RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/jews_against_themselves.html

Jews are now commemorating what is known as the Three Weeks.  It is when Jews express grief for the destruction of the Holy Temple in ancient Israel.  The Temple was breached by the Romans in 69 C.E.  The mourning period concludes with a fast to remember when both Holy Temples were set aflame.  Thus, Tisha B’Av (Ninth of Av) is the saddest day of the Jewish calendar.

These calamitous events, among others, came from outside the Jewish world but have impacted it for centuries.  What is happening today in America and abroad is that Jews are deliberately working against themselves.  Why are so many Jews joining forces with a known anti-Semitic group such as the Black Lives Matter?

In his 2015 book titled Jews Against Themselves, Edward Alexander examines the various strains of thought that many Jews have adopted.  The ultimate aim of each strain is the hollowing out of Judaism and the obliteration of Israel.  These approaches pit Jewish particularism against Jewish universalism, the latter which results in undermining Jewish interests and lives.  In essence, it is “Jewish suicidalism [sic].”

For example “Judith Butler who urges progressive people to fight anti-Semitism … maintains that it is ‘wildly improbable that somebody examining the divestment petitions signed by herself and her co-conspirators might take them (as hundreds on her own campus already had) as condoning anti-Semitism.'”  In short, Butler dismisses actions such as BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) and cannot comprehend that they are overtly anti-Semitic.  She is wearing blinders while maintaining the alleged moral high ground.

https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2020/07/09/in_war_its_total_victory_or_nothing_498690.html

There’s a longstanding maxim that states that only the complete destruction of one’s enemies will suffice. Merely winning a particular battle is not enough. If they survive the defeat and can come back to fight another day, then the ultimate victory is not assured. In contrast, the contest still hangs in the balance and the outcome of any one battle may not be the overriding determinate of the final result.

This thought is summed up in the work “The 48 Laws of Power,” a best-selling 1998 book by American author Robert Greene. Law 15 states, “…. a feared enemy must be crushed completely. If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation. The enemy will recover and seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.”

Examples of this truism abound in history. There are several examples of when tactical battles were won but the bigger strategic objective was lost, with disastrous long-term consequences.

Dunkirk 1940
After Nazi Germany’s 1940 spring offensive against Western Europe, the last remaining Allied combatants — France and Great Britain — found themselves defeated and cornered in the French coastal town of Dunkirk. Over 300,000 French and British troops (along with a small number of Polish forces that had survived the campaign against Germany the previous September) were trapped after marauding German Panzer forces had crushed the inexplicably weak and uninspired French army in what was perhaps history’s most one-sided major land engagement.

https://unitedwithisrael.org/black-nfl-player-its-wrong-to-think-jews-are-like-other-w

‘Blacks are wrong to think Jews are like other whites,’ said Pittsburgh Steelers player Zach Banner while blasting Jackson’s anti-Semitic remarks and the deafening silence from fellow professional football players.

Pittsburgh Steelers football player Zach Banner made a hugely powerful statement this week, calling on “my NFL brothers” to join him to support the Jewish community in the wake of an anti-Semitic social media post by another NFL player.

Saying that the anti-Semitic remarks by Philadelphia Eagles player DeSean Jackson had kept him awake, Banner tweeted a message to his fellow players saying, “We must hold each other accountable. We must STAND up and for one another. We must keep our focus on the movement at hand.”

“I’m not going to lie. The lack of empathy from my brothers in the NFLPA (National Football League Players Association) towards the DeSean Jackson situation…and our Jewish friends and fans – most importantly fans and the Jewish community, is…horrendous.” Banner said in a video he posted on Twitter.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/09/where-the-hell-is-john-durham/

Trump has every right to be enraged that four years after Barack Obama’s top henchmen concocted and executed the biggest political scandal of all time, not one person has been held criminally responsible while trials against his associates drag on.

In May 2019, Attorney General William Barr made an announcement millions of Americans had been waiting for: A U.S. attorney outside the Beltway would investigate the corrupt origins of the FBI’s probe into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and government efforts to sabotage the incoming president after he was elected.

For the past 14 months, we have been waiting (impatiently, I confess) for news from John Durham, the Connecticut prosecutor Barr tapped to lead the long-delayed inquiry. After all, by the time the attorney general initiated the targeted probe, there was plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by top officials in the Obama Administration, including James Comey, John Brennan, and Andrew McCabe among others. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had wrapped up his two-year partisan witch hunt and despite unlimited resources—along with the unflinching support of Republicans on Capitol Hill—Barack Obama’s former FBI director could find no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

But Mueller did plenty of damage in the interim. Just weeks after his May 2017 appointment, Mueller started rounding up Trump associates: George Papadopoulos was arrested at Dulles Airport in July 2017 on a concocted charge. A few months later, Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, was arrested; Lt. General Michael Flynn finally relented to a plea deal for which he still hasn’t been sentenced. (The judge in the case is refusing to drop the charges against Flynn, per the government’s request.) All that and more happened within the first six months of Mueller’s investigation.

Yet Durham has produced nothing for public consumption.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/woke-protesters-historys-ingredients-riot-revolution/#slide-1

History’s ingredients of riot and revolution

A TikTok video that recently went viral on social media showed a recent Harvard graduate threatening to stab anyone who said “all lives matter.” In her melodrama, she tried to sound intimidating with her histrionics.

She won a huge audience, as she intended. But her video also came to the attention of the company that was going to give her an internship later this summer, Deloitte, which decided it didn’t want to add an intern who threatened to kill strangers who said something she didn’t like.

This wouldn’t have been much of a story. But then the narcissistic Harvard alum posted a very different video — one that showed her weeping in a near-fetal position.

She fought back tears while complaining about how unfair the world had been to her. Her initial TikTok post had earned cruel pushback from the social-media jungle she had courted. Deloitte, she sobbed, was mean and hurtful. And she wanted the world to share her pain.

The Harvard grad instantly became an unwitting poster girl for the current protest movement and the violence that has accompanied it. What turns off millions of Americans about the statue toppling, the looting, the threats, and the screaming in the face of police is the schizophrenic behavior of so many of the would-be revolutionaries.

On one hand, those toppling statues or canceling their own careers on the Internet pose as vicious Maoists — the hard-core shock troops of the revolution. Their brand is vile profanity, taunts to police, firebombs, and spray paint.

In homage to Italy’s Blackshirts of the past, they wear black hoodies, don makeshift helmets, and strap on ad hoc protective padding — part lacrosse attire, part cinematic Road Warrior costume.

www.swtotd.blogspot.c

“Patriotism,” said Samuel Johnson in 1775, “is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” A little more than a hundred years later, Oscar Wilde wrote, “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” In 1906, Ambrose Bierce published The Devils Dictionary. In it he accused Samuel Johnson of being too gentle; Bierce defined patriotism as “the first resort of the scoundrel.”  From Mark Twain to H.L. Mencken, wits have had great fun belittling patriots and patriotism.

Patriotism is a positive force. In a cynical age, patriotism appears dated; it is out of sync with progressive beliefs. But true patriotism is deeply embedded. It accepts and withstands criticism. In Notes of a Native Son (1955), James Baldwin wrote: “I love America more than any other country in this world and exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” That is as it should be – the right to criticize is implicit in free speech. Patriotism is devotion and attachment to one’s homeland and fellow citizens; it does not mean total obeisance, as is required by those from Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Patriotism should not be confused with nationalism, which is divisive, intolerant and nihilistic. In a multiracial and multicultural country, patriotism is what binds a disparate people. Patriotism is inclusive and feeds on love, while nationalism is partisan and is nourished by hate.

Patriotism was the theme of President Trump’s speech at Mount Rushmore on July 3rd. That was as it should be, as the United States celebrated its 244th birthday. If one were to read only the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, or the start of Associated Press’ Jill Colvin’s postmortem, “After a weekend spent stoking division, President Donald Trump…”, one would conclude that Mr. Trump’s speech in South Dakota was dark and divisive. However, if one read it, without knowledge of the speaker, it would appear uplifting and optimistic.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/08/big-philanthropy-and-the-battle-against-systemic-racism/

The millennialist mindset of Big Philanthropy and its fellow travelers leaves one susceptible to any world-saving scheme that comes down the pike.

Who would have thought the Gates Foundation would endorse tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus, Ulysses S. Grant, George Washington, and other dead white men?

Sure, you won’t find “mob violence,” “vandalism,” or “destruction of public property” in any grant applications, but the paroxysms of rage racking our country and the desire to rip racism from America by root and branch is the end-product of Big Philanthropy’s governing ideology.

To understand why, you have to know the difference between charity and philanthropy.

When a charity sees a hungry widow and her toddler daughter, it buys food and gives it to them. Save-a-Soul Mission would offer a sermon with the soup but that was pretty much the end of it.

When a philanthropy sees a hungry widow and child, it pays 1,800 overeducated, post-graduate credentialed, deracinated, privileged children of the elites to study crop yields, food distribution patterns, income inequality, demographic trends, and to design and implement a comprehensive 600-page program using the most sophisticated computer models to predict what will absolutely, certainly, definitively eliminate poverty. In the meantime, it will place the widow’s child with foster parents of better means and provide a micro loan to develop the mother’s entrepreneurial superpower.

Where charity seeks to feed the hungry, scientific philanthropy seeks to eliminate the causes of hunger. The charitable impulse says if you save one person you have saved the world. The philanthropic impulse says system-wide change will be the salvation of humanity.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/07/09/companies-must-answer-for-their-support-of-the-radical-black-lives-matter-org/

“There are plenty of organizations working to help blacks and other minorities succeed in this country but aren’t bent on turning the U.S. into a socialist hellhole. Corporate executives should take the time to learn about them.”

Several companies have been bragging recently that they’re providing financial support to the official Black Lives Matter organization to burnish their PR image. No doubt they’re getting Woke points for doing so. But do the executives at those companies have any idea how radical this group is and what it’s trying to achieve?

The Daily Signal reported earlier this week that at least 18 corporations have pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.

The list includes: DoorDash, Deckers, Amazon, Gatorade, Microsoft, Glossier, 23andMe, AirBnB, Unilever, Bungie, Nabisco, Dropbox, Fitbit, Developer Digital, Skillshare, Square Enix, The Game Co., and Tinder.

The Daily Signal notes that other companies said they were giving to Black Lives Matter, but didn’t specifically say it was to the foundation.

Private companies are free to give their money to whomever they want. But you’d think that the executives at these corporations would have done the least bit of due diligence before forking over the funds.

So, here are some questions for these companies, and any others that are giving money or encouraging donations to the BLM foundation.

Do your shareholders and employees know that their company is supporting a group run by “trained Marxists”?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/08/america-needs-to-stop-reacting-to-coronavirus-like-a-bunch-of-hysterics/

Americans are learning how to cope with the virus in a common-sense way. That doesn’t mean being reckless, but neither does it mean cowering inside every day of every week and every month unless a vaccine shows up.

Harvard University recently announced that it will ban students from in-person classes for the entirety of the next academic year. The decision, not based on science, is typical of the decisions made by many elites in response to the novel coronavirus sweeping the globe.

Global pandemics aren’t new, but the way many Americans are responding to this one is. Americans have been blessed to experience few pandemics in recent decades. The swine flu of 2009 was no fun, as my husband can attest, but it resulted in only 273,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths in the United States. The Wuhan virus hospitalizations and deaths have eclipsed those numbers many times over.

But from 1918 to 1968, pandemics, deadly flus, and horrific childhood diseases were much more common. When the Asian flu hit the United States in 1957, during the Eisenhower administration, it was just the latest contagion college students had faced in a lifetime of contagious diseases. The 1957 Asian flu killed 116,000 Americans at a time the U.S. population was 172 million, just more than half the current population. That would be the equivalent of 222,000 Americans today. By comparison, the coronavirus has killed 133,000 Americans thus far.

By the time the Asian flu came along in 1957, many college students had already battled measles, mumps, chicken pox, German measles, and polio. For many years, there were no vaccines for these things. The parents of these college students had battled diphtheria, scarlet fever, typhoid fever, pneumonia, and the Spanish flu that killed 675,000 Americans and more than 50 million across the world. In today’s terms, that would be the equivalent of more than 1.6 million Americans dying from coronavirus.

There were brief, localized school closures in 1957 but the epidemic barely formed a blip in the American consciousness. It didn’t even elicit much of a mention in major Eisenhower biographies. Even the horrific Spanish flu was not a major media event. There is no historic record of President Woodrow Wilson even publicly mentioning the flu, which killed more than 0.5 percent of the U.S. population.

The 1968 Hong Kong flu was also bad, killing about 100,000 Americans when the population was just 60 percent of what it is now.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/08/an-open-letter-on-canceling-cancel-culture-from-the-greatest-living-american-writer/
For those of you unfamiliar with cancel culture, it’s speech that speaks out against other speech that may be speaking speakings that other speakers find offensive.

The organizers of the recent Harper’s Magazine letter against cancel culture didn’t ask me to participate in their project, despite the fact that my Uncle, T. Gore Pollack III, was that magazine’s founding editor. They neglected to include me because they’re afraid of my ideas. Also, I’ve either divorced, broken up with, or participated in a conscious friendship uncoupling with at least a dozen of the signatories. Such is the price of profligacy and greatness.

Nevertheless, as the leading American thinker of my time, or any time, I feel a burning erotic need to speak out against cancel culture right now. For those of you unfamiliar with cancel culture, it’s speech that speaks out against other speech that may be speaking speakings that other speakers find offensive. Though I’m as immune to cancellation as I am to COVID-19, I’ve still felt the hot breath of the culture on my neck in recent years.

The Internet has met certain recent ideas of mine, such as the fact that Black men are actually white women, The Virus Is From Space, and Tom Brady is a TERF denier, with a fury usually reserved for people who are less handsome than I am. Emily Wallace-Wells, a staff writer from Voxios, released a three-paragraph statement that said my words decrying the desecration of the Dr. Seuss sculpture garden in Springfield, Massachusetts, made her feel “unsafe”, despite the fact that I’ve never met her and also the fact that she doesn’t actually exist. These are the sorts of nightmares that cancel culture has created.