Sunday 17th of January 2021

the future remembers...

the future remembers...

According to American media, the world would be celebrating after Joe Biden was given the winner by media across the Atlantic. Thus, Paris would have ringed the bells of its churches and London would have shot fireworks ...



The victory not yet official - but announced on November 7 by many major American media and press agencies - in the American presidential election of Democratic candidate Joe Biden has been quickly greeted by a number of heads of state and government around the world. If the effervescence has been able to gain part of the American population, several American media such as The Hill, CNN, Fox News, The Washington Newsday or Slate, have propagated two false news, believing to perceive an overflowing global enthusiasm towards by Joe Biden.

 

Indeed, these media were quick to assert that the bells of Parisian churches had sounded to celebrate the victory of Joe Biden announced by the media, before explaining that London had fired fireworks for the same reason.

 

However, all this is false. What some American media interpreted as Parisian congratulations on November 7 at around 5:45 p.m. was none other than the time of the call to vespers - the service that marks the end of the afternoon and the beginning of the evening.

 

According to the Atlantico news site, "the origin is a video posted on Twitter and seen more than a million times, actually showing the bells of Paris ringing this Saturday, November 7 around 5:45 pm ..." "As for the traffic lights fireworks fired in the United Kingdom, the reason is also different: the British celebrate every November 5 the "Guy Fawkes Night" in memory of the Conspiracy of the powders of November 5, 1605 ", explains Atlantico, during which a group of Catholics tried to blow up the British Parliament in which King James I was located.

 

Celebrated each year with more or less large fireworks, the "Guy Fawkes Night" is also known under the names of "Bonfire Night" (the night of the great fire) or "Fireworks Night". fireworks).

 

Find out more about RT France: https://francais.rt.com/international/80595-medias-americains-privez-app...

he declared himself the winner of the election...

Mr Trump demanded on Thursday via Twitter that election officials “STOP THE COUNT!”, and later wrote that “ANY VOTE THAT CAME IN AFTER ELECTION DAY WILL NOT BE COUNTED!”

Campaign spokesman Jason Miller said Mr Trump did not want ballots that arrived by mail to continue to be counted. An estimated 65 million Americans used postal ballots.

Mr Trump is against voting by mail because data shows more Democrats use it than Republicans, who preferred to wait for election day. He also spent months discrediting postal votes, and urging his supporters to turn out on November 3 itself.

On Saturday (local time), Mr Trump’s preferred social network – Twitter – warned of the veracity of his claims after he declared himself the winner of the election. That was despite leading US media organisations predicting a Biden victory.

“Some or all of the content shared in this tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process” is a warning note the platform has added to many of Mr Trump’s tweets since then.

However, Mr Trump has continued to allege irregularities in voting and in the scrutiny, despite a lack of evidence.

He has also claimed observers have not been allowed to witness the count and – repeatedly – that he won the election.

Twitter flagged also flagged these posts.


Making the transition

Elsewhere, the nonpartisan Centre for Presidential Transition is urging the General Services Administration to certify Mr Biden as the winner of the 2020 election and begin the presidential transition process.

The group, which advises incoming administrations, has written a letter pushing for the Trump administration and Biden campaign to begin work on an orderly White House transition.

“We urge the Trump administration to immediately begin the post-election transition process and the Biden team to take full advantage of the resources available under the Presidential Transition Act,” it said.

“This was a hard-fought campaign, but history is replete with examples of presidents who emerged from such campaigns to graciously assist their successors.

 

 

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/us-news/us-election/2020/11/09/us-election-donald-trump-biden/

 

See toon at top.

 

leader

From the SMH, 9/11/2020

the USA as a country of historical bad losers...

When all the recounts and lawsuits are done, Joe Biden almost certainly will be the next president. Yet Donald Trump has every right to challenge that — and Democrats have no excuse for raging about it.

Biden’s apparent Electoral College lead would require Trump to erase leads of tens of thousands of votes in at least three states — which won’t happen unless the president can show a lot more wrongdoing than he has so far.

But he has every right to try: Contesting results is part of democracy, one Democrats have done many times in recent elections. Al Gore’s 2000 effort in Florida left the election unresolved until Dec. 12. And other Dems demanded recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016, along with other lawsuits.

Heck, most Democrats still pretend Stacey Abrams “really” won the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia, evidence be damned.

And most of the party still won’t accept the 2016 results, regularly claiming that election was stolen with help from Russia.

Nancy Pelosi and all the rest who’ve encouraged that belief have no excuse now for insisting that Republicans tell Trump to give up. As we’ve noted, Trump’s extreme rhetoric now makes him look bad — as bad as Nancy Pelosi and all the other leading Democrats who’ve been making mirror-image crazy claims for the last four years.

 

Read more:

https://nypost.com/2020/11/10/trumps-bid-to-shift-the-election-may-be-hopeless-but-dems-have-done-it-since-2016/

 

 

relocation of monuments by philantropoids...

 

by George Liebmann

 

Only the unobservant will be startled by the recent announcement by the Mellon Foundation of its appropriation of $250 million for a “Monuments Project: Building the Commemorative Landscape for the 21st Century” on October 11. This is said to be the “largest initiative in the foundation’s fifty year history.”

If this allocation were devoted to the creation of new monuments to inspiring but neglected figures, there could be no objection to it. As Maryland’s Senate President Emeritus, Thomas V. Mike Miller recently observed, we need more monuments, not fewer of them. In an increasingly collectivist age, it is useful for the young to be reminded of the difference individuals can make, and for the middle-aged to be given the hope that their achievements will be indelibly memorialized.

But construction of new monuments is not, one fears, the focus of this new endeavor. The first grant announced from the $250 million is one of $4 million for a “National Monuments Audit,” to be accompanied by a “concurrent database of reported protest activities tied to monuments.” An additional $1 million is allocated for “ten Monument Lab field offices” that will “re-imagine monuments,” including the “relocation or re-thinking of existing monuments.”

Most citizens are unaware that their built landscape, the product of centuries of accretion, is to be “audited” by largely anonymous teams of activists nominated by philanthropoids from New York and equipped with a large budget for what is euphemistically called “re-location” but which generally means disappearance. This disrespect for local opinion and aspiration to rule from afar is in itself unattractive; one is reminded of the mantra of one of the first and greatest of the neo-conservatives, the late Sidney Hook, who once declared: “Heresy, yes; conspiracy, no!”

There stands outside my apartment building in Baltimore a conspicuous empty plinth, a suitable monument to intellectual vacuousness, which once supported a sad-eyed and tragic depiction of Chief Justice Roger Taney. This was removed at the instance of our since-jailed mayor, without a required hearing before the City Council, after a vote by a narrow majority by a Commission on Confederate Monuments appointed to by-pass existing review commissions on Municipal Art and on Historic Preservation. Never mind that Taney was a Unionist who did not follow his colleague Justice Campbell to the South, that he manumitted the slaves he inherited, that his justifiably infamous activist Dred Scott decision was motivated by a desire not to perpetuate slavery but to forestall civil war, and that the monument was erected not by Confederate memorialists but by Henry Walters, one of Baltimore’s great civic benefactors, and that those attending its dedication included prominent citizens imprisoned during the Civil War in defiance of Justice Taney’s attempt to vindicate the writ of habeas corpus in the Ex parte Merryman case, some of whom had been advocates of emancipation and defenders of the rights of free blacks.

No one wants context where there are “protest activities”; one of the municipal officials involved vindicated disappearance of the monument on the ground that it might otherwise be subjected to vandalism, public vandalism thus being preferred to the private variety.

It is clear that this sort of activity is what the Mellon grant is designed to support. It was one of five foundations (with total assets of $34 billion) contributing to the disappearance, with the help of another politically correct mayor, of four monuments in New Orleans. Three of these were to Confederate officials, Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and P. T. S. Beauregard. The fourth explicitly commemorated the restoration of ‘white supremacy’ by the temporary overthrow of a military-imposed government.

One can understand the resentment of blacks and some well-intentioned others at these commemorations. But there are nuances lost even here. Jefferson Davis was a fanatic, who favored the continuation of guerilla warfare after Appomattox. But a treason prosecution of him was abandoned for fear of his acquittal, the non-existence of a right of secession being far from clear before the Civil War. Robert E. Lee had not joined the Confederacy on its establishment, but only when his own state seceded after Lincoln’s call for troops to coerce the seceding states, and he forestalled continuation of the war after the surrender. The monument to the restoration of white supremacy was also a monument to the restoration of self-government, however deplorable the purposes to which it was put. The South was bitter and ruined when these monuments were erected, its infrastructure damaged, its economy subjected to the Republican protective tariff, its leadership class at least temporarily proscribed, most of its personal property confiscated without compensation, and its governments emerging from alien rule sustained by a formerly slave populace that was, though through no fault of its own, 90% illiterate. Along with the monuments, this context is sought to be expunged from memory. In Baltimore, a new interpretive plaque was not enough for the fanatics; any appreciation of Taney’s life, achievements,  and motivations had to be completely expunged.

The purpose here, sought to be so systematically advanced, is that anticipated in George Orwell’s 1984, where “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been re-written, every picture has been re-painted, every statue or street or building has been re-named, every date has been altered. And that process has been continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless Present in which the Party is always right.”

I was curious as to what sort of Board of Directors approved the Mellon project. I was not surprised that it consisted of the late sixties generation come to power. The President and four of the other eleven other board members are Afro-American; one of the others is Richard Brodhead, former President of Duke who was noted for his acquiescence to pressure group demands in his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. Remarkably enough, the presidents of three of the four other foundations, the Ford, Rockefeller and Kellogg Foundations cooperating in the removal of the New Orleans monuments are Afro-American, as are 5 of 16 directors at Ford, 4 of 16 at Kellogg, and 5 of 13 at Rockefeller. This progress on the part of a once-oppressed 13% minority should be gratifying to all good citizens. The difficulty is that the demands for tolerance and understanding on the part of these recruits to the American nomenklatura appear to be directed ever outward, never inward. Inspection of foundation board composition discloses a pattern of aggravated incest.

It is rather astonishing that Mellon, which bills itself as “the largest supporter of the arts and humanities in the U.S.” should, at a time when symphony orchestras, museums, and theaters are fighting for survival in the coronavirus crisis, be giving its largest-ever grant to what is, in its most visible activities, a work of destruction.

It is also remarkable that an American elite given to virtue-signaling should be devoting so much of its energy to the co-opting of Afro-Americans onto non-profit boards and into the student bodies and faculties of elite universities while, as in 1968, huge percentages of Afro-American young men, for want of better employment opportunities, are relegated to participation in the drug-dealing underworld. Scarcely a dime of the resources of Mellon and the other large foundations is devoted to the promotion of vocational education, once urged by such as Booker T. Washington and William Howard Taft. As a recent study has shown, the leading foundations devoted more than a billion dollars to support of studies and advocacy groups promoting ‘gay rights’ while agitating scarcely at all for de-funding the drug underworld through legalization or reviving the Civilian Conservation Corps.

When the Rockefeller Foundation applied for a federal charter, it was refused by President Taft and his trust-busting Attorney General, George Wickersham, the latter decrying “an indefinite scheme for perpetuating vast wealth…entirely inconsistent with the public interest.” As a study by the present writer demonstrated as long ago as 1962, American foundations have long since abandoned uncontroversial activities such as medical research, largely yielded to government. Instead they have ventured ever more deeply into the domain of politics. The Ford Foundation in the era of Mc George Bundy, an American Grand Master (along with Justice Frank Murphy and Defense Secretary Robert Mc Namara, of the art of ‘failing upward’) sponsored two misbegotten initiatives: New York City regional school boards, designed as a sandbox for rising minority politicians, and endowment of La Raza to organize the previously quiescent Hispanic population. The former gave rise to militant teachers unions, the latter to formalized identity politics, as shown in the late Georgie Ann Geyer’s Americans No More.

The most somber prophet of modern totalitarianism, Jacob Burckhardt, wrote that in the wake of the Paris Commune, “there are everywhere good, splendid, liberal people who do not quite know the boundaries of right and wrong and where the duty of resistance and defense begins. It is these men who open the doors and level the paths for the terrible masses everywhere.” “A new element has entered politics,” he added, “a thoroughness that former conquerors knew nothing of, or at least made no conscious use of. They try to humiliate the conquered as deeply as possible in his own eyes, so that in the future he shall not rise again to any self-confidence.”

The last serious examination of the political activities of foundations was the congressional Reece Committee that proposed and imposed some restrictions on them, since diluted, in 1954. There is need for another Reece Committee, one more detached and less partisan, from which foundation-aided personnel should be rigorously excluded.

 

George Liebmann is the author of several books on law and politics, most recently America’s Political Inventors (Bloomsbury 2019).

 

 

 

Read more:

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-taliban-come-to-america-disguised-as-philanthropoids/

 

 

Read from top.

imagine...

Imagine 2037... Will the world have improved on the 2020 crap? Will we remember Joe Biden as the saviour of the planet or for his mega failure? Will we remember the Trump years like we cry in pain about the Tony Abbott years? What about those lying bastards, Tony Blair, Bush and Howard? Will we remember them as the war criminals they were?... Will we find out who really killed JFK? Would the dorks leading the countries of this wild planet then — and I mean WILD, in the sense of human crazy, because the wildlife will be a footnote on the page of our hysterical history — be the present youngsters with placards chastising our inaction on global warming, that became the lord masters who own windmills, solar panels and perovskite industrial complexes, lithium mines plus bicycle shopping centres?...

 

Will people care?... Read from top.