Johannes T. Evans

Mamdani put together a panel of 18 lawyers that was bs supposed to “represent the demographics of the city” and put no Jews on it. Jews are 10% of the city’s population. Jews are overrepresented in the legal field as it is. In NYC we’re probably at least 25% but I’ve not found hard numbers from any reliable source. If we’re 23% of the field in NYC, the odds of this happening is less than 1%. The legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is 95-99% sure. We hit less than 5% if Jews are only 16% of NYC lawyers.

Also like. In this article from the forward you can see his response to being asked abt it on video. His response was not, “Jews are a valued part pf our community, this was an unacceptable oversight and we should fix it.” No. His response was, [paraphrasing] “We considerex a Jewish defense attorney for the role but he represented Ghislane Maxwell so we don’t want him.” He then went onto say that he didn’t want anyone from the “Epstein world” involved. First off. They interviewed A Jew. This is the only Jewish attorney in all of fucking NEW YORK CITY that they considered for a position with 18 slots to fill that was supposed to be representative of the city’s demographic.

No

these are all the same sort of animal. do you understand.

I'm at a convention for the game of Go with a friend who is almost 84 years old, and he is constantly being accosted by elementary schoolers who want to play him because every year there is a prize for whoever plays a game with the biggest age difference between players.

Observed today:

“The ad was in a women’s magazine and if I remember correctly, was for a perfume. It featured a white woman lying in bed with a black man. The man’s shirtless back was to the viewer, making only his taut, muscular form and powerful-looking arms and shoulders visible. He was faceless, unidentified. The woman looked sultrily at us from over his mysterious form, satisfaction writ large over her features. She had partaken of whatever delights this man had to offer and was smugly, luxuriantly basking in the afterglow. The ad copy was, “Take a walk on the wild side.” My teacher used the ad as an example of how marketers can use certain words and images to convey large amounts of information subtly and effectively. A white woman having sex with a black man? How risqué. The implication: be a little like that woman. Spray on that perfume and feel like the kind of girl who has sex with faceless, muscular black men in ritzy hotel rooms because it’s an adventure, a thrill, a risk, something illicitly pleasurable. These are the semiotics of race. This is why columnists will trip over themselves not to call Lupita Nyong’o or Angela Basset “beautiful”, choosing instead to use terms that call to mind a kind of savage, animalistic magnetism: fierce, striking, edgy, eye-catching. Words like “pretty” and “beautiful” and “cute” are for white women whose bodies and sexualities are not seen as wild, animal, or untamed. Black men are hulking, threatening, thuggish; white men are charming, sexy heartthrobs with hearts of gold. Brown women are exotic, with their “honey-coloured” skin and their “mystical”, “enchanting” beauty, unlike their white counterparts, who are held up as not only ideal, but knowable and safe. White people are beautiful; non-white people are dangerous.”