In case it's not abundantly clear to you why I go hard in the paint against errbody and they cousin cutting the line and displacing negroes from a righteous and legitimate - though STILL legally ignored claim - on that long-overdue 40 acres and a mule.
NYPost | San Francisco’s transgender guaranteed income program application provides over 130 gender, sexuality and pronoun options, and encouraging enrollees to “check all that apply.”
The “Guaranteed Income for Transgender People (G.I.F.T.)” program will provide 55 “economically marginalized transgender people,” who have a monthly income of less than $600 with $1,200 per month for a year-and-a-half. Although, enrollees can make a maximum of $4,000 a month and still be enrolled in the program, according to the program’s website.
Pronoun options on the application include “Zie/zim/zis,” “Fae/faer/faers” and “Tey/ter/ters.”
Under the gender identity category, applicants can choose from options like “Aggressive (AG),” which is an “identity label claimed by some African-American and Latin@ masculine of center lesbians,” according to the University of Florida LGBTQ+ Affairs office.
“Genderf—” is another option in the gender identity category, which is “the idea of playing with ‘gender cues’ to purposely confuse stereotypical gender expressions, usually through clothing.” according to the University of Connecticut Rainbow Center. Another option is “Two-spirit,” which is an “identity label used within many American Indian and Canadian First Nations indigenous groups to describe an individual that possesses both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ spirits.” according to the University of Florida.
Other gender identity options included “Feminine-of-center,” “Demigirl,” “Boi,” “Tomboy,” “Khanith/Xanith” and “Ninauposkitzipxpe.” Applicants could also choose between sexual orientations like
“BDSM/Kink,” which is defined as a “sexual activity involving such
practices as the use of physical restraints, the granting and
relinquishing of control, and the infliction of pain,” according to the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as well as options like “pansexual” and
“skoliosexual.”
dailymail | Childcare experts are expressing alarm over transgender
TikToker Dylan Mulvaney’s popularity bump after her White House debut,
saying social media is driving a spike in teens seeking sex-change
procedures.
Clinicians say Mulvaney’s sit-down time with President Joe Biden
has raised the social media sensation’s profile, extending her reach
and likely influencing teenage fans who may themselves be questioning
their own gender identity.
Mulvaney’s TikTok
following grew to 8.4 million after her White House appearance, and
while she is entitled to share her experiences online, experts told
DailyMail.com that online influencers like her in part drive an alarming
uptick in teen transitioning.
dailymail | 'A lot of the initial deals were tailored to my queerness and to my transness,' she told The Creators newsletter last month.
'For
some of these major corporations, I was actually their first trans
creator. It's exciting to make money to support myself since I lost my
job, and to have my transition surgeries be covered too.'
Her agency, CAA, did not answer DailyMail.com's interview request.
Mulvaney's
ascent has not been without hiccups. Her appearance on Ulta Beauty last
month led to controversy and calls to boycott the cosmetics firm.
Critics called her 'misogynistic' for 'appropriating' womanhood.
Likewise,
a post about Tampax feminine hygiene products left some viewers shocked
and confused. Two replied: 'Is this a joke?' She is frequently bashed
for referring to the vagina as a 'Barbie pouch'.
She
has gained a massive following on TikTok as she documents her
transition to a transgender female — originally identifying as
'nonbinary' but telling followers in March that she was a girl.
Mulvaney
interviewed Biden last month as part of a panel of six progressive
activists for NowThis News. In the interview, the Democrat vowed to
protect 'gender-affirming care,' saying states should not limit access
to transgender treatments.
theatlantic | Everyone I spoke with believes
that the very future of how the internet works is at stake. Accordingly,
this case is likely to head to the Supreme Court. Part of this fiasco
touches on the debate around Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act, which, despite its political-lightning-rod status, makes it
extremely clear that websites have editorial control. “Section 230 tells
platforms, ‘You’re not the author of what people on your platform put
up, but that doesn’t mean you can’t clean up your own yard and get rid
of stuff you don’t like.’ That has served the internet very
well,” Dan Novack, a First Amendment attorney, told me. In effect, it
allows websites that host third-party content to determine whether they
want a family-friendly community or an edgy and chaotic one. This,
Masnick argued, is what makes the internet useful, and Section 230 has
“set up the ground rules in which all manner of experimentation happens
online,” even if it’s also responsible for quite a bit of the internet’s
toxicity too.
But the full
editorial control that Section 230 protects isn’t just a boon for giants
such as Facebook and YouTube. Take spam: Every online community—from
large platforms to niche forums—has the freedom to build the environment
that makes sense to them, and part of that freedom is deciding how to
deal with bad actors (for example, bot accounts that spam you with
offers for natural male enhancement). Keller suggested that the law may
have a carve-out for spam—which is often filtered because of the way
it’s disseminated, not because of its viewpoint (though this gets
complicated with spammy political emails). But one way to look at
content moderation is as a constant battle for online communities, where
bad actors are always a step ahead. The Texas law would kneecap
platforms’ abilities to respond to a dynamic threat.
“It says, ‘Hey, the government
can decide how you deal with content and how you decide what community
you want to build or who gets to be a part of that community and how you
can deal with your bad actors,’” Masnick said. “Which sounds
fundamentally like a totally different idea of the internet.”
“A
lot of people envision the First Amendment in this affirmative way,
where it is about your right to say what you want to say,” Novack told
me. “But the First Amendment is just as much about protecting your right
to be silent. And it’s not just about speech but things adjacent to
your speech—like what content you want to be associated or not
associated with. This law and the conservative support of it shreds
those notions into ribbons.”
The
implications are terrifying and made all the worse by the language of
Judge Oldham’s ruling. Perhaps the best example of this brazen
obtuseness is Oldham’s argument about “the Platforms’ obsession with
terrorists and Nazis,” concerns that he suggests are “fanciful” and
“hypothetical.” Of course, such concerns are not hypothetical;
they’re a central issue for any large-scale platform’s
content-moderation team. In 2015, for example, the Brookings Institution
issued a 68-page report
titled “The ISIS Twitter census” mapping the network of terrorist
supporters flooding the platform. The report found that in 2014, there
were at least 46,000 ISIS accounts on Twitter posting graphic violent
content and using the platform to recruit and collect intelligence for
the Islamic State.
amidwesterndoctor |One of my favorite fables is The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs,
which concludes with the owner deciding he wants more gold than the
goose can produce by laying eggs and cuts it open to get the rest, only
to discover nothing is there and losing everything as a consequence of
his greed. The nature of many industries are to voraciously expand as
much as possible, and since the pharmaceutical industry has established a
monopoly on the practice of medicine (and thus “life or death”), this
“growth” can be gotten away with to the point the ever-growing
healthcare spending now accounts for one-fifth of our GDP.
My
sincere hope with COVID-19 was that the flagrant greed of the
pharmaceutical companies would finally awaken the populace to their
conduct and end pharma’s Golden Goose (a few signs of which are now
emerging as childhood vaccine uptake has dropped).
A critical reason why this awakening is possible now is because the
traditional form of propaganda, regardless of how much further developed
it becomes, is no longer able to function in the modern environment
created by the internet.
A fascinating article
(by a multidisciplinary collaboration aiming to reform propaganda) I
read on this subject makes the case that since anyone can now create
their own evidence for competing narratives, the vertical advantage
previously held by those with the resources to monopolize the airways
with a tailored message has evaporated. For example, with no cost except
my own time, I can take a day out of my life to put together a
well-thought-out rebuttal to the media’s current propaganda campaign
which is seen and believed by thousands upon thousands of people. If it
was just me, it probably would not matter, but there are many, many,
many, more people doing the exact same thing as we speak and it is my
belief that they have played a large role in shaping the direction of
history over the last seven years.
Because of this, the old
models of propaganda simply don’t work anymore, and each media platform
has been trying to combat this reality with stricter and stricter
censorship (especially online) alongside more and more audacious lies.
Each time they do it, however, it simply leaves the public with the side
effects of excessive propaganda: being more confused, fragmented,
polarized, and less trusting of authoritative sources than they were
before, exactly what every propaganda campaign for a national interest
strives to avoid.
At this point, the article’s authors see three
paths forward. Continue our current path (which will likely prove
disastrous), adopt a Chinese-style system of complete internet
censorship (which many in Big Tech and likely other industries are
pushing for but many are effectively resisting), or adopt the
alternative to mass propaganda originally proposed when all of this
started a century ago (Elon Musk through his conduct at Twitter and
elsewhere appears to endorse this option).
A central debate that
waged since the early days of propaganda was if it was acceptable in a
Democracy. Its proponents argued that society had become too complex for
the average citizen to be able to make decisions of importance, that
propaganda was remarkably effective in meeting the needs of the nation
(e.g. winning the world wars), and if the government did not use it,
others like the Nazis would use it against us and take over the world.
Its opponents however were adamant a Democracy could not exist if it was
run by propaganda and argued the solution to all of this was to improve
the educational standards so the masses could understand and actively
participate in the complex decisions of the modern era.
These
two sides vied for control (e.g. America used propaganda throughout
World War 2 on its citizens, but after the war, doing so was banned by
the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948). In tandem with increasing corruption in our government, in 2012 Obama signed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act,
essentially repealing the 1948 law under the need to support the war on
terror. This rapidly accelerated the glut of government propaganda
citizens were fed and I suspect that glut played a key role in killing
the government’s Golden Goose of propaganda.
In many ways,
it appears the tables have reversed from how they were a century ago, as
it is now the propagandists rather than the crowds that lack the
sophistication to keep up with the complexity of the current era (e.g.
message boards at the periphery of the internet can produce meme
campaigns that run circles around institutional sources of propaganda
like the CIA or CNN).
For all of these reasons, as the authors of the aforementioned article mentioned it
may be in everyone’s interest, including those in power, to take the
third choice and switch to the model originally advocated for by John Dewey.
Focus on creating an educational system that creates critically
thinking citizens who actively participate in the decision-making
process in order to arrive at the best result for society (e.g. not
sacrificing citizens is secret for the “greater good”) and design
internet platforms that foster an open discourse rather than
aggressively promoting specific narratives while censoring dissenting
opinions or incentivizing inflammatory and polarizing content.
With
everyday citizens empowered by the Internet now seeking and gaining
access to databases for themselves, we face a choice. Either drop the
pretense of being an open society, close off access, and solidify the
gap between “the masses” and the “expert class,” or build the education
and information infrastructure necessary to become a more open society.
I
am very hopeful for this future but simultaneously recognize that power
is one of the hardest things to let go of, so we will likely see a very
rocky transition as we move towards it. In the meantime, I believe one
of the most important things you can do is begin to open your eyes to
the common PR techniques out there. Once you do, it's astounding how
differently everything looks.
orientalreview | Since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) has made no secret of its goal to expand to the
east, as well as into North and sub-Saharan Africa.After the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, many observers
believed that NATO’s raison d’etre had ceased to exist and that the
collective “defensive” organization would join the Warsaw Pact in
historical oblivion. However, those Americans, Canadians, and Europeans
who believe in a “new world order,” led politically by the United States
in concert with the European Union and Canada and militarily by NATO,
re-invented NATO as an aggressive military pact with the goal of
enforcing the will of a North American-European “axis” on a expanded
stage far beyond Europe or the North Atlantic.
NATO’s expansion to the east and south has been marked by a number of
NATO-linked “Pentagonese” alphabet soup fast track membership and
associate member programs, including the Partnership for Peace (PfP),
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI), Membership Action Plans (MAPs),
Individual Partnership Plans (IPPs), and the Mediterranean Dialogue
(MD).
NATO’s Nazi-like Drang Nach Osten, or “thrust to the
east,”began in earnest after the Czech-born U.S. Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright pressed hard for NATO membership for the Czech
Republic, Poland, and Hungary, while re-assuring Russia’s leadership in
1997 that such expansion would not result in NATO military bases or
troops in the new NATO nations. Arch-Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, a
native of Poland, backed Albright and was a strong force behind what he
called NATO’s “double enlargement.” The influence of Eastern
European émigrés like Albright (née Korbel) and Brzezinski, with their
anti-Russian “baggage,” influenced U.S. foreign policy in a way that was
not in the best national security interests of the United States. As
has been seen with the influence of American Jews on Middle East policy,
Irish-Americans on the problems of Northern Ireland, and Cuban exiles
on Latin American policy, the American “melting pot” usually does not
prevent generational biases against certain nations and regions of the
world from worming their way into American foreign policy.NATO expansion
to the borders of Russia stands as a case in point…
It was also inferred by Clinton administration officials that NATO
would never take in members along the Russian border. Both promises were
hollow. On May 21, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the NATO
Enlargement Pact admitting the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to
NATO. The three nations became members of NATO the following year.
Nine years later, the United States announced plans to establish
anti-missile bases in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.
In 2004, three years following NATO’s invocation for the first time
of Article 5 of its charter after the 9/11 attack on the United States,
stipulating that an attack on one member is an attack on all, NATO
expanded to the Russian border when Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (in
addition to Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) were admitted to
membership. In 2009, NATO expanded to Albania and Croatia. That same
year, France rejoined NATO’s military command structure, reversing
Charles de Gaulle’s decision to withdraw from NATO’s military component
in 1967.
Through the MAP, Ukraine and Georgia, deep within the former Soviet
Union, were being actively considered for NATO membership and four
Balkan states, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
NATO-occupied Kosovo, were angling for NATO membership. NATO also sent
signals to three other nations that if there was a change in the
political leadership and a subsequent change in foreign policy, Moldova,
Belarus, and Serbia would be considered for NATO membership. Cyprus and
Malta, members of the EU, have been under strong pressure to join NATO,
especially as a result of the Libyan war and the regime changes in Egy
What is not mentioned in those articles is that the target of the
Turkish strike was the US-run center for the training and education of
PKK militants in Rojava. There are rumors that the Turks gave the US
enough warning time to evacuate most of its personnel.
Does that sound familiar?
If it does, it is because it is very similar to what the Iranians did
when they hit US bases in Iraq following the murder of General Solemani
in a US drone strike.
If the above is true, and rumors are very much “if” and cannot be
considered as proven fact, then that means that a NATO member state
(Turkey) just attacked a US base and, like Iran, got away with it: the
“The Finest Fighting Force in the History of the World” just got whacked
hard and humiliated for a second time and could do absolutely nothing
to defend itself or even save face.
Terrorists’ shelters, bunkers, caves, tunnels, and warehouses were successfully destroyed,” Akar said, adding that “the so-called headquarters of the terrorist organization were also hit and destroyed.” Overall, the Defense Ministry claimed that the strikes hit nearly 90 targets, which it said were connected to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Kurdish People’s Defense Units (YPG).
Even allowing for some “patriotic exaggeration”, it is pretty clear
that Ergodan’s revenge strike was both quite substantial and,
apparently, rather effective.
So, what do we have here? A
NATO member state all but accused the US of a major terrorist attack
against its capital city, and then that NATO member state openly
attacked a US-run facility (let’s not call it a base, that would be inaccurate).
Is Erdogan’s claim even credible? Absolutely! Not only has the US
already attempted to overthrow and kill Erdogan, who was saved in extremis
by Russian special forces (same with Ianukovich), but we also know that
the US overthrew General de Gaulle in 1968-1969 and that NATO covert
forces were used to stage false flag attacks against NATO allies
(especially Italy) in the so-called GLADIO operation.
NATO is not a defensive alliance – it never was – but it is a tool of US colonial domination. Fist tap Dale.
sonar21 | Let me state up front that there are many brave, courageous Ukrainian
soldiers fighting for their nation. Unfortunately, many of these
soldiers are irredeemable bigots. It is indisputable that many in the
ranks of the Azov battalion celebrate Nazi “theology” and embrace Adolf
Hitler. No amount of rewriting history can erase the bloody legacy
Hitler carved into the land and peoples of Europe during the Second
World War.
So what are we to make of Justin Banse? You will meet him in the
following video. He does not strike me as a racist or an anti-semite. He
seems like a fairly normal 22 year old who is not a deep thinker and
not well educated. Maybe that explains how he could have joined forces
with some modern day Nazis.
If you take the time to watch the video — warning, it is more than 3
hours long — you will understand my confusion. It is a shame that the
guy conducting the interview is so clueless. He should have pressed
Justin to explain how he could excuse the Nazi beliefs and then fight
along side the Azov guys. But he did not.
In a way, Justin is a victim of his prior military service with the
United States. What he experienced as combat against the Taliban (I’m
assuming that he did), was not real war. His testimony in this video
perfectly illustrates a point that Andrei Martyanov makes repeatedly —
i.e., the United States has not experienced a peer to peer war since
Korea. Justin’s account also confirms a point I have made in previous
posts about the lack of artillery and air support for attacking
Ukrainian units. They are relying solely on ground forces and vehicles
and those are no match for heavy artillery, rockets, missiles and aerial
strafing.
Justin does inadvertently reveal the problems facing the Ukrainian
soldiers. For example, he states that the 200 man company he was
assigned to was ordered to Mariupol. He was left behind and the company
was wiped out. None returned, according to Justin.
I feel sorry for the kid. His very soul was scarred by this
experience and it will haunt him for the rest of his life. He has
discovered the sickening reality of war that combat veterans of World
War I and World War II experienced, regardless of the army they fought
for.
kevinmcdonald | Jews won the culture war without a shot being
fired and without the losing side seeming to realize that it was a war with real
winners and real losers — where the losers have not only given up their cultural
preeminence, but have failed to stand up to the ultimate denouement: demographic
displacement from lands they had controlled for centuries. The new elite retains
its outsider feelings toward their new subjects — a hostile elite in the United
States as
it was in the Soviet Union.
Unlike Weissberg, then, Weiss seems to feel a
twinge of guilt about the role of Jews as victors in the culture war — guilt
stemming from his understanding that the new elite has some very glaring
moral failings of its own, including its own brand of ethnocentrism that
seems far deeper than anything imagined by the WASPs.
The danger for Jews is that non-Jews will come to
realize the deep wellsprings of Jewish ethnocentrism and see Jewish involvement
in the displacement of European-descended peoples as resulting from ethnic
conflict over the construction of culture. Ultimately, Europeans may come to
realize that the conflict is really about the ethnic displacement of themselves
as a people.
Speaking for myself, it would be
difficult for me
not to have developed something of a sense of my peoplehood after
delving into
the 2000-year history of Jews who were intensely concerned about
preserving
their people and their culture. As I’ve come to realize, preserving
one’s people
and culture is a virtual human universal. No one would contend that,
say,
Koreans have a moral obligation to allow millions of other peoples into
Korea so
that what we would call ethnic Koreans become a minority and their
culture put up for grabs. Certainly, the idea that Israel is a Jewish
state is central to
its entire self-concept — so much so that the idea of the Palestinians
who
were basically expelled in 1948 being allowed to return to create a
multi-ethnic,
pluralistic society is a political impossibility. The idea that
European-descended peoples have no right to preserve their peoples and
cultures
while others do is a glaring double standard.
The fact is that the US did have a sense of being
a European, Christian society until very recently. Christianity was an
uncontested part of public culture until large-scale Jewish immigration in the
early 20th century. The immigration laws were biased in favor of
Europeans until 1965 when
the long Jewish campaign to change them finally succeeded. Such laws were no
different from exactly what Israel continues to do with the strong support of
the organized American Jewish community. Nevertheless, my research shows that
the organized American Jewish community has
led the campaign to make assertions of white identity and interests
illegitimate. I see that as hypocritical. The big question is whether the WASPs
will put up a fight.
unz |November
22, 1963 was a coup d’état. That is the premise from which any
discussion about JFK’s assassination should start. The coup was
invisible at the time, because Johnson created an illusion of
continuity. What changed dramatically only became public knowledge in
the 1990s. In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 2009, we read that, “Lyndon Johnson Was First to Align U.S. Policy With Israel’s Policies.”
Up to Johnson’s presidency, no administration had been as completely
pro-Israel and anti-Arab as his. … Not only was he personally a strong
supporter of the Jewish state but he had a number of high officials,
advisers and friends who shared his view. … These officials occupied
such high offices as the ambassador to the United Nations, the head of
the National Security Council and the number two post at the State
Department. They were assiduous in putting forward Israel’s interests in
such memoranda as “What We Have Done for Israel” and “New Things We
Might Do in Israel” and “How We Have Helped Israel.” … So pervasive was
the influence of Israel’s supporters during Johnson’s tenure that CIA
Director Richard Helms believed there was no important U.S. secret
affecting Israel that the Israeli government did not know about in this
period.[8]
Although
Dimona was probably the most urgent reason for replacing JFK with LBJ,
as Michael Collins Piper has shown in his groundbreaking book Final Judgment,
it was not the only one. The problem of Dimona cannot be separated from
the wider geopolitical context of the Cold War. For the Soviets were as
worried as Kennedy about nuclear proliferation.[9]
Against Piper’s theory, it has been argued that Kennedy had no power to
stop Israel from getting the Bomb, and that there was therefore no
necessity for Israel to kill him.[10]
That may be true: the real danger for Israel was if both the United
States and the Soviet Union joined their effort to thwart Israel’s
nuclear ambition. When Khrushchev’s minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei
Gromyko visited the White House on October 3, 1963 to discuss ways of
expanding the progress of the Limited Test Ban treaty, Kennedy tasked
his Secretary of State Dean Rusk to bring up the issue of Israel’s
secret nuke program with Gromyko in his evening meeting at the Soviet
Embassy.[11] If Americans and Russians agreed to stop Israel from getting the Bomb, Israel would have had to comply.
But
worst than the risk of being deprived of their “Samson option”, the
nascent cooperation between Kennedy and Khrushchev toward détente
presented an even more distressing danger: their common support of
Israel’s greatest foe, Egypt. This point is well made by author Salvador
Astucia in Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination (2002, in pdf here)[12]:
Both Kennedy and Khrushchev had stronger ties with Egyptian President
Nasser than with Israel. Their befriending of Nasser, a living icon
symbolizing Arab unity, was a signal to Israel that both superpowers had
more interest in the Arab world than in Israel’s continued existence as
a Jewish homeland, let alone its expansion into neighboring Arab
territories.[13]
“In
short,” writes Astucia, “détente would mark the beginning of the end for
Israel as a world power because neither superpower had a strategic
interest in Israel.”[14] What was urgently needed was to transform Egypt into a ground for confrontation rather than rapprochement.
Astucia
published his book in 2002, and lacked hindsight on 9/11 to draw the
parallel that can now be drawn between President Kennedy’s assassination
and the false flag attacks of September 11th, 2001. The
parallel should be clear to those who now understand that 9/11 was both a
massive psychological operation and a foreign policy coup aimed at
drawing the U.S. on the side of Israel against its Arab enemies (see my previous Unz Review article). As I wrote for the film 9/11 and Israel’s Great Game:
“In 2001, Israel’s reputation had fallen to its lowest level in
international public opinion. Condemnations were voiced from all sides
against its apartheid and colonization policies, and its systematic war
against Palestinian leadership structures. The attacks of 9/11 instantly
reversed this trend. Americans experienced the attacks as an act of
hatred on the part of the Arab world, and thus felt immediate sympathy
for Israel. … Overnight, after the 9/11 attacks, Western opinion had
amalgamated the Arab world and the Palestinian resistance with Islamic
terrorism.”
uwm.edu | That Black antisemitism was frequently motivated by economic oppression is
corroborated by Eddie Ellis who, in 1966, wrote, “The most violent type of oppression of Black
Americans – economic oppression – is waged by solely profit-motivated members of that other
ethnic minority [i.e. Jews]. Hence, it stands to reason the Black man who is constantly under the
heel of economic tyranny lashes out, quite naturally, at the visible tyrant.”15
Ellis’ statement
highlights numerous issues within the Black-Jewish relationship. Jews frequently voiced their
treatment of being an ethnic minority when discussing Black woes. Letters such as those from
Frances Dale, a Jewish teacher in New Jersey, point to some Jews viewing themselves as the
victims of the white-Black racial conflict that was brewing.16
Jews, being the pale-skinned
people that Blacks interacted with most frequently in urban areas since they owned many of the
shops that were in ghettos, were seen as white, rather than Jewish. However, Jews often did not
see this in the same light.
Eddie Ellis wrote in January of 1966 that “America’s Jewish communities have
assimilated themselves into white Protestant America – and done it so damn well – they have
assumed the attitudes and prejudices of this WASP ‘in group’ ….to our sorrow.”17
Ellis’
sentiment was not far from the truth. Many Jews in the inner-city had developed similar racial
prejudices to whites and it was because of this racial discrimination that many Blacks began
viewing Jews as white. This is, perhaps, one of the many great issues surrounding Black-Jewish
tensions; whites often did not view Jews as white and were thus alienated, while Blacks did view
Jews as white and were similarly ostracized. White southerners were outraged that Jews were
helping with the civil rights movement and by the 1950s Jews had become targets of white violence.18
Many Jews found themselves in an uncomfortable position, rejected and even
persecuted by some whites and blacks and caught in the middle the fight for civil rights.
One key aspect of the Black-Jewish relationship, and perhaps the entire reason why the
conflict grew so rapidly, is that the two sides never saw the issue in the same way. Blacks saw
Jews as oppressive white urbanites who were taking advantage of a history of racial oppression,
while Jews thought that Blacks despised Jews for religious reasons. Samuel Lipschitz, a New
York Jew, wrote to Dore Schary, the chairman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for much
of the 1960s, voicing his concerns on a Black-Jewish coalition. Lipschitz, when stating his belief
about the motivation for the Black-Jewish alliance proposed by Schary stated, “Is it not that the
Jew is using the Negro as a tool to take revenge or to manifest their resentments against the white
Christian who for so long have persecuted the Jews.”19
Rather than seeing the issue as Dore
Schary saw it, i.e. as an issue of racial inequality where both Jews and Blacks were being abused,
many Jews saw it as an issue of religious persecution. An anonymous teacher in New York wrote
to Dore Schary that, “Maybe you should tell your Negro friends that, from 1619 to 1861,
Christian Southerners enslaved them, and that thereafter a vicious discriminatory system has
been perpetrated, largely by southerners? And that when the products of this terrible system
come North, uneducated and unprepared for city life, to eat up our welfare money, even the most
sympathetic becomes angry after a while?”20
Indeed, this sort of misunderstanding made it
difficult for Jews to comprehend why Blacks were displeased, since many viewed Blacks as
being disgruntled over the Jewish religion, rather than their economic situation.
NPR | So there are basically three areas advanced for why Jews would
involve themselves in the struggle for racial equality. All three turn
out to be false. But the first would be the history argument,
that says blacks and Jews share a common history, and therefore Jews
empathize with the historical experience of blacks, and therefore
they're willing to help. Right?
When I talk generally with
white Jews about why Jews are involved in social justice or civil rights
or racial equality, they'll talk about this shared history of
oppression.
And the problem is that American Jewish history and
African-American history are 180 degrees opposite on that question. One
of my African-American colleagues, he said, "If I ever go to a Seder
and the Jews say that they know what it's like because they too were once slaves in Egypt," he's gonna punch 'em.
Because if Jews have to go back to ancient Egypt to get the
slavery metaphor, then they've kind of missed that American Jewish
history is a story of rapid social ascent, and African-American history
is the legacy of slavery. That argument is insulting, and it's very
elementary.
And, of course, I found that the people actually
involved in the movement in the 50s, they knew that. And they were quite
clear that they were not buying into that.
What's the second argument that people draw on?
The
second argument is a sociological one, which is to say Jews experience
social marginalization; blacks experience social marginalization. Since
Jews understand what it is to be on the margins, they help blacks. The
problem with that is that the civil rights movement didn't happen 'til
the 1950s. In the 1950s, Jews were already in the mainstream. So if
marginalization was the motive, then the movement should have started 50
years earlier.
Eric Goldstein at Emory, in his book, The Price of Whiteness,
basically points out that Jews could only cross the racial line after
they achieved whiteness, when they were no longer marginal. So that kind
of undermines the sociology argument.
Last but not least?
The third one, the one we get today, is Judaism: that the religion of the Jews argues for social justice, tikkun olam. Prophetic Judaism, the Reform movement, is involved with all of that.
The
problem is, if one's adherence to Judaism informs social justice, one
would expect the Orthodox, those for whom traditional Judaism is most
present in their everyday life, to be in the lead in racial equality.
And in fact it's the opposite.
The more religiously traditional, the less engaged [Jews are] in
social justice. And the ones that were going to Mississippi getting
killed were [for the most part] on the left, were secular, were not
involved in synagogue life. And socialist and communist Jews were, in
fact, a whole lot more empathetic to the [racial justice] cause than
religious Jews.
unz |While
Jews are obviously desirous and capable of snuffing out any and all
criticism, they are particularly sensitive to influential examples from
the Black population. In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald identifies the key themes of anti-Semitism as including an understanding that, speaking in general terms, Jews
represent a separate and clannish foreign group with their own set of interests;
are highly adept at resource competition and have a tendency towards economic domination;
tend to engage as cultural actors in order to shape non-Jewish culture to suit Jewish interests;
form a cohesive political entity that seeks politically dominant roles in non-Jewish societies;
possess negative personality traits, including the pursuance of a
system of dual ethics in which non-Jews can be treated badly and
exploited;
are disloyal to the host nation in all fundamental and meaningful ways
Among
Black expressions of animosity toward Jews, the same themes can be
observed, arising first from more modest economic conflicts and, as
such, having something more in common with the complaints of the early
modern European peasantries. Horace Mann Bond, in his own 1965
reflections on “Negro Attitudes Toward Jews,” comments on the fact Jews
historically appeared in the African-American environment overwhelmingly
as pawnbrokers, as monopolists of the liquor trade (“The Jews have a
stranglehold on the liquor stores in this town”), as the primary sellers
on credit of clothing and other essential items, and, perhaps most
crucial of all, as the slumlord and property dealer (“Some Jews have
bought up that urban re-development land and are putting up shoddy
apartments they call “Nigger housing” on it”).[1] In 2016, local news website Patch published a list of the 100 worst slumlords in Harlem,
with the top ten including seven Jews (Mark Silber, Adam Stryker, Joel
Goldstein, Marc Chemtob, Moshe Deutsch, Solomon Gottlieb, and Jason
Green), a representation that has remained roughly constant every year,
with Jews persistently claiming top ranking for building violations,
rodent infestations, lack of maintenance, exploitative rent, mold, and
other forms of building decay injurious to health. Indeed, this
situation has at times resulted in considerable embarrassment to Jews.
Indeed,
it is the sheer dominance and proximity of the Jews as primary
exploiters of Blacks that has often caused a quite radical break in the
Black imagination between perceiving wholesale “White oppression,” and
the more nuanced understanding that Jews are a distinctive class unto
themselves. Moreover, the reality of day-to-day interethnic exploitation
leaves little room for abstract apologetic theories of anti-Semitism,
since the problem is never that Jews arouse hostility merely on account
of their religion or identity, but rather that Jews arouse hostility
because of their behavior within certain ecological contexts (i.e., as a
dominant clique within the rap scene). As Bond explains,
It is my considered view that Negro attitudes and actions towards Jews
that are frequently interpreted as “antisemitic” actually lack the
sinister thought-content they are sometimes advertised as holding. The
occasional riots against small businessmen and landlords in Harlem —
persons who may happen to be Jews — do not, in my opinion, actually
possess the “classic” emotional load of aggression against a Jewish
“race” or “religion,” that has been considered the essence of
antisemitism.
One
of the most prominent Jewish strategies when discussing Black
anti-Semitism is the attempt to preserve both Jewish and Black senses of
victimhood, and thus preserve the idea of an alliance against an
allegedly oppressive White society. So it was hardly surprising for me
to hear that Bill Adler’s first approach to Professor Griff involved a
quite ludicrous attempt to turn him against the ‘racist’ Henry Ford.
• • •
The
very existence of a Black anti-Semitism is highly disruptive to
established victim narratives which deny the privileged status of Jews
as a wealthy and influential elite within Western society. While White
anti-Semitism can still be portrayed (thanks to endless propaganda) as a
top-down form of oppression directed against Jews, Black anti-Semitism
flips the narrative since a received wisdom of modern culture is that
Blacks are the most disadvantaged ethnic group in society. When Blacks
“punch up” and the target is Jews, the only available solution to Jews
is censorship. Blacks who grovel enough, and with enough sincerity (like
Nick Cannon and Ice Cube) will be rehabilitated through Holocaust tours
and such, and their apologies will be widely broadcast as a form of
propaganda literature in its own right.
But
those who don’t, like Professor Griff, will have their careers destroyed
and they will vanish from the cultural spotlight. It may even be worse
than that. In a remarkable incident covered by Tucker Carlson,
Jewish trainer Harley Pasternak even threatened to have Kanye West
drugged and institutionalised: “You go back to Zombieland forever.” The
future of Kanye ‘Ye’ West is currently uncertain, but will be
undoubtedly be dictated by the extent to which he apologizes to his
masters.
kunstler | FTX commander-in-chief Sam Bankman-Fried
remains at large after steering the crypto-currency trading platform
into a bankruptcy so hideously tangled that the assigned liquidator in
court proceedings, one John Ray III, who oversaw the Enron aftermath
years ago, was boggled by what he’s found so far (and it’s early in the
game): Namely, a company run by a handful of twenty-something drug
freaks with no idea what they were doing, no record-keeping, and a slime
trail of misappropriated investors’ funds leading to Kiev and Geneva
through various crooked American political action committees, and the
halls of Congress — with echos in ballot harvesting shenanigans which
shaped the outcome of this month’s US elections.
Mr. Bankman-Fried is still scheduled
as a main speaker for Accenture’s Nov. 30 DealBook Conference in New
York ($2,499 for a ticket), along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky and US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Odds on him showing up?
Or even being alive elsewhere on this planet then?
The Bankman-Fried extended family is
the quintessence of Woke aristocracy. Dad Joe Bankman and mom Barbara
Fried are both law professors at Stanford. She also acted as a
money-bundler for the Democratic Party and ran two non-profit “voter
registration” orgs (against the IRS laws which only permit non-partisan organized
voter registration). Brother Gabe Bankman-Fried headed a non-profit
named Guarding Against Pandemics (funded by Sam), which lobbies Congress
to construct new platforms for medical tyranny. Aunt Linda Fried is
Dean of Columbia U’s Public Health school, and is associated with Johns
Hopkins, which ran the October 2019 Event 201 pandemic drill (sponsored
by the Gates Foundation) months before the Covid-19 outbreak.
Sam’s girlfriend, Caroline Ellison, ran the
Alameda Investments arm of the FTX empire (that is, FTX’s own money
laundromat). Her dad, Glenn Ellison, is chair of MIT’s Econ School. His
former colleague on the MIT Econ faculty, Gary Gensler, who specialized
in blockchains there, is now head of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, an agency that Sam Bankman-Fried was attempting to rope into
a regulation scheme to eliminate FTX’s crypto-currency competitors.
Caroline’s mom, Sara Fisher Ellison, is an MIT econ prof specializing in
the pharmaceutical industry (fancy that!). Caroline Ellison is
currently on-the-run.
The sum total of all this professional
and academic accomplishment is also the quintessence of Woke-Jacobin
turpitude in service to a political faction that seeks maximum
moneygrubbing while acting to overthrow every norm of behavior in the
conduct of elections, and perhaps in American life generally. That’s
some accomplishment. It’s also a lesson in why the managerial elite of
our country are no longer trustworthy. They have gotten away with crimes
against the nation for years, which has only made them bolder and more
reckless.
Wait for the FTX bankruptcy to unwind,
along with all the political ramifications it entails, not to mention
the financial afterburn in the whole crypto market, very likely
extending into and befouling the rest of the banking system. This is
going to be a clusterfuck for the ages, and will propel the USA into a
depression with no visible horizon.
Fortune | Gary Gensler blew it again.
After his agency failed to warn investors about Terra and Celsius—whose
collapses this spring sparked a trillion-dollar investor wipeout—the
Securities and Exchange Commission chair allowed an even bigger debacle
to unfold right under his nose. I’m talking, of course, about the
revelation this week that the $30 billion FTX empire was a house of cards and that its golden boy founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, is the crypto equivalent of Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes.
To be fair, Gensler was not the only one suckered by SBF.
Nearly everyone else—myself included—fell for the narrative that SBF,
with his cute afro and aw-shucks demeanor, was exactly the savior crypto
needed to shake off its dodgy reputation and emerge as part of the
mainstream financial system. The problem is that cop-on-the-beat Gensler
not only failed to spot the crime—he appeared set to go along with a
legislative strategy that would have given SBF a regulatory moat and
made him king of the U.S. crypto market.
According to Washington insiders I spoke with, the reason behind
SBF’s decision this summer to obtain control over BlockFi was to benefit
from the troubled crypto lender’s recent settlement with the
SEC—basically extending the amnesty BlockFi had received to FTX.
Meanwhile, FTX’s recent tie-up with securities exchange IEX (of Flash Boys
fame) would also help SBF’s empire come under the U.S. regulatory
umbrella. All of this would clear FTX to have the U.S. market to itself
as the company lobbied for legislation that could have torpedoed
competitors like Binance as well as the emerging DeFi sector.
This appears to be what prominent House member Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) was referring to when he tweeted
on Thursday that “@GaryGensler runs to the media while reports to my
office allege he was helping SBF and FTX work on legal loopholes to
obtain a regulatory monopoly.”
Gensler, a former campaign finance chair for Hillary Clinton, is of
course not the only prominent Democrat who may have been willing to flex
his influence on behalf of FTX. SBF, you may recall, was one of the
biggest donors to President Joe Biden, while his parents—both Stanford
law professors—have ties to the party. His mother, Barbara Fried, leads a
group called Mind the Gap that helps raise Silicon Valley cash
for Democrats, while his father, Joseph Bankman, drafted tax
legislation for the powerful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass). It’s not a
stretch to imagine SBF sought to exploit these political ties to his
benefit.
All of this does not mean SBF, Gensler, and other higher-ups in the
Democratic party sat around plotting an explicit scheme to hand the
crypto industry to FTX. That reeks too much of a wild conspiracy theory.
Nonetheless, at a time when Gensler is already shrieking for more money
and power to address the latest crypto crisis, this would be a good
time for skeptics to ask why he failed to stop FTX in the first
place—and if anyone else in high places had a role in enabling this
debacle.
BAR | The Black Liberation Movement in the United States has reached an
almost unprecedented level of ideological confusion. Unlike in the 20th
century, significant sections of the contemporary Black Left openly
embrace an understanding of ‘identity politics’[i] that is based in philosophical idealism.[ii]
A somewhat resurgent US Left has, correctly, begun to critique these
perceived political errors. Unfortunately, social democrats such as DSA,
Jacobin and Cedric Johnson in his award-winning article[iii]
add to the ideological confusion. This essay asserts that contrary to
the claims of advancing democracy and freedom, social democracy has
consistently undermined the struggle for national liberation and
socialism.
In 1896, Eduard Bernstein, the leading theoretician of social democracy,[iv] wrote that the 2nd or Socialist International[v]
should adopt a pro-colonial policy. Under the banner of social
democracy, Bernstein boldly proclaimed through colonialism the “savage
races” can be “compelled to conform with the rules of higher
civilization.”[vi]
Fortunately, other, more principled socialists won the debate and the
2nd international officially espoused an anti-colonial position.[vii] Although this isn’t the first time that Western ‘radicals’ have betrayed colonized people,[viii]
several leaders such as Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian
Revolution, saw this as a complete betrayal of the ‘national question’
and international socialism.[ix]
Lenin theorized that in the late 19th century, capitalism entered a
new phase that he referred to as imperialism or monopoly capitalism.[x] Under imperialism, “capitalists can devote apart of these super profits to bribe their own workers to create something like an alliance between the workers of the given nation and their capitalists against the other countries.”[xi]
In short, the capitalists use their extreme profits to create an
aristocracy of labor in North America and Europe who sellout and look
down upon workers in the global south. By the start of WWI, the process
was complete: the Social Democratic Party of Germany and others had
rejected their anti-colonial positions and voted to enter the war on the
side of their own national capitalist class.[xii]
In one of his most influential works, Lenin clearly demonstrated WWI
was fundamentally a war to determine which colonizer would control what
part of the world. He called these opportunistic social democrats,
“social imperialists, that is, socialists in word but imperialists in
deed.”[xiii]
A year before Lenin’s seminal work, WEB Du Bois in the “African Roots
of War” contends that the African continent was the ‘prime cause’ of
WWI. Similar to Lenin, Du Bois states:
“the white workingman has been asked to share the spoils of
exploiting ‘chinks and niggers.’ It is no longer simply merchant prince,
or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class, that is
exploiting the world: it is the nation; a new democratic union composed
of capital and labor.”[xiv]
According to Du Bois, white workers condoning, if not outright,
support for lynching, legal segregation, poll taxes, and racist
politicians had a material basis in the imperialist system. Dubois
claimed that African America was a semi-colony[xv]
with, more in common with other Black and colonized people in the rest
of the world than US white workers. Preceding Kwame Ture and Charles
Hamilton’s call by thirty years,[xvi] Du Bois believed Black people must practice a form of voluntary segregation[xvii]
for at least a short period, then, unite with white workers. To be
clear, like all the theorists discussed in this essay, Du Bois believed
that the primary motivations for colonialism were economic.
MIT | Since 2014, viral images of Black people being
killed at the hands of the police—Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Breonna
Taylor, and many, many others—have convinced much of the public that the
American criminal legal system is broken. In the summer of 2020,
nationwide protests against police racism and violence in the wake of
George Floyd’s murder were, according to some analysts, the largest
social movement in the history of the United States.2 Activists and academics have demanded defunding the police and reallocating the funds to substitutes or alternatives.3 And others have called for abolishing the police altogether.4
Here is the article in which Harvard profs call for greatest expansion of militarized police surveillance bureaucracy in Western history. Below I discuss the flagrant ethical and intellectual problems and how elite academia can be so dangerous. https://t.co/Cq1fFCdWR2
It has become common knowledge that the police do not solve serious
crime, they focus far too much on petty offenses, and they are far too
heavy-handed and brutal in their treatment of Americans—especially poor,
Black people. This is the so-called paradox of under-protection and
over-policing that has characterized American law enforcement since
emancipation.5
The American criminal legal system is unjust and
inefficient. But, as we argue in this essay, over-policing is not the
problem. In fact, the American criminal legal system is characterized by
an exceptional kind of under-policing, and a heavy reliance on
long prison sentences, compared to other developed nations. In this
country, roughly three people are incarcerated per police officer
employed. The rest of the developed world strikes a diametrically
opposite balance between these twin arms of the penal state, employing
roughly three and a half times more police officers than the number of
people they incarcerate. We argue that the United States has it
backward. Justice and efficiency demand that we strike a balance between
policing and incarceration more like that of the rest of the developed
world. We call this the “First World Balance.”
We defend this idea in much more detail in a forthcoming book titled What’s Wrong with Mass Incarceration.
This essay offers a preliminary sketch of some of the arguments in the
book. In the spirit of conversation and debate, in this essay we err
deliberately on the side of comprehensiveness rather than argumentative
rigor. One of us is a social scientist, and the other is a philosopher
and legal scholar. Our primary goal for this research project, and
especially in this essay, is not to convince readers that we are
correct—but rather to encourage a more explicit discussion of the
empirical and normative bases of some pressing debates about the
American criminal legal system. Even if our answers prove unsound, we
hope that the combination of empirical social science and analytic moral
and political philosophy we contribute can help illuminate what
alternative answers to those questions might have to look like to be
sound. In fact, because much of this essay (and the underlying book
project) strikes a pessimistic tone, we would be quite happy to be wrong
about much of what we argue here.
In the first part of this essay, we outline five
comparative facts that contradict much of the prevailing way of thinking
about what is distinctive about the American criminal legal system. In
the second part, we draw out the normative implications of those facts
and make the case for the First World Balance.
Corporate America disproportionately targets Black and Hispanic
consumers with junk food, such as candy, sugary drinks, snacks, and fast
food, more than any other race.
The Rudd Center for Food and Policy Health at the University of Connecticut found
Black youth and adults were subjected to 21% more junk food ads than
their white counterparts. Researchers said corporate America boosted
their advertising budgets on Spanish-speaking television stations as a
total proportion of their ad budget.
As the advertising industry
drastically changes, companies are embracing celebrities and influencers
to promote their products on television and social media. Researchers
said advertisers hired celebrities from Black and Hispanic communities
to encourage young people of color to purchase junk food.
Many of these celebrities are idolized by consumers and will mimic their trends, even if that's unhealthy eating habits.
In
the midst of the worst obesity epidemic this nation has ever faced,
corporate America employs an army of influencers to bombard people of
color with ads for junk food. Data shows nearly 20% of all children are
obese, and rates are much higher among children of color: 26.2% of
Hispanic children and 24.8% of Black children. This is compared with
16.6% of white children.
dailymail | Highly-processed foods should be
reclassified as drugs because they are as addictive and harmful as
cigarettes, scientists argue.
Researchers
claim items like donuts, sugary cereals and pizza meet the meet
official criteria that established cigarettes as a drug in the 1990s.
These
include causing compulsive use and mood altering affects on the brain,
and having properties or ingredients that reinforce addiction or trigger
cravings.
Ultra processed foods - which also include
things like soda, chips, pastries and candies - contain high amounts
of unnatural flavorings, preservatives and sweeteners.
Researchers led by Dr Ashley Gearhardt, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, told DailyMail.com these foods are more like a drug because of how distant they are in taste and texture from natural foods.
'They
are industrial produced substances designed to deliver sugar and fat,'
Dr Alexandra DiFeliceantonio, a health behaviors research professor at
Virginia Tech University, said.
'They are not foods anymore. These are these products that have been really well designed to deliver addictive substances.'
It’s a
pretty simple, obvious observation. Jews are 2% of the American
population and 100% of the high-level FTX employees. This is similar to
what we’ve seen Ye saying about organized Jewry engaging in high-level
crime. It’s difficult to understand how this observation is “hateful” in
and of itself, right?
Well,
it might be difficult for you to understand, but it wasn’t difficult
for the managers of CoinDesk, who immediately fired Jackson over the
tweet.
In response to a tweet from Isaiah Jackson that made an anti-Semitic, hurtful statement, CoinDesk is immediately terminating his contract for his weekly Community Crypto show on CoinDesk TV. 🧵
It’s
amazing how that happens every single time. It’s almost like Jews have a
total lockdown on the entirety of American institutions and shut down
anyone who even hints at criticism of them in order to make an example.
Jackson was just talking the facts – everyone in charge at FTX was Jewish. Literally everyone.
If
Jews were just random people, then this would be a totally wild
coincidence, and Jews wouldn’t care if anyone pointed it out. I didn’t
have any Irish people come down on me when I pointed out that everyone I
knew in high school who was known for fighting, charged with a crime,
expelled from school, or sold drugs had an Irish last name. I told other
people with Irish last names this fact and they said “lol. lmao.”
Yet
for some reason, Jews freak out if you point out that Jews hold all of
these coincidental positions of power, and are often associated with
financial crimes or other clear misdeeds. If it didn’t reflect on Jews
as a whole, they would not care if you pointed it out.
In
the above example of people of Irish origin in Ohio being
overrepresented among people committing misdeeds, this theoretically did
reflect badly on people of Irish origin, though no one ever thought to
get mad about it. Most people with Irish last names were not associated
with misdeeds, so it was just a funny thing. It is not intuitive to get
mad unless you yourself are personally implicated.
Jackson has completely refused to back down. He noted that all he is doing is recognizing a pattern.
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Quickie
-
Hi folks,
At this stage my blogger entries feel like I'm talking on a barbwire
network over a party line, like on Green Acres. I haven't put out a signal
...
Pocahontas, Magawisca, and Religion
-
Disney’s Pocahontas (1995) and Catharine Maria Sedgwick’s Hope Leslie
(1827) both present stories based on Pocahontas mythology, the former
directly with i...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...