Kentucky adopts equally shared parenting

Shared parenting news:

In June, Kentucky will become the first state to require a presumption of equally shared parenting in child-custody cases even when one or more parents is opposed. While it's common for states to prefer joint custody when both parents are amenable, Kentucky's presumption will apply even without divorcing parents on board.

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed the measure in April, declaring that judges must presume "that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child" in almost all divorce cases. Last year, Kentucky required the same presumption for temporary child-custody cases while divorce is pending. ...

But even in states with such guidelines, old ideas about the superiority of mothers as caregivers have led to courts favoring maternal custody. Fighting for a presumption of joint custody in law and practice has been a primary goal of the fathers' rights movement. ...

Under the new Kentucky law, judges are still allowed to use their discretion and can decide against joint custody in cases where it's impractical or against the best interest of a child.

In other words, the shift doesn't mean that judges necessarily will grant shared custody to parents in all or most custody cases. It simply says that the state shouldn't automatically consider mothers more fit to raise children (as it did for much of the 20th century) or that fathers have more "ownership" right in children than mothers do (as was common in the era prior to supposed maternal supremacy).

America's current child custody laws "were based on the sexist belief that mothers are better than fathers at raising children," Wake Forest University psychology professor Linda Nielsen told the Post last year. "Well, the research does not support that."

There are several questions here.

Are moms better caregivers? (Apparently not, according to research.)

Are dads more suited to ownership/authority rights?

Even when parents have shortcomings, are judges able to constructively intervene?

The men's rights activists have argued for this in terms of research, fairness, equality, and judicial determination of the best interest of the child. These arguments sometimes work with liberals who claim to believe in all those things.

And many states have moved closer to shared parenting, because it is a lot easier on everyone involved. It is especially practical when the parents are hostile to each other and do not agree on anything. With equally shared parenting, they don't have to agree, and they can just do their own thing on their own time.

But the big factor here, that no one wants to talk about, is that civilization depends on men being in charge. Putting women in charge of children, or anything else of importance, has never worked on a large scale. Letting moms get child custody has been a grand experiment, and it has been a failure.

Libertarians want women educated and childless

One of the chief Libertarians at Reason mag proudly announces:

The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a 40-year low, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "The 2017 provisional estimate of fertility for the entire U.S. indicates about 3.85 million births in 2017 and a total fertility rate of about 1.76 births per woman," the pro-natalist Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes. "These are low numbers: births were as high as 4.31 million in 2007, and the total fertility rate was 2.08 kids back then." The last time fertility in the U.S. fell this low was in the 1970s, when it reached a nadir of 1.74 births per woman in 1976. ...

Back in 2014, I pointed out the strong correlation between women pursuing higher education and falling fertility rates. American women today earn around 60 percent of all college degrees. By age 31, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, almost 36 percent of women hold a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 28 percent of men. The Census Bureau notes that women with college degrees tend to have fewer children. That's why I concluded that the U.S. TFR probably would never again rise above the replacement rate.

Because time and money are limited, more Americans are exercising their reproductive freedom, making the tradeoff between having more children and pursuing the satisfactions of career, travel, and lifestyle. That's a good thing.

Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily child-free lifestyles.

I do think that the USA has too many people, and that we should be free to do family planning, but I cannot agree with his reasoning.

He is happy that the high-IQ American white women attend college, get brainwashed into an anti-natalist hedonistic lifestyle, and do not have any kids. Meanwhile, our population is indeed growing because of uneducated women having kids, illegitimate kids, immigrants, and immigrant kids.

The Libertarians at Reason are all in favor of unrestricted immigration.

The net effect of these policies is to exterminate white ppl, and replace them with foreigners. This will not increase our freedoms.

Opinion from a Jewish feminist former incel

Economists view money as the fundamental commodity of our society. Money is used to buy everything else. Leftist economists see money as something to be redistributed in the name of fairness.

Not everyone else views money as so essential. Many view other things as more important, such as happiness, power, influence, social status, and spiritual well-being.

Some view sexual gratification as the dominant commodity of our society. Money is just something ppl work for in order to get the sex and love that they really crave.

In this sex view, the wealthiest are the young pretty women, and the poorest are the incel men. 21st century America is a paradise for young pretty promiscuous women. They seem to get whatever they want.

A leftist with this view should logically seek to alter society to distribute sexual satisfaction more equitably. But leftists have done the opposite.

Under traditional marriage, everyone gets married young, and then gets plenty of sex in marriage.

Now that has been abandoned in favor of unrestricted individual female sexuality, human nature is at work. Most women desire to be a mistress to an alpha man, rather than committed to a beta man. So alpha men get all the sex, and attractive women get lots of flings with alpha men. The big losers are the incel men.

Women who want lasting relationships are also big losers.

Leftist feminist Trump-hater Zionist Jewish atheist professor Scott Aaronson addresses this issue:

I hold the bodily autonomy of women — the principle that women are freely-willed agents rather than the chattel they were treated as for too much of human history; that they, not their fathers or husbands or anyone else, are the sole rulers of their bodies; and that they must never under any circumstances be touched without their consent — to be my Zeroth Commandment, the foundation-stone of my moral worldview, the starting point of every action I take and every thought I think. This principle of female bodily autonomy, for me, deserves to be chiseled onto tablets of sapphire, placed in a golden ark adorned with winged cherubim sitting atop a pedestal inside the Holy of Holies in a temple on Mount Moriah. ...

A week ago, alas, Robin [Hanson] blogged his confusion about why the people most concerned about inequalities of wealth, never seem to be concerned about inequalities of romantic and sexual fulfillment — even though, in other contexts, those same people would probably affirm that relationships are much more important to their personal happiness than wealth is. ...

For the record: I think that Robin should never, ever have made this comparison, and I wish he’d apologize for it now. Had he asked my advice, I would’ve screamed “DON’T DO IT” at the top of my lungs. ...

Here’s the central point that I think Robin failed to understand: society, today, is not on board even with the minimal claim that the suicidal suffering of men left behind by the sexual revolution really exists — or, if it does, that it matters in the slightest or deserves any sympathy or acknowledgment whatsoever. Indeed, the men in question pretty much need to be demonized as entitled losers and creeps, because if they weren’t, then sympathy for them—at least, for those among them who are friends, coworkers, children, siblings — might become hard to prevent. ...

In exactly the same way, there are “incel extremists,” like Rodger or Minassian, spiteful losers who go on killing sprees because society didn’t give them the sex they were “owed.” But they’re outnumbered by tens of millions of decent, peaceful people who could reasonably be called “incels” — those who desperately want romantic relationships but are unable to achieve them, because of extreme shyness, poor social skills, tics, autism-spectrum traits, lack of conventional attractiveness, bullying, childhood traumas, etc. — yet who’d never hurt a fly. These moderates need not be “losers” in all aspects of life: many have fulfilling careers and volunteer and give to charity and love their nieces and nephews, some are world-renowned scientists and writers. For many of the moderates, it might be true that recent cultural shifts exacerbated their problems; that an unlucky genetic dice-roll “optimized” them for a world that no longer exists. These people deserve the sympathy and support of the more fortunate among us; they constitute a political bloc entitled to advocate for its interests, as other blocs do; and all decent people should care about how we might help them, consistently with the Zeroth Commandment.

Aaronson is a former incel who is now happily married with two kids to a nice Israeli girl.

If he weren't Jewish, he would be a right-winger. He has been brainwashed by Jewish feminism to recite all sorts of nonsense that is contrary to his experience. He hopes that his fellow leftists will see him as reasonable, but they don't. They despise him.

He is right that today's feminist policies favor promiscuous young women owning the sexual marketplace and getting as much sex as they can, and that those leftists and feminists have no regard at all for those left behind. If the feminists had total power, Aaronson would be scheduled for castration.

So why is he a leftist feminist?

USA does not punish the uneducated

Leftist and Jewish publications are filled with essays that don't make any sense unless you believe in the blank slate. That is, that all ppl are the same except for how they have been educated or discriminated against.

NY Times op-ed:

It’s a cruel irony that a college degree is worth less to people who most need a boost: those born poor. This revelation was made by the economists ...

But for those born into poverty, the results were far less impressive. College graduates born poor earned on average only slightly more than did high school graduates born middle class. ...

The authors don’t speculate as to why this is the case, but it seems that students from poor backgrounds have less access to very high-income jobs in technology, finance and other fields. Class and race surely play a role. ...

No other nation punishes the “uneducated” as harshly as the United States. Nearly 30 percent of Americans without a high school diploma live in poverty, compared to 5 percent with a college degree, and we infer that this comes from a lack of education. ...

Ms. Ruppel Shell writes about science, social justice and the economy.

No, poverty is not caused by race, class, or lack of education.

Much of the population is not suited for college. Sending them to college does not do much good. We now send a lot more kids to college, but most of them drop out or do not learn much.

To benefit from college, you need an above-averate IQ as personality traits conducive to college learning. IQ and these traits are heritable. Children of poor families tend to be poor, whether they attempt college or not.

Only a leftist social justice warrior would blame the USA for punishing the uneducated. The USA spends more on education and pushes more ppl into higher education than anywhere. But the USA also has a huge underclass of ppl who were imported for low-skill labor, and who do not do well in higher education.

Most efforts to improve education have been a failure:

In a Q&A with Harvard students, Bill Gates said his foundation's work on K-12 education in the U.S. has had little impact, at least compared to its success in reducing infant mortality in developing countries. The challenge with education, he said, is that it is "essentially a social construct" that depends on creating the right culture of accountability and interactions -- and funding, of course. Gates said if he had a magic wand for the U.S., he would fix education, and for the rest of the world, nutrition.

No, attempts to fix education are based on blank slate foolishness. No matter what Gates does to fix education, or no matter how much the govt spends, the schools do not change IQ or personality types much, if at all.

California used to have one of the best school systems. Now it ranks near the bottom. What changed? Did teachers and textbooks get worse? Maybe, but the main cause for the change is the changing demographics. The Gates Foundation doesn't recognize that, and has been a failure.

When lawyers discover deep pockets

News:

Michigan State University has agreed to a $500 million settlement with the hundreds of women and girls who say Larry Nassar sexually assaulted them, bringing to a close another aspect of the scandal now in its 20th month.

This case was always about the money.

If it were not for lawyers angling to get rich, I doubt that criminal charges would have ever been brought against Nassar. Maybe he would have been reprimanded by some medical board for some unorthodox treatments. But he has now been sentenced three times, with each one for more years than he could possibly live.

I didn't read the details of the allegations, except that parents often sat in on the medical exams and had no complaint at time. The complaints only came later, when they signed on with lawyers going for that $500M.

Civilization depends on stopping barbarians

From a NY Times op-ed, on good fences making good neighbors:

In Ancient Greece, where a profound appreciation of human reason produced a brilliant civilization, pernicious biases were also established. Women were assumed to be guided by passions rather than rationality, and so they were considered inferior to men and excluded from the cultural and political life of the city-state. As the word “virtue” — from the Latin “vir,” meaning “man” — so clearly expresses, the ethos that Greek as well as Roman culture fostered derived from a military and patriarchal mentality. The “fence” of bigotry and prejudice that prevent the flourishing in public life of half the population certainly hobbled the development of Greek and Roman society.

The Greeks held similarly disparaging views toward foreigners, called “barbarians” because they seemed to say “bar-bar-bar” when they spoke. The Greek word “logos,” which simultaneously indicated “language” and “rationality,” gave further validation to that premise: Those who did not share the Greek idiom were viewed as inferior Others who lacked the intellectual talents that had made possible the free and self-ruled society that the Greek polis represented. (This was in fact a unique achievement; in all other civilizations at that time absolute monarchs reigned uncontested over legions of subjects.)

The ancient Greeks really did have a superior civilization.

Thanks to such greatness, the myth suggested, the gods had elected the Romans (rather than the Greeks) to spread civilization over the entire world. Those who failed to swear allegiance to Rome’s sacred mission were labeled dangerous Others deserving annihilation.

When the barbarians, emboldened by the many problems that in time began to corrode the Empire, finally crossed the borders with which Rome for so long had kept at bay all foreigners, the Eternal City collapsed both in myth and in reality.

Rome fell when it got too soft on the barbarians.

To foster the righteous spirit of the Crusaders, Christian art depicted Muslims with monstrous traits suggesting they were closer to animals than human beings.

If the European Christians had not keep the Muslims out of Europe, then we would not have progressed much beyond Roman civilization.

Impediment to the child’s success and happiness

A report on some scientific data about race and IQ drew this comment:

I am not a fan of this kind of article. What possible good does it do anybody to talk about racial superiority in any of its many forms? In fact, it can do a great deal of harm, both to a population and to individuals. Say that there is a really, really smart kid from some race deemed generally less intelligent. What does it to to that kid, growing up, thinking he doesn’t measure up or that his parents don’t, etc? The obvious answer is that this is an impediment to the child’s success and happiness in life.

This is such a strange comment. The really smart kid is likely to be getting high grades and doing well. If he comes from a less intelligent group, then he will stand out all the more above his peers.

Is he going to be unhappy because his distant cousins are not so smart?

Schools sometimes refuse to tell kids their IQ scores, but the reason is not to protect the smart kids. Nobody thinks that the smart kids are hurt by learning about IQ.

It is primarily the left-wingers who are frequently talking about how poorly blacks, women, latinos, and other groups are doing. Supposedly this is not intended to make them feel bad, but to lay a guilt trip on white males instead. They also promote affirmative action programs which do have the result of smart kid thinking that they did not achieve anything on their own, but out of the generosity of white males.

For the most part, right-wingers seek to avoid identity politics, and to treat people like individuals.

The Left gets much of its power by telling lies about how everyone is equal, and trying to shame anyone who disagrees. The only effective rebuttal is to give cold hard facts, even if some ppl find them uncomfortable.

NPR gives anti-white advice

I listen to NPR Radio so I can learn how the white-haters want to subjugate white males. From yesterday’s news broadcast:

MERAJI: All right. Here we go. Our first question is from a white mother in Philadelphia who says her 12-year-old son, who's also white, is afraid of black people. ...

BATES: But for this 12-year-old, I called an expert.

DEMBY: OK.

CASSANDRA HAREWOOD: My name is Cassandra Harewood. I specialize in child and adolescent psychiatry. ...

BATES: So Dr. Harewood says the parents need to get out of their comfort zone and consciously broaden their social circle, which will help the child even if they're not comfortable with it. She says, you're thinking, I'm going to do this for the good of my child.

As an alternative, tell him the Derbyshire talk.

DONNELLA: OK. So this next one comes from a couple in Raleigh, and they're white. And right now, they're foster parents to a 6-year-old black boy. But recently, they had a big issue come up when they let their foster son paint his nails. ...

MERAJI: All right. I'm going to read you the question. Here we go. It's from Jannette.

(Reading) My husband and I are trying to raise our daughter in a bilingual environment. I speak primarily Spanish to her while we're in the home, which my husband supports and encourages. However...

JANNETTE: ...When we are around people who don't understand Spanish, my husband thinks it's not polite to speak in a language which they don't understand. My worry is that if our child only hears Spanish in the home, she may think it's something to be ashamed about. She might think it's not a good as English. How...

MERAJI: ...Can we encourage her language development and preserve her heritage while also balancing social norms?

She should be ashamed to be living in the USA and speaking Spanish at home. It is true that Spanish is not a good as English.

New cuckoo bees discovered

UK BBC reports:

Scientists have discovered 15 new species of cuckoo bees hidden in North American museum collections and in an ancient thesis.

Like their avian counterparts, cuckoo bees lay their eggs in the nests of other bees, usually solitary dwellers.

When the cuckoos hatch they kill off the usurped bees' larva and are raised by the unsuspecting host.

Researchers say that this type of behaviour is common in bees and up to 15% of species are cuckoos.

If you were a bee, which would you find more contemptible -- the cuckoo bees, or the bees that tolerate the cuckoo bees?

I think that the tolerant bees would be the more contemptible one. The cuckoo bees are just taking advantage of what is being made available to them. The tolerant bees are selling out their kind, and letting their resources be taken by an invasive species.

In modern lingo, the tolerant bees are the "cucked" ones.

These cuckoos are said to look more like wasps than other bees, with a smoother, less fuzzy look. This is because they don't have the body hairs that other bees use to collect pollen for their young, as they rely on the hosts to do that for them.

They also tend not to be seen near flowers, but are often found hovering close to the ground searching for host nests.

They are sometimes seen in the early morning "resting" on leaves as they don't have any nests of their own.

The cuckoo bees have apparently decided to freeload on the cucked bees, like living on welfare instead of working. The cucked bees may or may not realize that their pollen is being stolen by parasites that do not even bother to feed their own young.

This is how the natural world works. Be willing to kill, or be killed. Feed your young, or watch parasites take your food. Stick up for your kind, or be crushed by other groups that do.

Single mom and pervert wants to be honored

From a Huff Post column 2 years ago:

Shout Out to the Dads Who Do What’s Right on Mother’s Day — and a Wake Up Call for Those Who Don’t

By Michelle Manning Barish

I am a single mom. Being a mother is hard work, physically, spiritually and emotionally. It is the most rewarding job you will ever have, should you choose it, but also the most draining and demanding. I wouldn’t change any of it for the world. ...

When Bee was really little, we loved to go to Walt Disney World together. ...

What I want most for Mother’s Day, is to know that someone, other than a class project or a babysitter, took the time to help my little one feel empowered to honor me. ...

I place this responsibility squarely on the fathers of the world. Yeah, you guys.

Someday that daughter is going to read this story, and learn that her mom is a weirdo mentally ill masochist sex pervert who spent 2 years going to a man for beatings in bed, and with heavy drinking and Xanax. Even after breaking up, she kept going back to get abusive drunken sex.

Is this what feminism has become?

The man is a creep also. He is a Jewist leftist feminist lawyer Trump-hater. We don't know that he did anything other than to comply with her bizarre sexual desires. I don't jump to conclusions based on one-sided accusations.

But it is safe to say that she is a mentally unstable pervert. She is unfit to be a single mom. Her kid would be much better off if her ex-husband had custody of her. Our society is really broken if it treats this woman as anything but a degenerate.

Another right-wing political site is shut down

BuzzFeed reports:

Altright.com, the infamous website founded by white nationalist Richard Spencer, is no longer accessible Thursday morning after it was taken down by its host, GoDaddy.

In a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, a spokesperson for GoDaddy said that Spencer was given 48 hours to transfer the Altright.com domain to a different host before it was removed.

"In instances where a site goes beyond the mere exercise of these freedoms, however, and crosses over to promoting, encouraging, or otherwise engaging in specific acts of violence against any person, we will take action," GoDaddy's statement read. "It is our determination that altright.com crossed the line and encouraged and promoted violence in a direct and threatening manner."

Spencer told BuzzFeed News that he has not yet found a new host for the site. ...

Tech platforms have been locked in a back-and-forth with far-right internet communities since the deadly "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last summer. The Daily Stormer, an infamous neo-Nazi website, has continued to have similar issues with hosting. GoDaddy suspended the site's hosting the same week that Google canceled the site's domain registration in August last year.

The loss of Spencer's internet hosting also comes only two days after he was removed from the WePay online payment service, effectively cutting his main revenue stream. Spencer is also currently embroiled in a lawsuit following the events of the "Unite the Right" rally. Unable to find a lawyer who would defend him, Spencer is representing himself.

Notably, the stories on this do not quote or even summarize whatever Spencer said to promote violence.

If he directly encouraged violence crimes, he could be arrested for that.

As I understand it, he said that the USA would be better if all the illegal aliens were deported. Such an action would probably lead to riots and violent resistance. So some of Spencer's enemies infer that he is advocating violence.

If that is advocating violence, then so are the gun-control advocates. Mass gun confiscation would probably also trigger riots and armed resistance.

The Left is cheering these shutdowns, but I think that they are being foolish. How will they convince anyone that immigration is a good thing, when the arguments against it are being censored. It is impossible to understand the immigration issue or any other issue unless you are willing to examine all sides of the arguments.

Furthermore, only uncomfortable truths get censored. No one would bother censoring Spencer if he were babbling nonsense. No, they only censor him because they believe that he is telling the truth.

Empirical Examiniation of Jewish Question

The Ideas And Data blog writes:

The Jewish Question: an Empirical Examiniation
April 24, 2018 / ideasanddata123

This post will be about the Jewish Question. Specifically, I am going to empirically document the following claims:

Jews are vastly overrepresented in positions of power and cultural influence

Jewish elites are far to the left of gentile elites and have moved shifted the distribution of political opinion among American elites from centrism to leftism

Jewish leftism and success can partly be explained by their mean IQs, living in large cities, personality traits, and possibly certain cultural values, but ethnocentrism also plays an important role that should not be ignored.

After documenting these claims, I am going to spend some time on what implications can be drawn from them, and how people interested in White identity politics should act in light of them.

He has some impressive data to support these claims.

Nathan Cofnas disputes this in the comments. He agrees that Jews are overwhelmingly leftist and Democrat, but attributes it to higher IQ and to right-wing movements being anti-Semitic. I don't buy it.

First, the Republican Party is more pro-Israel and more pro-Jewish than the Democrats. There are many more anti-Semites on the Left than on the Right. The anti-Jewish BDS movement is entirely left-wing. It is hard to find any anti-Semitic right-wingers.

Jews have a religious belief that everyone is persecuting them, even when no one is. The article has data to support this.

Second, Democrats are, on average, of lower intelligence than Republican. So the IQ theory has to be based on Jews working their way into influential positions where they can manipulate the more typical low-IQ Democrat followers.

For the views of a typical high-IQ Ashkenazi Jewish atheist professor, see Scott Aaronson. He seems rational on many subjects, but when it comes to politics, he is typical Jewish leftist authoritarian who wants one-party rule in the USA with similarly-minded elites in charge.

So does he say that because he is high-IQ or Ashkenazi Jewish atheist? I don't know. You figure it out. He might be more influenced by his personal neuroses, for all I know. But statistically, there is a huge correlation between Jewishness and leftist authoritarianism.

The article is convincing that ethocentrism and IQ are both needed to explain Jewish leftism and success. Cofnas has also been refuted elsewhere.

Another comment says that it is only the non-orthodox ashkenazi Jews who are so leftist. That may be right.

Update: Kevin MacDonald adds:

[Jordan] Peterson has become popular because of his courage and knowledge in opposing political correctness. He stands up for men and for individual responsibility. To his credit he achieved celebrity status via social media, not as a creature of the mainstream media. Much of his stature rests on his use of scientific data in his argruments. I and many others certainly appreciate this approach; and he is particularly cogent in discussing sex differences and gender politics. There is not enough of this in public discourse.

However, my confidence in Peterson’s trustworthiness was shaken by his shoddy treatment of the Jewish Question, including name-calling directed at my own work. This is part of his broader offensive against identitarians, people who defend their group interests. For Peterson there are only individual interests (a bit strange for someone who approves of evolutionary biology, a subdiscipline that encompasses kin selection theory and, for humans, cultural group selection). For Peterson to admit there is a Jewish Question would be to concede the reality of group interests—not only families but religions, ethnic groups, and nations.

In the West, failure to acknowledge group interests is suicidal for its traditional European-derived populations.

Even Jordan Peterson has to stay within his Overton Window.

Update: Some Jewish scholar has called Jordan a Nazi for criticizing MacDonald. Weird. I thought that Peterson was appeasing the Jews. This just shows that there are prominent Jews who will hate non-Jews no matter what they say.

Trump owns Ronan Farrow

How did Pres. Trump get Ronan Farrow to take down one of his biggest enemies?

Ronan Farrow and a female coauthor write in New Yorker:

Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, has long been a liberal Democratic champion of women’s rights, and recently he has become an outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment. As New York State’s highest-ranking law-enforcement officer, Schneiderman, who is sixty-three, has used his authority to take legal action against the disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein, and to demand greater compensation for the victims of Weinstein’s alleged sexual crimes. Last month, when the Times and this magazine were awarded a joint Pulitzer Prize for coverage of sexual harassment, Schneiderman issued a congratulatory tweet, praising “the brave women and men who spoke up about the sexual harassment they had endured at the hands of powerful men.” Without these women, he noted, “there would not be the critical national reckoning under way.”

Now Schneiderman is facing a reckoning of his own. As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so, too, has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters.

Farrow has some weirdo daddy issues with Woody Allen, and refuses to say whether Allen is his father.

Farrow is successfully doing character assassinations on Jewish leftist Trump-haters. Somehow he finds women who are willing to go on the record that they engaged in unusual, perverted, and degrading sexual practices. They did these things over and over again, so they must like it. In the above case, they like to get beaten up during rough sex.

It used to be women refused to humiliate themselves in this way. No decent man is going to want to date such a crazy bitch.

I guess Schneiderman was supposed to understand that these women were mentally ill, and to use more restraint. No doubt he has his own issues. He vindictively chased Trump, and sought the approval of social justice warriors. Now he is a victim of the sort of accusations that he promoted.

I wonder how long this MeToo devastation can continue.

Update: I started to read the Farrow hit piece. It says:

Manning Barish and Schneiderman were together, off and on, for nearly two years. She says that when they had sex he often slapped her across the face without her consent, and that she felt “emotionally battered” by cruel remarks that he made. She says that he criticized how she looked and dressed, and “controlled what I ate.” ...

Schneiderman, she recalls, “would almost always drink two bottles of wine in a night, then bring a bottle of Scotch into the bedroom. ...

Manning Barish says that Schneiderman also took prescription tranquillizers, and often asked her to refill a prescription that she had for Xanax, so that he could reserve “about half” the pills for himself. (Schneiderman’s spokesperson said that he has “never commandeered anyone’s medications.”) ...

Manning Barish says that Schneiderman often mocked her political activism. When she told him of her plan to attend an anti-gun demonstration with various political figures and a group of parents from Sandy Hook Elementary School, he dismissed the effort, calling the demonstrators “losers.” He added, “Go ahead, if it makes you feel better to do your little political things.” ...

Manning Barish broke up with Schneiderman a second time, and then got back together with him. He’d been talking about marrying her, she says, and she somehow convinced herself that the real problem between them was her fear of commitment. In January, 2015, she ended the relationship a third time, feeling degraded. After that, they got together romantically a few more times, but since 2016 she has been in touch with him only sporadically.

This sounds like a consensual relationship to me. Even after breaking up the third time, she often went back to him for some rough sex. Obviously she very much enjoyed his sex antics, however unusual they may sound from her one-sided description.

She was also hooked on Xanax and wine. The woman is nuts.

Irish evolutionist denies evolution

There used to be lots of evolutionists, like Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that evolving into races was the last bit of evolving that humans ever did. They said that there has been no other evolution in 50k years. Furthermore, they argued that there was no such thing as intelligence.

All of this has been proven wrong, again and again.

An Irish genetics professor argues:

The idea that intelligence can differ between populations has made headlines again, but the rules of evolution make it implausible ...

The balance between these variants has been maintained by natural selection to keep average height “just right”. Intelligence is not like that. Unlike height, where being ever taller had no benefit, strong evolutionary forces drove intelligence in one direction only in our ancient ancestors. ...

Intelligence is our defining characteristic and our only real advantage over other animals.

Humans have several advantages over the animals. Being social, vocal cords for speech, opposable thumbs to use tools, walking erect so hands can carry objects, low body hair to allow long-distance running without overheating, digesting milk as adults, and intelligence. Being social may be the biggest, as it allows building large cooperative societies. No animals can do this, except certain insects like ants and bees who form kin-based groups. I think that humans are the only ones to form non-kin-based large social groups.

It is now known that human evolution has been accelerating. Some population groups are taller than others.

High intelligence is not an unqualified good. Large brains consume energy and make birth painful. Many of the most intelligent Western women do not reproduce at all, while low IQ women have lots of babies. If you view life as a struggle to reproduce, as evolutionists usually do, high IQ is not necessarily a winning strategy. It is plausible that merchants would evolve higher IQ than farmers.

At any rate, there is no need to speculate. IQ is easily measured, and there is a lot of empirical data on it.

Movie Tully portray crazy mom

The new movie Tully is being billed as a comedy about motherhood. Supposedly it shows what motherhood is really like, with stressful challenges and humor about a new baby. The family gets a nanny whose wisdom and inspiration get the mom on track again.

But others say that the nanny turns out to be a hallucination, like Fight Club, and the mom is dangerously psychotic. She is diagnosed with postpartum depression, but she really has postpartum psychosis. It is really a horror movie, like Rosemary's Baby. The under-diagnosed mental illness is just part of the horror.

She has a normal husband, so he has to deal with the horror. She is just a crazy mom, exaggerated for comedic and horror effect.

Charlize Theron gained 50 pounds to play the role. Do we have a shortage of fat actresses?

In real life, she has refused to get married, for weirdo political reasons. She has adopted a couple of black African kids. She is a white African. It is funny how she can gain 50 pounds for a movie role, but she refuses to bear her own child.

I don't know, as I haven't seen it. I usually don't post spoilers, but I think movie customers should know whether they are getting a comedy or a horror movie. Half of each, apparently. Maybe you will want to watch the first half, and then walk out before it gets weird.

Immigration leads to higher crime rates

NPR Radio News reports:

The Trump administration regularly asserts that undocumented immigrants are predatory and threaten public safety. Immigrant advocates say that talk demonizes an entire class of people.

Now, four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems. In the slew of research, motivated by Trump's rhetoric, social scientists set out to answer this question: Are undocumented immigrants more likely to break the law?

Michael Light, a criminologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, looked at whether the soaring increase in illegal immigration over the last three decades caused a commensurate jump in violent crimes: murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

"Increased undocumented immigration since 1990 has not increased violent crime over that same time period," Light said in a phone interview.

This is what is called a "null result". It doesn't explain anything, except that some naive search for a correlation failed.

The research is paywalled, so I can't say for sure.

NPR reported this 5 years ago:

Twenty years ago, when brain imaging made it possible for researchers to study the minds of violent criminals and compare them to the brain imaging of "normal" people, a whole new field of research — neurocriminology — opened up.

Adrian Raine was the first person to conduct a brain imaging study on murderers and has since continued to study the brains of violent criminals and psychopaths. His research has convinced him that while there is a social and environmental element to violent behavior, there's another side of the coin, and that side is biology.

"Just as there's a biological basis for schizophrenia and anxiety disorders and depression, I'm saying here there's a biological basis also to recidivistic violent offending," Raine, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the new book The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.

Here is some research on the causes of violent crime.

If this is correct, then we should pay attention to who has the genes for violent crime. The question is not whether the immigrants have the proper papers, but whether they have the bad genes.

Looking at averages is not the best measure. Maybe averaging Pakistani and Chinese immigrant crime rates gives about the same as averaging black and white crime rates. That would not justify our stupid immigration policy.

My guess is that illegal aliens do have lower crime rates than their kids. That appears to be the case where I live.

Asperger accused of Nazi collaboration

Asperger syndrome was dropped from the psychiatric manuals in 2013. It did not have a coherent definition.

In popular culture, it is known as "Asperger's", and popularized by TV shows like The Big Bang Theory. In fact the characters on that show were never intended to have Asperger syndrome, and they do not match what used to be the diagnostic criteria.

So now the term "Asperger's" has become an amateur psychobabble term for putting down nerds.

And now a new book claims that we should not use the term because the Austrian Asperger was a Nazi collaborator.

Edith Sheffer writes in SciAm:

Millions of people are identified with Asperger’s syndrome, as a diagnosis, an identity and even an adjective. Asperger’s name has permeated our culture—yet I believe we should no longer invoke it.

Naming medical diagnoses after individuals is an honor, meant to recognize those who discover conditions and to commend their work. ...

Personally, I agree with the reclassification of the Asperger’s diagnosis. For a psychiatric diagnosis, the subdivisions never made sense for my son, and got in the way of his care.

I don't care whether Asperger was a Nazi, but I do think that the term is just a slur to pathologize male behavior.

Supposedly Asperger boys are defective because they cannot read the minds of girls.

The TV show does mock various stereotypical behavior, such as male nerds, ditzy females, Jews, physicists, and Indians. But the males (who supposedly have Asperger's) do not have any more a a psychological disorder than the females.

Reasons for enmity towards Jews

TheHill.com reports:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry slammed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday after Abbas said Jewish conduct was the root cause of the Holocaust.

Abbas pointed to the Jews' "social behavior" and "their social function related to banks and interest” in a speech on Monday to the Palestinian National Council.

“From the 11th century until the Holocaust that took place in Germany, those Jews — who moved to Western and Eastern Europe — were subjected to a massacre every 10 to 15 years. But why did this happen? They say: ‘It is because we are Jews,’ ” Abbas said.

"I will bring you three Jews, with three books who say that enmity towards Jews was not because of their religious identity but because of their social function."

"This is a different issue. So the Jewish question that was widespread throughout Europe was not against their religion but against their social function which relates to usury [unscrupulous money-lending] and banking and such," he added, according to the BBC.

The comments have been denounced by various international figures, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It should not be hard to find 3 such books. He could start with Mein Kampf. That is where Hitler complains about Jewish behavior, such as promoting Marxism and Communism. I don't think he has any complaint about their religious identity, but I could be wrong.

Netanyahu says that Abbas is a Holocaust denier, so I don't why it matters what Abbas says the cause was.

The European foreign service ripped the comments as "unacceptable" in a statement on Wednesday.

"The speech Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivered on 30 April contained unacceptable remarks concerning the origins of the Holocaust and Israel's legitimacy," the European External Action Service said.

"Such rhetoric will only play into the hands of those who do not want a two-state solution, which President Abbas has repeatedly advocated."

Nobody wants a two-state solution. Not Israel. Not the Palestinian Arabs. Not the other Arabs.

So we are not supposed to say why Jews have been historically persecuted because it plays to those who do not want something that no one else wants either. Make sense?

Update: Abbas apologized, and condemned the Holocaust as the most heinous crime in history. The U.N. declined a USA request to condemn Abbas. Is everything all good now?

Democrat Party is the Black-Jewish Party

From a NY Times op=ed:

the GOP will never be able to shake its white party image. It will either increase its share of the white vote or it will go out of business as a party capable of winning national power.

My suggestion: the only long-term option for the Republicans, the de facto white party, is to rebrand the Democrats as the de facto black party. Not the Minority Party or the Cool, Hip, Multicultural Party—but the Black Party.

Go with the flow of the fundamental Manichaeism of American thought: Black versus White. Sure, it’s kind of retarded, but Americans, especially American intellectuals and pundits, aren’t good at thinking in terms of shades of brown. You can’t beat it, so use it.

Nothing original here, as the Democrat Party became the Black-Jewish party 10-15 years ago. The Democrats have already branded the Republican Party as the White Party. It gave up even asking for white male votes, and instead concentrated on white haters. The Republicans had no choice.

The Republican Party doesn't even promise to do any favors for white people. It just avoids promising to exterminate them.

The same newspaper celebrates with an article on Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!. This is a Jewish thing, of course. Marxism is a Jewish plot to enslave and exterminate its enemies. The NY Times publishing this article is like a non-Jewish paper publishing an article praising Adolf Hitler for being right.

Kill the felons, and be civilized

From a pseudonymous VDARE column:

When Europe became Christian, the death penalty was abolished. Right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages, people were left to settle their own disputes by fighting each other or demanding, from the state, that the murderer pay a fine for killing their relative. But, as Frost and Harpending put it, the Church gradually came to accept that, the "wicked" should be executed "so that the good can live in peace."

With biblical justification, more and more crimes became subject to the death penalty. By the High Middle Ages, every single felony (any crime serious enough to have traditionally warranted the confiscation of property) was met with the hangman’s noose.

Those sent to the gallows were almost always high-testosterone young men prone to violent crime. In fact, Frost and Harpending calculated that one percent of the male population were executed every generation throughout the Middle Ages. And another one percent were killed at the scene of the crime or died in fetid prisons awaiting trial or execution. So two percent of young men were eliminated every generation.

And because they tended to be young, this process meant that they had fewer children than if they hadn't been executed. Thus, they would have passed on fewer of their genes.

It’s here that Frost and Harpending perceptively draw their conclusion. Capital punishment must have changed the nature of European personality—by, in effect, culling out the psychopaths. ...

Frost and Harpending are clear: Widespread execution led to the genetic "pacification" of Western Europe. It made people more cooperative, more forward-thinking, less impulsive . . . in other words more psychologically able to develop civilization. And as the late Canadian psychologist J. Philippe Rushton showed in his 1995 book Race, Evolution and Behavior, that it is the ethnic groups with these personality traits that develop civilization.

More recently, anthropologist Edward Dutton and Swedish psychologist Guy Madison have taken this insight further. In a 2018 article in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science [Execution, Violent Punishment and Selection for Religiousness in Medieval England] they point out that this system of widespread execution would also have selected strongly for intelligence. Low socioeconomic status is predicted by low intelligence and it was overwhelmingly young, low SES men who met the hangman's noose. Low IQ predicts living for the now and not thinking about the future. And considering the dire consequences of breaking the law up until the 19th century, in England for example, you’d have to have been fairly stupid to do it.

And it is quite clear that national-average intelligence is the motor of civilization.

Democracy is just not good at doing things like culling the psychopaths. On the contrary, we get things like same-sex marriage, that nobody argues is good for society, but which is court-ordered based on individual rights to see death certificates.

China is probably working on a system today to score the worth of each citizen. Someday the low-scoring citizens will be sterilized or executed.

I suspect that Europe's history of warfare has also bolstered its genetic stock. People celebrate peace, as if that is a good thing, but war also may be essential to civilization. Psychopaths may be essential also. We will want to keep some of them.

This genius lost $29 billion

It is amazing how someone can be considered a great genius, just because he made a lucky guess when he had a 50-50 chance of being right.

After the mortgage crash, John Paulson raised $38B for a hedge fund in 2011. Now it is only worth $9B.

UN Population projection for 2100

From Visual Capitalist:

According to the most recent projections by the United Nations, the global population will rise from 7.6 billion to 11.2 billion people by 2100. ...

Although 83 million people are being added to the global population every year, this population growth differs greatly by region. As a result, it’s worth looking at two major factors to see why this is the case.

The first is the fertility rate, which has obvious implications on population growth. On a global basis, this rate (measured in births per woman) is close to 2.5, and by 2100 it will have dropped to 2.0. ...

The second measure that plays a big role in these projections is life expectancy. For each new person born, how long are they expected to live? ...

According to these same estimates, it is expected between 2017-2050 that half of all global population growth will be in just nine countries (in this order): India, Nigeria, DRC, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, United States, Uganda, and Indonesia.

Over that duration of time, it’s also projected that the populations of 26 African countries will at least double.

Click on the link to see the animated projections.

The chart is not broken down by race, but it looks like the evil fantasy of a conspiracy to exterminate the white race. It does show N. American growing to 500M ppl, but most of those will be non-white.

No, this is from official UN estimates. The are the result of trends caused by today's social policies. It is hard to see how the world will even feed itself in the year 2100.

Nonconforming Jews try to have a child

The NY Times reports:

Some L.G.B.T. Parents Reject the Names ‘Mommy’ and ‘Daddy’

When Amanda Davidson, a 42-year-old Los Angeles-based artist and writer, welcomed her firstborn child in December — a boy named Felix — with her partner Isaac Schankler, 39, a composer, she chafed at the assumptions the medical staff members made about how the pair wanted to identify themselves as parents.

I don't get it. Isn't this a man and a woman having a child? Where is the LGBT?

I don't know, but this is a Jewish newspaper celebrating a Jewish couple that is not even married. The woman is 42 years old, having a first child. So they probably had fertility treatments, or it was an adoption, or something. And they don't want to be mommy and daddy?

Is there any other ethnic group that celebrates this sort of psychological disorder?

People hate discussing genetic consequences

William Saletan writes in Slate:

The race-and-IQ debate is back. The latest round started a few weeks ago when Harvard geneticist David Reich wrote a New York Times op-ed in defense of race as a biological fact. …

I’ve watched this debate for more than a decade. It’s the same wreck, over and over.

I agree with him. It is a train wreck every time.

More broadly, much discussion of human nature is problematic. IQ is the best-studied heritable mental characteristic, but there are many others, and they drive ppl nuts. They just don't want to accept that 50+% of their personality and intelligence was written into their DNA before birth.

It also drives ppl nuts to talk about natural difference between men and women.

Race, or as Saletan prefers, ancestry and population groups, are also tied to DNA, and determined before birth.

A comment says:

I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it’s not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

That is also correct. The more you talk about racial and sexual egalitarianism, the more you deny human nature, then the more you lead ppl to be redpilled.

Jordan Peterson has jumped into the "Jewish Question" with an argument about race and IQ. Part of his popularity has to do with his willingness to discuss human nature with worrying too much about whom he is offending.

Saletan used to be willing to discuss human nature, but he had to become an apologist for Leftism to keep his job.

Update: Saletan is quoted, from his former life as a reporter on human nature:

“This is what happens when you deny reality. First you lose your senses, then your mind, then your soul.”

Bill Cosby is convicted

I didn't follow the Bill Cosby trial, but he was just conviction based on an allegation about a romantic encounter in 2004.

The main accuser collected $3M for making the accusation. The jury was apparently persuaded by 5 other witnesses who didnt' actually witness anything about the charges, but who were used to conduct a character assassination against Cosby.

If someone is on trial for robbing a bank, the prosecution is not allowed to bring in other evidence of bad behavior unrelated to the particular bank robbing charge at issue.

Apparently the extra 5 women brought in to make the case that Cosby had a pattern of aggressively pursuing sexual encounters with women.

Cosby is also rich, black, elderly, and somewhat politically controversial. He became a symbol of the MeToo movement, so taking him down was an important priority of white feminists.

I don't think that Cosby got a fair trial.

Update: I recently listened to a couple of stupid NPR programs on black lynchings. Someday they will be talking about the Cosby trial as a modern black lynching.

Update: A defense lawyer explains:

Cosby will no doubt fight his conviction on appeal. He has the funds to hire the best talent available. Here are issues that you can expect to hear more about.

First, was his deposition testimony properly admissible? Normally, the admissions of a defendant are permitted under several exceptions to the hearsay rule. The statements may be against penal interest; they may also be admissions of a party opponent.

But in this case, Cosby gave the deposition amid what sounded like assurances that the words would not be used against him in a subsequent prosecution. The trial court held that promise void. Expect appellate lawyers to challenge that ruling.

As a practical matter, it was a mistake for Cosby to give the deposition at all. The Fifth Amendment yields a privilege against self-incrimination. Plead the Fifth. Sure, you risk an adverse inference in a civil proceeding; jurors will be told that they can hold an invocation of the Fifth against a civil litigant in certain circumstances. But better to lose a little, or even a lot, of money, then head to prison.

Next, the law is ridiculously liberal when it comes to admission of evidence of other bad acts in sex crimes. Why this special status for sex offenses? Due process requires proof of the elements of the offense for which you are charged. We generally prohibit what is known as propensity, or character, evidence. Showing a jury that a defendant committed other bad acts predisposes the jury to believe the defendant did what he is charged with doing. Such evidence is strictly limited, except in sex cases. It makes no sense to have special rules of evidence for sex cases. The parade of accusers was prejudicial. Period.

And what of the extended statute of limitations in sex cases? Try defending yourself sometime against an accusation that took place, allegedly, more than a decade ago. The statute of limitations never runs in a murder case. That’s because of the seriousness of the crime, and the fact that the decedent cannot speak. Cosby’s accusers are still very much alive. Sex, unlike murder, is ubiquitous.

Finally, the corroboration provided by the accuser’s publisher, who was permitted to testify that the accuser wanted to put allegations of Cosby’s sexual misconduct in her book, but the publisher spiked it, was most likely offered for the limited purpose of showing that the accuser wanted to make the allegation public, not for the truth of the assertion – that Cosby raped her. That’s the sort of distinction judges ask jurors to draw all the time. I have my doubts about whether jurors follow the law. This so-called constanncy of accusation evidence is a flashpoint in the law just now.

2nd gen immigrants have mental illnesses

NewScientist reports:

Moving to a new country is a stressful experience, putting migrants at increased risk of anxiety disorders. But they aren’t the only ones who suffer: their children and grandchildren also experience more anxiety and higher rates of suicide than the general population.

This might be down to the discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities, or to chemical markers of stress inherited through the generations.

That’s what Baptiste Pignon at Public Assistance Hospitals of Paris and his colleagues have found after combing through health surveys collected from 38,694 people …

The rest is paywalled. Note the lame explanations.

The obvious explanation is not discrimination or stress inheritance, but the fact that they are living in an alien culture.

Suppose your family came from a Moslem country that believes in killing infidels. And then you have to live among infidels, and attend schools that teach you uncomfortable truths. You might suffer anxiety.

Or maybe it is the high anxiety immigrants who come here already have high anxiety or other mental illness.

They should also look at the anxiety of the native population that is increased as a bunch of Third World migrants move into the neighborhood. Sweded imported a bunch of Moslems, and now it is the rape capital of the world. Surely that has increased the anxiety of Swedish women.

Suicide of the West

Trump-hating conservative Jonah Goldberg has written Suicide of the West.

But what is the "West"? Wikipedia defines:

Ancient Greece[a][b] and ancient Rome[c] are generally considered to be the birthplaces of Western civilisation: the former due to its impact on philosophy, democracy, science and art; the latter due to its influence on law, warfare, governance, republicanism and architecture. Western civilisation is also founded upon Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism and various Protestant churches), which is in turn shaped by Hellenistic philosophy, Judaism and Roman culture; ...

In modern usage, Western world refers to Europe and to areas whose populations largely originate from Europe, through the Age of Discovery's Christian imperialism.

In other words, white Christian patriarchal civilization.

"Suicide of the West" seems to be a euphemism for White Genocide. Sure, the West could defend itself against the barbarians, if it had the resolve. It does not, so its decline could be considered suicide.

Goldberg blames the Left for Pres. Trump. He complains about tribalism, but of course it is tribalism that seeks to destroy the West.

Plotting to replace white Christians

A WSJ op-ed:

When white nationalists and supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Va., last summer, they marched with tiki torches and chanted: “The Jews will not replace us.” ...

Jewish communal organizations led the effort to enact the law [the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965], which eliminated preferential quotas for Western European immigration and increased the total number of immigrants. That led to an increase in non-European immigration. In Mr. MacDonald’s view, the act started the “replacement” of white Christians by a more ethnically diverse population.

It is true that Jewish communal organizations are major supporters of multiculturalism. Then again, so are most mainstream churches, on both sides of the papal divide. Christian communal groups loudly extol their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

It is not true that most churches favor the replacement of Christians by non-Christians. That was mainly advocated by Jews.

It is true that many white Christians voted for the 1965 Act, and that Jews could never have accomplished their immigration and replacement strategy without the cooperation of white Christians.

See WSJ letter for how Jews supported the 1965 Act.

The WSJ is pro-business, and has been a long-time advocate of importing cheap labor, and thus replacing the white Christian population. The pro-business argument for immigration is somewhat different from the Jewish argument. Maybe the Charlottesville marchers should have also chanted, "The Wall Street Journal will not replace us."

Of course not all Jews are in favor of the replacement policies. Only about 90% of them. (At least 90% of the non-orthodox Jews. I am not sure about the orthodox ones.)

Just think about this when you hear from someone who is Jewish, a Trump-hater, and who gives anti-Trump arguments that don't even make any sense. Their hatred of Trump is almost always grounded in a belief that he stands in their way of plans to replace the white Christian population.

Learn how you might be manipulated

I mentioned the granddaddy of Jewish conspiracy theories, and here is an audio translation:

The protocols of the learned Elders of Zion in modern English

A one-page summary.

Goyim are mentally inferior to Jews and can't run their nations properly for their sake and ours. We need to abolish their governments and replace them with the single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it's for a good cause.

Here's what we'll need to do place our agents and helpers everywhere. Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans. Start fights between different races, classes, and religions. Use bribery threats and blackmail to get our way. Use Free Masonic lodges to attract potential public officials. Appeal to successful people's egos. Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail. Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, than despotism. Abolish all rights and freedoms except the right by force, by us. Sacrifice people, including Jews, sometimes when necessary. Eliminate religion. Replace it with science and materialism. Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect. Rewrite history to our benefit create entertaining distractions. Corrupt minds with filth and perversion encourage people to spy on one another. Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor. Take possession of all true wealth, property, and especially gold. Use gold to manipulate the markets causing depressions etc. Introduce a progressive tax on wealth. Replace sound investment with speculation. Make long-term interest bearing loans to governments. Give bad advice to governments and everyone else.

Eventually the goyim will be so angry with their governments. We'll blame them for the resulting myths that they'll gladly have us take over. We will then appoint a descendant of David to be the king of the world and the remaining goyim will bow down and sing his praises everyone will live in peace and obediently order under his glorious rule.

The funny thing is that it doesn't have that much directly to do with Jews. The conspirators could be Freemasons or Commies or leftist globalists or anyone else. After all, the plot involves eliminating religion, and Judaism is a religion. Jews lack social cohesion without Judaism.

I realize that the Russian version of the book is a forgery in the sense that parts of it were plagiarized from earlier works.

Nevertheless, the book is a fascinating insight on how an evil cabal might take over the world.

Ask yourself: How much of this do you see going on? Who is doing it? How many are aware of how they are being manipulated?

Rivers of Blood in Sweden

Slate Star Codex is a very popular blog written by an anonymous rationalist Jewish psychiatrist. It is usually quite good, but I was struck by this off-hand comments:

Compare all the anecdotes and popular lore about how immigrants are criminals. It’s totally false – immigrants have crime rates well below native-born citizens. But we only know that because there have been really good studies. If the studies hadn’t been done, and all we had to go on was the daily lurid stories about a Mexican guy knifing someone, who would believe it? In the absence of real studies, the media’s ability to spin a compelling narrative casting some people as monsters feeds on itself forever. We know that happens relatively often. Are we sure this time is different?

No, there are no such studies. Just propaganda from pro-immigration academics.

What are you going to believe, what you can see with your own eyes, or some bias studies?

Politico reports:

STOCKHOLM — Sweden may be known for its popular music, IKEA and a generous welfare state. It is also increasingly associated with a rising number of Islamic State recruits, bombings and hand grenade attacks.

In a period of two weeks earlier this year, five explosions took place in the country. It’s not unusual these days — Swedes have grown accustomed to headlines of violent crime, witness intimidation and gangland executions. In a country long renowned for its safety, voters cite “law and order” as the most important issue ahead of the general election in September.

The topic of crime is sensitive, however, and debate about the issue in the consensus-oriented Scandinavian society is restricted by taboos.

To understand crime in Sweden, it’s important to note that Sweden has benefited from the West’s broad decline in deadly violence, particularly when it comes to spontaneous violence and alcohol-related killings. The overall drop in homicides has been, however, far smaller in Sweden than in neighboring countries.

Gang-related gun murders, now mainly a phenomenon among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies, increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 last year. Because of this, Sweden has gone from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average. Social unrest, with car torchings, attacks on first responders and even riots, is a recurring phenomenon.

Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities. News of attacks are quickly replaced with headlines about sports events and celebrities, as readers have become desensitized to the violence. A generation ago, bombings against the police and riots were extremely rare events. Today, reading about such incidents is considered part of daily life.

... that some neighborhoods are definitely no-go for ambulance drivers — at least without police protection. ...

Since crime is intimately linked to the country’s failure to integrate its immigrants, the rise in violence is a sensitive subject. When the Swedish government and opposition refer to the country as a “humanitarian superpower” because it opened its doors to more immigrants per capita during the migrant crisis than any other EU country, they mean it. This has resulted in some impressive contortions.

In March, Labor Market Minister Ylva Johansson appeared on the BBC, where she claimed that the number of reported rapes and sexual harassment cases “is going down and going down and going down.” In fact, the opposite is true, which Johansson later admitted in an apology.

Note that the Swedish authorities claim that immigration is a success, while any fool can see that it has ruined the country.

The problems of immigration were famously predicted:

Fifty years ago today, on 20 April 1968, the austere shadow defence secretary Enoch Powell MP made a speech in Birmingham. ...

Powell's River of Blood speech was a first and that's why it was so electric.

It was the first time that a major politician had spoken out against the cosy establishment consensus on immigration which had prevailed between both parties since the war.

By the late 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens had exercised their legal right and settled in Britain. ...

Moreover employers in Britain, facing a labour shortage, actively recruited in the wider English-speaking world, especially where workers were cheap.

Neither Labour nor the Tories had substantially different positions. ...

Powell's greater concern was that immigration would erode the national character. ...

His greatest preoccupation is not even the immigrants coming but rather their descendants, the "native-born" who, he worried, would "constitute the majority" of the ethnic minority population in a few decades hence.

Britain, he said, "must be mad, literally mad, as a nation" to be allowing such "inflow". These native-born would be betwixt and between two worlds and fundamentally alter Britishness for the worse. ...

Moreover Powell, for many years hence legitimised a certain type of nativism. Even today, the words "Enoch was right" can be found on many a far-right placard. ...

In a world where the infamous "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" was a commonplace refrain, this was a significant change. ...

As historian Robert Saunders of Oxford University told me: "If you take that speech in 1968, you have the manifesto of modern populism; the idea that speaking out against immigration is the act of a courageous and visionary statesman, it's the idea that what immigrants want is domination, what they want is the whip hand over the local population, it's the idea that what liberalism is about is about giving privileges and preferences to minority groups and that has been the position of populists ever since."

The UK BBC is rebroadcasting the speech today.

Yes, the immigration was literally mad, and the children of immigrants have fundamentally altered Britishness for the worse.

Update: You can now listen to the UK BBC Radio 4 program. It can be streamed, but not downloaded. It is not really a rebroadcast, because it was never broadcast in the first place. An actor reads it from a transcript. The program interrupts every few sentences to keep telling us what a racist and foolish speech it was.

Boycott Starbucks

I am always hearing how blacks and other minority and majority groups have difficulties in the USA, so it is enlightening to hear examples.

I have read in history books that under Jim Crow laws in the Old South, sometimes blacks had to eat at one end of the lunch counter while whites ate at the other end. I have never witnessed this myself.

Now apparently black men sometimes have to buy something if they want to use the Starbucks restroom.

And Starbucks admits one of the secrets to its success: It can get away with selling $5 coffee because its racist customers are willing to pay extra for the privilege of drinking coffee without blacks hanging around.

The $1 coffee at McDonalds is just as good, but you might encounter blacks there.

The story reveals a difference between whites and blacks. When the police tell white folks that they have to leave a private restaurant, they politely leave.

The Starbucks management was so startled by the behavior of these black trespassers, that they are shutting down their stores for a day to give lessons in dealing with rude blacks.

I am suspicious that Starbucks engineered this whole incident in order to encourage blacks to boycott Starbucks. Blacks who hang around Starbucks without buying anything are bad for business. Of course Starbucks cannot admit this, because it cannot afford to alienate white liberals who pretend to like blacks but do not want to drink coffee next to one.

Update: Wonder why Starbucks is waiting a month for the training shutdown? It only takes a few minutes to tell employees to treat whites and blacks the same. The answer is that Starbucks has hired liberal Jews to spend a month developing the training! I guess the Jewish customers are more valued than the black customers.

Update: Starbucks has fired the Jews, and decided to let blacks run the show. There was too much diversity in the diversity planning, I guess. Or maybe the blacks hate the Jews.

Plotting for world domination

The Times of Israel reports:

A Saudi scholar claimed that Jews are implementing the contents of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” by using Hollywood to “target us” and preoccupy the masses with arts, sports and theater.

While stressing that there is no proof of the authenticity of the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, Sheikh Sa’ad ibn Abdullah Al-Humayd, a professor of Hadith Studies at King Saud University in Riyadh, said this didn’t matter since what appears in the book “has been translated into reality.”

He said the conspiracy that Jews are trying to take over the world by using their wealth could have been intentionally distributed by Jews who concluded it would benefit them.

It is funny to hear Saudis complain about others misusing their wealth.

I looked at the Wikipedia article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to see why this book is called a "forgery". Apparently about 8% of it has some identifiable phrases in common with earlier works. The examples mentioned are "obligation to pay interest", and a metaphor about the Hindu god Vishnu having 100 hands has some similarily to an earlier metaphor of Vishnu having 100 arms.

It said that Hitler cited the book, acknowledging these plagiarisms, and considering the book's content important anyway.

My guess is that Hitler figured that if the Jews hatched a written scheme to take over the work, then they would have stolen ideas from Machiavelli and other schemers in history. Were the Jews supposed to have come up with a 100% original plan?

I wonder why Jewish publications are so quick to call this book a "forgery", when all they mean by this is that some of the ideas were derived from earlier works.

The book has also been claimed to be a plot for the Illuminati or the Freemasons to take over the world.

If the Jews or any other group really had an evil plot to take over the world, how would they communicate their plan? You might try keeping the plan super-secret, but that is hopeless if you want group members all over the world to follow the plan. No, the plan would leak out, so you would have to have a backstory to convince outsiders that the plan is a hoax. So the Protocols books is genius.

Islam also has a plan to take over the world. They cannot say that the Koran is a hoax, so instead they have to argue for tolerance of their religious beliefs, or that the Koran is misinterpreted.

Thought on blackmail and other news

Most violent revolutions make the people worse off. If you want to help the Syrians, then you should hope Assad kills as many revolutionaries as possible, by whatever means.

According to reports, the black men in Starbuck did not buy anything, and repeatedly refused to leave when asked by the management. They even refused to leave when asked by the police. Stores also call cops on white ppl under these circumstances, and cops remove the trespassers.

Starbucks is a business, and it doesn't make its money off black men.

James Comey is only proving that he should have been fired sooner.

When the G.W. Bush supporters said "Mission Accomplished", they referred to a mission that in fact had been accomplished.

Yes, Iraq is still a screwed-up place, and it might continue to be for the next millennium.

I blogged many times about how the evidence against Scooter Libby was extremely weak. The main piece of evidence that his recollection of a conversation differed from that of Tim Russert, and it seemed to me that Russert had much more of an incentive to lie.

Valerie Plame deserved to be outed, as she used her CIA position to publicly spread lies about the war. She was apparently outed by herself and Armitage, not Libby.

It is possible that Libby had a secret deal with Bush to be the fall guy for administration lying about Iraq.

It is good to hear that Paul Ryan has given up his war against Pres. Trump. Ryan has been a disaster as Speaker. He was mainly popular among cuckservatives.

It is hard to see how Backpage is any more guilty of crimes than any other dating site. They all include ads from women who suggest sexual availability in exchange for a man's money. And now that there is a new federal law to apply, I don't see how any of the sites can stay clear of the law.

Stormy Daniels is a prostitute who gets paid for performing sex acts on camera, and a blackmailer for demanding payments in exchange for her silence. And a crook for taking the money and then cheating on the deal.

I occasionally hear ppl say that Trump must have had the liaison, or else why would he have authorized payment? The argument is illogical. The purpose of blackmail is to extract money from someone who does not want an allegation made public. In this case, we have no way of determining the truth of the allegations, but it could be seen to be in Trump's interest to not have the allegations made public anyway.

Maybe Trump put a couple of million dollars in an account, and told he lawyer to use it to get rid of nuisance claims that have the potential to cause a lot of trouble, in his own judgment. It is possible that the lawyer paid off Daniels without discussing it with Trump or even having any opinion about whether the allegations were true or false.

Commie roots of WHO and psychiatry

Brock Chisholm was first Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and Wikipedia says:

Religious and other conservative writers and groups have accused Chisholm of being a Marxist or a Communist or subversive.[7] "For instance, Brock Chisholm, a former director of the World Health Organization, pronounced that 'To achieve One-World Government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to their traditions and national identification'."[9] Such accusations fit into a Cold War norm in which some conservatives claimed that "a large percentage of the U.S. Communist Party consisted of 'psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors and social, health, and welfare workers."[10] Others contended that one goal of Communism was to "dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.[11] Some lumped Chisholm among other Marxists and Communists "behind the scenes," including: Wilhelm Wundt, Otto Gross, Wilhelm Steckel, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Kurt Lewin, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Robert Owen, A.S. Neill, Havelock Ellis, John Rawlings Rees, Sigmund Freud, Antonio Gramsci, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and Georg Lukacs.[12]

Here is another quote:

The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training... these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. Would they not be legitimate objectives of original education? Would it not be sensible to stop imposing our own local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that...they may have the ability to size things up and make their own decisions?

He died in 1971, so this is old news.

20k censors to appease Islam

The Facebook-Zuckerberg plan is to hire 20k censors and develop censor bots:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg predicted Tuesday it will be five to 10 years before Facebook has technological tools in place to flag and remove hate speech from the platform before it is posted.
...
“That’s a success in terms of rolling out AI tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community,” Zuckerberg said. “Hate speech, I am optimistic that over a five to 10 year period we'll have AI tools that can get into some of the nuances, the linguistic nuances of different types of content to be more accurate in flagging things for our systems, but today is just not there on that.”

The Facebook CEO said that by the end of 2018, the company will have 20,000 employees devoted to security and content review.

Here is what he wants to censor:

Last month, Facebook censored a German historian who posted a message about Islam's historic impact on Germany. Facebook banned the historian for 30 days, ...

"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight," Hesemann wrote, according to NRW Direkt. "In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

No, this is crazy. If FB wanted to do users a favor, it would merely develop tools to allow users to block seeing Islam-related messages on their home pages, if they want. There is no good reason to block messages from the whole system, because many users will want to read those messages.

That is, no good reason unless you are a Jewish leftist globalist seeking world domination.

Yes, I know that a lot of Jews hate Islam. But they hate Christianity even more, and they like to promote Islam as a way of undermining Christianity.

Debate on Jewish group evolutionary strategy

Nathan Cofnas writes in a new scholarly paper:

[Psychology professor Kevin] MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West.

While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.

The paper is a bunch of cherry-picked criticisms, with a handful of examples of MacDonald making statements stronger that what his sources support.

It is true that not all Jews were Commies, not all Commies were Jews, etc. It is also true that you find Jews in conservative movements. But Jews overwhelmingly stick to a few Jewish ideologies, even if they are secular Jews like Freud. For example, about 70-80% of Jews voted Democrat in the last election, even tho Trump is the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel President in a long time.

The article notes that MacDonald has a very credible following, while many scholars have been afraid to say whether he is right or wrong.

I couldn't wade thru all this. You can read replies and comments here, here, here, here, and here. It appears to me that Cofnas has very little to rebut MacDonald's main theses, but merely nitpicks some of the evidence.

How else do you explain Freud being so popular with such bogus theories? How else do you explain so many Commies being Jewish?

Going to the present day, how else do you explain Jewish-dominated news media, like the NY Times and CNN, being so anti-American?

Violation of European fundamental values

Breitbart reports:

President Juncker said that Poland did not show the proper ‘solidarity’ with the rest of the political bloc because it has only allowed in large numbers of Ukrainian migrants and not Muslims, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.

During a meeting with new Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Juncker praised the country for allowing in many Ukrainians displaced by the country’s internal conflict; however, he later said: “We are in talks with Hungary and Poland. I do not accept them saying, ‘we do not accept coloured people, Muslims, or homosexuals in our territory’. It is a major violation of European fundamental values.”

Jakub Dudziak, an official in Poland’s migration department, said: “In the streets, you can not tell if people are Poles or Ukrainians, we’re very much alike. It may be that the Poles are afraid of people coming from other parts of the world.”

So what are those "European fundamental values"? To accept invaders from other parts of the world?

I am not European, so they can have whatever values they want. But do they really now have fundamental values to bring in coloured people, Muslims, and homosexuals in preference to Ukrainians? For how long has this been true?

Europe has a history of repelling invaders for centuries, if not millennia. It certainly appears to me that the core European value is to create nation-states of similar Christian people. When did that change?