His enemies are the most repulsive people alive today

But he has done something: Trump’s anti-Semitism order is a Rorschach test for Jews:

If you are against federal action to stop anti-Semitic discrimination on college campuses just because Trump is doing it, then you’re the one with the problem.

Not to mention this: Trump lashes out at ‘Do Nothing Dems’ for impeachment, says they’ve become ‘Party of Hate’.

How can he say he has done nothing?

Physics is their thing not politics

Both via Instapundit.

THIS PIECE IS NOT ACTUALLY A PARODY, IT JUST READS LIKE ONE:

After Tuesday’s massacre in Jersey City, New Jersey’s Jews are still in shock, just like the Jews in Pittsburgh last year. When our Shabbat services ended the day of that shooting, I left the sanctuary to be greeted by a fleet of police cars surrounding our synagogue. As I learned what happened 350 miles to the west I thought of Sinclair Lewis’ ironically titled 1935 novel, “It Can’t Happen Here.” What he meant, of course, was it can happen here. And it just did. . . .

And, perhaps, this latest massacre will increase the momentum for the serious and effective gun policies this country so obviously needs.

All of which is well and good. But, If antisemitic incidents are on the rise, we Jews have to figure out what we do next. Then, I thought, who better to ask than a Muslim?

Who, indeed?

,
PLUS
,

BECAUSE THEY’RE MORE LOYAL TO LEFTY POLITICS THAN TO JUDAISM: Caroline Glick: Why Leftist Jews Slander President Trump.

In its Twitter feed, the New York Times reported Trump’s action thus: “President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department’s efforts to stamp out “Boycott Israel” movements on college campuses.”

This tweet was so off-base that it is impossible to view it as a mere misunderstanding by the paper of record for the liberal establishment. The assertion that Trump’s move “defined Judaism” smacks of cultural appropriation, and as such, it sounds like an act of aggression against Jews.

By falsely claiming Trump defined Judaism as a nationality, the Times made it sound like Trump was saying that Jews aren’t American nationals.

And by writing the purpose of the effort was to “stamp out ‘Boycott Israel’ movements on college campuses,” rather than protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment, the Times made the order seem like a political ploy rather than a civil rights action long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Liberal Jews pounced on the message and ran with it. Halie Soifer, the executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America accused Trump of being “partially responsible” for the rise of anti-Semitism in America.

“If President Trump truly wanted to combat anti-Semitism,” she said, “he would accept responsibility for his role in perpetuating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and emboldening white nationalism.”

“We said it before and we’ll say it again – Donald Trump is the biggest threat to American Jews,” she added.

J-Street’s executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami echoed the criticism of BDS advocates in Congress and on campuses by claiming that the executive order harms the free speech rights of anti-Israel activists. In his words, “The executive order, like the stalled congressional legislation it is based on, appears designed less to combat anti-Semitism than to have a chilling effect on free speech and to crack down on campus critics of Israel.”

Undoubtedly, Soifer and Ben Ami were directing their statements towards the “a-political” Jewish establishment in the hopes of mobilizing them against the pro-Jewish executive order.

In the event, they failed. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee both applauded Trump’s executive order.

But Soifer and Ben Ami had grounds to think the ADL and AJC would join them in characterizing Trump’s friendliness and support for Jewish people as anti-Semitism. Earlier this week they did.

Which ties into Ken Stern’s (below) bogus comments about Trump’s use of “anti-semitic” tropes.

,

34 upvotes and 2.7k downvotes

The largest deficit in youtube history! The real question, though, is how did it get 34 upvotes? This next one was 1.2k up and 16k down.  

Found here. This is most of the text where the videos were found.

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.— Dalrock’s Law of Feminism

This summer Melinda Gates launched a campaign called Equality Can’t Wait.  The goal was to use humor to solve the problem of inequality in STEM.  Quartz at Work explains in Melinda Gates wants comedians to make fun of gender inequality:

…Gates’ campaign has a chance of helping to speed up change, not least because it puts another nail in the coffin of a worn-out stereotype: That women aren’t funny, and that bringing up inequality somehow shows them up as humorless. Female comedians have stormed the US market in the past few years, including Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman, Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Nicole Byer, Tina Fey, and Maya Rudolph (some of whom appear in the video.)

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

— Dalrock’s Law of Feminism

This summer Melinda Gates launched a campaign called Equality Can’t Wait. The goal was to use humor to solve the problem of inequality in STEM. Quartz at Work explains in Melinda Gates wants comedians to make fun of gender inequality:

…Gates’ campaign has a chance of helping to speed up change, not least because it puts another nail in the coffin of a worn-out stereotype: That women aren’t funny, and that bringing up inequality somehow shows them up as humorless. Female comedians have stormed the US market in the past few years, including Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman, Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Nicole Byer, Tina Fey, and Maya Rudolph (some of whom appear in the video.)

The series is even more dismal than I would have imagined. Here is but one example of the campaign, five minutes of male and female feminist scolding dressed up as a comedy routine.

Before you laugh at how pathetic this attempt is (and it is truly pathetic), remember that feminists like Gates don’t need to be clever. Feminists are in such a strong position that no matter how bad their campaign, only the radical fringe will dare to criticize it. Moreover, nagging doesn’t have to be funny, or inspiring, it just has to be persistent.

Ignorant sentimentality and the end of Western Civilisation

Image result for dead child on beach

This image allowed millions of “refugees” to enter Europe, changing Western Civilisation forever, and possibly leading to its demise within a century. Just a picture with no associated policy, and in fact no possible policy. Now we have this as Labour’s last throw of the dice in the Brexit election. And let me preface all this with the story from The Oz today: UK election: Labour win a ‘major risk’ as Johnson tumbles in polls. Why? Who knows why, but maybe it’s this.

Britain faces most history-shaping election since WWII…
Boy on hospital floor dominates campaign…
Health Moves to Center…

Fantasists pursing a collective delusion

Two articles on the same issues entered my inbox almost simultaneously, both with a similar message but told differently with with slightly different imagery. Different versions of being at the end of times. I will remind you again at the end, but you really ought to read both in full.

First Peter Smith at Quadrant Online on Invasion of the Principle Snatchers.

Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig played in the last version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers…. Alien pods float to earth and begin converting into those whose actual bodies disintegrate while they sleep. The result is lookalike people whose minds are regimented and insensible. They also have the nasty habit once they have virtually taken over of shrieking in unison at people they spot as still being human.

He is of course talking about our modern youth, those who teach them, and our education system in its vast expanse of empty space, plus the social media that surround them all. A phenomenon and a half, since it would be one thing if they stood for some kind of principle that showed at least a trace of self interest, but these zombie-fellow-citizens are as near insane as anything I could imagine. How they think they are creating a better world is unknown to me.

Then there is this from David Solway: The Insanity of Progressivism Comes Right Out of Gulliver’s Travels. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a movie so at least there are some people under 40 who may get the reference even though won’t see themselves in it. But this, no one will get, not one in a thousand of these millennials, not their teachers, and I suspect, few others as well.

Our intellectual classes today are utterly disconnected from reality. As Milo Yiannopoulos writes in a review of the film Joker, “We are reeling from a disaster still unfolding, the unmaking of reality at the hands of millennial progressivism.” Indeed, when it comes to unmaking reality, our cognitive elite may as well inhabit the parody world of Gulliver’s Travels. Proposing blueprints for radical social change and meddling in the complexities of domestic and economic policy, they have come to resemble Jonathan Swift’s pixilated “projectors” in the Academy of Lagado (Book 3, Chapter 5), a conclave of intellectuals and academics “full of volatile spirits acquired in that airy region” of vacuous irrationality.

Swift of course thought he was writing satire. Instead, many idea much like this come out of our schools today.

In its effort to save the nation, Swift’s Academy put forward various endeavors to advance the economy, improve education, and become energy-self-sufficient. For example, it proposed “extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers.”

Sounds as plausible as anything anyone has come up with recently, although perhaps knocking over power stations and running water uphill are a bit more farfetched. As David writes, worrying, and not without reason, that some readers may not appreciate that he think’s they’re insane:

Swift inadvertently foretold our “social democratic” and progressivist future as typified by the Democrat Party’s “Green New Deal.” This project is designed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions; to convert 100 percent of power sources to renewable energy installations, thus replacing cheap, reliable energy with expensive, unreliable energy; to retrofit every building in the country in the interests of efficiency, at a cost destined to bankrupt the nation; to supplant air-travel with high-speed rail; to eliminate cows as methane infidels; and, among other vacant notions, to provide, in the words of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “economic security for all those who are unable or unwilling to work”—with regard to the latter, a lifelong paid holiday exploiting a shrinking working class.

And if you are looking for a paragraph that captures the insanity of the times in which we live, you will search a long way before you find something better than this.

Indeed, on the major issues of the historical moment—climate change, the war on terror, national borders, “social justice,” gender politics, race conflict, post-colonial theory, immigration—the tribe of progressivist mountebanks wherever we find them get everything wrong, opting for measures that only magnify the problems they affect to settle. We should not be surprised to find Lagadian absurdities in abundance, as for example: journalists who advocate exorbitant spending to neutralize debt (Paul Krugman); politicians who endorse socialized medicine, at a cost of trillions (Barack Obama); senators who propose tax rates over 100 percent (Elizabeth Warren); teachers who believe that history is a narrative to be manipulated for ideological ends (Howard Zinn); leaders who champion near-unlimited Muslim refugee migration, generating communal strife, outright violence, and unsustainable welfare expenditure (Angela Merkel); philosophers who affirm that truth is a relative concept—except for the truth of their own claims (Michel Foucault); revisionists who deplore the “mindless authority in European writing” (Edward Said); writers who promote violence as the road to millennial harmony (Slavoj Zizek); feminists who advocate the homicidal culling of men to create a better world (Mona Eltahawy); sciolists who argue that Islam is a “straight path” (John Esposito, Karen Armstrong); charlatans who claim a cooling world gradually entering a new Little Ice Age is actually warming (Al Gore, James Hanson, Michael Mann); medical practitioners who promote transgenderism and sex re-assignment surgery since the biological bodies we are born with are merely physical accessories (Ray Blanchard et al.); post-colonial theorists who claim that successful free-market societies are profiteering relics (Homi Bhabha); geo-engineers who recommend shooting particles into the atmosphere to block the sun’s harmful rays (John Holden); Luddites who want to selectively eliminate the fruits of technology and kill jobs (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez); and so on.

And so on indeed. Read them both, and to the end.

I will just mention that David Solway may be the Jonathan Swift of our times, except that it has become impossible to exceed in satire the reality with which we are now surrounded.

How to get high marks at University

Amongst my friends from economics classes these decades ago, the one who always got the highest marks – and not just because he understood this stuff better than the rest of us – was the one who took the fewest notes. He would write down only what the lecturer said more than once, got the wording exactly right, and would then be sure to write these words back on the exams. A superior strategy which I am reminded of by reading this: How to Cope With Your Prof’s Left-wing Bias. It wasn’t at the same level as today, although possibly no one really noticed since we were all Keynesians then (and therefore all socialists). But here’s the advice:

To get the best possible grade, students may need to pander to their professors’ left-wing ideology.

Professors are much more likely to be progressives than they are to be moderate or conservative. Law professors are no exception. Progressive professors view progressive views as a sign of intelligence, and conservatism as a sign of stupidity. For example, Prof. Robert Brandon, head of Duke University’s philosophy department, argued that conservatives are rare in academia because they are stupid.

He is talking about law, but it applies in all the humanities and social sciences, and absolutely in economics. Just ask yourself, how bizarre is it that virtually all academic economists (along with their idiot graduates) are socialists of one kind or another. Same everywhere, but among economists it is the greatest disgrace since they are supposed to know how an economy works, and if you are a socialist who never discusses the role of an entrepreneur you clearly do not.