Antisemitism

D.C. Councilman Warns About "Rothschilds Controlling the Climate" "to Own the Cities"

"It's climate manipulation and D.C. keep talking about 'we are a resilient city' and that's a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man."

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

WTOP (D.C.) (Jennifer Ortiz) quotes—and links to—a Facebook video put out by D.C. Councilman (and former D.C. Board of Education member) Trayon White, Sr.:

It just started snowing out of nowhere this morning. Y'all better pay attention to this climate control.

It's climate manipulation and D.C. keep talking about "we are a resilient city" and that's a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man.

Wow, I knew we Jews were powerful, but I didn't know we actually controlled the weather.

The Councilman put out an apology; decide for yourself how much weight you would like to put on it:

Thanks to Charles Glasser at InstaPundit for the pointer.

Advertisement

NEXT: Fear of a Free, Prosperous Internet

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jews United for Justice sounds like a fun bunch of guys and gals

    “CONNECT. STAY STRONG. RESIST TRUMP.
    It’s time to get moving….

    “If you’re ready to join the Jewish resistance, get it started here at home.
    We need you with us now to build the skills and raise our voices – and to strengthen our shared vision.”

    1. Maybe Jews United for Justice could get together with the Rothschilds and solve this climate change thing.

  2. From last month’s Washington City Paper

    “A year into his tenure as Ward 8 councilmember, White is still learning the spoken and unspoken rules of politics. He toils in the shadow of the late Marion Barry, who championed the ward?both as mayor and councilmember?and those he called “the lost, the last, and the least.”

    “Today their voice is Trayon White.

    “Even a few of his former rivals admit this. “Trayon brings a voice to a constituency that in many cases has been faceless and voiceless and not at the table of decision-making,” says veteran activist Philip Pannell, who lost to White in two school board elections.

    “”He comes across with unabashed realness,” Pannell continues. “There’s no pretense with him. His sincerity is spontaneous. It’s not fake. And that is clearly refreshing.”

    “White keeps an extremely active?and transparent?presence on social media. He tends to post on Facebook and Instagram at least once a day, mostly while he’s out in the community. He has 19,400 Instagram followers and 5,000 Facebook friends, which is the maximum number the network allows. “

    1. “The first book White remembers finishing is Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys by Jawanza Kunjufu….

      “He says Kunjufu’s book opened his eyes. “Genocide (jen’ ? sid’)n.,” the first chapter starts. “The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group.”

      “”My goal was to get a 4.0 GPA after I read the book,” White says.”

    2. He toils in the shadow of the late Marion Barry, who championed the ward?both as mayor and councilmember

      The shadow is more like the event horizon created by Marion Barry who fleeced the city. So even with the bar set that low Coucilman White still managed to trip over it.

  3. Im not an expert, but based on some survey data I’ve seen from ADL, there might also be an underlying issue of race relations. As crazy as it sounds, someone may need to talk some sense into him.

  4. I wouldn’t be surprised if he really was ignorant of “Rothschilds” being a Jewish name. I knew of anti-semitism long before I learned that certain names were Jewish; every once in a while, I see some anti-semitism story and learn a new Jewish name. That’s one of the stranger apologies I’ve seen from a politician, actually admitting ignorance, to a degree. Maybe he just heard it as a general conspiracy theory name, never realized it was Jewish.

    But having said that, the original post speaks far more loudly about what kind of wacko conspiracy theories he believes, and how little he knows of climate warming. Even if he knew more and still believed in it, the idea that secret organizations are controlling weather and climate is just bonkers.

    I think I’d keep voting for him just for the entertainment value, and because he might be less likely to do any real political damage as long as he wasted his time entertaining me.

    1. There are some people that clueless, but they aren’t generally on the city council of a major city.

      I remember back in the 80’s when i worked for a no longer existing major oil company in Texas getting my first corporate anti discrimination training. The HR flunkee told us how she didn’t realize the phrase “jewed some one” was offensive since there weren’t any Jews in the small Texas town where she grew up. I’m sure she switched to more PC phrasing like “gypped” after that.

      I’m sure she is head of HR now at some mega conglomerate.

      1. In some ways it doesn’t matter whether he knows he’s trafficking in an anti-Jew trope or not – the effect is the same.

      2. “some people that clueless, but they aren’t generally on the city council of a major city”

        Council members in a big city are 90% morons and clowns.

        Cleveland until last election had a convicted felon and a multiple DWI party animal and they were two of the best.

        1. I live in Seattle, I don’t think any of our city councilmen are morons, but most of them are lunatics.

      3. re: “they aren’t generally on the city council of a major city”

        Citation, please. Because I have to admit that my experience is a lot closer to Bob’s. People on city council seem to me to be the people who couldn’t get a job anywhere else.

      4. Depends on the city, I suppose. You could have gotten the entire Detroit city council into a SmartCar back when I was living in Michigan, they were such clowns.

      5. There are some people that clueless, but they aren’t generally on the city council of a major city.

        I’d be happier if some of them were, rather than occupying the offices they hold.

    2. I associate the Rothschilds in the same vane as Rockefeller. A rich guy from a century ago but not much importance today. I’d like to know what he associates with the Rothschilds and where he learned about them from.

      1. It’s still ok to be hatin’ on WASPs.

        1. You don’t think the Whites United for Justice will be reaching out to smack down the Rockefeller conspiracy theorists?

      2. The Rothschild’s are in fact still extremely wealthy and powerful, as are the Rockefeller’s. So if you think random families running around who have combined a net worth across members that are equal to the wealthiest people in the world are just schmucks… You might wanna think again.

        I don’t buy the Rothschild’s rule the world thing, but they’re major power players still. Most of them nowadays have barely a drop of Jewish blood left in them too, because they mostly all married into European noble/aristocratic families generation after generation.

        1. For your information, I am the proud carrier of a 51% ashkenazi X chromosome, according to 23 and me. Also, my maternal haplotype is K1a, for what it’s worth. In theory, the random mutations of DNA leave enough breadcrumbs to trace all your ancestors, if all the data is gathered.

          1. Might Mouse,

            That’s cool. I plan on doing a DNA test one of these days, but I want to wait for them to be more accurate. Other than kicking up some unexpected stuff like me being 3% black or 6% Jewish or something weird like that, I’m mostly all German, with a touch of Scotch-English.

            They’re always gathering more data points, so if I wait it out I may be able to get more “interesting” data like showing me what part of Germany my family is from, or what particular Native American tribe I am from on my moms side etc.

            I have been keeping up on a lot of the new DNA work being done on human populations as I find it interesting. I saw somewhere in passing that the statistically average Ashkenazi Jew is in fact almost exactly 50% European in their DNA. So you’re a pretty typical European Jew πŸ™‚

        2. So if you think random families running around who have combined a net worth across members that are equal to the wealthiest people in the world are just schmucks… You might wanna think again.

          Could you be a bit more clear on what you’re arguing here? The fortune of Buffett divided across a clan may not make the clan members schmucks, but nor does it make them Buffet.

          1. Well, since it seems you do not know, it’s not just that they’re rich layabouts.

            Several branches of the Rothschilds are still actively involved in important affairs. Some are involved in politics, some still own and are CEOs of major banks. Different branches of the family in fact still actively cooperate in business matters as well.

            So it’s not like a middle class family tracing their family tree back 2 or 3 generations and not having a clue who the other people are. They still somewhat operate as a “clan” if you will. That’s not trying to say all Jews are clannish, merely that they as a major noble house (in the literal sense in several kingdoms in Europe) still operate on a familial level that most middle class people do not even consider. Old money does that sort of thing still sometimes.

            The Rockefellers are much the same, being very powerful and influential donors in political circles, being involved in international political organizations, elected politicians, etc. Several Rockefellers have been very powerful people even within the last couple decades.

            They’re not just playing at being Paris Hilton or whatever. Perhaps they’re not Buffet, but if several are in the top couple hundred richest people in the world individually, and collectively might be in the top dozen or two… That’s not exactly being a nobody. Especially not when you’re actively involved in politics and big business, and have connections for days due to the longevity of your families wealth.

          2. The Kennedys, Bushs, etc are same deal. Perhaps they’ve peaked in terms of their time in the limelight, but even if another one of them never becomes president, they’re still disproportionately powerful in the current era, and presumably for a bit into the future still.

        3. On behalf of English teachers/readers/speakers everywhere, I beg you to stop using apostrophes to make words plural.

          1. Sorry! Auto correct gone wild, and I was too tired and in a hurry to read back over. I don’t know why it thinks those names should always have an apostrophe.

            I’m more of a math brained kinda guy, and my English skills are my weakest link actually… But even I’m not that bad πŸ™‚

            1. Autocorrect is a vile conspiracy to render us miscommunicated and incommunicado all the better to divide and conquer. I blame the Roswell Grays.

  5. How are her comments antisemitic? She called out a family, not a people group. By that logic, liberals are anti-white for saying something about the Koch brothers. Yet no one bats an eyelash when that happens. (I seem to remember David Bernstein addressing alleged antisemitism with Team Trump, and he came to the same conclusion I did.)

    1. I’m not convinced. If I’m a politician, and I say, “We want to reduce crime in this town? We need to carefully watch the Rodriguezes and Hernandezes.”, I think we really know what I’m driving at. Or, “…We need to carefully watch the Mohammads.”, again; I think we know what I really mean.

      Now, Joe, I am not discounting the possibility that the comments *were* based on ignorance, rather than on antisemitism. It’s certainly a possibility. I’m just not sure that, in this context, the speaker should be given the benefit of the doubt.

      1. Now, Joe, I am not discounting the possibility that the comments *were* based on ignorance, rather than on antisemitism.

        Not clear why you would treat these as mutually exclusive.

        1. heh

      2. Part of the point is
        (a) he believes a powerful family or clan actually can control the climate for political purposes, and
        (b) he is unaware that “Rothschild” is generally a stand-in for “Jewish” in conspiracy theories.

    2. I’ll bet David Bernstein isn’t quite as cavalier about two century-old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, however.

      1. I miss Prof. Bernstein. He made the Conspiracy even more authentically movement conservative.

        Didn’t he go more overtly partisan and join Instapundit?

    3. “How are her comments antisemitic?”

      Its a man.

      Rothschild’s have been used by Jew haters as a code word for a Jewish conspiracy for over a 150 years.

      1. Good point. Never heard of this until recently…

    4. Honestly, I’m somewhat of the mind that this is in fact really dumb.

      If you blame the Rockefeller’s for something, is that blaming the gentiles? NO. Blaming a specific powerful Jewish family (that is barely Jewish anymore in blood anyway) is not the same as saying “The jeeeeews did it!!!”

      What about Soros, who is a Nazi collaborating (during the war) Jew? If you call out Soros for all of his leftist meddling is that being anti-Semitic just because he’s a Jew? I think not! But many loonies on the left DO claim that is the case.

      The whole bullshit double standard of ANY criticism of any Jew being anti-Semitic is ridiculous. The fact is a lot of Jews do horrible things, and deserve to be called out like anybody else. Israel does lots of horrible things, and deserves to be called out like anybody else. That we’re not allowed to point out bad actions of ANY Jewish people is insane. Calling Soros an evil left wing hack for spending billions on evil shit is not anti-Semitic. It’s anti leftists, but those aren’t the same thing! It’s just a leftist PC/SJW trick to try to slander anybody not on board with their plans.

      1. What about Soros, who is a Nazi collaborating (during the war) Jew?

        What about an idiot who thinks that a 15-year old kid was “Nazi collaborating”? Idiot or anti-semite?

        1. It’s been some years since I read the details. I recalled him being a proper adult during the time but perhaps misremembered that, but I seem to recall the rough sketches being he did some stuff that many would consider sketchy, to save his own skin. I might well have done the same, as would many people! So I’d say idiot perhaps? Slamming any person of any particular group for something doesn’t automatically imply they’re bagging on them for being a member of said group.

      2. A lot of Jews do wonderful things, too. But yes, there’s a lot of political nonsense swallowing up any real issues or prejudice. I just read with interest this article in National Review about Viktor Orban’s speech against Soros.

        http://bit.ly/2prEjeT

        The writer seems generally to have a valid point as he takes issue with Viktor Orban’s choice of words. And yet I am left wondering how one is supposed to say things that are true and important about George Soros’ attempts to meddle in their politics.

        1. Step 1 would probably be to say things that are true.

        2. Of course many Jews have done wonderful things! Einstein, and countless other scientists. Authors like Ayn Rand, Rothbard, and countless others. I could go on forever listing off Jews that did things I appreciate.

          I just read that article, and agree with your end conclusion… How exactly CAN one call out an internationalist, socialist, wealthy, globalist Jew without sounding “anti-Semitic?”

          The answer is YOU CAN’T. If you do, people will say you’re being a Jew hater, despite it all being true about that particular Jew. What about all the gentiles with those same views? The Clintons and Bushs of the world? You don’t get called anti-gentile for using similar words about them.

          And that’s the problem. Anti-Semitic is now just a phrase thrown around anytime anybody criticizes any Jew for things they don’t like. Especially if some of those real world problems happen to fit into the old stereotypes of what Jews are supposed to be like. So extreme socialists OR capitalists, globalists, clannish, wealthy, blah blah blah. But the thing is many Jews ARE some of those things, just as many gentiles are. But it’s only racial if one is a Jew because of the old stereotype.

          It’s much the same as calling a black guy who is a gang banger a thug. It is seen as racist because of black stereotypes, whereas calling a white person a thug is not. Which is equally dumb. If the person is a thug, they’re a thug, no matter their race. Same with globalists.

        3. That’s why I call ’em like I see ’em. We’ll never get past this stuff if some groups are a protected class immune from scrutiny.

          Too many people play the race card when it is not applicable to avoid scrutiny, or make their opponents seem like evil people. Frankly, it’s largely loosing its effect because it has been overplayed in so many preposterous situations.

          This may come back to bite people in the ass when actual hardcore racists are actually trying to do crazy stuff… People will be so sick and tired of hearing it they won’t even care then. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

      3. I don’t believe that there is a prohibition on denouncing or criticizing any particular Jew. The issue here was the councilman’s use of a centuries’ old trope of the Rothchilds leading a vast conspiracy to control things (in this case, the climate!) to the detriment of the people. That trope is acknowledged to be anti-Semitic. Had the councilman criticized a specific person, even if that person were named Rothchild, I doubt there were would be the same complaints of anti-Semitic speech. That is, unless the councilman’s criticism was that this particular Rothchild was part of some nebulous conspiracy led by his family to control the city, because, you know, that’s what their kind does…

        1. Exactly right. If he had said “Schumer is a schmuck,” or “Mnuchin is a crook,” these would not be anti-semitic remarks.

          But the idea of absurd worldwide conspiracies financed by wealthy Jews has a very long and very ugly history. Tapping into that is anti-semitic.

          Context matters.

          I simply don’t believe “Rothschilds” was just a randomly chosen family name. No way.

        2. I see your point, and agree to a degree.

          But there is still a double standard applied.

          How often do you hear people play the race card, when it would NEVER be played if one were talking about a white guy or an Asian? In America with Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics it has become standard practice to just bust out “Raaaaaacist!!!” anytime anybody criticizes anybody in a protected group.

          There are those that go after Soros as being an evil Jew running some sinister cabal… But most are just going after him for the things he does as an individual. Yet those people are still often slandered as being Jew haters. I get the whole “history of this sort of thing” argument. I do. But at what point does it become ridiculous to trot out at every occurrence? It’s certainly overdone nowadays IMO.

          One is being willfully blind if they don’t see the double standard applied to Jews and other minorities. But Jews even more than others. In my experience it seems to be ESPECIALLY crazy if they happen to be a left wing Jew. Going after Kissinger is somehow more okay, because he’s an evil right wing Jew. But go after a left leaning Jew, no matter the context or specific wording, and you’ll be called an anti-Semite in short order by a large subset of people. Not EVERYBODY, but lots of people.

          1. In America with Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics it has become standard practice to just bust out “Raaaaaacist!!!” anytime anybody criticizes anybody in a protected group.

            That’s not true. Please read what both DKWalser and I said just above.

            most are just going after [Soros] for the things he does as an individual.

            And what are these “things he does as an individual?”

            AFAIK, what he does is use his money to advance his political ideas. That can be a bad thing, if he uses it in nefarious ways, but it’s not automatically bad. No doubt you disagree with his ideas as you understand them, but that’s a different matter.

            Do you give money to politicians or organizations whose views you share? If so, you are doing the same thing as Soros. He just happens to have more money than you do.

            Now, if you want to claim that he is being dishonest, that he is really just trying to influence matters to benefit himself, and doesn’t care whether his ideas are good or bad in general, go ahead, but you might, you know, have some evidence.

            1. Did you not read what I said above? I already said I somewhat agree.

              I never meant to literally mean 100% of people in 100% of situations bust out the race card. But there is still a strong and obvious double standard, mostly used by the left. Right wing Jews seem to be more acceptable to rail on. Anybody who can’t see this is blind to reality.

              I think it is fair to say that in 100% of situations there is a subset who will play the race card when it is not clearly racist. Likewise, in a subset of situations there are times where 100% of people will play the race card. In short it gets played a LOT when it is not racism underpinning the statement in question.

              Take Obama. I disliked him for his positions. But it became a trope to say everybody just disliked Obama because he was black. If a black Ron Paul came along and ran, I would love the guy. This is one of a million examples of this sort of thing.

              As for Soros, as a libertarian leaner I don’t think it should be illegal for him to do what he does, but that doesn’t mean I should like it! IIRC he is the hands down #1 spender of money on political causes in the world. This is not JUST him giving money to Democrats that are running for office. He also funds pretty extreme groups, where there are no contribution limits. He does this internationally. He does do much of it to benefit himself, and in dishonest ways IMO. But technically even that should be legally acceptable to a libertarian.

            2. He’s like the “evil” Koch brothers on steroids, but a leftist.

              I don’t like the things he supports. But it’s okay for people to express dislike. When somebody is doing it on the scale he is, it’s pretty obvious he’s going to draw in those that hate him because they oppose his causes. The same is true of the Koch brothers. The difference is people don’t call out Koch haters as being anti-Gentile for opposing them. It gets trotted out all the time for Soros, even when there is no clear racist angle being uses. That’s a double standard.

              Imagine if Bill Gates came out tomorrow and said he’s come around and realized that Hitler was right about everything. So he’s now going to fund actual Nazi movements all over the world with his vast wealth. As somebody who values freedom, I don’t like Nazis! As a libertarian I suppose he should be able to do that legally though. But would I be wrong to have a great disdain for Bill Gates in this situation???

              I think not. Soros is no different, and the politics he pushes is only SLIGHTLY less destructive than outright Nazism IMO.

              Minorities now have these crazy double standards in place, and they’re used VERY frequently. That’s basically all I’m saying. It’s a fact that anybody with any sense can see.

  6. Maybe this is knockon effect of the recent Farrakhan incident?

    1. …how would that work?

      Or did you just want to bring up Farrakhan again?

    2. The attention from the media? Perhaps.

  7. Doesn’t seem like much of an sincere apology, sounds more like one of his staffers pointed out to him that a lot of his campaign contributions came from donors and organizations that as identifiably Jewish as the Rothschilds.

    He definitely wants to make sure the allied thing is still on while the checks keep coming. I guess I’m also conflating his Jewish “allies” with people with money, but to tell you the truth I don’t think those allies are out ringing doorbells in his district, and if he was spending much time face to face with his Jewish allies then he couldn’t possibly so ignorant as he is claiming about how offensive his remarks are.

    1. This is the new and improved workshoped apology boilerplate. It is the latest in regret technology and is currently at work across the political spectrum.

      If this boilerplate did not satisfy you, one that more fully meets your needs is currently in the works.

      Your belief in our sincerity matters to us.

      1. [applause]

      2. “currently at work across the political spectrum”

        True, but it only works for one side.

        1. I know you feel there are double standards everywhere, but this is easily disabused.

          Just do a search for ‘Republican politician apologizes’ and see who’s still in office – you may be surprised!

          I added ‘working with the community’ for to focus in on this particular flavor, but that’s optional.

  8. The Councilman is SO last-century. The Rothschilds don’t mean anything any more. Soros controls the climate now.

    1. Bilderbergs are the new Rothschilds. With the added benefit of not actually having to see each other during the holidays.

      1. Thanks. I learn new stuff every day. From wiki on the Bilderberg group:

        Activities and goals
        The group’s original goal of promoting Atlanticism, of strengthening U.S.?European relations and preventing another world war has grown; the Bilderberg Group’s theme is to “bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe” according to Andrew Kakabadse.[2] In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and a steering committee member for 30 years, said, “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”[7]

        LOL. Well then.

        1. It’s creepy stuff. I found out about Bilderberg back in the day when they still publicly denied its very existence! They literally just pretended it didn’t exist for decades, even though they had annual meetings and people found out and reported on it… But it was blacked out in the mainstream press. Once the internet came along, they denied it for a few more years, and then finally just came out and said “Yup, all the most powerful people in the world meeting to discuss running the world in secret… But it’s cool, nothin’ to see here guys, move along!”

          And they’re not really pro capitalism. They’re pro international government, anti national sovereignty, pro socialism, etc. In other words stereotypical crony capitalist globalists.

          1. I don’t them meeting, and I don’t think they run the world.

            I do find it instructive to point out that the divide of national sovereignty vs. political globalism is very real, and of paramount importance to human liberty and self-determination.

            1. It’s interesting that M.L. thinks the continued sovereignty of Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or Russia is of paramount importance to human liberty and self-determination.

              1. I said that the current political divide along these lines is of paramount importance, compared to other current political divides.

                Granted, “paramount” may have been an overstatement in the global view of things. National (and popular) sovereignty are just a few among several things that are crucial to human liberty and self-determination.

            2. Well, I don’t think they “rule the world” in the Hollywood film sense of the phrase… But the people that attend do have incredible influence in their respective spheres. So combined, they almost do rule the world. Fortunately there are still disagreements amongst these people. If they ever all ACTUALLY agreed to an agenda, it’d be a hell of a time trying to stop them.

              NToJ, you’re missing the point.

              That some countries run themselves in ways we think are bad is irrelevant. Global government is a HORRIBLE concept. Right now if 30 countries decided to give outright communism another go, the world would go on. The other countries of the world would continue to prosper.

              If a truly global government decided to go communist, the entire world would fall into darkness.

              You’re going to have good and bad come out of national sovereignty, but overall it is a far better way to go.

              I believe in pretty darn free markets, with limited government, and a lot of personal freedoms. Some people don’t! Europeans want a cradle to grave nanny state… It costs them in economic productivity. But if they make that call as a society, it’s not my place to tell them it’s not allowed. So for good or ill in any given persons opinion, self determination is a positive thing. That requires nation states trying out different stuff.

    2. But, but, but…
      Soros is Jewish too! πŸ˜‰

  9. I think it was David Bernstein that posted years ago and said black and Hispanic people are generally the most antisemitic groups. That’s the sort of thing you can’t unsee. Whenever there’s newspapers screech about a poll that shows a high percent of support for neonazis or white supremacy (!) I zip to the crosstabs and, without exception, it’s been black and latino reapondents with the highest percent.

    That never, ever gets reported, with the upshot that stories like this must look like a random occurrence.

    1. If Americans knew the truth about Hispanics as a group, they would not be so eager to let them immigrate here in mass.

      1. Conversely, I’m wondering whether people who have read the bile dripping off the fingertips of folks like you makes them consider if we should let white people stay here “in mass”.

        1. In case you forgot, white Protestants built this country.

          1. Ignoring actual history for a moment, let’s say that’s true. What do the accomplishments of 18th century white Protestants have to do with you, or whether any of the rest of us want you to be allowed to stay here?

            1. Nothing. But pretending that America is what it is in spite of European colonists, and not because of it, is patently dishonest.

            2. “Ignoring actual history”

              LOL So you’re one of those idiots that believes the lie that slavery built the country???

              Let me set you straight. During the entire history of the USA until the last few years, White Americans were AT LEAST 80+ percent of the population, often closer to 90 percent.

              Black slavery didn’t contribute much to the economy of the USA if you actually look. IIRC the entire cotton industry was less than 5% of the national GDP at its peak during slavery.

              So the long and the short of it is that White Americans designed, and built at LEAST 80-90% of the country.

              And this was true all the way up until we passed that horrible 1965 immigration act that started letting in unedcuated rabble from any third world country in.

              So I would argue that the stuff that my father, grandfather, and great grandfather, all of whom I knew in my own life, built is pretty directly related to why this country is MY country.

              I’m not against skilled immigration, but I know how idiots like you think. It’s clear from your post. This is our land, we conquered it fair and square from other portions of my ancestry, the Native Americans. Living on and building up a land is as close as anybody ever gets to owning a piece of land in real world history, at least as long as you can hold onto it without being overrun by some other group.

              1. Exactly. And we’re allowing ourselves to be overrun by illiterate peasants from the third world, many of whom come here with racial grievances.

                1. Oh my. I was about to write that I’m glad ARWP is here, because we should let 100 flowers bloom, and all that. But now I’m going to hedge, just a wee bit.

                2. ARWP, yeah pretty much. I used to believe multiculturalism COULD work. I never was 100% that it would, but was fine with the idea. I think the last few decades of identity politics steadily ramping up shows that it will not work now, just as it didn’t work in the past.

                  IMO I think all nation states should probably have an 80-90% super majority ethno-cultural-religious group, and then whatever types of immigrants seems to suit them for economic or other reasons. Nations with multiple ethnic groups that are large enough to become voting blocks seems to cause crazy amounts of trouble every single time. This current experiment is just repeating the same as in the past with horrible infighting and strife.

                  If you look at polls white Americans are mostly on the same page on almost every single issue. In other words, we wouldn’t have this insanely huge divide politically if it weren’t for minority voting blocks. Other than ethnic food, whatever benefits diversity offers could be enjoyed by having 10-20% of the country being “other” versus literally not having a majority.

                  I predict in 30 years the blacks and Hispanics will be every bit as much at each others throats as they are at white peoples. Is this REALLY a brilliant way to run a country? Endless infighting that will never go away? Methinks Japan chose the better path.

                  1. I think that’s largely because the modern Western ideal of non-discrimination is not shared by any of the groups immigrating here in mass. It’s all about the individual, until there are enough of them to shoulder us out, and then it’s back to the tribe. Different variation of the same theme.

                    I think what will bring about the fighting will be our coming economic collapse and debt default.

                    1. Totally. I mean we’ve basically brainwashed any sense of group identity out of Europeans in the USA and Europe over the last few decades. It has been a concerted effort to encourage white guilt, and not having any pride in our civilizations, despite them being the pinnacle of human achievement. It’s ridiculous.

                      But none of the other groups have this, so they all stick to their tribal loyalties. Which is AS THEY SHOULD. Humans are tribal animals, and while there should be limits on how crazy we go with that sort of thing, there’s nothing wrong with a touch of it. But we’ve been told we’re not allowed to have even a tiny bit of national pride. It’s BS.

                      At the end of the day, different groups simply prefer different things for different reasons. If you have a bunch of groups living side by side you will INEVITABLY have group conflicts. It is unavoidable. The easiest way to avoid such issues is to simply not be in the same nation state! DUH. Let the Arabs do as they like in the ME, let Europeans do as they like in Europe, etc.

                      If something else doesn’t cause it first, the economic collapse probably will.

                    2. 100% agreed. I actually think all of this is the sad result of Hitler’s legacy. Through his bellicose racism and nationalism, he discredited any normal consciousness of race and ethnicity, which led the West to opening its borders to the third world. People are tribal. They always have been and always will be. That’s not to say that it’s ever justified to mistreat anyone, but to expect that one day Hispanics and Asians will no longer think of themselves as “Hispanic” or “Asian” is a fantasy. I have an Asian friend who, while debating the Dao incident on the United flight last year, asked “why the police had to use such extreme force on the Asian passenger.” The fact that he was Vietnamese is completely irrelevant to the story, but my friend was unable to form an opinion on this incident without falling back to her tribe. And this is an educated person whose family has been here for 4 or 5 generations.

                      The long term prognosis for the West is not good. At some point, we’ll either default or inflate our way out of debt. The ensuing civil unrest won’t be pretty.

                    3. I agree completely. Hitler was the worst thing that ever happened to the western world.

                      The only thing that’s good that may have come out of him was that he prevented communism from taking over all of Europe. There is a good chance France and Germany were going to go communist if not for somebody stopping them. Spain wouldn’t have won their civil war against the communists without Nazi support.

                      So all of Europe could have gone that way, which may have been worse than what did end up happening. That said, a more laid back fascist like Mussolini in Germany would have been a far better outcome than Hitler, and could have still stopped the communists. From my reading on the period, there is close to a zero percent chance any non strong man could have done it in Germany at the time.

                      Your friend is just acting normal. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had similar instances. I’m a touch Mexican myself, and in trying to explain some of the issues with illegal immigration, some Hispanics literally cannot get over the racial loyalty… Even after I explain how it will hurt them by supporting such policies. Communism fails because it rejects some parts of human nature, self interest. Multiculturalism fails because it ignores other parts of human nature, in group preference. Ignoring unchangeable things about human nature is a BAD way to run a country.

          2. In case you forgot, white Protestants built this country.

            So you’re saying adverse possession, then?

          3. In case you forgot, white [male] Protestants built this country. . .because they didn’t give anyone else (blacks, women, Asians, Hispanics, etc.), equal opportunity.

            1. Asians and Hispanics weren’t here. Do you seriously believe this claptrap?

            2. Women contributed by doing lots of household work, which was a needed division of labor at the time… And having babies, which is, ya know, kind of like their sexes biological imperative if anything is. And Hispanics did in some parts of the current USA too. My family is part Mexican on my moms side, moved to California back in the 1800s. Blacks and Chinese even did a little. But all of their contributions (other than women) were vastly smaller than white men’s.

              But any which way, you don’t care. The thing is you hate the fact that white men built the greatest country in the history of the world, without help. Diversity is not a strength, that is a total lie. At best it is neutral, but it is really probably a negative historically speaking. Almost every great empire in history was mono ethnic and mono cultural at its founding. If they became multi-cultural it was only after conquest, which often sealed its fate of collapsing into civil war, often between the different ethnic groups!

              Multiculturalism is exploding right now before our very eyes with all the crazy SJW stuff. I had a feeling it wouldn’t work, but hoped it would… I see now my gut feeling was correct. Blacks, Mexicans, etc HATE white people far more than white people hate them today. It will never work unless those groups give up their hatred, and their identity politics, which they’re clearly not doing.

          4. By managing the slaves?

            Carry on, clingers.

            1. Slaves did not build America. Everything slaves built was destroyed in the Civil War.

              1. Were you humming “Dixie,” with hat removed, as you completed that assertion?

              2. Haha, YES!

                ARWP neglecting, among other things, the US Capitol, might be the most amusing thing I read all day.

            2. 80-90% of the population of the country was always white until the last couple decades… Which means whites did AT LEAST 80-90% of the building up of the country.

              Try again moron!

              1. vek’s bringing dat science.

                1. It’s not that idiots will listen, but I still feel better putting it out there just in case 1 in a thousand people have their brains twitch out and actually get it.

                  1. There is no reason to believe population numbers to ‘amount you are involved in building the country’ is a linear relationship.

                    1. Well, it’s not strictly… But I was trying to be nice.

                      In reality, whites are probably responsible for more like 95-98% of all the important achievements/economic growth in the history of America. However I was being generous to the non whites, because I’m a nice guy by nature. πŸ™‚

                      Now Jews, if you don’t want to count them as white, are likely responsible for a disproportionate share of the credit as well! But if you lump them in with whites, I’d still stand by whites contributing disproportionately more than their pure population numbers.

                      As I said somewhere else in this thread, whites make juuust shy of twice as much money as blacks today… And a bit more than 50% more than Hispanics on average IIRC. Hence both of those groups are essentially responsible for far less of the country’s prosperity than their sheer demographic numbers. Whites and Asians pick up the slack though!

                      Shucks! Now you went and made me be honest, and I don’t look like a nice guy anymore… πŸ™

                    2. The numbers are not even independent. Trying to make them so misunderstands how society works. You don’t have subgroups working separately from each other. You also devalue how important agricultural labor was and continues to be. And then there is your utilitarian paradigm which is a moral horrorshow.

                      Asking the question ‘who built this country’ is a dumb game and you have not played it well.

                    3. vek has concluded that people who were enslaved, disenfranchised, and suppressed did not accomplish as much as those who controlled — and controlled access to — capital, regulatory structure, law enforcement, real property, commerce, and the like.

                      Carry on, clingers.

                    4. Sarcastr0,

                      My point is that those who make the reverse claim, that slaves built this country, are simply wrong.

                      I usually don’t go busting out the “Whites built this country” thing left and right out of the blue. But if it comes up, the most accurate answer is white people.

                      Agriculture was important then and now. But there were more whites working in agriculture than blacks. So what’s your point? We were the vast majority of the population, and did the vast majority of the work in EVERY industry. This is simply a fact.

                      I’m not trying to moralize here, I’m just being utilitarian as you say. Slavery is wrong. Period. I wish we’d never had slaves, but it happened. Every ethnicity has had slavery in their history. But it’s a fact that by any objective standards whites did most of the work, including in agriculture, that built the USA.

                      We would have probably done BETTER as a nation without slaves, not only morally (obviously!), but even economically because slave labor is notoriously unproductive. People don’t like working hard for their owners, never have and never will.

      2. That’s balderdash.

        About the only thing of any cultural worth any immigrants bring with them is their food.

        In my book that puts Mexicans, Thai’s, Indians and Spanish at the top of the heap.

        English, Irish , Scots and Germans are all in the bottom third. Unless you count beer and whiskey then maybe they’re all promoted back to the top 10.

        1. You need to try some pancit bihon, maybe the Filipinos will make your top ten.

        2. Hey now, my Irish ancestors brought Irish Whiskey, aka nectar from G-D! πŸ˜‰

        3. Here’s the thing, it’s kitschy and funny to say stuff like that… But anybody thinking it through realizes it’s BS.

          Tacos don’t make America a great country. The white middle class does. And nowadays the Asian middle class too. Blacks, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, are in fact statistically groups that drag down the averages for basically everything in the country. They’re net tax drains because of how costs are socialized in America, they disproportionally contribute to crime (50% of murders by blacks who are 12-13% of the population, 36% of murders by Hispanics who are 16-17% of the population now), blacks make barely half the average income of whites, and so on.

          So while it’s funny to say shit like that… It’s really not funny. Basically, other than food, America is objectively worse off by having SOME immigrant groups here. It’s not my fault, so don’t shoot the messenger… But by the numbers it’s pretty clearly true.

  10. EV writes “Wow, I knew we Jews were powerful, but I didn’t know we actually controlled the weather.”

    “we” don’t. The Rothschilds do.

  11. Every few months someone on my timeline posts another Rothschild meme. When I point out that it is one of, if not the, oldest anti-Semitic conspiracies in existence, the usual response is the person didn’t know that, and that the post wasn’t meant that way because the poster doesn’t think that way. Rather, the meme is said to make some “interesting” point, or somesuch.

    It’s a similar response as given by people who pass along quotes attributed to people who didn’t make them. “It’s a good line” apparently supersedes any unwritten moral obligation not to spread bullshit.

    1. Well the thing is, the Rothschild’s DID do some seriously heavy shit back in the day. Like historically admitted stuff. They happened to be Jewish, so got railed on harder for that perhaps, but they were very powerful in their hay day.

      The MODERN idea of them completely controlling the world is crazy, but to call all calling out of Rothschild deeds as being “conspiracy theory” is a stretch. Obviously I don’t know what the meme was, so it could have been crazy, or it could have been true.

      1. People I know who keep track of that conspiracy stuff assure me that the Rothschilds are only bankrolling it. Henry Kissinger and Prince Phillip are actually calling the shots.

        1. BigChiefWahoo

          Haha. Probably about right!

      2. The Rothschilds were extremely wealthy bankers who served as lenders to many European governments.

        So what is this “heavy shit?” You don’t like entrepreneurs?

        1. Back in the day, when we used real money such as gold and silver, bankers who had cash were a LOT more powerful than they are today. When a king couldn’t just print more money out of thin air, they had to wheel and deal with those that had cash. Bankers today are but a shadow of what they once were in terms of raw power and influence, and they’re still quite powerful today.

          Basically, back then bankers frequently were king makers in a lot of wars, especially civil wars. The Rothschilds played power politics through several generations, constantly being very important people in who they were or weren’t supporting. If you don’t think deciding who will have their army financed or not is not important… I don’t know what to say. They, and other bankers of their day, often decided these things.

          Imagine if Trump vs Hillary had caused an active shooting war. Then imagine the government can’t print money. Do you not think who could finance their army would be of the utmost importance as to who might win or lose?

          See the Medici as an example of a non Jewish family who was doing the same kind of stuff a couple centuries earlier.

    2. they are, as far as anyone knows, the richest family in the world by a large degree. More money than the Waltons+Koch bros+Slim+Bezos.

      If you’re the sort of person who believes the rich control the world behind the scenes, it’s probably that that has you making Rothschild posts, not anti-semitism. Not that it can’t be both.

  12. And once again I thank the Universe that I don’t live in D.C.

  13. Notwithstanding the anti-semitism. He believes in weather control . . . and that bankers will control the city by making it snow.

    In what circles do I need to run where I wouldn’t be humiliated expressing such thoughts?

    1. 1. D.C. (or almost any) City Council
      2. Urban ghetto culture
      3. Dedicated social media addicts
      4. Happy Hour (or late night) crowd at any bar, club, or back porch

      etc.

      1. 5. Progressive Plantations

        1. 6. My next door neighbors

          (who are otherwise delightful people)

  14. This incident, along with the recent exposed ties of several Congressional Black Caucus to the Jew hater Farrakhan, shows the rot at the center of the Democratic Party.

    Richard Spencer has 50 followers, Democratic Jew haters exercise real political power.

    1. Who are Spencer’s other 49 followers, Bob from Ohio?

    2. Inevitable.
      Every Democrat behaving badly is proof every Democrat is just like that. Every Republican doing so is a one-off, framed, or possibly a secret Democrat.

      1. “Every Democrat behaving badly is proof every Democrat is just like that. Every Republican doing so is a one-off”

        Your comment is a reverse of reality. Congrats.

        Among many, many examples, a few weeks ago a Nazi was the only person to file in a GOP state house primary in Illinois in a hopeless race in a 80%+ Dem district. A guy who runs repeatedly but never comes within sight of winning. Basically a troll candidate.

        It was all over the news as a supposed example of GOP views. The guy was interviewed by CNN and others. GOP officials were asked to repudiate the guy.

        Some of the few articles on the DC clown do not even mention his party.

        1. Also, I see you responded to my comment but not Kirkland’s slander. Congrats again.

          1. Yep. I leave it to AK’s legions of fans to correct him.

            1. Got it. No enemies to the left.

              1. Basically. I’ll mock an actual Communist or someone who doesn’t get the First Amendment, but I’m a partisan, and don’t find it fun to mock those of my own tribe.

                AK can sometimes make me wince (more than sometimes), but I don’t come here to fight with him.

                I have other forums where I argue with people to my left. As someone who think there are good politicians beyond Bernie Sanders, and that punching Nazis isn’t productive, I have no shortage of targets in that direction…

                1. I would welcome your observations, sarcastro. In what respects do you sense I go too far?

                  I firmly believe in the ‘no free swings’ approach to political debate, and have lost much of my taste for political correctness (with respect to appeasing intolerance or nonsense, for example) recently, but I would prefer to avoid unnecessary wince-worthiness.

                  Thank you.

                  1. It’s largely going to be a rehash of the decorum-obsessed liberal Democrat versus the movement progressive.

                    Procedurally, we differ on your willingness to repeat yourself, though I respect that technique.
                    I work not to make my comments about the commenter, as you often do. I work to make it about the comment, because that’s where the fun is, no need to make it personal. Of course, many take it that way. But that’s on them at that point.
                    I also don’t care for whattaboutism when the right does it (as in just about all the time) you do it about conservative schools whenever liberal schools are brought up. I get the inconsistency, but it’s also a dodge of an actual issue on the left regarding abhorrent speech.
                    You impute bad faith to many of the Conspirators. I try not to do it to anyone, much less our hosts.
                    I also believe in God, on an appeal to I-Am-Too-Awesome-For-Evolution platform. IMO religion and rationality don’t really intersect much, as evolution deals in unprovable areas that evidence can’t penetrate – the why’s, not the how’s if you will.

                    I like how you’ve come to say ‘even this horrible opinion deserves protection.’ Because that both calls out the opinion and is exactly right about the social aspects.

                    1. To be clear, I believe in evolution. But the wheels had to be set in motion by some sort of demiurge to get someone with my joyful sentience.

                      In the end, I think your no holds barred style inflames and discourages engagement. Arguably, the abrasiveness manages to marginally push some folks to the right as they use you as a model leftist. But probably there is no effect, as tribalism is already pegged all those dials.
                      So if it’s still fun for you to do your deal, follow your bliss. And I’d say that to Bob and Brett and AA and DiverDan all the regs except for that RightWing weirdo.

                      Because I can’t claim I’m doing this to convince or entertain anyone but myself.

                    2. The system appears to have eaten the first part of my response. If it doesn’t show up before tomorrow, I’ll try to remember it.

                      The second half:

                      With respect to bad faith and the Conspirators, I perceive that they abuse the platform with cheap shots, misleading content, and a disdain for (or, at least, lack of) worthy publication standards. I also believe the all-white, all-male nature of the Conspiracy is, at best, defiant of probability. The Conspirators are trying to make movement conservatism more popular on campus and beyond. That’s a rough assignment in the modern world, especially in the academic context. Mostly, the result is partisan and polemical content with an academic veneer. They are entitled to follow that course; others are entitled to mention that they are doing it.

                      Thank you for your observations. I hope they enable me to improve.

                    3. I don’t know that comments on a blog are an area for self-improvement efforts.

                      You do your thing I do mine – don’t change on my account!

                    4. Repetition? A Hall of Fame baseball announcer told me the worst part of his job was remembering to provide the score every minute or two, because hundreds of listeners join the broadcast each minute. The repetition can be grating for regulars but is important for others.

                      The Conspirators appear to share my embrace of this approach (‘strong schools should emulate lousy schools by hiring more stridently conservative professors;’ ‘censorship on liberal campuses is the true menace in education;’ ‘vote with your feet consequent to voter ignorance (which is rational)’). I will gladly retire my contributions with respect to censorship and related failures on conservative-controlled campuses when the Volokh Conspiracy stops publishing misleading, cherry-picked swipes at our strongest schools. Don’t hold your breath.

                      Harshness? I adopt the ‘no free swings’ approach to political debate and have lost my taste for political correctness recently. I therefore call a bigot a bigot rather than ‘letting it go’ to be ostensibly polite. I believe reason, science, progress, education, tolerance, modernity, and inclusivity are worthy of passionate defense.

                      I also see little reason to pull punches at a site that is plainly partisan and features cheap shots.

                    5. Religion? I believe people are and should be able to believe as they wish. They are not, however, entitled to have claims based on religious dogma treated with respect in reasoned debate among adults, especially concerning public affairs. Competent adults neither advance nor accept superstition-based assertions or arguments in reasoned debate.

                      I dislike conditioning special privilege for claims of conscience on a claim of religion. I object to the ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ approach adopted by religious claimants (‘we can discriminate against others, but no one can discriminate against us’). Perhaps most important, I deny that bigotry, backwardness, or ignorance become any more attractive when placed in a religious cloak.

                      Not all believers are backward, intolerant, or ignorant. And if religion provides comfort or precipitates good works, that is great. Trying to be charitable, I sense that the good and bad caused by organized religion are roughly a draw.

                      I never believe self-improvement is off-limits.

        2. It was briefly a narrative, I recall seeing it. I also recall it being corrected in a WaPo story. I’m sorry it bothered you so.

          But that doesn’t give you license to do the same.

      2. Sarcastr0: “or possibly a secret Democrat.”

        I knew it!

  15. Proof that we really need to have an intelligence test at the polling booth.

    1. Nah, that would keep the People from getting what they want (and deserve).

  16. Nothing about the report that Pres. Trump has compelled government officials to sign nondisclosure agreements (and that the obsequious thirsters signed them), but a pointer to an unhinged Democrat spouting off about Jews and weather magic.

    A group of fledgling Federalists issues a misleading statement, followed by an administration’s repeated offer to fund a right-wing speaker; prompt regurgitation of the falsehoods, plenty of hand-wringing about the illusory censorship, not a peep about the Federalist Society’s shabby conduct.

    Is chasing a Republican judicial nomination really worth the hits to one’s credibility and character?

    1. Integrity left the Republican barn long ago.

      1. Do you believe it to be time for another installment of the Volokh Conspiracy’s long-running series ‘Our Strongest Universities Should Emulate Fourth-Tier Schools By Hiring Even More Strident Conservatives As Faculty Members’ yet?

        1. I’m totally against any ideaological test for University employment.

          But what they ouaght to do, public universities at least, is survey employment and underemployment rates for their graduates, as well as those that never graduate, then cut funding and enrollment for underperforming majors until the the supply meets the demand.

          I suspect that would make university faculty more politically diverse on it’s own, with no ideaological test needed.

          1. I’m totally against any ideaological test for University employment.

            You have no future as an administrator on a conservative-controlled campus.

            This is to your great credit.

          2. Don’t give children a choice – the purpose of school is to serve the society and churn out Productive Citizens!

            1. How much of your money do you want to spend on another useless art degree, Sarcastro?

              1. What is your sense of the value of a Liberty University degree, Careless?

                Regent? Ouachita Baptist? Hillsdale? Ave Maria? Franciscan? Wheaton?

                I will understand if you prefer not to answer. The state of conservative-controlled education is embarrassing, especially in the context of “useless” degrees.

                1. I almost pity you RAK. You have a real comprehension issue especially between public and private universities.

                2. The advantage of an Ivy League education isn’t the education itself, which is no better than that available at most state teacher’s colleges, it’s the contacts students can make at those schools with other students who already have connections. Any idiot with enough money can buy his/her way through Harvard as an undergraduate.

              2. How much of your money do you want to spend on another useless art degree, Sarcastro?

                Art isn’t useless.
                Plus those degrees do cost students money. And it’s not like a BA in art isn’t broad enough to have a great deal of use.

                If you want to talk about reforming the student loan market, I’m all ears. But if you are arguing that we start constraining school’s programs to maximize utility to society, you’re getting a bit too collectivist for my blood.

                1. Art isn’t useless.

                  I am grateful for your kind words.

                  — Art

                2. Again, SarcastroL the tax increase you want imposed on yourself to fund it: how large?

                3. and do you feel that we would have too few art degrees if public universities ceased offering them at subsidized rates?

          3. Here’s another hypocritical Repub…

            Repubs say: YAAAY free markets! Reduce govt!

            But then Kaz comes along and sez: Boo free markets! Have the govt fix the problem.

            You guys are making this too easy.

            1. You don’t know what a public university is, or what the market is. One, or both?

              1. Actually I’m pretty up to speed on both of them having received a BA in Economics from U of Maryland.

                But we understand you don’t want an enlightened society since you’re mentally-rigid.

                1. So you believe that public universities have their fees and offerings set by market factors? Or do you not? You have to pick one, apedad.

              2. Public universities are subsidized, but it’s not like they don’t participate in the market and feel it’s forces.

    2. Since when are NDAs frowned upon in government?

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..cle/739975

      And yes, benghazi, because this was a well reported incident.

      1. You either didn’t read that article, or you didn’t understand what you read.

      2. Essentially every report of these ostensible non-disclosure agreements traces to a single member of Congress, Frank Wolf. Not only does Wolf’s position appear to lack support from even the nuttier right-wingers in Congress, but the relevant congressional committee (controlled by Republicans, as I recall) also appears to have reported formally that Wolf’s claims appear to be baseless.

        Other than that, nice post.

        1. Extra points for being on-topic, responsive, and accurate.

  17. Well, they did just have the woman’s march in DC, that’s probably where he picked up the idea. Hey, if you guys could make the weather nice toward the end of the week, that would be great! Thanks.

    1. Actually, they can do stuff like that… It’s just VERY rarely done. They can do limited duration “make it rain” stuff with cloud seeding. IIRC one of the biggest uses ever was some important Soviet era parade they didn’t want it to rain during. So they seeded the clouds with whatever the chemical cocktail is to make it rain before the parade to get the moisture out of the air, and presto no rain during the parade!

      I don’t know if it is toxic as hell, or just expensive, but we figured out how to do it many decades ago. This is essentially the grain of truth that probably gave rise to the more extraordinary things people claim the government can do with weather.

      1. Just expensive, really expensive.

        And mostly useless because it has to be about ready to rain anyway, for it to work.

        1. Indeed. You can’t take a crystal clear sky and make it start coming down like cats and dogs!

      2. Seeking to play with mother nature is always a fun discourse in idiocy.

        1. hmm.. link didn’t work

          Try number 2.

          1. That outcome in England is pretty crazy! I knew the Brits did some of the early experiments, but if I ever read it before, I didn’t remember the outcome was so extreme!

            There is a 110% chance our governments have kept experimenting with this stuff. It does make one wonder what they could REALLY do if they wanted to. Everybody knows the US military has a basically unlimited budget.

  18. It is possible that Trayon White’s statement was not anti-Semitic. He may have been unaware that conspiracies around the Rothschilds are often intertwined with conspiracies about Jews generally. But there is no avoiding the fact that this conspiracy is insane.

    If there were such a conspiracy, the Rothschilds would have to have weather machines that they can operate in secret at a low enough cost that they can profit from controlling the weather. It is unfortunate that someone who has a position that allows him to influence public policy simply does not understand how the real world works. That is the real scandal. He may have apologized for his anti-Semitism, but not for his stupidity.

    1. Perhaps some people took the wrong cues from the continuing successes of birtherism?

      1. Didn’t work out too well for HRC. And Trump had to drop it like a hot tamale.

        1. I don’t usually hold a hot tamale for like four years…

  19. Someone writes about the Rothschilds like that, I don’t think “antisemite”, I think “1st-rate nut case”!

    1. Porque no los dos?

      1. Soft or hard tacos?

    2. There’s a lot of overlap there, you know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.