Has there ever been a time, in Jonathan Greenblatt's estimation, when antisemitism was not at "an all-time high"?
This isn't just embellished rhetoric. Every single year, groups like the ADL put together studies purporting to prove that "hate" is at an all-time high, which are then fed to the media and repeated everywhere until it becomes conventional wisdom
You don't even have to look at the data to know it's rubbish. I mean, really: All-time highs? Just off the top of my head, I can think of...at least a few times when antisemitism was a lot higher.
This is why Elon standing up to the censorship cartel was so significant.
> "Hate and extremism are at an all-time high."
> "Okay. So? That doesn't give you veto power over our freedom of speech."
Great thread from @America_2100 (go follow them!) ⬇️
Ireland voters just overwhelmingly rejected an elite left-wing effort to rewrite their constitution.
The amendment would have removed the claim that marriage is the basis of the family, as well as a reference to women's "duties in the home."
More than 67% of Ireland voted no.
It's difficult to think of another Western country with a larger ideological gap between the people and the elites. Every single poll consistently shows the Irish people overwhelmingly want less immigration, for example — but the Irish elites are uniformly in favor of more.
So now, instead of actually listening to the concerns of their own people, Ireland's political class is simply attempting to shut them up. That was the explicit premise of their recent hate speech bill — arguably the most draconian of its kind to date:
As an aside, this map is a good illustration of why a "national divorce" scenario would be so untenable. Unlike the Civil War, the nation's political divisions aren't cleanly divided into North/South geographies. Instead, we'd have three, four or even five distinct confederacies.
There are various "radical federalism" options that could, in the event of total breakdown, be amenable. But the long and short of it is that — even if you think it sounds desirable in the abstract (and I don't) — there really is no viable exit plan. The only way out is through.
This is one of the great ironies of American guilt about the treatment of Native Americans: It's only because we documented our sins.
"History" didn't exist in pre-European America. Natives routinely brutalized one another. The difference is, they never thought to write it down.
Even the most infamous examples of European mistreatment of the Natives illustrate this fact.
Everyone's heard of The Trail of Tears. But far fewer people know that the march included a substantial number of African slaves, who were then the property of Cherokee slaveowners.
According to Comanche historian Paul Chaat Smith, The Five Civilized Tribes — Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole — "were deeply committed to slavery."
So much so, in fact, that they "enthusiastically sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War."
Last week, Bill Ackman pledged to fight DEI "to the end of the earth."
Now, he's donating $1 million to Dean Phillips — a Democratic presidential candidate who has actively worked to expand DEI.
Ackman says that Phillips is "sensible." His record tells a different story 🧵
As I noted in a prior thread, Phillips co-founded the Stakeholder Capitalism Caucus, dedicated to defending and advocating for ESG.
According to RollCall, the caucus is committed to "embracing an economic concept that Republicans have...railed against as 'woke' capitalism."
During COVID, Phillips introduced the The New Business Preservation Act, aiming to "strengthen the mission of diversity and inclusion" with race- and gender-based government funding.
As a statement from his office boasted at the time, the bill was pedal-to-the-metal DEI:
A substantial number of today's self-styled "defenders of the principles of the Founding" would be horrified by what the Founders actually believed
Various people have made this point already in the context of the debate over the Satanic display in Iowa, but the idea that our "Founding principles" compel us to accept these provocations is absurd. This wouldn't have even been a subject of debate with the Founding generation.
We *are* compelled to accept public endorsements of Satanism by the post-1950s mangling of the Constitution, and the subsequent rewriting of the principles of the Founding.
But too many conservatives are mistaking that modern revision for the Constitution of the Founders.
In 2015, neoconservative Peter Wehner wrote that removing the Confederate flag from state grounds was "an opportunity" for the GOP "to finally put to rest an issue that has bedeviled their party."
Of course, as we know, it never put anything to rest. It was only the beginning.
The attack on Confederate symbols began decades ago. But even then, there were signs that this was about far more than just the Confederacy.
In 1992, New Orleans began stripping Confederate names from schools. By 1997, George Washington was being added to the chopping block: