No conspiracy! No conspiracy!

One accused Jewish pedophile is trying to help a convicted Jewish pedophile keep the legal contemplations of his confirmed sex trafficking crimes under wraps. Also, if you believe that Jews have ever conspired at anything for their self-perceived mutual benefit, you are a hater and an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist manifestly guilty of the crime of Noticing. You’re probably Hitler too.

A court hearing on whether to unseal sensitive documents involving the alleged sex trafficking of underage girls by Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein — and the possible involvement of his influential friends — will play out in a New York City courtroom next week.

But it may happen behind closed doors, with the news media and public barred — at least in part.

An attorney for lawyer Alan Dershowitz wrote a letter to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday, asking whether the media should be excluded from the proceeding because his oral arguments on behalf of his client could contain sensitive information that has been under seal.

The appeals court had not responded to his concern as of Friday, but if the hearing is closed during his lawyer’s argument, it would represent the latest in a long history of successful efforts to keep details of Epstein’s sex crimes sealed.

Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard, constitutional law expert and criminal defense attorney, represented Epstein, who in 2008 received what many consider an unusually light sentence for sexually abusing dozens of girls at his Palm Beach mansion. Two women — one of whom was underage — have said Epstein and his partner, British socialite and environmentalist Ghislaine Maxwell, directed them to have sex with Dershowitz, 80, and other wealthy, powerful men. Dershowitz and Maxwell have denied the claims.

The (((Chief Judge))) of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Second Court could not be reached for comment, as his office reported that he had a meeting scheduled with (((Robert Kraft))), the winner of the $1 million 2019 Genesis Prize for having made a significant contribution to improving the world, being proud of his Jewish heritage, and inspiring young Jews through his dedication to philanthropy and social justice, at the Young Blossoms of Asia Day Spa.

South Africa in Atlanta

To be honest, I don’t feel the least bit of sympathy for the upscale white citizens of Buckhead, Georgia. Outside of Silicon Valley, it would be hard to find a more self-satisfied group of anti-racist virtue signalers anywhere in the United States:

Black crime in Atlanta is protected by the black-run government of Atlanta, who allow black criminals to prey upon the upscale white citizens of Buckhead.

Law and order is dead in America, and in Buckhead, black criminals are allowed to engage in criminality against white citizens because the Atlanta Police Department no longer prioritizes keeping their commercial or private property safe.

A glimpse of the future for all of white Americans once they capitulate power to black elected officials.

I don’t see what they’re complaining about. The most important thing is that no one can call them racists, and what is the cost of a little theft, burglary, and armed robbery in comparison with such an undeniably unmitigated benefit? After all, crime in the historically low-crime district is now only 31.6 percent higher than in downtown Atlanta.

The future for the United States of Diversity is looking more vibrant than ever!

No Venezuelan Spring

The neocons have met with their first setback in South America, according to the Saker:

The standoff between Venezuela and the AngloZionist Empire last week-end has clearly ended in what can only be called a total defeat for Elliott Abrams. While we will never know what was initially planned by the demented minds of the Neocons, what we do know is that nothing critical happened: no invasion, not even any major false flag operation. The most remarkable facet of the standoff is how little effect all the AngloZionist propaganda has had inside Venezuela. There were clashes, including some rather violent ones, across the border, but nothing much happened in the rest of the country. Furthermore, while a few senior officers and a few soldiers did commit treason and join forces with the enemy, the overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan military remained faithful to the Constitution. Finally, it appears that Maduro and his ministers were successful in devising a strategy combining roadblocks, a concert on the Venezuelan side, and the minimal but effective use of riot police to keep the border closed. Most remarkably, “unidentified snipers” did not appear to shoot at both sides (a favorite tactic of the Empire to justify its interventions). I give the credit for this to whatever Venezuelan (or allied) units were in charge of counter-sniper operations along the border.

Outside Venezuela this first confrontation has also been a defeat for the Empire. Not only did most countries worldwide not recognize the AngloZionist puppet, but the level of protest and opposition to what appeared to be the preparations for a possible invasion (or, at least, a military operation of some kind) was remarkably high. While the legacy corporate Ziomedia did what it always does (that is whatever the Empire wants it to do), the Internet and the blogosphere were overwhelmingly opposed to a direct US intervention. This situation also created a great deal of internal political tensions in various Latin American countries whose public opinion remains strongly opposed to any form of US imperial control over Latin America.

In this respect, the situation with Brazil is particularly interesting. While the Brazilian government fully backed the US coup attempt, the Brazilian military was most uncomfortable with this. My contacts in Brazil had correctly predicted that the Brazilian military would refuse to attack Venezuela and, eventually, the Brazilians even issued a statement to that effect.

Meanwhile, the American public is almost entirely indifferent to Venezuela.

So be more inclusive, Navy

I don’t see this shortage of sailors being a problem that adding twenty-five thousand women, transvestites, and low-IQ immigrants to the Navy can’t fix:

The Navy is short about 6,200 sailors to meet its at-sea requirements for its current force, and that gap could grow as the service adds new ships to the fleet, the head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command told a House panel on Tuesday.

Those sailors will, in part, be used to plus-up crew numbers on each surface ship after the Navy had previously gone to a lower “optimal manning” crew size to save personnel costs, Adm. Chris Grady told a combined hearing before the House Armed Services readiness and seapower and projection forces subcommittees.

“As we sailed through that environment, we recognized that that was too few, and indeed since 2012 the number on a DDG was 240; in 2017 it’s about 270 and will be funded back up very close to the original size of a guided-missile destroyer in 2023 at about 318,” he said. “Personnel is expensive, and that number did not work out well, and we’re now buying back to a larger size crew complement for a destroyer.”

According to the written testimony from Grady and U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. John Aquilino submitted for the hearing, the missing sailors are from the mid-grade and senior enlisted ranks that will take years to train and place in the fleet. The pair indicated there wasn’t a specific set of billets they needed to fill with the new sailors but rather that they were needed across platforms at sea.

That number could grow as the Navy adds ships to the fleet and personnel needs rise, Grady said. Growing sailors fast enough to the level of technical ability to operate the proposed 355 ships is set to be a major challenge for the service and a key focus of the Navy’s ongoing surface reform effort.

Acute manning problems were found to be a factor in the fatal collisions of USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and USS John McCain (DDG-56). For example, Fitzgerald did not have lookouts on the bridge wing immediately before the crash, and sailors aboard McCain weren’t qualified to use the helm controls which contributed to its collision.

I wonder how many of those expanded destroyer crews of 318 are going to be pregnant and unable for deployment when the ships go to sea? Or, is the real number required 240, but so many sailors are unable to deploy that they need a nominal crew of 318 in order to fill the real number needed for the mission?

Fixing conservatism to save the West

The author of The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony, is attempting to define a viable alternative to the neo-liberal world order.

The present moment is one of growing discomfort, both in America and in Europe, with the regnant liberal political theory often described as liberal democracy. It is frequently said that the only genuine alternatives to liberal democracy are Marxism and Fascism, but I don’t believe this is true. I want to sketch an alternative viewpoint that I will call conservative democracy. This ­position is closer to the spirit of traditional constitutionalism in both America and Britain than the liberal political theories of our day. Moreover, it is far better equipped to maintain the free institutions of these nations than liberalism.

There are prominent scholars and public figures who are convinced that “things are getting better” in almost every way. As for me, I find it difficult not to see the Western nations disintegrating ­before our eyes. The most significant institutions that have characterized America and Britain for the last five centuries, giving these countries their internal ­coherence and stability—the Bible, public religion, the independent national state, and the traditional family—are not merely under assault. They have been, at least since World War II, in precipitous ­decline.

In the United States, for example, some 40 percent of children are today born outside of marriage. The overall fertility rate has fallen to 1.76 children per woman. American children for the most part receive twelve years of public schooling that is scrubbed clean of God and Scripture. And it is now possible to lose one’s livelihood or even to be prosecuted for maintaining traditional Christian or Jewish views on various subjects.

Add to this the fact that the principal project of European and American political elites for decades now has been the establishment of a “liberal international order” whose aim is to export American norms and values to other nations, and you have a stunning picture of what the United States has become—a picture that in certain respects resembles that of Napoleonic France: an ideologically anti-religious, anti-traditionalist universalist power seeking to bring its version of the Enlightenment to the nations of the world, if necessary by force.

I applaud Hazony’s efforts. They are without question an improvement on the current situation. But his efforts are not going to work because Christianity is an integral component of Western Civilization and Hazony’s habitual conflation of Judaism with Christianity is far too akin to the anti-Western Judeo-Christianity that is one of the primary causal factors of the decline of the USA and the West. Hazony even appears to understand this on some level:

What is now called “liberal democracy” refers not to the traditional Anglo-­American constitution, but to a rationalist reconstruction of it that has been detached from Protestant religion and the Anglo-American nationalist tradition. Far from being a time-tested form of government, this liberal-democratic ideal is something new to both America and Britain, establishing itself as authoritative only in recent decades.

Traditionally, Americans referred to their form of government as republican government. Indeed, insofar as usage is concerned, the term “liberal democracy” does not become more common in public discussion than the traditional term “republican government” until the 1960s. And it does not achieve its present dominant position in discourse on forms of government (overwhelming even the expression “democratic government”) until the 1990s.

This shift in language is not arbitrary, but reflects a profound reconfiguration at the level of ideas as well: a reconfiguration of what kind of government is considered desirable and legitimate. Roughly speaking, the dominant position of the term “republican government” corresponds to the period in which the Anglo-American conservative tradition remained to some significant degree intact, and so was able to serve as a bulwark against too great a penetration of liberal axioms into public life.

What was a “republican government” in the traditional American conception? A republican government in America was, among other things, one that could see itself as reflecting and reinforcing the values of a “Christian people” (to use a famous phrase of the Supreme Court that continued to be reaffirmed through the 1930s). Indeed, in 1942, FDR was still speaking of the United States as a nation that “hold[s] to the old ideals of Christianity.”

But by 1948 we find, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court banning voluntary religious education in public schools that offer simultaneous Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish classes.

Almost everyone wants the fruits of Western Civilization less whatever aspects make them feel uncomfortable or excluded. But they will never attain them, or even preserve them, without accepting and embracing every aspect of it, even if it leaves them on the outside. In any event, it’s a well-written article and it’s interesting to see an Israeli intellectual defending both nationalism and American Christianity, as well as highlighting the mythology of the “proposition nation”. And he is correct to observe that the survival of the West will require the rejection of what he describes as the closed liberal axiom system of Enlightenment-rationalist principles.

Mailvox: Brexit update

Our British Brexit expert is now less certain that a no-deal Brexit will take place as scheduled on March 29.

The recent votes in the Commons were a non-event. They simply commit parliament to hold votes:
12 March: Theresa May’s deal;
13 March: ‘No Deal’ if Theresa May’s deal was rejected the day before;
14 March: Article 50 extension if ‘No Deal’ was rejected the day before.
Belgian MEP, Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the liberals in the EU parliament, and lead EU parliamentarian on Brexit, was last night against any Article 50 extension which would cause Britain to hold European Elections 23 May. This is because it would give Faragistes and Kippers a say in the selection of the new EU executive to replace Juncker, Tusk et al., and over the ratification of Theresa May’s deal.
Remember that Britain is not trivial in size and is equal to the smallest 19 EU countries combined.
Also remember that Brexiteer lawsuits are stacked up, just waiting for the government to make a mistake. If we can litigate our way out, we will. However, as the lawyers know, first we need a cause of action, and that can’t happen until the government or parliament makes decisions. For example, any delay and Brexiteers will litigate to ensure EU elections are held in Britain so that we can affect the selection of the EU executive and ratification of deals. Of course what is litigated depends on what decisions are taken, it is inherently reactive.
The EU are saying that they would only agree to extensions if Britain has a clear roadmap to achieve a deal. By which they mean surrender. And it is a surrender, on a par with military defeat and occupation, which would lead us around by the nose.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was last night saying that he would be prepared to vote for Theresa May’s deal, including the Irish backstop on one condition: Theresa May resigns.
I think that this is wrong. However it’s not completely crazy. Here’s the logic:
1. Almost all of the deal is time limited. It expires over the course of the next decade. It’s humiliating, it fails to give the EU the contact with hard reality that they desperately need, and it hamstrings our ability to chart our own course, but it does eventually expire. The exception here is the Irish backstop.
2. Any Conservative Party leadership contest would result in a Brexiteer prime minister. This is because the final 2 candidates are voted on by the party members around the country, who are ‘no deal’ Brexiteers. Personally I would prefer Jacob Rees-Mogg, but he would rather remain the “éminence grise”, so it’s going to be Boris Johnson. We have to work with who we’ve got.
3. The ‘Future Relationship’ agreement with the EU, Brexit Part Deux, would then NOT be negotiated by Theresa May and Olly Robbins. Instead it would be negotiated by Brexiteers.
4. This kicks into touch the Labour Party’s new strategy of another referendum and Customs Union with dynamic alignment of regulations (EU membership and control of our economy without representation), because it would simply have been overtaken by events at the next general election (probably 7 June 2022). The Labour Party has yesterday firmly demonstrated that it doesn’t care about its rust-belt voters, so a properly led Conservative Party can pick up those districts at a future election. The Labour Party would solely be the party of metropolitan chatterati and minorities.
5. A Brexiteer Prime Minister can start to dismantle the incestuous relationship whereby Central Office chooses the MP candidates and the MPs choose Central Office – turning ordinary party members around the country into a rubber stamp. This relationship, as I have previously written, is the fundamental problem which disconnects the MPs and government from the electorate. It is this which causes the implementation of policies which are well received by the media, but detested by any sane person.
6. If the Irish backstop remains a problem after several years, we can simply use the 1970 Treaty of Vienna, combined with the fact that no British Parliament may bind a future British Parliament, to repudiate the backstop after the next election with 3 months’ notice.
Separately, I would point out that when we decided to leave the EU, we were prepared to treat it as the cancellation of a golf club membership – which is legally what it is. “We don’t want to play any more. In fact we never did and you lied to us, but no hard feelings, and good luck with your 18 holes tomorrow.”
However, what the EU has done since the discussions with Cameron began after the May 2015 British General Election, is demonstrate that they are not simply a hazard, but are actually a direct threat to us. They have behaved with a colonial mentality towards us. We won’t be safe until we have dismantled the EU. This must now be the primary objective of British foreign and economic policy. Fortunately, the EU is so unstable that this is practical objective, rendered much more so by a Brexiteer Prime Minister who understands the threat with the EU poses.

My thought is that Leave means Leave. No Deal Brexit is the best possible outcome for the British people. No matter how celebrated it may be at the time, any deal with the EU will eventually come to be seen in much the same light as Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement and the MPs are being exceedingly foolish to even consider any deal of any kind with the Fourth Reich.

Obama adminstration supported ISIS

Once more, we see that the conspiracy theory of history tends to be more accurate than the mainstream version:

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has for the first time divulged explosive secrets about how the United States supported ISIS and intentionally allowed the Takfiri terror outfit to gain power in Iraq so that Washington could creep back into the Arab country.

Maliki, who served as PM between 2006 and 2014, told a local TV station on Sunday that the administration of former US President Barack Obama had played a key role in the creation of ISIS by allowing the terrorist group to overrun Iraqi territories.

According to the former premier, in 2013, the US provided Iraq with intelligence and aerial imagery pinpointing ISIS militants who had lined up behind Iraqi borders in Syria in large groups, waiting to cross into Iraq after what they thought was going to be the imminent fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Maliki said back then Baghdad had no fighter jets capable of bombing the terrorist positions and the Iraqi combat helicopters did not have the range to orchestrate an attack. So naturally, Baghdad turned to Washington for help and asked the Obama administration to provide the Iraqi air force with “one or two” fighter jets under the 2008 security agreement between the two sides.

Washington, however, turned down the requests and advised the Iraqi government to ask Jordan for help but that was a no-go as there was no military cooperation agreement between Baghdad and Amman at the time.

Nevertheless, the Iraqi army’s 7th Division was sent to eradicate the terrorists without air support and made some progress before landing in a deadly terrorist siege that killed its commander and nearly dismantled the whole division.

The former Iraqi PM said America’s support for ISIS did not end there as Washington proceeded to stop all supplies of helicopter parts and other military equipment to Iraq and halted a contract to sell Iraq F-16 attack aircraft even though Baghdad had paid for them in advance.

As usual, all one has to do is wait a few years and the official story almost invariably mutates. For example, did you know that despite the headlines at the time, there was no recession in 2001? Just review the current BEA statistics and you’ll see that it’s been adjusted out of existence.

Two arguments for free speech

A few notes concerning the recent pair of Darkstreams on free speech:

A man can never be hindered from thinking whatever he chooses so long as he conceals what he thinks. The working of his mind is limited only by the bounds of his experience and the power of his imagination. But this natural liberty of private thinking is of little value. It is unsatisfactory and even painful to the thinker himself, if he is not permitted to communicate his thoughts to others, and it is obviously of no value to his neighbours. Moreover it is extremely difficult to hide thoughts that have any power over the mind. If a man’s thinking leads him to call in question ideas and customs which regulate the behaviour of those about him, to reject beliefs which they hold, to see better ways of life than those they follow, it is almost impossible for him, if he is convinced of the truth of his own reasoning, not to betray by silence, chance words, or general attitude that he is different from them and does not share their opinions. Some have preferred, like Socrates, some would prefer to-day, to face death rather than conceal their thoughts. Thus freedom of thought, in any valuable sense, includes freedom of speech.

– JB Bury, A History of the Freedom of Thought

In the case of Bury, his core argument in defense of freedom of speech is constructed as follows:

  1. Man’s thoughts are free because they cannot be known or hindered by other parties.
  2. Man cannot refrain from speaking his thoughts.
  3. Therefore, freedom of speech is an intrinsic right of Man.

I trust the two major flaws in this syllogism are obvious to the reader. First, if Man’s thoughts are free because they cannot be known or hindered, then Man’s speech cannot be for that same reason. Second, we have evidence every single day that Man is capable of concealing his thoughts, or at the very least, not converting them to speech. The conclusion simply does not follow logically from the premises.

The ineptitude of the Erasmusian case for the freedom of speech is even worse. His 1516 The Education of a Christian Prince is often cited by free speech advocates because it contains the phrase, “In a free state, tongues too should be free.”

But what did Erasmus actually write?

Even the emperor Hadrian, a pagan and not to be classed among the good princes, would never listen to a charge of lese-majeste; and not even that cruel monster Nero gave much heed to secret accusation on that charge. There was another one who paid no attention at all to charges of this sort and said, “In a free country, tongues likewise should be free.” Therefore, there are no crimes which a good prince will pardon more readily or more gladly than those which affect him alone.
– Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince

Now the punchline. Erasmus not defending free speech, he is encouraging the prince, like King Lune of Archenland, to be the most magnanimous man in the kingdom. And the phrase in question is not his own, as he is quoting “another one”. Who is this “another one” of whom Erasmus writes?

Why, it is none other than the Emperor Tiberius, as quoted by Suetonius, the Roman Emperor infamous for the Senatorial purges and treason trials conducted in his name by his chosen right-hand man, Sejanus. A less-convincing historical champion of free speech would be difficult to conjure!

Freedom of speech is manifestly not a right, and the observably inept attempts of its advocates to establish it as one should be more than sufficient to convince every rational observer of the inherently nonsensical nature of the claim.