Things come together; the fringes cannot hold

The question looms silent over the caterwauling and self-congratulation: how will the ascendant coalition of the fringes manage things once they’ve run out of white men?

Aside from losing the focus of their demagogy–as long as one Pale Male breathes, they’ll manage–there is the problem of just who is going to run things once the only place for white men in the elite is as transitioning females. Who will be the first white guy to fake transsexualism to get ahead? Is he already out there?

Identity front men are a possibility, but politicians, in particular minority mediocrities, are increasingly that already–out of their depth on the issues and directed by party, donors and lobbyists. Reducing the pool of electable talent is a feature from their perspective, someone without intellectual depth being easier to manipulate.

But is that true? Are they down to recruiting people now who don’t know enough to keep quiet about the myriad internal hatreds that is the present progressive movement?

The recent Tablet expose on the antisemitism of the Women’s March movement’s nominal leadership revealed how brazen the black pets of Jewish activists have become in expressing their antisemitism

According to several sources, it was there—in the first hours of the first meeting for what would become the Women’s March—that something happened that was so shameful to many of those who witnessed it, they chose to bury it like a family secret. Almost two years would pass before anyone present would speak about it.

It was there that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.”

To this day, Mallory and Bland deny any such statements were ever uttered, either at the first meeting or at Mallory’s apartment. “There was a particular conversation around how white women had centered themselves—and also around the dynamics of racial justice and why it was essential that racial justice be a part of the women’s rights conversation,” remembered Bland. But she and Mallory insisted it never had anything to do with Jews. “Carmen and I were very clear at that [first] meeting that we would not take on roles as workers or staff, but that we had to be in a leadership position in order for us to engage in the march,” Mallory told Tablet, in an interview last week, adding that they had been particularly sensitive to the fact that they had been invited to the meeting by white women, and wanted to be sure they weren’t about to enter into an unfair arrangement. “Other than that, there was no particular conversation about Jewish women, or any particular group of people.”

I think there’s a Jewish phrase for the nerve displayed by Mallory, in deigning to accept the offer of leading a movement she had nothing to do with creating, albeit with reservations and expressions of disgust. I’m blanking on what that word is.

Mallory, Perez and Bland (who I’m guessing is there to represent the sexually ambiguous) were recommended to the Jewish originators of the movement by another Jew, Michael Skolnik, and were cut out of the action almost immediately

…Wruble—a Washington, D.C., native who founded OkayAfrica, a digital media platform dedicated to new African music, culture, and politics, with The Roots’ Questlove—reached out to a man she knew named Michael Skolnik. The subject of a New York Times profile the previous year as an “influencer” at the nexus of social activism and celebrity, Skolnik held a powerful though not easily defined role in the world of high-profile activist politics. “It’s very rare to have one person who everyone respects in entertainment, or in politics, or among the grass roots,” said Van Jones, in a 2015 New York Times piece. “But to have one person who’s respected by all three? There isn’t anyone but Michael Skolnik.”

I couldn’t find out exactly why the former drama major Michael Skolnik levies the influence claimed. His biggest resume listing looks like his involvement heading MTV’s “Rock the Vote”.

When Wruble relayed her concern that the nascent women’s movement had to substantively include women of color, Skolnik told her he had just the women for her to meet: Carmen Perez and Tamika Mallory. These were recommendations Skolnik could vouch for personally. In effect, he was connecting Wruble to the leadership committee of his own nonprofit—a group called The Gathering for Justice, where he and Mallory sat on the board of directors, and Perez served as the executive director.

In an email to Tablet, Skolnik confirmed this account of the group’s origins. “A few days after the election, I was contacted by Vanessa Wruble, who I have known for many years, asking for help with The Women’s March and specifically with including women of color in leadership,” he wrote. “I recommended that she speak with Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez, also who I have known for years.”

Linda Sarsour, another colleague from The Gathering for Justice network, was not present for these initial meetings but joined the Women’s March as a co-chair a short time later. 

The Women’s March movement is withering and dying as a result of all this. I imagine donations have dried up. The group had, or still has, plans for a big march sometime this month. But it looks like the gravy train is now derailed, all because of Tamika Mallory’s lack of common sense.

Note it wasn’t Sarsour’s supposed connection to militant Islam or Mallory’s love of Farrakhan that did the movement in–the girls had weathered that controversy already. It took Mallory’s honest antisemitism at that first meeting to shut the thing down.

There are two ways to view the plight of Vanessa Wruble, one sympathetic–she’s a true-believer who got screwed, or she’s just cunning enough to want to disguise the Jewish nature of the movement by “centering women of color”. Skolnik does claim to have known her for years, so she’s probably more seasoned than not.

The exotics in the coalition of the fringes still don’t run things and aren’t learning how. They increasingly misread or disdain the protocols that have guided the left heretofore. And they appear to lack a certain self-awareness that would give whites embarrassed pause when being handed something they had little in creating. To be fair to minorities, these are minority activists I’m talking about.

My greatest fear now is that the progressive left becomes a one-party American state by way of demographic displacement and that party is completely incapable of governing because it is the present Democratic party, times ten.

Weekly Pozz Report

The “Bernie Bros” theme used to help take down Sanders’ troublesome campaign always sounded like it came straight out of the Clinton camp. “Bernie bros” looked from where I sat at the time like well-intentioned but misled white true-believing progressive males whose support of a progressive platform distinctly opposed their specific interests as white males–among a coalition of mewling, openly self-interested groups–made these guys heroically selfless.
So of course the Democrats have to kill them.

A New York Times article today invokes the Me Too movement to help pre-empt another Sanders run at wrecking the Democratic program in 2020:

In February 2016, Giulianna Di Lauro, a Latino outreach strategist for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential operation, complained to her supervisor that she had been harassed by a campaign surrogate whom she drove to events ahead of the Democratic primary in Nevada.

She said the surrogate told her she had “beautiful curly hair” and asked if he could touch it, Ms. Di Lauro said in an interview. Thinking he would just touch a strand, she consented. But she said that he ran his hand through her hair in a “sexual way” and continued to grab, touch and “push my boundaries” for the rest of the day.

“I just wanted to be done with it so badly,” she said.

When she reported the incident to Bill Velazquez, a manager on the Latino outreach team, he told her, “I bet you would have liked it if he were younger,” according to her account and another woman who witnessed the exchange. Then he laughed.

Political campaigns are probably fairly randy affairs with the war-like atmosphere and life on the road. I don’t know if feminists will kill that or just use it heretofore whenever they can to produce stories like this one.

A campaign surrogate is a celebrity or similar non-poliitcal figure that participates in a campaign event. Turns out the surrogate in question here was likely there to provide Sanders with much needed “diversity”, as the “Bernie bros” were guilty of whiteness as well as bro-ness

In her interview with The Times, Ms. Di Lauro said she told several people who were high up in the campaign, including Rich Pelletier, who served as national field director, about her encounter in Nevada with the surrogate, a Mexican game show host named Marco Antonio Regil. But she felt she was not taken seriously by the campaign.

It turns out nobody is more “bro” than a Mexican game show host. Who knew? Anyone who’s ever seen a Mexican game show.
It’s going to be a very entertaining campaign season.

Q & …

Steve Sailer posts a set of questions from a reader:

A meaningful set of questions that a serious country might give its people would be something like: 

1) Do you want to turn over the state that your ancestors spent centuries worth of blood sweat and tears building to people who are utterly indifferent to that heritage at best and outright hostile to it at worst? To people whose first principles exist in opposition to your own? To people who think that it’s the duty of the native population to adapt to the immigrants rather than the other way around?

2) What are the unifying principles of the post-national state going to be? How will its diverse peoples smooth over differences of opinion and forge forward in building the future? What will unite them in times of poverty and famine, and keep the state from fracturing along ethnic lines, as many multi-ethnic states have in times of trouble? What will get two people who have no ethnic, religious or ideological commonalities beyond “Diversity is our strength” into a foxhole together to defend against an enemy that threatens the post-national state?(As an aside, most liberals in 2018 confirm the enduring bonds of ethnicity whenever they bitch about having to go to Christmas or Thanksgiving with their MAGA uncle. They put up with it because people will tolerate things from their family that they would never put up with from anyone else, and ethnicity is basically a big extended family)

3) Do you want to leave for your descendants a future where they live as a despised minority, with their continued existence totally at the mercy of a majority who are conditioned from birth to believe that every misfortune or inconvenience they experience is ultimately the work of whites?

4) Do you really believe that you have the right to make such a choice for future generations?

5) If you answered yes to #3 and #4, can you think of any particular group who lived like that in the past, and if so, how did that work out for them in the long run?