: What’s the best Donald Trump joke you ever heard? I don’t know if you can link from here but I read through as many as I could bear – there are at the present 2566 of them. For myself, I found them unbelievably tedious, almost entirely retreads from other contexts and other politicians. Not witty and not fun. Might help Democrats and other socialists relieve their tension but not funny. See for yourself if you can bear it. And because it’s Quora, there was not a single pro-Trump joke I came across.
It would be mind-numbing to go through the lot but this one had 12.1k upvotes. It is an old joke which I actually quite like which I heard long before and about someone else, not sure it wasn’t an Irish joke to begin with. I won’t put it down in full. It’s a shaggy dog story in which the President secludes himself from everyone and as the Secretary of this or the Secretary of that comes to see him to deal with some emergency he sends them packing because he is so busy. Finally:
Sanders open the door slowly and finds a disheveled unshaven Trump sitting at his desk with a big grin on his face. On top of his desk is a completed 30-piece puzzle of the New York skyline.
Sanders doesn’t know what to make of it.
Trump leans back triumphantly in his chair and says. “I’ve got something for your next press conference…” Sarah takes out her notebook.
“You see that puzzle?” Trump asks pointing at his desk. “Well, the box says ‘3 to 7 years’ and me, I finished it in JUST 6 DAYS!”
I would be interested if anyone has a really good Donald Trump joke, either for him or against him. Meanwhile there are lots of jokes about the Democrats I do find funny. E.g.
Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place.
From Males Are Faring Much Worse Than Females: Busting the Myth of Male Privilege in a Single Chart.
The chart originates here. These are listed in the post:
4. There are hundreds of single-sex, girl-only summer (and other) STEM programs at universities all over the country that illegally discriminate against boys in violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination, including sex discrimination against males. More than 70 of those programs are currently being challenged for violating Title IX and more than 30 programs are now subject to federal investigations for civil rights violations. At least six of those programs have either been discontinued, supplemented with boy-only programs, or converted to co-ed programs open to students of all gender identities.
5. Multiple single-sex, girl-only computer science and STEM organizations that exclude boys including Girls Who Code, Latina Girls Code, Black Girls Code, Techbridge Girls, and Project Scientist. Some of those programs are currently being legally challenged with complaints to the Office for Civil Rights when those programs are hosted on the campus of a university that receives federal financial assistance and is therefore required to enforce Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination.
6. There are Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE and similar names) departments or units at most major universities like the University of Michigan, Rochester Institute of Technology, Syracuse University. and Georgia Tech. There isn’t a single “Men in Science and Engineering” program in the country, and there are no “Men in Nursing” or “Men in Education” programs that address the under-representation of men in those academic fields.
Of course, there’s this as well: Why do women feel horrible about feminism? which comes with the sub-heading: “How did a movement that has achieved so much become so absurd and so vicious?” Here is one of the achievements which will help you gauge where this article is coming from.
This month Time magazine named a 16-year-old girl as its Person of the Year. Again, you don’t have to like her. You may think her misguided. But Greta Thunberg is captain of a movement that seeks to change the whole world. She did not, as many expected, receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but Malala Yousafzai did in 2014 for standing up for girls’ education; and Nadia Murad did last year for her campaign against sexual violence.
Her final para is definitive:
Maybe we disagree now, as women, about the way forward, but do we really? Forward is the way forward. It has always been that way.
What could be clearer than that?
Apparently most of it but not all: CBC Cuts Donald Trump’s ‘Home Alone 2’ Cameo Out of Broadcast. It’s the CBC who apparently cannot bear even six positive seconds of Donald Trump. They’re like the ABC and no doubt the BBC along with every one of the traditional non-Fox networks in the US. They will filter out anything that does not fit the story they want their viewer to believe. Are people really content with such obvious and continuous efforts to shape their opinions? The left are wilfully happy to become Manchurian Candidates. It is spooky to see it before our eyes.
And on the same day there was this as well: Soldier Asks Donald Trump About Cameo in Hit Christmas Movie ‘Home Alone 2’.
“It was an honor to do it. It turned out to be a very big hit, obviously. It’s a big Christmas hit, one of the biggest,” Trump said. “It’s an honor to be involved in something like that.”
It’s almost unimaginable how small-minded and petty the media are.
May love, peace and contentment be your lot for the coming year.
And let me now add these:
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1209627945012224000
All four all at the same time. We live in such political luxury for the moment.
And not just Brexit but there’s more!
This is the title of the article, Israel’s winner take all election, but this is what it’s about.
For the past 25 years, with the support of the media and the cooperation of radical NGOs, the Supreme Court, the attorney general and the state prosecutors have seized the powers of Israel’s elected leaders by judicial decree and legal opinion. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s decision last month to indict Netanyahu for behavior that has never been defined as criminal either in law or court precedent is just the latest bid to empty elections of all meaning and deny elected leaders, and the voters who elect them, the sovereign power to determine the path that Israel will advance along.
Obviously, Netanyahu’s revolution and Barak’s revolution cannot coexist in peace with one another. And so, by indicting Netanyahu and inserting the legal fraternity into Israel’s political system as the most powerful decisive force in the country in the midst of Knesset elections, Mandelblit, the justices and the prosecutors are seeking to complete their seizure of power. The only way to stymie them, and restore Israel’s democratic system by legislating checks and restraints on their powers is by reelecting Netanyahu with a parliamentary majority.
Lawyer’s are the worst legislators, understand nothing about law other than their own Byzantine interpretations of interpretations. Lawmaking lawyers sitting on judicial bodies should never be allowed to dictate the meaning of a law, but should only be allowed to indicate where more clarity is needed on any issue that can be legislated. If a popular elected government can make a decision on abortion, to take one example, then no judge should provide any ruling one way or the other.
Like virtually every part of our society that has been taken over by people who make their living from using words – the media, the academic world, law – they are now on the loopy left. They cannot be allowed to make the rules by which we are permitted to live our lives. It is just one part of the Deep State.
The aspect of Trump’s personality that makes him so unusual is that he is able to articulate a different philosophical position, which most politicians are unable to do. Politicians normally are schmoozers, people whose stock and trade is to get on with others and form coalitions. Trump, uniquely, is able to stand apart from the consensus. Glick goes on from Israel to the US.
In 2016, when the Democrats refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, the party stopped being a normal political party and became instead a “resistance” movement that rejected the right of the American people to choose their president.
Just as the legal fraternity has made no effort to hide its desire to destroy Netanyahu as the apotheosis of the democratic system they are subverting, so Trump’s impeachment was a foregone conclusion from the moment the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in last year’s midterm elections. The excuse didn’t matter. The fact that Trump broke no law in his dealings with Ukraine is entirely beside the point.
And of course, the Democrats weren’t alone. As Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice showed last week in his report on FBI abuse of the foreign intelligence surveillance court to spy on the Trump campaign, the top tiers of the federal bureaucracy happily joined them in the “resistance,” with the intention of undermining Donald Trump first during the 2016 election, and then after he entered office….
Almost from the outset, Trump recognized that the game against him was rigged. The special counsel probe, predicated on fabricated evidence paid for by the Clinton campaign was not about discovering ties that never existed between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was about criminalizing Trump’s candidacy and later his presidency. And the impeachment was never about Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Vlodomir Zelensky. It was always about overturning the 2016 election results.
Because Trump recognizes that the campaigns against him are political, not legal, he has never accepted their legitimacy. He has never dignified his enemies with the respect that generally confers to legal authorities and political opponents. And because he has been willing to expose the nakedly political goals of his opponents, he has kept his supporters in his court and mobilized them to defend him. As a result, Trump’s approval numbers have rarely diminished. Moreover, by remaining on offense, despite the media’s blanket support for the campaign to unseat him, Trump has successfully tarnished the reputations and the legitimacy of that campaign.
German commissioner says Merkel’s envoy boosting antisemitism at UN. From the post:
A German state commissioner to combat antisemitism told The Jerusalem Post that his country’s UN ambassador promotes antisemitism at the United Nations when he compared the Jewish state with Hamas.
“The comparison made by [Christoph] Heusgen between Israel’s actions and the terrorism of Hamas damages solidarity with Israel and is unfortunately apt to promote Israeli-related antisemitism,” Uwe Becker, the commissioner tasked to fight antisemitism in the state of Hesse, told the Post….
On Friday, Germany joined authoritarian regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran to vote for seven of eight resolutions against Israel. Berlin merely abstained in the eighth anti-Israel resolution.
“Linking Heusgen to antisemitism is absurd,” said deputy Foreign Office spokesman Rainer Breul, according to Deutsche Welle….
Heusgen declared: “We believe that international law is the best way to protect civilians and allow them to live in peace and security and without fear of Israeli bulldozers or Hamas rockets.”
The Wiesenthal Center noted in its justification that Bild, the largest circulation paper in Germany, “accused Heusgen in an editorial of ‘pure malice’ against the Jewish state.”
The Center continued that “Heusgen cast 16 anti-Israel votes at the UN in 2018, abstaining once. In 2019, he voted for nine anti-Israel resolutions, including one labeling Jerusalem’s holiest sites as ‘Palestinian Occupied territory,’ while abstaining three times and opposing only one anti-Israel resolution.”
How difficult is it for someone to work out that voting with Iran in support of Hamas is not a form of solidarity with Israel or with the Jewish people.
Law of Markets 