Vice President-elect Kamala Harris recently tweeted:

“Our Kwanzaa celebrations are one of my favorite childhood memories. The whole family would gather around across multiple generations and we’d tell stories and light the candles. Whether you’re celebrating this year with those you live with or over Zoom, happy Kwanzaa!”

Post some pictures, Kamala! We’d love to see your Brahmin and Jamaican grandparents sitting around the Kwanzaa candles recalling celebrations way back when they were three or four years younger. (The Washington Post‘s “Fact Checker” should start counting Kamala’s lies!)

Kwanzaa, celebrated exclusively by white liberals, is a fake holiday invented in 1966 (when Kamala was 2 years old) by black radical/FBI stooge Ron Karenga — aka Dr. Maulana Karenga, founder of United Slaves, the violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural gibberish that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves.

In what was ultimately a foolish gambit, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better. (It’s the same function MSNBC serves today.)

“Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.”

By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. The United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (I will not be shooting any Black Panthers this week because I am Kwanzaa-reform, and we are not that observant.)

It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public school teachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize Nigerian newspapers that claimed that certain American black radicals were CIA operatives.

Now we know the truth: The FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police. Whether Karenga was a willing FBI dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear. The left has forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot two Black Panthers to death on the UCLA campus: Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as the chair of the Africana Studies Department at California State University at Long Beach.

(Speaking of which, the cheap labor lobby certainly was right about how the GOP could easily win over “natural conservative” Hispanics. Look at how California has swung decisively to the right since Hispanics became the largest ethnic group there! Good luck winning California now, Democrats!)

The esteemed Cal State professor Karenga’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another invention of The Worst Generation.

In 1974, Patty Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, famously posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snakehead stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani. These are the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.

Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life. It takes a village to raise a police snitch!

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites. (And here’s something interesting: Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)

While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” (Is that the mass murder or the seizure of private property?), Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.”

There’s an inclusive philosophy for you!

Sing to “Jingle Bells”:

Kwanzaa bells, dashikis sell
Whitey has to pay;
Burning, shooting, oh what fun
On this made-up holiday!

Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black people celebrate Christmas.

I’ve been pointing out for some time now that the acronym for the fashionable keywords Diversity-Inclusion-Equity is DIE. But I didn’t mean for the federal Centers for Disease Control to take DIE seriously when drawing up their Covid vaccine prioritization philosophy.

Yet when the CDC’s panel got together last month, they recommended that while it would save more lives to make the 53 million Americans of age 65 and over the second-highest priority for inoculation after health-care workers, “equity” instead demands that 87 million “essential workers” go ahead of the old, because they aren’t as white.

(Today, 77.6 percent of those 65+ are white compared with 60.1 percent of the total population and only half of children under 18.)

“If some whites were to hurry up and die, well, that would just make matters more equitable.”

Dr. Peter Szilagyi, a UCLA professor and member of the advisory panel, argued, in effect, that “ethics” necessitated discrimination against the old because they are whiter:

“To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country, and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers.”

As Megan McArdle points out, participants in the conference unanimously agreed that the DIE buzzword “equity” requires favoritism for workers over the elderly:

“This is where we can really elevate the issue of health equity”

“If we’re serious about valuing equity…we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program”

“Strongly agree…for equity reasons…”

Now, you might think that ethical reasoning would suggest that life-or-death policies should be based on more neutral criteria such as age rather than on race. But that’s because you believe “All lives matter,” which is now racist.

If a CDC expert were to utter out loud that “All lives matter,” his career would be over. In 2020, our culture’s highest value is that Black (with a capital B) lives matter most.

In the U.S., “ethics” is increasingly equated with “equity,” which is increasingly equated with being antiwhite.

For example, here’s the CDC’s PowerPoint of “Ethical Principles” from their Nov. 23 meeting:

As I’ve been pointing out for years, and it should have become clear to everybody at least in 2020, many American elites believe the big problem with the American populace is that it is too white. Thus, the idea of death draining America of its whiteness sounds like something they can live with.

For instance, a U. of Pennsylvania bioethicist named Harald Schmidt told The New York Times:

“Older populations are whiter,” Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

Strikingly, it’s not even true anymore that whites live longer than nonwhites. White Americans now live slightly less long than the national average. While white life expectancy in 2018 was 3.6 years longer than black expectancy and 1.2 years longer than American Indians, Hispanics outlive whites by 2.3 years and Asians live 7.7 years longer. In some states, American-born Asian women now live an average of over ninety years.

The reason that whites are a higher percentage than are immigrant ethnicities of the aged is not because America is rigged to kill immigrants (news flash—it’s not), but because whites got here first.

Which is considered another reason to despise whites. As we have been lectured over and over during the Scramble for America, white Americans don’t deserve America. It’s just a fluke that their ancestors happened to get to America’s magic dirt before more worthy races arrived from their tragic dirt. Hence, if some whites were to hurry up and die, well, that would just make matters more equitable.

In case you are wondering why “equity” has replaced “equality,” well, basically it’s because blacks have had equality under the law for two generations now without much improvement in their performance over the past forty-plus years. They don’t want equal protection of the laws; they want privileged treatment.

Moreover, use of the word “equity” hints baldly at what race activists really desire: the equity in your home and stock portfolio.

Now, the Woke don’t really wish whites to DIE, they just want to tax you and expropriate you: Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and all that.

But after you get too old to be a net contributor?

Strikingly, the CDC could have obscured their antiwhite racist animus with some reasonable arguments for favoring younger and more active people for vaccines.

In reality, the toll taken by the pandemic isn’t quite as bad as the top-line stat of one-third of a million deaths (or 0.1 percent of the population) suggests, because most of those dying have been old and/or sick, and usually both.

Looking at lists of celebrities who have died of Covid, it’s clear that most were well past their primes. For example, probably the most famous American athlete to die from the disease has been baseball pitcher Tom Seaver, who was only 74. (His father died at 93.) But he had retired from public appearances last year due to dementia.

In fact, the medical establishment has been weirdly hesitant to estimate a standard Quality-Adjusted Life Years toll for Covid like they have for almost all other diseases.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on bioethics, but it’s not obvious to me whether it’s more or less ethical to save ten people with a life expectancy of three years or one person with a life expectancy of thirty years. I could see arguments in either direction.

Or you could make the contention that we should focus on vaccinating “essential workers” because they are out and about far more than the very old, and therefore vaccinating them would likely limit the spread of the disease more.

Or the CDC could have argued that vaccinating workers would be better for the economy than focusing on aged shut-ins.

But the striking fact is that the CDC authorities did not bother to make sensible-sounding non-racist arguments that would covertly have a disparate impact upon whites. Instead, it was inconceivable to them that anybody might object to their plan for letting whites die more. They took it as a given that White Lives Matter Less.

Eventually, though, enough white pundits, such as Matthew Yglesias, objected, pointing out that the CDC’s philosophy would kill not only more whites (which was publicly unobjectionable), but more blacks as well. So the CDC panel ultimately compromised, recommending equal priority to those over 75 along with a more limited number of “frontline essential workers.”

But now the battle moves to the states, which have the ultimate power in choosing vaccine recipients. For example, California hasn’t yet bothered to publish a plan beyond a noncontroversial Phase 1A of inoculating health-care workers and long-term care facility residents. But the text string “equit” appears 17 times in even that document, hinting at what Phase 1B will look like.

Meanwhile, Florida and Texas are vaccinating those 65 and over. Florida governor Ron DeSantis said:

“The problem is people that are 73, 74 would be in the back of the line for a young 21-year-old worker who’s considered ‘essential.’ That doesn’t, I think, make sense.”

The good news is that the fights in the states over vaccine prioritization ought to alert more Americans to just what DIE portends for them.

If I were Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, I’d cool it with the boasting. I’m a bit more weathered and wizened than the 34-year-old immunologist currently being touted as the “curer of Covid,” and one lesson I’ve gleaned from my many years on this earth is that life loves comedic setups and satisfying punchlines. Opinion assholes like myself wouldn’t have material if not for the ironic twists and expertly delivered sight gags that spring up organically and with such regularity in daily life.

Like my column about the SJWs who rallied around a seriously ill black gangbanger and inveterate felon, claiming he was being denied a donor heart because doctors feared his love of criminality would lead to the new heart being wasted via a violent death…and right after the SJWs got their way and the docs performed the operation, the dude’s love of criminality led to the new heart being wasted via a violent death.

Life wrote that joke; I just told it.

Or my story from 2018 about “Diversity Bridge,” the massive Miami highway overpass that was constructed to great fanfare by a team of female and nonwhite “engineers,” in what was hailed as an example of “doin’ it without the white man.” And then the bridge collapsed, killing six innocent motorists.

All I did was read that one off the cue cards.

“This is a massively tempting setup for one of life’s trademark comedy bits.”

Now, knowing life’s love of farce, only a fool would tempt fate by setting herself up for ironic comeuppance.

Which brings us to Dr. Kizzmekia “Kizzy” Corbett, or “Dr. Kizzy,” as she likes to be called. Dr. Kizzy is an immunologist with the National Institutes of Health, and this year she’s been part of the team working on a vaccine for Covid. More specifically, she’s been involved with the vaccine being developed by Moderna (as opposed to the Pfizer one that came out first).

And boy, do all the right people want you to believe that Kizzy is the Covid savior.

“Dr. Fauci wants people to know that one of the lead scientists who developed the Covid-19 vaccine is a Black woman,” screamed CNN. “Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett—Why You Should Know Her Name” read the Yahoo News headline. “History books will celebrate the name and achievements of Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, the Black Woman who was the leader in developing the COVID-19 vaccine,” bleated Barbara Arnwine, president of a tumorous waste of space known as the Transformative Justice Coalition. And the National Newspaper Publishers Association wire service proclaimed, “A Black woman, Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, developed the scientific approach to the Coronavirus vaccine.”

Yes, she developed the “scientific approach.” Prior to her, the lab was filled with white men banging pots and pans together yelling, “Die, virus!”

“One of the key scientists behind the Moderna vaccine is Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, a 34-year-old Black woman who will go down in history as one of the leading figures to help end this pandemic,” tweeted Hillary Clinton last week, as every major network news show ran “Kizzy saved us” stories.

In truth, Dr. Kizzy was part of a team and (by her own admission) worked under a white dude, but in an age of “uplifting” media frauds ranging from the exaggerated (Hidden Figures) to the completely invented (The Aeronauts), facts don’t matter nearly as much as putting the “right” color and gender at the forefront.

And this is a massively tempting setup for one of life’s trademark comedy bits. It’s a banana peel on an icy sidewalk, a riotously funny accident waiting to occur. Because after building Kizzy up as the “mother of the Moderna vaccine,” after making a huge deal out of “a black woman gave us this,” what’s gonna happen if the vaccine creates a generation of thalidomide ’tards? As it is, the Moderna vaccine damn near killed a Boston health-care worker who received it the day after Christmas.

A few more negative outcomes like that, and watch how fast the media demotes Kizzy from magical black woman to voiceless waif who sat in the back of the room as white men recklessly plowed ahead with a dangerous vaccine.

I’d recommend Kizzy sign that movie deal now, with cash up front, before the gag plays out.

Mind you, even without a punchline, the Kizzy farce has already produced many moments of hilarity. She was first trotted out to an uncaring nation back in April, when the NIH for some odd reason thought Americans would better accept the incipient lockdowns and economic devastation if we knew a jive-talkin’ black woman was on the case (Kiz iz a self-described weave-wearing “vernacular”-usin’ sassy mama).

Initially, Fox News showered Kizzy with glowing praise, pointing out how wonderful it is that a “brilliant black woman” who is “proudly Christian” is leading the push for a vaccine. “She has long been called a superstar scientist,” the April 16 Fox profile crowed, as the network’s helicopters dropped flag pins, Bibles, and Thomas Sowell books over locked-down cities with a reminder that we all bleed red and diversity is our strength.

The joy was short-lived. The very next day, Tucker Carlson ran a piece about how this “proud Christian’s” Twitter feed was filled with tons of the usual white-men-bashing social justice bullshittery.

Even more troubling, and this is something Tuck didn’t mention (probably because he was peddling his own kooky coronavirus conspiracy stories at the time), Doc Kizzy was spreading Covid-origin falsehoods, telling her followers “China didn’t do anything wrong” and “It is important that we not stigmatize people who may be from areas where the virus starts. It could very well have been in the United States.” When one of her followers suggested that the disease might have come from an American truck driver in the “upper Midwest,” Kizzy replied, “I would not be surprised if we discover the virus has been here for some time earlier than our current initial case from China (Seattle case). So yes…I think it’s possible.”

“Superstar scientist”? Poor Fox…they were hoping for a Larry Elder, and they ended up with a Larry Fine.

In the wake of the controversy, Dr. Kizzy, of her own accord or under orders from her superiors, started keeping a low profile, even making her Twitter account private. And the nation kinda forgot about the black woman who was saving us all. Like Shirley Hemphill and so many sassy sitcom foils before her, she became a distant memory.

Until two weeks ago. That’s when Fauci the Great decided to trot Kizzy out again, to ensure that black Americans accept the vaccine, because apparently the dumb ol’ darkies only understand condescension. “To my African American brothers and sisters, this vaccine that you’re going to be taking was developed by an African American woman. And that is just a fact,” Fauci told the National Urban League last week, before donning a kufi cap and shouting, “Slap my hand, black soul man!”

And just like that, Kizzy was in the news again. But this time there was a crawdad in the Courvoisier. Professional angry black man Tariq Nasheed, who’d clashed with Kizzy back in April over old tweets that he claimed demonstrated a disrespectful attitude toward black men, was not happy to see her return to the spotlight. “They are trying to wheel Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett back out,” Nasheed tweeted several weeks ago. He repeated an accusation he first made in April, that Kizzy’s a government tool being used to deliver a deadly “vaccine” that will “Three the Hard Way” mass-genocide American blacks: “The fact that they keep emphasizing her Blackness is a red flag. They alway [sic] use Black ppl as trojan [sic] horses for their agenda.”

To prove his point, Nasheed posted a photo of Kizzy sitting next to a white man. Devastating evidence!

As I said, it’s all a farce, every player a clown. And here’s the payoff: After Nasheed tweeted his suspicions about the vaccine, his black followers flooded the thread with comments about how they will refuse to take the “eugenics” vaccine, with one follower even tweeting a drawing of a black person slitting the throat of a white doctor trying to administer it. And Dr. Kizzy replied to those black skeptics with the same line, again and again: “I (we) will keep our vaccine from u & anyone else opposed.” Yes, the woman being used by Fauci to win over black people who are opposed to the vaccine is telling black people who are opposed to the vaccine that it will be withheld from them (and the “we” part makes it appear as though she’s speaking on behalf of the NIH and Moderna).

Fauci: as good a judge of character as he is a doctor.

Can you imagine the uproar if a white government scientist repeatedly told black Americans, “I (we) will keep our vaccine from u”? There’d be no saving that poor bastard from being fired, canceled, and possibly brought up on hate-crimes charges. Indeed, all black fatalities from Covid following that white guy’s tweet would be blamed on him. “Those blacks would’ve gotten the vaccine had that Nazi racist not said he was withholding it from them.”

To be clear, I’m not arguing that Kizzy should be canceled. As my regular readers know, I’m 100% and at all times against punishment for “speech crimes.” If Kizzy’s vaccine births a horde of ectrodactylous droolers, cancel her for that. But not for words. In fact, what I hope comes out of this is that the Moderna vaccine works great and maybe, just maybe, people on the left can finally accept that somebody can be perfectly good at their job, even an important, demanding, and very complex job, while at the same time tweeting out stupid, offensive, or factually questionable things.

When high-IQ white dudes get canceled (or intimidated into silence) for their opinions, or their tweets, or their offhanded comments, or their fucking shirts, what is lost to society is immeasurable. My goal would not be to cancel Kizzy but to use her as an example of why someone who is good at their job should not be dismissed for saying the wrong thing, or even an objectively bad thing (and “I (we) will keep our vaccine from u” is an objectively bad thing). Sure, Kizzy should most likely be shelved as government point-person for persuading blacks to take the vaccine. But regarding her actual job, immunologist, if she’s good at it—and I have no reason to doubt that she is—her offensive words shouldn’t matter.

I’d take a hundred Kizzys cooking up my meds if, in exchange, whites could have the same freedom to speak their minds, express their opinions, and even occasionally say a wrong thing.

But in the words of Voice of the Beehive, “These are just wishes, and I am just dreaming.” The Kizzy Follies will come and go and no one will learn jack squat.

Still, as this is my final column of the year, why not say goodbye to 2020 with a wish, even if an impossible one?

The Week’s Most Trending, Offending, and Year-Ending Headlines

The ballet dancers weren’t really very good—no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. —Kurt Vonnegut, “Harrison Bergeron”

If ballet is one of the few examples of Western art and culture that has, so far, escaped the diversity abattoir, it’s likely due to the fact that not enough people of color patronize the damn thing for any of them to be offended by its “whiteness.” But that might be changing, thanks to the moneyed white leftists who run many of the world’s most prestigious ballet companies.

Last month, the San Francisco Ballet, America’s oldest professional ballet company, promised its benefactors that it would hire more black dancers in honor of George Floyd, a well-known patron of the arts (indeed, Floyd’s 2020 interpretation of Ninette de Valois’ classic ballet Checkmate, retitled Badcheckmate, had black folks grand-battementing in the streets). Unfortunately, the company could find no qualified black dancers, leading one employee to admit that the “diversity” problem is baked into the art form itself, ’cuz #BalletSoWhite: “With a white classical form such as ballet, there’s a racist history that is fundamentally ingrained.”

Still and all, it turns out that finding qualified black ballet dancers doesn’t solve the problem. Last week The New York Times featured a page-one exposé of the cruel racist treatment meted out to the only black company member of Germany’s Staatsballett Berlin. Chloé Lopes Gomes, a black Frenchwoman, was damn near genocided by the fact that the troupe expected her to apply the same makeup that the other dancers wear for Swan Lake. As the Times reported, “Until fairly recently, it has been common practice in ballet companies for the female dancers in ballets like ‘Swan Lake,’ ‘Giselle’ and ‘La Bayadère’ to apply a whitening makeup in order to look like beings from another world, be they swans, sylphides, spirits or Shades.”

“The French, being French, have of course responded to the hostile tweets like imbeciles, by limiting speech rather than immigration.”

When Lopes Gomes was asked to apply the traditional makeup, she balked, calling it “whiteface.” And the Times agreed, claiming that “defenders of these traditions always said that the dancer was simply playing a character. But it was not a valid argument in a context in which one race had oppressed another.”

So apparently because black people were once enslaved in America a French black woman must not wear makeup in a German production of a ballet composed by a Russian.

Stunningly logical!

Lopes Gomes has since been dismissed from Staatsballett Berlin, which seems odd considering her team spirit. She told the Times that she has vowed to persevere until there are no more all-white productions of Swan Lake.

Good luck with that. Ballet dancing plus classical music plus a body of water equals arguably the last thing in the world that most black people want to be involved with.

And on the subject of “thee-ate-er,” last week The Seattle Times, in a glossy Sunday arts supplement, devoted 3,200 words to the exciting, amazing, game-changing, earth-shaking plan crafted by “Seattle theater leaders” to erase racism from the performing arts and usher in a new golden age of diversity. As the Times reports it, “The Seattle theater leaders were starting something different, something much more ambitious, though they didn’t fully realize it yet. They were beginning a process to overhaul the entire ecology of their field, at every level.”

Sounds amazing! And, as the Times points out, the actions of these “Seattle theater leaders” have attracted national attention:

Slowly, others around the country are starting to hear about the Seattle effort, now officially calling itself Seattle Theatre Leaders (STL), and watch its progress. If STL succeeds, if this broad coalition of theater makers effectively transforms one part of the arts world in one city, it might just set a standard that can be exported—not simply to other arts disciplines, but to other sectors in America that are struggling with the deep, pervasive and seemingly intractable problem of institutional racism.

Holy cow, that’s impressive. Now, at this point, Seattle Times readers were probably curious to learn the details of this revolutionary “effort.” What, exactly, is this thing that STL is doing that’s so “transformative”? What’s the “plan”?

But the Times wasn’t finished hyping it yet.

“It’s really exciting what’s coming out of and through Seattle—I don’t think there’s another city doing this,” said Nicole Brewer, a faculty member at Yale School of Drama who is in very high demand these days as an anti-racist consultant across the English-speaking world, including a recent job at Shakespeare’s Globe theater in London. “It’s really exciting what’s coming out of and through Seattle as a model not just for others around the country, but around the world.”

Incredible! Okay, Seattle Times…this is where you should explain the details of “what’s coming out of and through Seattle.”

Nope, more hype:

The fact that STL has kept its momentum—and that the bosses keep showing up instead of sending their assistants—is one of its superpowers.

“Superpowers,” great. But what exactly is it that STL is doing?

“Having a brave moment,” states the Times.

And then the article finally gets to the matter of specifics:

STL is after concrete action and is currently drawing up a list of action items and commitments written by and for local theater makers. The list is still being written and STL as a group declined to share a current draft.

So…nothing at all. Just a bunch of “brave” Seattle leftists fellating a bunch of fawning Seattle journalists about an amazing plan that doesn’t exist, and those journalists conning readers into wading through 3,200 words just to learn that the tease has no release.

No substance; just empty words, masturbatory smugness, and wasted time.

“Diversity” at its essence!

For a nation that prides itself on producing generations of philosophers and intellectuals, France is strikingly ignorant when it comes to the rather basic concept of cause and effect.

Seriously, Descartes? You couldn’t take five minutes to explain this notion to your countrymen?

Last week, French authorities were left scratching their heads following the crowning of a new Miss France. It seems that the first runner-up, April Benayoum, is Jewish. And for some odd reason, when Benayoum, who holds the title of Miss Provence, mentioned during the telecast that her father is Israeli, French Twitter exploded with “hate tweets” directed at the 21-year-old beauty.

A few choice examples (translated into English):

“Uncle Hitler, you forgot to exterminate Miss Provence.”

“She should not be Miss Provence; SHE’S A JEW!”

“Hitler forgot one.”

“Into the ovens with her!”

“Death to Miss Provence! Death to Israel!”

This story has been widely covered by the French media, with everyone from the interior minister to the pageant winner speaking out to condemn the hateful tweets. Oddly missing from every news report is a tiny little detail regarding the offending Twitter accounts. Indeed, whereas some French politicians have tried to blame the anti-Jewish onslaught on the “far right,” one canny Twitterer made the following observation after reviewing the profiles of the “haters”:

“French far right tweeters do not have Arabic handles or North African surnames.”

Yep, almost 100% of the abuse is coming from people who are “French” only to the extent that they drove their murder lorries and flew their suicide planes to France from their Muslim nation of origin. The “haters” are Muslim immigrants, and this should come as no surprise to anyone. In a 2015 survey, a whopping 74% of Muslims in France were found to hold strongly anti-Jewish attitudes.

France’s decision to import a replacement population of Islamic Third Worlders has resulted in hostility toward a Jewish beauty pageant contestant with an Israeli father.


The French, being French, have of course responded to the hostile tweets like imbeciles, by limiting speech rather than immigration. According to The Sunday Times:

French police were ordered yesterday to track down people who posted a torrent of antisemitic abuse against the runner-up in this year’s Miss France beauty contest. Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister, said that he had “mobilised the police and the gendarmerie.”… The offence of publishing antisemitic remarks carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a €45,000 fine.

French authorities have assured the nation’s Jews that the strategy of continually importing bloodthirsty jihadists but making sure they don’t express their views on Twitter will totally keep the population safe.

Liberté, Egalité, Stupidité.

With President Biden very likely to give the green light to a whole bunch more pointless foreign military engagements, it’s never been more important for our armed forces to be in tip-top fighting shape. And that doesn’t just mean physically. Mentally, our service members need to be at their peak. After all, the neocons are going to need at least some people with the brainpower to defuse IEDs, fly drones, and monitor Dick Cheney’s blood pressure as he masturbates furiously to the notion of war with Iran (too much exertion could kill him).

So this probably isn’t the best time for the revelation that members of the current crop of West Point cadets have traded their white shirts for Black Sox. One of the worst academic scandals in the history of that prestigious institution has recently been uncovered, with more than seventy cadets caught cheating on a math exam. West Point officials blamed the scandal on the fact that, due to COVID, all exams have been given remotely since spring. And apparently, the “cream of the crop” future military elites saw this as an opportunity to cheat their asses off whenever possible in order to secure passing grades.

When asked for comment, John Bolton, wiping away tears of pride, said that “these are exactly the kinds of sneaky little bastards who, if called upon, can totally deceive and sabotage a sitting president who isn’t sufficiently hawkish. God bless these young patriots!”

Surprisingly, the academy has decided to go easy on the cheaters, enrolling almost all of them in “rehabilitation” programs so they can continue their training. This led West Point law professor Tim Bakken to accuse military higher-ups of “downplaying” the scandal. After all, he argued, it becomes a “national security issue” when graduating cadets don’t have the smarts to “become senior leaders the nation depends on.”

It’s a little late for those concerns. A 2016 report published in Joint Force Quarterly (National Defense University Press) titled “Officers Are Less Intelligent” found that today’s officers are, well, less intelligent:

Two-thirds of the new officers commissioned in 2014 would be in the bottom one-third of the class of 1980; 41 percent of new officers in 2014 would not have qualified to be officers by the standards held at the time of World War II. Similarly, at the top of the distribution, there are fewer of the very intelligent officers who will eventually become senior leaders.

By every measure—SATs, GPAs, and “critical thinking skills”—our officers are getting dumber and dumber. The report blames everything but the most likely reason for the decline.

In 2003, when the Supreme Court narrowly saved affirmative action from extinction by a 5–4 vote, the court, in its majority decision, cited as proof of the beneficence and necessity of race-based admissions an amicus brief signed by 29 former high-ranking officers and civilian leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. In the brief, the military leaders argued that only by choosing cadets by race and not ability can institutions like West Point produce a “highly qualified officer corps.”

SCOTUS enthusiastically cited that brief as a primary reason for keeping affirmative action alive, essentially saying, “It’s going so well for the military, let’s keep doing it everywhere.”

Well, that worked out great, didn’t it?

Arguably the most unfortunate irony in this story is that the exact type of cadets who could elevate West Point’s academic ranking are also the ones most likely to side with China in any future conflict.

Ah, the Chinese. Is there anything they can’t do? First they give the world a disease that’s killed millions globally and wrecked the economy of pretty much every nation on earth with a name that doesn’t end in “hina,” and now in their grand benevolence they’ve provided a masterful solution to the problem of government officials who order their citizens into lockdown only to disobey their own regulations by eating in fancy restaurants when restaurant dining is banned or traveling home for a big holiday dinner when none of the commoners have that right.

See, the problem is, a lot of pro-lockdown Democrats have been caught violating their own economy-killing rules. A lot. Like, so many that lists are rendered outdated almost as quickly as they’re compiled. Now, one possible response to public outrage over Democrats who order lockdowns they don’t follow is for Democrats to stop ordering lockdowns they don’t follow, or at least for them to start following the lockdowns they order.

But that would be too simple.

Instead, why not entrust the media—a.k.a. the DNC’s public relations flacks—with the task of coming up with a rationalization for why the bad guys are not the hypocritical Democrat lockdowners but the ordinary Americans who criticize the hypocritical Democrat lockdowners?

Last week the AP, running interference for the chow-downing “you must not chow down in restaurants” Democrats, ran a piece that asked whether “it’s even reasonable to believe politicians should live up to standards many people haven’t been able to follow as the pandemic drags on.”

In other words, if you’re having difficulty following the Democrats’ lockdown directives, that gives the Democrat politicians who instituted them the right to not follow the directives they instituted. Get it? Your disobedience of laws you didn’t pass means that the people who passed those laws get to disobey them too because if ordinary folks can’t abide by them then why should the people who forced the ordinary folks to abide by them have to abide by them?

To support its thesis, the AP interviewed Daniel Effron, associate professor at London Business School. Effron explained that the only reason Americans view lockdown-breaking Democrats as “hypocrites” is because in an “individualistic culture,” people are selfishly unforgiving of “inconsistency.”

“In a collectivist culture (like China), people may forgive the inconsistency if there are explanations for it,” Effron told the AP. “It’s not that people in Asia are OK with hypocrisy. It’s that saying one thing and doing another does not always count as hypocrisy; it’s about trying to do what’s right in different situations.”

Yes, in Asian “collectivist culture,” saying one thing and doing another just means that you’re “trying to do what’s right.”

Effron is the coauthor of a 2017 study about how cultures that stress the importance of “interdependence,” specifically China, understand that political leaders who appear hypocritical are merely “other-oriented and generous.” On the other hand, “individualistic” Western cultures cruelly expect political leaders to follow the rules they set for others.

So we all just need to be a little more Chinese in our approach to seemingly hypocritical—but actually “other-oriented and generous”—politicians.

The next time you find yourself angered by the fact that you’re banned from eating out, having visitors, or comforting elderly relatives by Democrats who eat out, have visitors, and comfort elderly relatives, just know that your objection to their double standards is nothing more than the result of your infernal Western “individualism.”

How fortunate Americans are to have a wire service like the AP to clear that up.

And how fortunate the world is to have an ascendant nation like China, where pandemics are born, as are the rationalizations for why those who make the pandemic rules needn’t follow them.

Most of the time that I have spent informing myself about the world we live in, with only partial success, has been wasted, at least as far as practical effect is concerned. During the Cold War I read a lot about Marxism; then came Islam and Islamism; now it is COVID-19. My influence on world events has, of course, been zero, and will remain so, however much I inform myself, which given my bad temper is perhaps just as well. I would have been more profitably employed collecting stamps or growing tomatoes.

The books about the COVID-19 epidemic continue to pour off the presses, faster even than I can buy them, let alone read them. Most of them are discouraging, that is to say disparaging about the various efforts of Western governments to deal with the crisis, pointing out the anomalies, U-turns, inconsistencies, scientific errors, moral cowardice, and so forth of our so-called leaders. Every author is particularly hard on the government of his own country, though the results in many countries are very similar and the difference in the statistics are probably within the margin of error of all such measurement. Besides, there may well be factors outside the immediate control of governments that might account for any real differences.

“THEY come at WE from every possible angle.”

Yesterday I spent much of my time reading a French book titled Is There an Error They Have Not Made? This concentrates, naturally enough, on the failures of the French government and the incompetence of the French state despite (or possibly because of) its immense size and self-arrogated omnicompetence. The author (a professor of medicine called Christian Perronne, much appreciated in conspiracy-theory circles) brings every possible charge against it and makes no allowance for human weakness. No doubt many of the charges are true; the pronouncements of the government have often been contradictory, its decrees inconsistent and verging sometimes on the absurd as well as dictatorial, and the results bad—though (you would never guess it from reading the book) no worse than some of its immediate neighbors, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, and Belgium, for example. The United States is no better. The author, I suppose, would reply that similar books could be written about those countries, and indeed probably have been. If there is “a holy alliance between incompetence and arrogance”—the subtitle of the book—it is an alliance that is international.

Professor Perronne’s book has been a great success: more than 100,000 copies sold. It is easy to read and some of it is good knockabout fun, or at least would be good knockabout fun if the situation were not so grave, where it points out the way in which government ministers contradict not only each other but themselves, often within the space of a day or two, or even within 24 hours. But what caught my eye when I bought the book when it first came out was its cover, brilliantly designed to appeal to the disgruntled, the temperamentally critical, and the paranoid.

The title, on a plain jet-black background, is all in the lower case, and in white lettering, except for the word THEY, which is capitalized, in a much larger font size, and in bright, devilish scarlet, the very color of wickedness.

The world, of course, is always divided into WE and THEY. WE are innocent, good, well-meaning, helpless victims; THEY are guilty, bad, ill-intentioned, deliberate perpetrators. How neat and satisfying it all is, how well it explains everything!

All my life, I have wondered whether I belong to WE or to THEY. Of course, to myself I belong to WE, but others, possibly (and alas), do not see me that way. For them, I am clearly a member of THEY.

For example, do I belong to the financial THEY, that is to say the famous, or infamous, 1 percent of the world population who consume 99 percent of the world’s production, or whatever percentage is now claimed? From the purely selfish point of view, in this instance I would rather belong to THEY than to WE, insofar as it is better, or at least more convenient, to be rich than to be poor; and I am sure that some people might claim that I belong to THEY, though perhaps only to the lower reaches of that evil group.

But the fact is that I don’t really feel part of THEY, or any particular solidarity with it. All I have done for most of my life is try to earn my living in a fairly normal way without, as far as I am aware, having exploited anybody, at least not knowingly. That would be my defense when, come the revolution, WE take over from THEY, though when such things happen, it generally turns out that the legal procedures employed by WE allow for no defense and proceed to summary execution.

In other situations, moreover, I have clearly been a member of WE, for example when THEY were the administration of the hospitals in which I worked. THEY were terrible, selfish, and unscrupulous, while WE (everyone else) were altruistic and principled. The contrast was at least as great as that between the white and red lettering of the title of Professor Perronne’s book.

THEY are constantly making demands on WE. For example, THEY have recently sent me an income tax demand, a demand for tax on my car, and for Value Added Tax (THEY assume that I add value to something). THEY insist, upon pain of being fined, that I register to vote so that I can choose between various candidates for entry into the ranks of THEY, and so on and so forth. THEY never let WE alone. Insurance companies are a branch office of THEY: For example, THEY recently demanded that I change the locks of my house to something allegedly more secure, though I am sure that THEY are in alliance with lock manufacturers, who are also part of THEY.

THEY are tentacular. THEY come at WE from every possible angle. For example, THEY, as instantiated by my doctors, are constantly badgering WE (as instantiated by me) to have tests, of my blood, of my urine, of my bowels, my eyesight, my hearing. This is not because THEY are concerned for the welfare of WE, but just to let WE know who is boss.

THEY are like an amoeba that changes protoplasmic shape all the time but is constantly incorporating the little helpless particles that constitute, collectively, WE, by means of its pseudopodia. At last I have understood how the world works.

Theodore Dalrymple’s latest book is Around the World in the Cinemas of Paris, Mirabeau Press.

It now appears that the greatest threat to black Americans isn’t COVID, it’s being pandered to death.

As the distribution of vaccines got underway last week, the Centers for Disease Control was trying to ensure that black people would get the vaccine before the elderly (too white!), while the media were focused on rationalizing black people’s opposition to taking the vaccine at all.

— NPR’s “Weekend Edition”:

Scott Simon: “Help us understand why many black Americans may be skeptical of a vaccine.”

Liz Walker: “Well, Scott, you know, black people have been traumatized by a betrayal of the system forever for generations. … We have all now talked about the experiment that used people with syphilis in Tuskegee. We all know about Henrietta Lacks.”

“But the runaway winner for patronizing black people is … director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci!”

— ABC’s “Good Morning America”:

Zachary Kiesch (voiceover): “From the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, where scientists deliberately infected men and withheld treatments, to Henrietta Lacks, a young black mother of five who, in 1951, unknowingly had cells taken from her that biomedical research led to breakthrough cancer treatment.”

— MSNBC’s “The Reidout”:

Joy Reid: “And then the other piece is, when it comes, particularly in our community, black people, they might be like, I don’t trust science, the science. We — Tuskegee experiments, etc. There’s just not a lot of trust. And it was developed during the Trump era.”

Yes, because black people have a long track record of trusting the government …

A New York Times/WCBS-TV poll found that 70% of African Americans believed that “the government deliberately makes sure that drugs are easily available in poor black neighborhoods to harm black people.”

A CNN/Essence poll found that 88% of African Americans think the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. was part of a “larger plot.”

A survey of more than 1,000 black church members by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference showed that 35% believed that AIDS was a form of genocide, and another 30% were unsure.

Although vaccines are one of Western medicine’s greatest inventions, I think people should be free to refuse to take the COVID vaccine for any reason, such as, off the top of my head, they’re young and healthy.

But liberals don’t! Anti-vaxxers are one of the media’s most despised groups — provided they’re affluent white women.

When people like Jessica Biel and Jenny McCarthy opposed mandatory vaccinations, they were universally reviled for hawking scientific nonsense. Los Angeles Times: “Jenny McCarthy: anti-vaxxer, public menace.” The New York Times headline: “When Did We Start Taking Famous People Seriously?” Even “Saturday Night Live” ridiculed McCarthy for her anti-vaccine stance.

But now that it’s African Americans who are reluctant to take the COVID vaccine, they’re treated like children. Who can blame them? It’s because of Tuskegee and Henrietta Lacks!

I know about Tuskegee, but what did the bad white doctors do to Henrietta Lacks? Answer: Johns Hopkins Medical School provided this poor black woman with the most advanced treatment available for her aggressive cervical cancer — gratis.

Her rapidly reproducing tumor cells were then studied around the globe, advancing cancer research by leaps and bounds. But apparently, it was a violation of Mrs. Lacks’ “black body” for her cancer cells to be used to benefit mankind. Maybe she wanted to display them on her mantle!

But the runaway winner for patronizing black people is … director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci! This media darling recently announced: “So, the first thing you might want to say to my African American brothers and sisters is that the vaccine that you’re going to be taking was developed by an African American woman. And that is just a fact.”

Wha …? So far, we’ve got vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, and soon may have one from AstraZeneca.

Pfizer’s CEO is a Greek businessman. The company has no black women in its executive leadership.

Moderna’s chief executive is Frenchman Stephane Bancel. The president of the company is the translucently white Dr. Stephen Hoge.

AstraZeneca hasn’t had its vaccine approved yet, but it’s a British-Swedish company, and the chief executive is Frenchman Pascal Soriot.

Each one of these companies had hundreds of people working on a vaccine, so who’s the “African American woman” who single-handedly “developed” it?

She’s a government bureaucrat with the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett. The NIH, you see, “worked with” Moderna during the vaccine approval process. Corbett made the invaluable contribution of accusing doctors of allowing black people to die of COVID, calling the pandemic a black “genocide” and condemning “systematic oppression” of black people. Among the oppressors was one … Anthony Fauci, whom she directed to “check” his “privilege.”

How could we ever have come up with a vaccine without her?

First, it was racist not to put black Americans at the head of the line for the vaccine. Once again, black people have to go to the back of the bus!

Then the CDC decided minorities would get it first, before the elderly. True, those over 70 make up the lion’s share of COVID deaths, but they’re mostly white, so screw them. Oh wait — black people are getting the vaccine first? You see! They’re using us as guinea pigs!

Just tell me when black people get the vaccine, so I’ll know what the explanation is.

We all thought it would be over by now. Home for the holidays with family and friends.

Surely, modern science would solve the mystery of a murderous disease that none could have anticipated. Yet, it must be said that the response has been less than adequate by our political class, aggravated by conflicting information and incompetence.

Government’s confused reaction to the phenomenon of widespread sickness, the subsequent collapse of businesses resulting in job losses on an unprecedented scale, the loss of family incomes that ruined communities, and the broken traditions of church and school—all these added to the sense of hopelessness. In addition, well-meaning regulations crippled other sectors of the economy and increased the population’s desire for a speedy, if unrealistic, return to normalcy. But now, as the end of this nightmare appears in sight, a new risk is in the offing: nationwide homelessness.

“As the end of this nightmare appears in sight, a new risk is in the offing: nationwide homelessness.”

Even in the early days of the pandemic, when small shops began to close, people asked, “How are folks going to pay their rents and mortgages?” The answer seemed to be through family savings or loans and, of course, unemployment insurance. But these are short-term solutions; savings dry up and loans have to be repaid, and now unemployment benefits are expiring. The pandemic lasted longer than many thought possible. Americans began rummaging through attics and cellars in middle-class neighborhoods; in poor areas the emergency arrived much sooner. There, there was little to sell. Of course, you could sell your car, but not if it’s leased. In any event it would be a bad idea; how would you look for employment, look for food, take the kids to school? Besides, if worse comes to worst you may have to live in your car.

Landlords are now feeling the effects of tenants answering their monthly rent notice with “Give me a little time, next month will be better.” But winter has arrived, and by law heat must be provided to tenants, water also. Heating fuel and water cost money, and many landlords have mortgages on their properties. The banks want to be paid and they will not wait until next month. Many landlords also depend on rents for their own incomes; if tenants don’t pay rents it impacts the owners’ personal finances. So an economic cascade begins, of debt and nonpayment and ultimately the prospect of evictions. There were moratoriums on evictions for several months but they are expiring also and Congress has yet to pass legislation to extend these programs or provide financial relief as it did in the spring. One need look no further than to the Great Hunger of Ireland in the 1850s to see the consequences of this chain of events. It was not that long ago—barely three lifetimes. Some old people can still recall the stories clearly because it became the basis of Irish America.

Ireland in the 19th century was an agricultural country with estates owned mostly by absentee English landowners. The estates were maintained by managers (mostly Scots). To maximize profits, estates were divided among tenant farmers who paid rent to grow the crop, and there was only one crop—the potato. As the population of Ireland grew, the size to the plots became smaller. This continued until the smallest plot was about half the size of a Manhattan studio apartment. As the plots became smaller so did the size of the harvests.

On paper, it worked. But the smaller output from smaller plots made the rents unpayable. Then the crop failed. No one had foreseen this possibility. Tenants couldn’t pay their rents and had no produce to sell or consume. Landlords saw the problem as an “unsustainable” model that had to be quickly rectified. So, they instructed their managers to begin evictions in order to consolidate plots into viable farms. Starving and weak, most tenants began to travel; whole families on foot. Exposure to the elements resulted in deaths by the sides of roads with their relatives too weak to bury them. Some walked to ports to seek passage to Canada, Australia, and especially America. Others walked to Dublin or Queenstown or anywhere food and shelter were available. But the churches and charities were overwhelmed. When news reached London there was widespread disbelief. How could this have happened? And overnight! But it hadn’t happened overnight, it was generations in the making. When help came it was too little, too late. No one really knows how many died; estimates range from 500,000 to over 1,000,000.

This is a cautionary tale. What happened in 19th-century Ireland can easily happen here. Congress knows what’s happening and if it fails to act before the Christmas recess, homelessness will become an urgent issue, maybe disastrous. This would not be negligence or overconfidence in the workings of the free market. This would be an act of national suicide. Thus far the only major piece of legislation that has been passed in the House of Representatives has been a bill to legalize marijuana. Perhaps that is their solution to the problems we face. If so, we are all in for a lot of heartache. After a health crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands and has destroyed a great economy, we can’t have millions of our fellow citizens thrown onto the streets of our cities and towns. Like watching a tornado form down a country road, we can see what’s coming.

At least the Irish had the English to blame. We can only blame ourselves.

There are “bad” takes, and then there are takes that make you stop dead in your tracks, stare blankly ahead, and say to yourself, “Well, we’re fucked.”

Liz Peek is a Wall Street and petroleum industry cockroach who’s become an unavoidable presence these days on Fox News, where she’s a regular contributor on air (Varney & Co., Making Money With Charles Payne, After the Bell, The Evening Edit, Your World With Neil Cavuto, Fox & Friends) and on the Fox News website. Peek is a die-hard Trumpist, and in fact her son Andrew served under the president as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran before becoming the National Security Council’s Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs…until he was escorted off White House grounds by security in January, I’m assuming for stealing cutlery.

Liz Peek is the culprit behind the aforementioned “bad take to end all bad takes.” Indeed, the op-ed that she penned for Fox last week should’ve been dedicated to Michelle Carter. Remember her? She was the Massachusetts woman who was convicted of manslaughter for ordering her mentally troubled boyfriend to get back into a carbon-monoxide-filled truck after he chickened out during a suicide attempt.

The gist of her piece is that BLM has been unjustly victimized by Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the Democrat Party. See, the Democrats—and didja know that they’re the real racists?—exploited poor BLM in order to win in November, and then betrayed and abandoned the “civil rights” org after emerging victorious. Peek portrays BLM as abused lil’ waifs who won the election for Biden—“Biden happily rode BLM’s coattails” to victory—but “now that Black Lives Matter activists have served out their useful purpose for Democrats—energizing Black and White liberal voters to turn out for Joe Biden—they have apparently been dumped by the president-elect.”That’s pretty much what Peek was doing to the GOP in her op-ed.

“If BLM is welcome in your party or movement, who isn’t?”

Peek urges the spurned sweetie-pies of BLM to come over to the GOP, where the real anti-racists reside!

Peek isn’t alone in those sentiments. Also last week, Rob Smith of Turning Point USA told his 200,000 Twitter followers that BLM organizers “were used for votes, and are now being cast aside.” On a Fox & Friends appearance, Smith complained that Democrats were using and abusing BLM “just like African American voters have been used in the past.” The problem for BLM protesters is that the Democrats “don’t care about them,” Smith solemnly concluded.

In a separate post and video, Smith applauded BLM members for “revolting” against their Democrat-aligned leaders. After all, Smith explained, the rank-and-file BLMs are just “trying to build communities and make their streets safer.” So yes, good citizens of BLM, ditch your leaders and come over to our side!

This echoes what Turning Point USA’s main Twitter account proclaimed months ago: “the BLM movement is FLOODED with Free Market Capitalists.” Yes, BLM embodies the true spirit of America, and TPUSA drove that point home with a video about how BLM is all about “black entrepreneurship and capitalism” in pursuit of “the American dream.”

In fact, the TPUSA video doesn’t profile BLM radicals but black vendors selling merch to BLM radicals, but who cares about such minor deceptions when there’s a larger point to be made: BLMs are natural Republicans!

Capping off a week of “welcome BLM into the big GOP tent” rhetoric, in a now-deleted tweet, Angela Stanton-King, the failed GOP congressional candidate and MAGA darling from Georgia who Trump pardoned this year for her role in a car-theft ring, posted a cartoon that portrayed BLM as a black woman who’s been raped and abandoned by Biden.

“Mister Biden, sir, now that we are finished with this, I was hoping we could talk about a few things,” the ravaged black woman meekly asks.

“Bitch please!!! I already got what I wanted from you,” a laughing Biden responds.

Stanton-King captioned the cartoon “Dear Black America, Your Uber is here…”

So this is how we’re playing it, huh? BLM is the sympathetic victim of racist Democrats. BLM represents good old-fashioned American values, and dangit we’re gonna win ’em over to our side because that’s how not-racist we are!

That’s really the take we’re gonna go with?

With Biden (at least at the moment) not playing ball with BLM, we’re gonna spin it as “He betrayed those poor sincere social-justice-seeking blacks, who should come join the Party of Lincoln,” as opposed to using Biden’s justified concerns and justified caution about BLM to help rally voters against BLM, against “defund the police,” and against Soros-style anarcho-tyranny?

Side note: The “Party of Lincoln” shtick doesn’t work on people who hate Lincoln.

Instead of saying to voters, “BLM’s platform is poison, as evidenced by the fact that even Biden rejects it,” we’re gonna say, “Biden rejected it, which means it must be good, so let’s align with BLM to prove that Biden’s the true racist, not us.”


This represents the brain disease that’s slowly killing not just the mainstream right but the MAGA right as well. A lunatic fetish to gain black votes and disprove “our side’s” racism that has metastasized to such an extent that we’re now trying to peel black votes away from BLM. It was nutty enough for GOPs to obsess over winning “the black vote” in general. But now we have influential rightists arguing that the party should go after the explicitly anti-white, pro-criminal, anti-cop black vote. Why? Because what better way to prove with finality that Biden’s racist and we’re not than to woo the blacks who are too batshit crazy and hateful for the Democrat establishment?

A simple fact: BLM is a terrorist organization. It is nothing more than that. It’s a loose affiliation of thugs, Marxists, thieves, muggers, and murderers, united by an ingrained and irrational hatred of white people and Western civilization, and a fanatical desire to end the very concepts of policing and incarceration, to give criminals free rein to terrorize the law-abiding. That BLM is not crashing planes into police stations and white residential neighborhoods 9/11-style is due solely to the fact that not a soul within the movement has either the available credit to reserve flying lessons or the IQ to comprehend them.

And speaking of al-Qaeda, when Obama first took office, there was some concern that he was going to be sympathetic and servile toward Muslim extremists. And in many instances (his support for Swat Valley sharia autonomy in Pakistan and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), that appeared to be the case. But in those rare instances in which Obama did the correct thing and didn’t cater to Muslim terrorists, no one on the right was demented enough to say, “Oh, those poor terrorists! Obama betrayed them because he’s the real Islamophobe! Al-Qaeda should understand that the GOP is the party of tolerance, where every Charlie Hebdo-attacking Boston Marathon-bombing Muslim can come join a big tent of American values flag pins Thomas Sowell Lee Greenwood color-blind free market!”

Appealing to disaffected terrorists in order to ding your opponent or prove your own virtue and tolerance is a sign of incurable mental illness. To put it another way, if BLM is welcome in your party or movement, who isn’t? What standards are left? What do you stand for? What are you against? Obviously not burning down cities, beating white folks in the streets, demolishing small businesses, and attacking police.

To be clear, Biden/Harris did not “ride BLM’s coattails” to victory. That’s pure schizophrenic delusion, and, like all dissociative fantasies, dangerous too, because implicit in the falsehood is the notion that BLM has the ability to positively influence national or state elections. BLM did not help, and only harmed, Democrats in down-ballot races (statehouse and congressional especially). Biden admitted as much when he didn’t know he was being recorded. Obama has made the same point as well. Yes, national Democrats handled the terrorists with kid gloves (and in some cases directly encouraged them), but they were hardly alone. A great many Republicans were equally hesitant to condemn BLM, because we live in a country where nothing is more important than not offending a favored 13% of the population.

BLM did not deliver the White House to Biden, and it’s troubling that some on the right want to popularize that talking point just so they can make Biden look like a “betrayer.” But again, that’s the brain sickness talking, the disease of “nothing matters but that we don’t look racist and they do.” I’d argue that GOPs could have won even more down-ballot races had the party been even more aggressively and outspokenly against the BLM domestic terror campaigns. And I think this recent spate of “poor abused BLM” talking points indicates that the party (or at least the national party leadership and its mouthpieces) can be counted on to do the most suicidal thing possible by promoting the notion that it’s the GOP’s duty to win over the terrorists because “mean old ‘party of KKK’ Joe Biden doesn’t really care about you…but we do!”

And this isn’t just a Con Inc. thing. Yes, the GOP establishment absolutely wants to popularize the notion that BLM gave Biden the presidency, because if BLM has such power, then surely the GOP should avoid condemning the radicals, because such a powerful bloc, such an influential constituency, should not be alienated. By promoting this line of thought, the GOP can excuse its reluctance to directly confront BLM by name. But Trump’s MAGA minions are marching in the retardation parade as well. With Trump inevitably exiting the White House in January (sorry, krakens), all the MAGAs have left to boast about is that small increased share of the black vote their god-king won. So they too have a vested interest in courting BLM, because they’ve adopted a warped view of “winning” in which elections don’t matter half as much as getting a few new black folks to wear MAGA hats.

The months to come will prove instructive. There will be more BLM unrest. Somewhere, in some city, a white cop will shoot a black criminal. And BLM will riot again. And GOPs, and MAGA stalwarts, will have to decide how to respond. The smart move will be to use the unrest to make political gains by emphasizing that the right stands for law and order, and against antiwhite violence, police defunding, and everything Soros.

And because that’s the smart move, count on it not happening. Instead, expect lots of yammering about how “those poor neglected blacks are only rioting because Biden and the party of racism have failed them.”

The next, inevitable round of BLM violence can be a potential gift horse for the GOP. But true to form, Republicans will decapitate that horse and place the severed head in their own bed with a warning to themselves not to displease the rioters.

Leave it to rightists to Corleone themselves into acting against their own interests.

If America were a company and not a country, we would have long ago dissolved the corporation, split the blanket, and gone our separate ways.

What still holds this disputatious and divided people together?

Consider. In announcing the $900 billion stimulus bill to deal with the pandemic, Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not mention that the gifts for her distressed countrymen and women at Christmas would have been twice as large had she taken President Trump’s offer of $1.8 trillion in October.

Why did the speaker slap that offer away?

“The President only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up,” she told House Democrats.

Rather than let Donald Trump take credit, Pelosi stiffed millions of Americans.

“Rather than let Donald Trump take credit, Pelosi stiffed millions of Americans.”

Sunday, however, the speaker took time for a statement to hail the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue from Statuary Hall. “Welcome news,” said the speaker. “Congress will continue our work to rid the Capitol of homages to hate.”

Lee had stood in a place of honor in the Capitol for decades. When exactly did the statue of the general become a homage to hate?

Both episodes point up an unpleasant truth.

Our dysfunctional American family agrees upon less and less.

By mid-November, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 52% of Republicans thought Donald Trump had “rightfully won.” Sixty-eight percent of Republicans thought the election was “rigged.” A third of independents, and even 10% of Democrats, agreed.

This month, a Fox poll found that a third of all registered voters believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, with 78% of those who voted for Trump expressing that view.

In the long term, not only is the election of 2020 going to be suspect. Also, belief in one of the sacraments of secular democracy, universal suffrage, is going to suffer.

Moreover, the issues that divide us now go increasingly to the faith of what defines us as a nation and a people.

A slice of our intellectual elite emphatically agrees with the New York Times’ Project 1619, which decrees that the real birth date of this nation was neither 1776 nor 1789, but the year that the first slave ship arrived in Virginia.

To this influential cohort, enslavement of Black people brought from Africa and dispossession and destruction of the indigenous tribes that European settlers found here are the defining events of our history.

And all who participated in these crimes against humanity or refused to condemn them are undeserving of exaltation.

Not only Lee, but Columbus and Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, TR and Wilson are all racist white men whose disgraceful and even criminal conduct disqualifies them from a place of honor in the American pantheon of 2020. All statues of such men need to come down to cleanse us of the stain of having honored them.

Pelosi says that such statues are “homages to hate.”

She may not have thought so five or 10 years ago, but she believes that now.

What has taken place is a mass conversion.

Yet, there is another America that still cherishes the nation these men created. And, as did their fathers, grandfathers and ancestors, these Americans have shown a willingness to fight and die in her defense.

Thus we Americans disagree on the most fundamental of issues.

Was America, is America, with all its sins and virtues and all its achievements, a country to be cherished, loved and defended? Or is America a country of whose history we should all be ashamed?

Part of America also believes that discovery in the Constitution of a woman’s right to an abortion and a right of homosexuals to marry were major milestones of progress toward a more moral America.

Others see these as long strides away from the Christian country we used to be, a social and moral decline toward the same quiet death that has come to other civilizations and nations that went before us.

In short, we Americans disagree on whether our country is a good and great nation worth defending, or a place that needs a deep cultural cleansing of its sins.

And we have no common code of morality. One side is rooted in modernism and secularism and the other in the teachings of the Old and New Testament, Christian tradition and a natural law written on the human heart that is superior to man-made law.

People who disagree upon such basic beliefs naturally drift apart, as we Americans are doing today.

Political questions arise out of these fundamental differences, and they are not insignificant.

Can a republic as fractured and splintered as ours is — racially, ethnically, politically, culturally, morally — with a population who do not share the same belief about whether their nation is good and great or failed and evil, endure? And for how long?

What successful models from history do we see of nations that took the kind of risks we are taking with our republic?

The Week’s Most Chiding, Abiding, and Yuletiding Headlines

“When the Lord closes a door, somewhere He opens a window.” —Maria, The Sound of Music

“It’s a trap!” —Admiral Ackbar, Return of the Jedi

In British playwright Ray Cooney’s 1990 farce Out of Order, the catalyst for the whimsical misunderstandings and lighthearted tomfoolery is a defective sash window that violently slams down when opened.

As a theatrical gag, it’s a decent idea. In real life, it’s downright hilarious.

Last week, a budding rapper (aren’t they all?) named Jonathan Hernandez-Zuluaga—who went by the stage name Taz UFO—decided to rob a home in Lee County, Fla. That’s the problem with “budding” as a profession…the pay really sucks. And the 32-year-old dreadlocked father of five realized that “budding” wasn’t gonna be puttin’ no presents under the tree this year for the kids he couldn’t support. So of course burglary was the solution! After all, the dude had a lengthy rap sheet for theft and larceny (he was also the suspect in a 2014 murder case). The “budding” thing certainly didn’t apply to his criminal career; he was quite the accomplished pro.

After scaling the wall of a private residence, Hernandez-Zuluaga pried open a large sash window and lifted the panel high above his head so he could climb through. And the panel came crashing down on his neck, suffocating him. When the cops showed up, they found Taz UFO hanging from the window, his arms dangling in the air like they just don’t care.

Whatever else might be said about Taz, he was fully committed to his art, dying while giving the world the greatest possible cover of Busta Rhymes’ “Break Ya Neck.”

“2020 was a bad year for definitions. Well, it was a bad year for everything.”

On a possibly related note, phone calls and emails from local homeowners have been pouring in to the residents of the house Taz tried to rob, inquiring where they got their windows and how fast they could be installed.

Hernandez-Zuluaga’s baby momma described her beloved as a kindhearted man who was like a breath of fresh air to all who knew him (he certainly provided some fresh air to the room in which he perished). She’s started a GoFundMe to pay for Taz’s funeral expenses. “He was destined to be GREAT beyond great at that I know his close friends will ensure his music lives on,” the grieving rap-widow wrote. “All he wanted in life was to make it with his music.”

R.I.P. T-Pane.

At this most festive and holy time of the year, Christians around the U.S. gather (in some cities via Zoom, because Democrats have closed the churches) to reflect upon the birth of Jesus and the glory of the nativity tale. Interestingly, it appears as though both Matthew and Luke left out the part of the story where baby Jesus scored a shitload of fentanyl and wrote a bad check (“pay to the order of Cæsar Augustus for all taxes owed”).

At least that’s how a “church” in Claremont, Calif., (at the easternmost edge of L.A. County) sees it.

This Christmas, Claremont United Methodist Church has rejiggered its annual nativity scene as an homage to George Floyd. Mary and Joseph are depicted as BLM protesters, while the little baby in the manger is portrayed as a representation of not just Floyd but the “dozens of black men and women shot and killed by police.”

The head of the church’s “creative peacemaking committee,” Pam Bunce, and the committee’s “facilities engineer,” Genaro Cordova, told The L.A. Times that it was a toss-up whether to craft a nativity scene that distorts scripture in the name of fighting COVID, or one that does so in the name of fighting racism.

In the end, racism won the coin toss.

Cordova constructed the mannequin of Mary to be posed in the “hands up don’t shoot” position generally associated with leftists who dismiss the nativity as a fairy tale but cling to the Michael Brown myth no matter how many times it’s debunked. Additionally, the list of names above the baby Jesus detailing those “dozens of black men and women shot and killed by police” includes Emmett Till, which demonstrates how religious dogma can evolve over the years, as the notion of Till having been shot by cops is rather a new twist.

Bunce told the local Daily Bulletin newspaper that the point of the nativity scene is to make Christians understand that Jesus “came [to earth] to stand with the people who are marginalized.” Which in today’s America would probably be the business owners who’ve lost everything due to COVID and BLM riots, as opposed to the thugs and looters who sacked entire retail districts with impunity.

Speaking of COVID, Claremont United Methodist’s Reverend Karen Clark Ristine told the Times that she’s disappointed by the fact that so few people have shown up to gaze in amazement at the wondrous Christmastime racial-justice exhibit her church constructed.

The Times then reminded Ristine that her church has been closed since March for COVID, so that’s why there are no crowds of gawkers.

Damn, the pandemic restrictions finally did some good.

A Christmas miracle.

2020 was a bad year for definitions. Well, it was a bad year for everything. But definitions certainly took a major hit. In October, after Amy Coney Barrett used the phrase “sexual preference” while discussing homosexuality, Merriam-Webster’s altered the definition of the term overnight to recategorize it as “offensive.” Peter Sokolowski, the dictionary’s editor at large, proudly told the press that the definition was changed for political reasons “in connection with the SCOTUS hearings.”

Not coincidentally, the definition of “Sokolowski” was updated to “unashamedly dishonorable politically motivated hack.”

Also in October, altered the definition of “court packing” so that the word could apply to politicians who attempt to alter the “ideological composition” and not just the number of Supreme Court justices. The change was carried out to satisfy liberal Twitter, which demanded that the nomination of Barrett be seen as an example of “court packing” even though it wasn’t.

That the new definition of court packing applies to every Supreme Court pick ever doesn’t bother today’s lexicographers, who are all a bunch of worthless Sokolowskis.

But last week saw the greatest redefinition of the year. In a series of tweets, Harvard Medical School officially redefined “woman” as “birthing person.”

Yes, “woman” is now an inaccurate term for the type of human who has ovaries and a womb and whatnot.

“Globally, ethnic minority pregnant and birthing people suffer worse outcomes and experiences during and after pregnancy and childbirth. These inequities have been further highlighted by #COVID19,” the formerly respectable institution tweeted.

For some odd reason, women across the ideological spectrum took issue with the new terminology, which—many pointed out—sounds a bit Handmaid’s Tale in its reduction of females to mere “birthing persons.” “Why not just call us ‘lactators,’ ‘gestators,’ or ‘uterus-bearers,’” one commenter asked. Several Twitterers pointed out that what Harvard was doing was “erasing” and “diminishing” women, something that leftists so adamantly claim should never be done when it comes to race. So why do it with gender?

Feeling the heat, the Harvard brainiacs tweeted a clarification:

The [Harvard] webinar panelists used the term “birthing person” to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as “women” or “girls.” We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women.

Essentially, because a small handful of mentally troubled women (many of whom have been subjected to parental abuse and medical malpractice) call themselves “men,” society is no longer allowed to say that only women give birth.

At least according to Harvard Medical School, which last week earned its new dictionary definition: “kindergarten for incurable retards.”

Black Americans love insult humor. From Fred Sanford calling Aunt Esther an “ugly ol’ ape” to George Jefferson calling Tom and Helen “zebras” to everything the Wayans siblings have ever done, insult comedy—especially as personified by the “yo mamma” jokes of “the dozens”—is intimately associated with American blacks. And there’s a good reason for that: Insult comedy helped kill one of the worst racists in U.S. history.

John Wilkes Booth—who apparently, it turns out, wasn’t such a bad guy after all—purposely timed his entrance into the vile neo-Nazi Abraham Lincoln’s private balcony with the covering noise he knew would be generated by a guaranteed laugh-line in the play Lincoln was viewing, Our American Cousin. In Act III, Scene 2, the eponymous hero finally tells off the pretentious and rude dowager Mrs. Mountchessington:

“Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal—you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

In 1865 that was roughly the equivalent of “suck mah dick you dry-pussy-havin’ stank-ass ol’ ho.”

The laughter from the snappy put-down enabled Booth to creep up behind the president and erase a racist. And now Booth’s handiwork is being hailed by the San Francisco Unified School District, which has decided to erase Lincoln from all public schools, because the sixteenth president is four score and seven times worse than Hitler.

“Abraham Lincoln, once a hero, is now a bad guy in some S.F. education circles,” the San Francisco Chronicle announced last week:

Lincoln is one of dozens of historical figures who, according to a school district renaming committee, lived a life so stained with racism, oppression or human rights violations, they do not deserve to have their name on a school building.

In the words of the chair of the San Francisco School Names Advisory Committee, Jeremiah Jeffries (who so black he be ridin’ his bike an’ got a ticket for tinted windows), “Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building.”

Yes, the guy who freed the slaves, destroyed the Confederacy, and got assassinated for it didn’t care about black lives.

Funny enough, Jeffries and his San Fran cohorts have also ordered Dianne Feinstein’s name removed from Dianne Feinstein Elementary School because back when she was mayor in 1984, she allowed a Confederate flag on capitol grounds. But Lincoln, who defeated the Confederacy, is also banned.

Totally logical.

If the dude who freed practically every black in the U.S. “did not show through policy or rhetoric that Black lives ever mattered to him,” what white person could ever pass muster?

Well, maybe Booth, the Antebellum Antifa. Makes as much sense as anything in a city that’s Sic Semper Tyran-nuts.

If the U.S. mainstream media has a collective personality type, it’s “workplace shooter.” As a rule, most workplace shooters are small, bitter people who sit alone at the office silently fuming, growing more and more resentful with each passing day over the fact that they’re not as well-liked, accepted, or successful as they think they should be.

Workplace shooters put the entire responsibility for their woes on others. That’s pretty much the defining workplace-shooter creed: “If I get fired, if I get disciplined, if I’m not welcome at the watercooler klatch, if the pretty secretaries never respond to my advances, it’s never my fault.”

Prospective workplace shooters never entertain the notion that their unpopularity is tied to their behavior, their personality, or their general loathsomeness.

Last week, the New York-based nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists released a “special report” that can best be described as a page from a disgruntled shooter’s journal of self-pity. The report ostensibly covers the current “persecution” faced by reporters, editors, and news writers worldwide. The overall theme is “Everybody hates us, and it’s their fault not ours, and help us, President Biden, you’re our only hope!”

Paragraph after paragraph of the report is dedicated to whining about how journalists are no longer liked or respected, written from the strikingly oblivious perspective of “But, we’re so great! We’re so important! How could you not like us?”

Even though the report grudgingly admits that China is the worst global offender when it comes to the actual persecution of journalists (followed by Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia), the report’s authors conclude that the true culprit is Donald Trump:

Lack of global leadership on democratic values—particularly from the United States, where President Donald Trump has inexhaustibly denigrated the press and cozied up to dictators such as Egyptian President Abdelfattah el-Sisi—has perpetuated the crisis. As authoritarians leveraged Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric to justify their actions—particularly in Egypt—the number of journalists jailed on “false news” charges steadily increased. This year, 34 journalists were jailed for “false news,” compared with 31 last year.

So the assaults on journalists are Trump’s fault because he “cozied up” to el-Sisi (if Trump’s “cozying” is what caused the problem, why is the problem most prevalent in China, where Trump did the exact opposite of “cozying”?), and Trump’s rhetoric against “fake news” is why journalists are being repressed. However, the report fails to criticize Big Tech’s rhetoric against “fake news.” In fact, the authors cheer Big Tech’s battle against “fake news” as a positive thing for journalism.

Trump’s condemnation of “fake news” endangers journalists. Big Tech’s condemnation of “fake news” preserves journalistic integrity.

Seems legit.

The report calls on Joe Biden to step in and fight the “lack of trust in media in the U.S.” by propagandizing from the White House in favor of mainstream journalists and against any skepticism of their work. The authors also want Biden to help “social media companies” put the kibosh on “toxic speech, misinformation, and online harassment [that] have corrupted the information environment and undermined public trust.”

These “journalists” have no beef with the dictatorial excesses—state propaganda and speech suppression—of leaders in China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia…they’re just pissed that said excesses are being used against them rather than for them.

Of course, an easier solution to the problem of “lack of trust in the media” might be to just not shill so much for the Democrats, which invariably leads to credibility-killing moments (“BLM riots don’t spread COVID!”/“Outdoor dining spreads COVID!”…“Russian interference in our elections is a vital story”/“Chinese interference in our elections is a nonstory”), but that would likely be asking too much of the lonely, hateful office schizos brooding in their cubicles and cursing the world for rejecting them.