Trump didn’t flinch. He chose the good-looking Amy Barrett to replace the departed witch in the Supreme Court. What a difference! A devout Catholic instead of an atheist Jew; a flourishing wife and mother of seven instead of a bossy harridan keen on same-sex marriages and abortions; summer instead of winter. He made this choice even as liberal-feminist America was still bewailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sobbing loudly. Her funeral was impressive, nay, unprecedented. In my native Russia, only Stalin was seen off with such pomp. RBG was as ugly as her deeds (beauty and ugliness count, as Oscar Wilde explained); probably nobody in history exceeded her contribution to destroy the family, to profane marriage, to slaughter children. She took feminism to its radical extreme: after her recent visit to Israel (she didn’t like the country) she said that Israeli women are discriminated like blacks under Jim Crow laws. She felt sorry for Israeli judges who are pensioned off at 70, instead of serving for life, till 87 in her case.
Perhaps RBG was the secret Mama of Washington, the answer to the Papa of Rome, the hidden ruler of the US Empire in some Judeo-Masonic hierarchy, the top reptilian, the head of the Deep State, while the President is just a figurehead. For many years she strenuously clung to life and power, enjoying torrents of infant blood baths. She wanted to survive the Trump presidency, to see the last of him, of that he-man; to pass the power to the next reptilian, formally a Biden appointee, but God stopped her and gave mankind a chance. With RBG in SCOTUS, Trump would not have had a snowflake’s chance in hell to win the election. Every judicial decision would have run against him. He would have been declared an illegal occupier of the White House long before the votes were counted. Now he has a chance.
RBG’s entourage called Trump out: “Don’t you dare appoint a new Supreme Court judge in her stead! A new judge will be appointed by the new president, Mr Biden!” This was the first challenge of Trump. The magrepha of mainstream media, this piercing screaming machine (so powerful that a person in Jerusalem could not hear his neighbour speaking on account of the sound of the magrepha, says the Talmud) was turned up to full volume, shouting “Don’t you dare!” and “It is illegal to appoint a judge in an election year!”. This is the mantra of the Transition Integrity Project: “Trump will lose the election and he will fight to retain his power, but eventually he will surrender and establish his own TV channel, MAGA TV”. The aim of this media campaign is to break down Trump’s will to resist and demoralize his supporters.
If Trump had succumbed to these screaming media voices, he would be a lame duck today, all ready for plucking. But he didn’t give in. He decided to choose a new judge ASAP, before the elections.
Why is it important at all? For young people as well as for non-Americans, it is difficult to comprehend why the personality of a SCOTUS judge is so important. Other countries are ruled by a king / president / prime minister moderated by Parliament. On the other hand, Jews are traditionally ruled by judges. In the US, with the Rise of Jews, the Jewish way took ascendency and the Supreme Court usurped the prerogatives of democracy. Supreme Court judges can overrule practically any decision of Congress or the President.
Following the US example, the Israeli Supreme Court has also claimed this role, and last year the recently-established UK Supreme Court interfered in the normal functioning of government and tried to derail Brexit. Thus, in strongly Jewified countries, the traditional Jewish rule by judges has been established.
In the US, the courts have become highly politicised; they take an activist approach, handing down judgements and disregarding the opinion of main street America. Many important decisions, from same-sex “marriage” to immigration, are ruled upon by judges, not by legislative or executive branches. One can agree or disagree with these decisions, but there is no doubt that they are done to circumvent American law; it is rule by judges, not by the people of the United States. As the result, US democracy has been eviscerated. The election of the Deplorables’ President, Donald Trump, has been systematically neutralised by judges. Practically all his important decisions have been stopped and reversed. For his election to have any significance at all, he had to first tame the shrew of the Supreme Court. It is a job that hardly can be done in two terms, and may be impossible in one term, but he is doing his best to restore democracy. If Amy will take her seat in the Supreme Court, the rapid liberal conquest of hegemony can be stopped, and perhaps even reversed.
Trump’s shortlist was down to two – this one, Amy Coney Barrett, or Lagoa, daughter of Cuban immigrants. Take the Cuban, Trump’s advisers told him, and the Cubans of Florida will vote for you. More, the Latinos will vote for you! Care for minorities, and you will win! But Trump chose Amy. He gave a chance to a normal non-hyphenated American, a cis-gender native, not an immigrant, not black, not Latino, not gay, not trans, not Jew and not even Ivy League. For years, such people were the least privileged, always rejected by the smart set who prefer minority identity politics, but Trump put all that aside and picked a traditional American.
This is very important. Beside the ideological implications, Trump’s choice reflects his hiring practices. The Dems, the party of the New World Order, rely upon minorities; they are easier to mould and bend. They are obedient, as a rule. Non-hyphenated Americans, the majority, were squeezed out from important positions, and all the most powerful jobs were given to gays, coloureds, Jews and Hindus. Now Trump has begun to offset the imbalance. Kevin MacDonald noted that the question of “who gets the job” is the most important in the struggle for dominance. The Church was once a tool to reserve the best jobs for Christians while keeping Jews down the ladder. With the Church downsized, Jews now get the jobs, and they keep the non-hyphenated Americans down and out.
The very first article attacking Amy was published in the Nation. It was penned by the ever-cheerful Elie Mystal, who describes himself as “black”. He is a “professional black”, like his father before him; a light-skinned Ivy League lawyer who perhaps has some black ancestors and makes use of it to the utmost to maintain his “black privilege”. If that is not enough, he disposes of his gender deficiency (he is not a woman or a trans) by “proudly and happily admitting his wife wears the pants in the family”. Follow-up attacks on Amy were concocted by people of similar background, that is people who claim privileged minority status.
It is said that Amy Barrett wants to change the law on abortion. In truth, she wants to make it legal again. The US abortion law based on Roe v. Wade, (1973), “a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion”. This decision is one of many obviously illegal decisions made by the Supreme Court. The main fact of the matter is that the US Constitution does not protect or deny such a liberty. Such a right might be added as an amendment to the Constitution, if the states agree (my guess: they won’t). But there is currently nothing in the Constitution or in the statutes that would allow the Supreme Court to bypass the states and the people and rule on the topic of abortion.
Likewise, there is nothing in the US Constitution that would allow or forbid gay “marriage”. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision (decided by RGB’s vote) that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. This was an obvious untruth: the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868, and for a hundred years nobody noticed it had anything to do with gay marriage. Supporters of such unions could lobby for it by the usual way through legislation via the states; but they found it more expedient to railroad it via the Supreme Court, though the Court had absolutely no right to bypass the normal system.
Amy Barrett, like every other decent democracy-loving US citizen, wants the country to be run according to the Constitution; she does not recognise the right of nine Ivy League graduates to tell the nation what is better for them, bypassing the legislature. She is also against the courts’ tendency to overrule decisions of the Executive branch. If the President decides to limit the immigration of people who probably will need welfare support, it is his decision. The people can elect another president with different ideas, but the court should not interfere in the running of the state. Amy Barrett’s idea is that the Supreme Court should not be the supreme dictator. She feels it should shrink back to normal size.
In modern American parlance, this is considered to be the “conservative view”. Surely it is not. Vladimir Lenin was hardly a conservative by any measure, but he was a lawyer by education and he was always against letting lawyers and judges make decisions for the people. He wrote that the legal profession would always rule against the interests of the proletariat. Just like Mrs Barrett, he thought that the people should decide, while the Judiciary should just deal with separate cases without trying to overwrite or create laws. You do not have to be a conservative or a liberal to support the ideas of Mrs Barrett: it is enough to understand that laws should be changed or promulgated by regular democratic means, through the popular vote, not by a few smart guys and gals.
US courts are currently dominated by Dem-nominated social engineering judges who want to lead the country in whatever direction they prefer, and to hell with law and the will of the people. That’s why the Senate approval of Amy Barrett won’t be easy. If she gets in before the elections, she may well become the katechon, the person who “prevents the secret power of lawlessness from having its way” (2 Thessalonians 2:6–7). And the lawless ones know that.
Trump’s opponents in the Senate are adept at throwing dog droppings at appointees of the populist president. The shameful spectacle of the Brett Kavanaugh hearing will no doubt be repeated, with buckets of lies and defamation poured down upon Amy Barrett’s head.
Jews are especially dissatisfied with the choice of a Catholic – because Catholics are not yet completely saturated with Christian Zionism, unlike Protestants, and because Catholics believe in God. (Oh yes, Jews also believe in God, but they consider a faith with its own priests to be unsuitable for Gentiles. The Gentiles should just provide for the Jews, and the Jews will take care of all correspondence with the Almighty). Catholics have imbibed the knowledge of right and wrong, of the moral and immoral, with the wine of their communion. When Amy Barrett was confirmed as a judge of the court of appeals, Jewish politicians badgered her, in particular Dianne Feinstein of California – “Yes, my dear, I suppose you believe in Christ? How can you be a judge with such prejudices?” (She used more studied language). Amy didn’t flinch and she was approved. Perhaps she will survive the Dem firing squad in the Senate.
This is not a sure thing. The Dems promised to die before letting her take the place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as this place, in their opinion, belongs by right to a liberal Jewess. A less prominent position might go to a privileged “Person of Colour” or a gender minority, but the top position must remain in Jewish hands. Much depends on the judges of the Supreme Court – it is highly likely the election will be decided there. But the fact that Trump took a chance and chose a regular white American woman – a mother of many children who believes in Christ – is already a big deal. This may be a turning point in American history.