Taliban does not need American Feminism

NPR Radio reports:

KELLY: Alongside abuses, there have also been human rights gains, fragile ones, but I'm thinking of women's rights in particular.

GOSSMAN: Yes, there have. And this is part of the fundamental contradiction to the U.S. approach in Afghanistan. There were very important gains and a real commitment to these. I think particularly this - what I describe is it opened up space for women's rights activists to begin to emerge and to pursue reforms. One example I like to refer to is when the constitution was being drafted, women's rights activists really pushed to make sure that that constitution included a clause that stipulated that men and women were equal. Otherwise, it would never have made it in there. Now we're faced with the return of the Taliban, stronger than ever, who have no interest in protecting those - most of those rights. They were fragile, and we're seeing now just exactly how fragile they are.

What? The USA Constitution does not have a clause stipulating then men and women are equal. Why would we conquer Afghanistan, and force on them silly constitutional clauses that we do not want for ourselves?

If we were going to subjugate the Afghans and impose an ideology on them, then maybe we should have imposed some worthwhile American values like Christianity. Instead they got feminism and opium production.

Another NPR story says:

One year after the George Floyd protests, the future of Minneapolis Police Department is still unclear, as the Defund movement collides with the reality of increasing violent crime.

That is a delicate way of describing big city Black violence. This article is more blunt:

St Louis’ Black Lives Matter supporting circuit attorney Kim Gardner is in hot water again after a judge was forced to dismiss a man’s first degree murder charges. ...

90 prosecutors in Gardner’s office have quit since 2017, citing her corruption, incompetence and anti-white bigotry as the reason. The Soros-funded Gardner has responded by filing frivolous lawsuits against everyone around her, accusing them of being racist. ...

Black people in St Louis are baring much of the brunt of Gardner’s policies, which strongly favors black criminals over black victims. ...

After being re-elected in a landslide in November 2020, Gardner’s main achievement has been to make St Louis the fifth most dangerous city in the world.

Dozens of big American cities are following this pattern.

From the NY Times, we get another example of Jewish racist thinking:

When you look at the data about African Americans, the legacies of slavery and segregation and the effects of racism are everywhere. The phrase “systemic racism” aptly fits the reality you see — a set of structures, like redlining, that have a devastating effect on Black wealth and opportunities. Racism is not something we are gently moving past; it’s pervasive. It seems obvious that this reality should be taught in every school.

No, there are no data to show that African Americans are affected by the legacies of slavery and segregation. This is just Jewish propaganda that they want to brainwash schoolkids with.

In an essay for The Atlantic, they conclude: “Speculating about whether America will have a white majority by the mid-21st century makes little sense, because the social meanings of white and nonwhite are rapidly shifting. The sharp distinction between these categories will apply to many fewer Americans.”

David Brooks even calls himself white in this essay, even tho he is Jewish.

Jews hate white identity, and will do anything to undermine it. Here, they try to deny the reality of demographic changes because of a prediction that non-whites will call themselves white!

Would anyone but Jews makes such a silly argument?

Second, it’s certainly time to dump the replacement theory that has been so popular with Tucker Carlson and the far right — the idea that all these foreigners are coming to take over the country. This is an idea that panics a lot of whites and helped elect Donald Trump, but it’s not true. In truth, immigrants blend with the current inhabitants, keeping parts of their earlier identities and adopting parts of their new identities. This has been happening for hundreds of years, and it is still happening. This kind of intermingling of groups is not replacing America, it is America.

So what part of that replacement theory is not true?

Yes, some of the foreigners will assimilate and intermarry. That is what the theory says. And yes, replacement has happened in many places for centuries, but never on the large scale that is currently happening in the USA.

Finally, it may not be accurate to say that America can be neatly divided into rival ethnic camps, locked in zero-sum conflict with each other. The real story is more about blending and fluidity. I’m just one guy with one (white) point of view. But my reading of the historical record suggests groups do well by mingling with everybody else while keeping some of their own distinct identities and cultures. “Integration without assimilation” is how Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks put it.

Wow, Brooks even quotes some Rabbi authority on how Jews can take over a country. They pretend to be white Americans while retaining their Jewish identity.