Jews Versus Gentile Fed Chief?

In retaliation against Trump’s selection of a gentile, Jerome Powell, as the new chair of the Federal Reserve to replace Janet Yellen, a Jew, the Jews who control American financial markets may have driven the stock market down thousands of points.  I don’t know how they did it, but it shows the control that Jews hold over the financial system.  It may not have been consciously planned, but there was a concerted reaction to the fear that the Jewish sugar daddies and mamas at the Fed who had taken care of the Jews on Wall Street for 50 years were going away. This could be a valid fear.  Jews are clearly superior at finance; a gentile may be stupider or more incompetent, and therefore more likely to let the economy get away from him.

On the other hand, the policies pursued by the Fed for the last ten years have been very beneficial to wealthy financiers.  Trump has Mnuchin and Cohn to protect Jewish financial interests, but Jewish investors may feel like they need a Jew in charge of the Fed to protect their interests.

The Jews believed that they were going to take over control of the American political system with the election of Hillary Clinton.  Although Clinton is not Jewish, she was the perfect front person for them, and pretty much guaranteed to look out for Jewish interests, since Jews had been some of her biggest campaign supporters.  She would no doubt have had prominent Jews in her cabinet and her White House staff, who would look out for Jewish interests as Jack Lew, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and others did in the Obama administration, and Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Robert Reich, and other did in the Clinton administration.

Of course, it’s possible that the market crash on Powell’s first day was just coincidence, but it’s very suspicious.  It now looks like the crash is over and the market is recovering, but time will tell.  If the market keeps going up, then maybe there is nothing to the short term crash.  However, something triggered a sell-off after the stock market had been going almost straight up for about ten years.  Powell could just be unlucky, or there could be some racial component to the stock market mini-crash.


Op-Ed on Impeachment

In the NYT David Leonhardt proposes a bill of impeachment against President Trump.

He lists ten items, but only one is an act that could be impeachable, if it turned out to be a high crime or misdemeanor, the act of firing Comey.  The other nine are basically descriptions of impure thoughts or political braggadocio, which would mean impeachment for every politician who ever opened his mouth.

Trump may have tried to influence Comey to drop his investigation or parts of it, at the White House dinner, for example, but if Comey was not swayed by Trump, no crime was committed.  If your best friend was being arrested, wouldn’t you ask the police if they couldn’t let him go and give him another chance.  That doesn’t seem like a crime although it puts pressure on the police.  It’s their job to say no, if that’s the appropriate response.  The statement about Trump Junior’s meeting with the Russian lawyer was basically just spin, which is a Washington staple.

The firing of Comey was to some extent made less serious by the immediate appoint of Mueller.  As a result, justice was not obstructed, whether that was the intent or not.  However, I believe the firing of Comey does raise serious questions.  Trump had legal authority to fire him, but if he fired him to stop the investigation into crimes and possibly treasonous conduct, then that merits serious consideration.  If there was no actual obstruction of justice, is attempted obstruction enough?  I don’t know.

I find the whole Russia investigation spurious.  People, particularly politicians and diplomats, talk to spies all the time.  It’s part of life in the big leagues.  If they don’t disclose classified information, it’s no big deal.  What if the Russian lady lawyer had told Trump, Junior, that Hillary Clinton had passed secret information to Russia while she was Secretary of State, and showed Trump the documents Hillary had passed.  Would people still say that Trump should not have met with her?

Leonhardt has one thing right.  This debate about whether Trump did anything wrong is about impeachment, not a trial in a criminal court.  What police force has the power to lock him up and put him in jail, set bond, etc.  Mueller is doing the research to provide evidence to Congress to bring a bill of impeachment.  Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one.  Therefore, the bill can contain anything, including impure thoughts or salty language, but it must also meet the political test that a substantial portion of the population believes that it was fair and just.  A kangaroo court in the Senate will undermine people’s trust in government even further.

Churchill, English History, World War II, and Donald Trump


I  have just been to see the new movie “Darkest Hour: about Churchill’s situation on the eve of World war II.  I believe the JBO movie “The Gathering Storm” is actually a depiction of those times that I like better.  In “The Gathering Storm,” Albert Finney seems like a stronger leader, despite being plagued by the “black dog” of depression, in part due to his being an unpopular political outcast.  Gary Oldman, however, may more graphically depict Churchill’s depression and struggles with advancing age.  He became Prime Minister in 1940, at the age of 65.   In any case I would like to think of him as pugnacious, and one of the movies brings out that one term of endearment for him was “Mr. Pug,” and it shows him having a pug dog.

In any case, he was a great man.  I think one of the essays that best captures his greatness was Isaiah Berlin’s essay, “Mr. Churchill” in The Atlantic in September 1949.  My favorite line is, “[H]e saved the future by interpreting, the present in terms of a vision of the past.”  Some  more extended quotes from the article, which is as much about Churchill as historian as politician, follow:

Mr. Churchill’s dominant category, the single, central, organizing principle of his moral and intellectual universe, is an historical imagination so strong, so comprehensive, as to encase the whole of the present and the whole of the future in a framework of a rich and multicolored past. Such an approach is dominated by a desire—and a capacity—to find fixed moral and intellectual bearings to give shape and character, color and direction and coherence, to the stream of events….

[I]t was Mr. Churchill’s unique and unforgettable achievement that he created this necessary illusion within the framework of a free system without destroying or even twisting it; that he called forth spirits which did not stay to oppress and enslave the population after the hour of need had passed; that he saved the future by interpreting, the present in terms of a vision of the past which did not distort or inhibit the historical development of the British people by attempting to make them realize some impossible and unattainable splendor in the name of an imaginary tradition or of an infallible, supernatural leader.

From <>

Churchill was a man in touch with the grandeur and sweep of British history.  It gave him the confidence to stand up against Hitler.  But Churchill was a believer in the British Empire.  He believed that if England was left alone in Europe standing against Hitler, the Empire would come to its aid, and to his thinking this Empire still included the United States, if only in some honorary status.  He felt that he had to have, and would have, support from President Roosevelt and the United States.

In World War II, the world was being unified as Hitler and Japan brought other nations under their military control.  Today the impulse seems to be in the opposite direction with centripetal forces breaking up existing political groups from the EU to the Middle East.  While many government and leaders call for acceptance of more diversity, populations are rebelling against it on racial, religious, and nationalistic grounds.

People see Donald Trump as a leader of this resistance to greater diversity, but almost no one questions whether greater diversity is a social good.  They say the US is a nation of immigrants.  While the US has always accpeted immigrants, the number and type of immigrants has varied over the years.  Going back to Columbus and the Pilgrims taking land from the Indians hundreds of years ago is not meaningful except as history.  America had become a white country by the end of the 19th century, with a significant black minority and some Indians left on reservations.  According to Wikipedia, in 1900, the US was about 88% white, 12% black, and less than 1% Indian and other races.  There had been immigration during the 19th century, but it was almost entirely from white European countries.  That pattern changed during the 20th century.  By 2010 Hispanics made up nearly 20% of the US population, surpassing the black population, which remained steady at about 12%, while the white population fell to about 72%.    America is changing from being a northern European country speaking English to a Latino country speaking Spanish.

What this means is that there is no shared history for a politician like Churchill to draw on.  With diversity, everyone has a different history, different morals and ideals drawn from different religions and cultures.  There are no common ties to draw the nation together.  The Civil War split the US over one issue; today the US is split over multiple issues with little common worldview to address them.

If anything, the pundit talking heads on TV, radio and on op-ed pages characterize US history as evil, mainly because of slavery and lack of diversity. They imply that if America had been founded by blacks, Jews, and Hispanics it would be a much better country.  They are still afraid to say it outright, but the pundits and historians no longer respect the “founding fathers,” Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, etc.  The play “Hamilton” has been a success because it praises Hamilton as an immigrant who was the son of a whore, the kind of man the new establishment likes.  Since he is a bastard and an immigrant, they forgive him for being white; it also helps that his role is played by a Hispanic.  The biography that Lin-Manuel Miranda based the play on was written by Ron Chernow, a Jew who may well have instinctive, ethnic prejudices against white men like the founding fathers.

Into this mix we introduce Donald Trump.  Trump could hardly be more different from the refined, polite Virginia plantation owners who were part of the group, or the educated lawyers from New England, although Trump may have more similarities to the immigrant Hamilton than today’s pundits would like to admit.  Trump sees himself in the mold of Andrew Jackson, who while not a founding father, was an early, important President who put the US on the path it followed for over a century.  While Trump avoided military service in Vietnam, he has shown himself brave in standing up to withering attacks, primarily from Jews working for CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  His election has highlighted fractures in American society, mainly between whites who used to be an unassailable majority, and growing minorities led by Jews, blacks and Hispanics.  There are a lot of non-Jewish whites who oppose Trump, but without the minorities, they would be a voice in the wilderness.  Although Trump rails against the media and “fake news,” he does not identify it as Jewish, which it is in large part.  He obviously knows this from his years in TV, but he has thrived in Jewish environments — first in Manhattan real estates, which is traditionally a Jewish fiefdom, then in TV, also an industry dominated by Jews.   It looks like over the years he has beaten them at their own game and doesn’t fear them.  The last bastion of defense against Trump by the liberals is the legal system, another profession dominated by Jews.  The court system has blocked many of Trump’s proposals, mainly related to immigration, but it continues to grind in the background with the Mueller investigation.  Mueller is not Jewish, but his boss at the Department of Justice, Rod Rosenstein, is.

Incidentally, I know Isaiah Berlin was Jewish, as was Einstein and many other great men, but that doesn’t mean that they should not be criticized when they are wrong.