John Hinderaker 📢Will a White Supremacist Please Step Forward?PowerLine 📢

John Hinderaker 📢Will a White Supremacist Please Step Forward?PowerLine 📢

Posted: 23 Dec 2019 04:44 PM PST (John Hinderaker)

The demand for white supremacists vastly exceeds the supply, which is why we see absurdities like the controversy over military academy students supposedly flashing “white power” signs at the Army-Navy football game. Now, apparently, the age-old “OK” sign means you are a white nationalist, notwithstanding that there are pictures of pretty much everyone in public life giving the sign, like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and nearly everyone else.

Barack Obama, white supremacist

Or maybe it only means white supremacy if you give the OK sign upside down. Who decreed this? Who knows? Apparently some goofballs on an obscure site called 4chan invented the idea that the OK sign (or maybe the upside-down OK sign) stands for white supremacy, as a joke. Sort of like Putin’s putzing with the 2016 election, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. And for the same reason: As silly as their effort was, there was an enormous will to believe within the Democratic Party media.

To no one’s surprise, two investigations have concluded that the midshipmen and cadets who flashed the “OK” sign were not expressing white nationalist views, but rather were playing “the circle game.” Which sounds dumb, but so what?

Of course, that doesn’t mean that “OK” hysteria has gone away. On the contrary: School Spends $53K to Reprint Yearbooks Because Students of ‘Various Races’ Made ‘OK’ Sign.

A high school in the Chicago suburbs is reprinting its 2018-2019 yearbooks at a cost of more than $50,000 after school officials spotted photos of students making “OK” hand gestures.

The use of the “OK” sign has been tied to white supremacist movements in recent years, though the relevance of the connection is often unclear.

That’s putting it mildly! The “tie,” as far as I know, is solely via the 4chan prank.

Oak Park River Forest High School, located in the prototypically “limousine liberal” town of Oak Park, will shell out $53,794, negotiated down from $85,000, for the new mementos. According to a letter seen by INSIDER, the yearbook contained 18 photos in which an “upside-down OK sign” was performed by students.

This is all craziness, of course, but it is craziness with a purpose. The Left is desperate to keep its racism narratives alive, no matter how threadbare they may be. Thus we see the New York Times’ ridiculous “1619 Project,” which recasts American history in a way that no respectable historian would countenance. Does that bother the Times? Not at all. The goal is political, and is focused especially on the 2020 presidential race.

Likewise with the “OK” sign. I don’t have a high opinion of the intelligence of the average liberal, but even Democratic Party reporters are not dumb enough to take seriously the idea that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the many millions more who have given the “OK” sign are closet white supremacists. So what is going on here?

Obviously, as noted above, the demand for white supremacists vastly exceeds the supply. It is vital to the Left’s narrative that white racism be alive and well–in fact, that it be an ever-increasing threat. But, obviously, it isn’t. If there were real evidence of a white supremacist movement (as opposed to one guy named Spencer who invariably is mentioned then the topic comes up), Democrats would cite that evidence.

But there isn’t any. I, personally, know hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people, but as far as I know I have never yet met a white supremacist. So the Democrats are reduced to whipping up enthusiasm among their voters, especially minority voters, with moronic attacks on Academy cadets and midshipmen and high school students. Are black and other minority Americans dumb enough to fall for this transparent ruse? I doubt it.

One thing we can say for sure: white supremacism has declined a long way from the days when it was the lifeblood of the Democratic Party, and Democrats expressed their racist views by hanging people. How much more peaceful it would have been if someone had taught the Democrats the “OK” sign!

The Power Line Show, Ep. 159: Come Again? The “1619 Project” Divides the Left?!

Posted: 23 Dec 2019 11:58 AM PST(Steven Hayward)

There are several new wrinkles in the saga of the New York Times‘s egregious and ideological “1619 Project” beyond the fine Roger Kimball essay that Paul highlights below. This can only mean one thing: time for another episode with “Lucretia,” Power Line’s International Woman of Mystery, and scourge of all things politically correct.

New developments in the story include a stinging letter to the editor of the New York Times magazine from five eminent American historians who are chiefly of a liberal bent themselves, such as Sean Wilentz, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood. For the record, I’m not a huge fan of Gordon Wood (explaining why in this long essay from a while ago) or Wilentz, but it is significant that these historians have decided to take such a public stand. I can only imagine that many historians and political scientists of a liberal bent likely agree with them, but like dissenters from the climate “consensus,” they are afraid to say so publicly for fear of being branded as a privileged white racist. The response of the Times editor is pretty weak, but provides occasion for us to correct the slanders directed at Lincoln from this woeful enterprise.

In fact some “historians of color” also dissent from the willful narrow-mindedness of the 1619 Project, such as Adolf Reed, who offers his quirky critique at the website of . . . (checks notes) . . . World Socialists?? What have the socialists got against the 1619 Project? It seems that these old-school revolutionaries think the embrace of identity politics actually serve the reactionary end of preventing a socialist revolution in our time. Pass the popcorn, as we marvel at the left’s intramural civil war over the civil war.

More broadly, the left is having an identity crisis paradoxically because of its tight embrace of identity politics. That’s the case of another great article just out we talk about toward the end of this episode, and you’ll want to listen all the way to the end for some discussion of different methods of cooking the traditional Christmas rib roast (mine will be on a rotisserie grill!), and ending finally with the proper exit music for the season—”Christmas Wrapping” from The Waitresses. Merry Christmas everybody!

You know what to do now: listen here or download the episode from our hosts at Ricochet.https://mp3.ricochet.com/2019/12/Ep-159-122319-11.26-AM.mp3

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

The New York Times’ hate America project

Posted: 23 Dec 2019 09:47 AM PST(Paul Mirengoff)

I don’t know of anyone who skewers the subversive antics of the American left as savagely, yet as elegantly, as Roger Kimball. In this article for the New Criterion, Roger trains his guns on the New York Times’ 1619 project.

That project is, in the words of the Times, an effort to “reframe [America’s] history, [by] understanding 1619 [when the first slave ships arrived here] as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.” In other words, it’s an effort to persuade Americans that they are citizens of a country that is, and always has been, evil.

Roger shows that Dean Baquet, the Times’ Executive Editor, launched the 1619 project as a result of the collapse of the Russia collusion narrative the paper peddled for two years:

Last summer, [Baquet] huddled with his staff in a town-hall-style meeting—the proceedings of which were promptly leaked—and acknowledged a sad truth: “We built our newsroom to cover one story” (the now-debunked story that Donald Trump had “colluded” with Russia to steal the 2016 election).

The story didn’t pan out. “Now we have to regroup,” Baquet told the assembled troops, “and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.” What story? Henceforth, or at least “for the next two years”—the remainder of Trump’s first term—the Times was going all in on “race, and other divisions.”

In other words, the Times couldn’t bring down Trump by harping on Russia, but maybe it can bring him down by harping on race. Or at least, in the process of trying, make Americans hate their country.

The problem with the 1619 project is that, like the Russia collusion hoax, it is delusional. Says Roger:

[The 1619 project is] a stupefying race-based fantasy about the origins of the United States. The lead essay, by the black journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the “architect” of The 1619 Project, set the tone. “[O]ne of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain,” she wrote, “was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”

So, everything you learned about the American Revolution is wrong, or at least wrongheaded. Forget about the Stamp Act, the, Boston Tea Party, the Intolerable Acts, “No taxation without representation,” etc. All that, utterly unmentioned by Ms. Hannah-Jones, was mere window dressing.

The American colonists might talk about liberty. What they really cared about, according to this malignant fairy tale, was preserving and extending the institution of slavery. “[S]ome might argue,” as Hannah-Jones coyly puts it, “that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.” Gosh.

Of course, “some might argue” any number of incredible things: that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that The New York Times is still a responsible source of news and even-handed commentary. The fact that “some might argue” X does not mean that X is credible.

The ravings of the 1619 project are not credible. In fact, they are too fanciful even for socialists:

[S]ome of the most vigorous rejoinders appear in the World Socialist Web Site, which has run long interviews with two deans of the history of the American Founding, James McPherson and Gordon Wood, neither of whom were consulted by the Times for The 1619 Project. McPherson, though eminently circumspect, concludes that The 1619 Project is

a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history. And slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries.

Wood concurs and notes further that the idea, propounded by The 1619 Project, that the American Revolution was fomented in order to protect slavery is simply ridiculous. On the contrary, “it is the northern states in 1776 that are the world’s leaders in the antislavery cause. . . . The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world.”

The 1619 Project pretends that the British were great crusaders in the campaign against slavery. But Wood points out, first, that the “British don’t get around to freeing the slaves in the West Indies until 1833,” and, second, that “if the Revolution hadn’t occurred,” they “might never have done so then, because all of the southern colonies would have been opposed. So supposing the Americans hadn’t broken away, there would have been a larger number of slaveholders in the greater British world who might have been able to prolong slavery longer than 1833.”

Roger concludes his take down of the 1619 project on a mildly optimistic note:

The 1619 Project represents a new nadir in the politically correct, anti-American machinations of The New York Times. Many sober observers would have dismissed it as beneath comment were it not that the residual prestige of the Times lends currency if not credibility to its illiterate and partisan contentions.

Perhaps an unintended collateral benefit of this malign folly will be—finally, at last—to dissolve the vestiges of that prestige and expose the paper to the condign contempt of the public whose trust they have so extravagantly betrayed.

Let’s hope so. It is either the Times’s standing or America’s.

Boris Johnson’s Hanukkah message

Posted: 23 Dec 2019 05:38 AM PST(Scott Johnson)

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recorded a Hanukah statement that he released via Twitter yesterday (below). The video is also posted on the 10 Downing Street YouTube channel here (comments are turned off). I learned via Ed Driscoll/InstaPundit that Israel National News has taken note of the statement and transcribed it here.

Like President Trump, Prime Minister Johnson chooses to stand with the Jewish people. It represents a striking commonality of their public profiles. Coincidentally, Dominic Green writes in his review of Norman Lebrecht’s Genius & Anxiety in the Wall Street Journal this morning:

The “Jewish Question” has returned on a resentful tide of lies and violence. It is now, Norman Lebrecht observes in this thrilling and tragic history, “cool to be cruel about Jews (though not about other minorities).” Frightening for Jews, this should alarm all Americans. The fever of Jew-hatred is an inerrant symptom of moral rot and civilizational crisis.

Earlier this month President Trump held a remarkable Hanukkah-related event in the White House. His remarks at the event are posted here. “As President,” he vowed, “I will always celebrate and honor the Jewish people, and I will always stand with our treasured friend and ally, the State of Israel — that, I can tell you.”

Both President Trump and Prime Minister Johnson seek to stave off moral rot and perpetuate our civilization.

Britain would not be Britain without its Jewish community. And we will stand with you and celebrate with you – at Chanukah and all year round. pic.twitter.com/S5ClRprCuL

— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) December 22, 2019

We now know: Live from Visalia

Posted: 23 Dec 2019 04:11 AM PST(Scott Johnson)

Back in his district before a friendly audience, Rep. Devin Nunes joined Lee Smith for an interview conducted by News Talk KMJ’s Ray Appleton about Lee’s book The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History. Having listened to the interview via Rep. Nunes’s podcast (below), I can only say I wish I had been there. That was my kind of crowd.

The podcast doesn’t take us inside the plot at the core of Lee’s book, but it takes us inside the uncovering of the plot. Speaking from his experience, Rep. Nunes cites the adage about survivors of a nuclear war: cockroaches and Communists. Adam Schiff may fall into both categories.

This podcast tells the most important story of the Trump era. It is a disgraceful story, but it is a story with a hero. That’s the story Lee Smith got down.

The interview captured in the podcast comes in the aftermath of the Department of Justice Inspector General report released on December 9. It is shot through with the corroboration that animates this “we now know” series of posts.

Quotable quote (Nunes on the Steele Dossier): “When I first saw it, I laughed.”

Quotable quote (Lee Smith on the plot): “It’s a horrible, shameful story.”

I learned of the podcast via Lee’s tweet below. The podcast can also be accessed via Lee’s tweet.

Here’s the podcast from the now historic Visalia CA event w/ ⁦@DevinNunes⁩ @RayAppletonKMJ & me during which the congressman leaped from his seat to save POTUS … listen as the crowd goes wild! Fun evening & a great talk. Thanks, Visalia! https://t.co/0L7x8zyBxA

— Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) December 20, 2019

Leave a Reply