What to do if we are doomed

Roy Scranton writes in a NY Times op-ed:

A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.

Anyone who pays much attention to climate change knows the outlook is grim. It’s not unreasonable to say that the challenge we face today is the greatest the human species has ever confronted. And anyone who pays much attention to politics can assume we’re almost certainly going to botch it. ...

Some people might say the mistake was having a child in the first place. As Maggie Astor reported, more and more people are deciding not to have children because of climate change. This concern, conscious or unconscious, is no doubt contributing to the United States’ record-low birthrate. ...

Take the widely cited 2017 research letter by the geographer Seth Wynes and the environmental scientist Kimberly Nicholas, which argues that the most effective steps any of us can take to decrease carbon emissions are to eat a plant-based diet, avoid flying, live car free and have one fewer child — the last having the most significant impact by far. ...

To take Wynes and Nicholas’s recommendations to heart would mean cutting oneself off from modern life. It would mean choosing a hermetic, isolated existence and giving up any deep connection to the future. Indeed, taking Wynes and Nicholas’s argument seriously would mean acknowledging that the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die. ...

When my daughter was born I felt a love and connection I’d never felt before: a surge of tenderness harrowing in its intensity. I knew that I would kill for her, ...

If Scranton really believes all this, then the logical conclusion is not to kill himself. That will not solve anything. It is to kill for the sake of his daughter.

He should favor a World War III, the purpose of which is to exterminate everyone from China, India, and Africa. That is where population growth and economic development will cause those disastrous carbon emissions.

Going vegan or avoiding flying is silly. Such personal decisions will have no effect on carbon emissions, as he recognizes in his essay. Neither will any other likely policy. Only massive war and genocide have any hope of saving us.

I think that he has greatly exaggerated the harm from climate change, but that is not the point here. If you are convinced that billions of people are destroying the planet, what can you do? Killing billions of people is drastic, but the climate change doomsayers present such a bleak picture of the future that killing billions may be preferable.

The plot to destroy Papa John's Pizza

The NY Times reports on the plot to destroy Papa Johns:

Last fall, he complained that the National Football League had hurt Papa John’s sales by failing to handle football players who protested racism and police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem.

The comments were praised by white supremacists but denounced by many consumers and investors. Mr. Schnatter stepped down as chief executive. Papa John’s gave up a longtime sponsorship deal with the N.F.L. and was promptly replaced by Pizza Hut.

No, the NFL players started by protesting Ferguson Mo, which means they sided with a black thug who tried to kill a white cop.

The latest furor stems from a May 22 conference call with Laundry Service, a marketing agency, that was intended to prepare him for future questions about diversity.

During the call, he was confronted about the N.F.L. uproar and asked whether he was racist, Mr. Schnatter wrote in a letter to the Papa John’s board that was reviewed by The New York Times. He denied the assertion and then, Mr. Schnatter wrote, he said Col. Harland Sanders, who founded the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food chain and was its longtime spokesman, used the racial slur to describe black people. Colonel Sanders died in 1980.

But Mr. Schnatter said he would never use that word.

“Let me be very clear: I never used the ‘N’ word in that meeting as a racial epithet, nor would I ever,” he wrote.

The day after the call, Papa John’s decided to fire Laundry Service, Mr. Schnatter wrote. The pizza company owed $1.3 million for the marketing firm’s services, but Laundry Service said that some of its employees had been offended by Mr. Schnatter’s comments on the call and demanded $6 million, with one of its lawyers threatening to conduct “a smear campaign,” Mr. Schnatter wrote. Papa John’s offered to pay $2.5 million, he wrote.

So Schnatter just quoted someone a private call with his marketing firm?!

This appears to be simple extortion by the marketing firm. Even if Schnatter had made a racist comment, and it appears that he did not, the marketing firm had a confidential duty to suggest what should be said publicly. Instead, it decided to leak a distorted version of the conversation in order to force Papa John's to pay more money.

If the marketing firm's employees are really so offended, they could suggest that the firm quit working for Papa John's. But to demand that they get more money to compensate them for being offended?

I doubt that anyone will want to hire that marketing firm again.

Roosh is banned from England

Roosh V. writes:

For my June trip to Washington D.C., I chose Icelandic discount air carrier Wow Air to save $400 compared to the airline I normally use. There was only one catch: on my return, I would have a connecting flight in London’s Stansfeld airport. I know I’m banned from England, but it should be safe to have a layover where I don’t have to go through customs, right? Four-hundred dollars was enough motivation to find out.

Iceland recalled the airplane, at the request of the UK.

It is pretty crazy that he is banned from England. He runs a web site that expresses opinions on a variety. Some people think that he is part of the Men's Rights Movement, but actually he hardly every writes about men's rights. He does write about issues of interest to men, and some of it is not politically correct to leftists. You might disagree with some of it, but it is all well within legally acceptable opinion in the USA. He does not advocate any violence or illegal acts. I have enjoyed many articles on his site.

Why Mohammedans make war against infidels

From WSJ:

From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:

We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

This is what Moslems believed in 1786. It is also what they believed a millennium ago, and what they believe today.

Not all Moslems, of course. But it is hard to find any Moslem leaders who disavow these beliefs, or any majority Moslem country that gives full civil rights to infidels.

Books today are not allowed to tell the truth:

Random House is reportedly spiking the planned publication of a book from a controversial German author over worries it could drum up anti-Islam sentiment.

According to German outlet Bild Daily (via Agence-France Presse), the publishing giant is pulling the plug on a book titled Hostile Takeover — How Islam Hampers Progress and Threatens Society, by controversial German writer Thilo Sarrazin.

They keep calling him "controversial" to indicate that he is telling truths that are not supposed to be said. They cannot censor 1200 years of history.

Who are the American people?

From a NY Times op-ed:

I have devoted a substantial part of my intellectual life to defining and defending conservatism, as a social philosophy and a political program. ...

Americans are conscious of their constitutional rights and freedoms. These assets are not guaranteed by human nature and exist only because Americans have fought for them. And they have fought for them as a nation, facing the future together. National identity is the origin of the trust on which political order depends. Such trust does not exist in Libya or Syria. But it exists in America, and the country has no more precious asset than the mutual loyalty that enables the words “we, the people” to resonate with every American, regardless of whether it is a liberal or a conservative who utters them.

Those first words of the United States Constitution do not refer to all people everywhere. They refer to the people who reside here, in this place and under this rule of law, and who are the guardians and beneficiaries of a shared political inheritance. Grasping that point is the first principle of conservatism.

Our political inheritance is not the property of humanity in general but of our country in particular.

It goes on to denounce President Trump, of course. The NY Times only prints something labeled "conservative" if it is from a Trump-hater.

But who are the "people" of the Constitution?

The US Supreme Court's most famous decision explains it this way:

This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States -- that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States -- and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. ...

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

It says that no one would dispute this, but in fact the dissent argues that some states did give rights to free negroes:

The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows:

"The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."

The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected.

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016, we would have a 6-vote leftist majority on the Supreme Court to vote against the very idea of an American people.

America stands for the American people. While there may be some disagreement about who precisely those people are, it does not include gang members from Honduras.

Labor Decision is big blow to the Left

Philip Greenspun writes:

“Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn’t Just a Loss for Unions” (nytimes):

The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.

Some of these groups work for immigrants…

If the purpose of a labor union is primarily to increase wages for its members, why would they try to increase competition at the lower end of the labor market? (see “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” by a Harvard economist for a summary of the literature).

These govt worker associations are not really labor unions. They are leftist political groups, and the Left is determined to destroy America as we know it.

Greenspun gives some theories, but none of them fully explain why these so-called unions would be pro-immigrant.

My theory is that these groups are dominated by those who hate white Christian American men, so they seek whatever policies are most anti-white.

How else to explain the marches last weekend in favor of open borders and abolishing ICE? Supposedly it was provoked by kids being separated from their parents, but that happens to Americans all the time:

Even if President Trump's new order keeps immigrant families at the border from being torn asunder, we will still live in a country where the government can seize children from perfectly loving, competent parents. It happens all the time, and not just to immigrant families — American citizens deal with these injustices as well, thanks to the actions of child protective services.

It also happens all the time in family court. But somehow all those marchers are supposedly excited about criminals from Honduras not having rights that Americans don't have either.

No, of course they don't. They are just Leftists who are out to destroy America as we know.

This is a sensitive topic, as Ron Paul had to retract this:

Their original argument of workers being *exploited* by capitalists, didn't sell. It's obviously not the case.

So Marxists just shifted their "exploitation" schtick to culture:
--- women exploited by men
--- gays exploited by heterosexuals
--- The old exploited by the young -- and vice-versa
--- This list goes on and on.

Anything that is true is to be twisted like a pretzel -- to the point where people can't tell what is true anymore.

How do you think they're doing?

Had enough yet?

Then don't be afraid to stand up for truth, and speak it!

Otherwise, history can most definitely repeat itself.

And the history of Socialism is as nasty and brutish as it gets. Nothing compares to it in terms of human suffering.

Here is the New Republic criticism:

Cultural Marxism, as used by right-wingers like Ron Paul, is the conspiracy theory that modern identity politics is based on the teachings of the Frankfurt School. This theory is in itself anti-Semitic and rests on an absurd fabrication of intellectual history (anti-racism movements have a history that long precedes Marxism and the Frankfurt school theorists were quiescent social critics obsessed with European high culture). The point of the “Cultural Marxism” meme is to blame all the things the right hates on a handful of mostly Jewish thinkers.

Yes, cultural marxists would tell us that we should not use a perfectly descriptive term like cultural marxism. Wikipedia refuses to have a separate article on the subject, and calls it Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Here is the urban dictionary definition.

Trump-haters say nonviolence is not enough

From a NY Times op-ed:

This misunderstanding is widespread. Democratic leaders have lashed out at an epidemic of uncivil behavior in their own ranks. ...

The theme: We need a little more love, a little more Martin Luther King, a dollop of Gandhi. Be polite, be civil, present arguments thoughtfully and reasonably. Appeal to people’s better angels. Take the moral high ground above Trump and his supporters’ low road. Above all, don’t disrupt.

This sugarcoating of protest has a long history. ...

But, in fact, civil rights leaders, while they did believe in the power of nonviolence, knew that their success depended on disruption and coercion as much — sometimes more — than on dialogue and persuasion. They knew that the vast majority of whites who were indifferent or openly hostile to the demands of civil rights would not be moved by appeals to the American creed or to bromides about liberty and justice for all. Polite words would not change their behavior.

I believe that much of the Left wants to start a civil war.

Every Democrat appointment to the Supreme Court since FDR has been a hard-core leftist ideologue. The NY Times top story today is that one of them (a Jewish woman) complains that conservatives have "weaponized" the constitutional right to free speech.

95% of the news media endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last election, and newspapers like the NY Times print extreme nasty attacks on President Trump on a daily basis. And now it complains that Trump supporters might have free speech rights also!

For the Left, polite debate is not working. They want more name-calling, Hitler comparisons, and uncivil confrontations. Soon they will be actively encouraging non-whites to violently attack whites. I think that this is going to get ugly.

Evolutionary biologist is latest MeToo victim

Here is the latest MeToo victim:

Francisco J. Ayala, one of the world’s most eminent evolutionary biologists and a major benefactor of the University of California, Irvine, has resigned his position there after a monthslong investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. ...

At issue, she said, were “inappropriate comments and other kinds of behavior,” including unwanted touching.

“This was a widely known problem,” Ms. Liberty added. “There were conversations people had, like stay away from him, don’t be alone with him, don’t be in an elevator with him.”

The man was a very distinguished professor. He donated $10 million to the university. He is 84 years old. His friends say that he did nothing wrong. There are no public charges against him.

These stories are increasingly bizarre. What possible harm could an 84yo professor emeritus do? What did the fantasize that he might do in an elevator?

The university should give him his $10M back.

Another evolutionary biologist hates him because he was not sufficiently atheistic, and complains:

At Davis Ayala had the reputation of being a letcher, or at least of having a “keen eye for the ladies.” I remember well one of his graduate students, an attractive woman, telling me that when she met with Ayala and wanted to ask him for something, she’d always wear a very short skirt to curry his favor. I don’t recall any direct accusations of sexual harassment, ...

If she was wearing the short skirt to manipulate him, then she was the one doing the sexual harassing.

I don't have the facts here, but I do not see how any "inappropriate comments" could possibly justify this action. Universities have been taken over by creeps.

Who won the gay marriage war?

With Justice Kennedy's retirement, same-sex marriage is back in the news. It was a hot issue 10 years ago. Who won?

Gays certainly won in the sense that they got Justice Kennedy to write an opinion that rich gays and lesbians could be considered married for the purpose of taking advantage of an inheritance tax exemption.

But was that what the dispute was really about? No. More than anything else, gays wants the public acceptance that goes with marriage.

California is the USA's most liberal state, but its constitution still says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The US Supreme Court heard arguments on the federal constitutionality of this sentence, but it refused to rule.

Only a couple of states adopted same-sex marriage thru some legislative process.

Lot's of people consider marriage to be primarily a religious ceremony and commitment. The major religions have rejected same-sex marriage.

So apparently our society has reached a sort of compromise, where same-sex couples can call themselves married, and get certain financial advantages from doing so, but attempts to get acceptance from political institutions, legislatures, religions, and popular votes have largely failed.

Charlottesville kid charged with hate crime

CNN reports:

A federal grand jury indicted the suspect behind last summer's deadly vehicle incident in Charlottesville, Virginia, on federal hate crime charges Wednesday.
James Alex Fields, Jr., who was arrested in Charlottesville last August, was indicted on 30 counts, including a hate crime resulting in death and bodily injury, and racially motivated violent interference with "federally protected activity" of using public streets.

The indictment adds a new federal civil rights dimension to the case that captured the nation's attention when supremacist groups descended on the Virginia city and violent clashes erupted.

Prosecutors say Fields killed Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old Charlottesville paralegal, and injured others when he plowed into a crowd demonstrating against the "Unite the Right" rally. The event drew self-described "white nationalists" and other organizations who opposed the city's decision to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park.

How is this a crime?

Fields and Heyer both appear white. The indictment alleges some other injuries, but non of the victims are alleged to be non-white.

Fields is separately charged with murder, and I certainly agree with stiff punishment if he intended to hit Heyer. I don't know if he did or not. From the video I saw, it seems possible that he was just trying to evade thugs who were battering his car.

I just do not see how there is a separate federal crime.

The indictment says: "FIELDS expressed and promoted his belief that white people are superior to other races and peoples". Okay, he is entitled to his opinion.

It also says: "The rally ... was scheduled to feature a lineup of well-known white supremacist speakers." The city canceled the rally because it was unable or unwilling to control rioting counter-protesters. The rally organizers had lefts, and had nothing to do with the violent clash.

This indictment is political, and appears to have been done to appease the white-haters who were protesting the confederate monuments.

Update: The US Supreme Court has just agreed to hear another such double jeopardy case. At least two justices agree that these double prosecutions are unconstitutional.

Travel ban upheld

From the decision upholding the Trump travel ban:

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26-28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President - the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.

The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and - to be clear - "has no place in law under the Constitution." 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

The WWII relocation was not "solely and explicitly on the basis of race". It relocated Japanese, German, and Italian nationals until the end of the war. They were mostly non-citizens and anchor babies.

Many of those Japanese were probably more loyal to Japan than to the USA. FDR and Earl Warren presumably figured that they would be a problem if the war reached California.

What if there were a WWIII with the Islamic world against Christendom? What if England and France were crippled by domestic Moslem terrorists?

My guess is that we would see civil wars, with many countries having no choice but to round up the Moslems and put them in concentration camps. If we got to that point, I don't think that anyone would care about Supreme Court opinions. They would do what has to be done.

The Supreme Court dissent concludes:

Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court's decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.

It is a disgrace that we have four justices with this opinion. Really, our most sacred legal commitment is to let Moslem terrorists and sympathizers into the USA? I doubt that any of the Constitution authors or ratifiers would have such an opinion. It is almost impossible to take more than 20 people from those Moslem countries without taking terrorist sympathizers.

The four dissenters are all Democrat appointments. Three are Jewish and one is Puerto Rican. Three are women. They are selling out the USA in order to undermine white Christian males. There is no benefit to travel from the Islamic countries, unless you are scheming to transform the USA by marginalizing white males. White males need to call this for what it is.

This is not a case about religious beliefs. Nobody cares about the theological beliefs of the Moslems. We care about their anti-American and pro-terrorist beliefs that come coupled with those religious beliefs.

Sacred order that conservatives hold dear

David Brooks writes in the NY Times:

In 2018, the primary threat to the sacred order is no longer the state. It is a radical individualism that leads to vicious tribalism. The threat comes from those two main currents of the national Republican Party. At his essence Trump is an assault on the sacred order that conservatives hold dear ...

No, tribalism does not come from individualism. Jews like Brooks and the other NY Times writes have been tribalists for centuries, with or without individualism. They are vastly more tribalist than the Republicans he attacks.

Brooks has cause and effect backwards.

Trump is the response to the assault on the sacred order, not the cause. The Jews at the NY Times have been leading the assault for decades. Trump only gained a political following in 2015 when all other Republicans failed to stand up to the assault.

Brooks pretends to be a conservative, but that is only because he seems more conservative than the other Jewish columnists at the NY Times. He was a big supporter of Barack Obama. He does not even know what a conservative is. He exhibits a visceral hatred for Trump that is primarily seen in Jews. He is just another Christian-hater, with a slightly different pitch from his fellow Christian-haters.

Netflix bans whites saying the N-word

Here is advice on what you cannot say:

In lengthy internal memo, CEO Reed Hastings addressed letting go top communications executive Jonathan Friedland: "His descriptive use of the N-word on at least two occasions at work showed unacceptably low racial awareness and sensitivity."

Netflix is letting go of its top communications spokesman.

He did not say "nigger" in reference to black people, but in connection with listing inappropriate words.

The firing memo said the second occasion was when he met with black employees months later, and did not bring up his earlier offense to apologize for it. The memo said that non-blacks should not use the word under any circumstances. Even when asked about the word, I guess.

It is funny to see the Netflix CEO be so overtly racist as to say that only members of one race are allowed to use a particular word.

If I were black, I would be annoyed that Netflix and others are making the word "nigger" a much greater insult than it ever was before.

The ACLU used to defend free speech, even if it is controversial speech. However it just adopted a new policy of not defending speech if it advances goals contrary to their values. Free speech is not one of their values anymore, I guess.

More fools comparing Trump to Hitler

Ron Unz writes:

I’m very pleased to announce that our selection of HTML Books now contains works by renowned World War II historian David Irving, including his magisterial Hitler’s War, named by famed military historian Sir John Keegan as one of the most crucial volumes for properly understanding that conflict.

There was some kind of Jewish campaign against him, seeking to censor his book. They tried to censor the books, ruin him financially, and put him in jail.

I have tried to understand the attacks on him, but they essentially say that he deviated in some obscure way from Holocaust orthodoxy, and must be punished for it.

Here is a detailed argument that Irving was wrong about some key facts. I don't know. Read it yourself. Jews call him a Holocaust denier, but he documents everything he says.

If you want a real Holocaust denier, just look at the Trump-haters in the news media. Even the author of Godwin's law goes around saying that Trump is Hitler.

Here is a Jewish magazine saying Trump is just like Hitler:

Hitler also did things by degrees, nipping away at freedoms and piling one small indignity on top of another. That has been the strategy of the Trump administration: first racial insults, then stepped-up enforcement, then the wall, then the cage.

Really? Trump wants to build a wall to keep out criminal invaders, just as Israel did. I guess these Jewish Trump-haters are arguing that Hitler never did anything worse than that.

We are seeing millions of people with Trump derangement syndrome. Charles Krauthammer just died, and everyone is saying nice things about, but he had Trump derangement syndrome also.

Comparing President Trump to Hitler or the Nazi is essentially the same as denying the Holocaust.

Restoring libido to female rats with pink pills

When college professors talk about humans and sex, they are always saying that human nature is social constructed, and biological differences are from discrimination or the evils of the patriarchy, or some such nonsense.

When big pharmaceutical companies research humans with an eye towards marketing new products, we are all just overgrown lab rats.

Bloomberg Business Week reports:

Studies showed that flibanserin had a positive effect on restoring sex drive in laboratory rats. James Pfaus, a professor of psychology at Concordia University in Montreal, found that after 21 days on the drug, female rats whose sex drive had been diminished through hormone alteration started soliciting male rats for sex six to eight times in 30-minute tests, or about normal levels of desire for rats. (A “full solicitation,” in rat terms, is when a female rat kicks a male in the face and runs away.) Flibanserin seemed to work in humans, too: The drug didn’t increase a woman’s sex drive exponentially, but rather restored it to a more normal state for her.

This drug is on the market under the name Addyi. It costs about $400 per month.

If your wife has lost her libido, you can get her this pill. If it works according to the rat studies, she will solicit you for sex 15 times an hour. And she will do it by kicking you in the face, and running away!

Isn't technological progress wonderful?

So far, Addyi sales have been far below expectations.

Jewish Russian-American goes full Nazi

The Russian-born Jewish warmonger Max Boot calls himself a conservative, but he is pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ, pro-war, anti-Trump, and always in favor of policies to exterminate white Christians.

He writes in WashPost:

Up until now, Trumpism has been a largely victimless crime. Or, to be exact, one whose victims were largely speculative and unnamed.

President Trump has been doing great damage to the fabric of our democracy with his venomous attacks on the free press (“Our Country’s biggest enemy”), the FBI (a “den of thieves and lowlifes”), people of color (who hail from “shithole countries” and “maybe shouldn’t be in the country” if they don’t stand for the national anthem), the political opposition (traitors who don’t “seem to love our country very much”) and other favorite targets. He has been doing just as much damage to America’s international standing by attacking our allies (e.g., calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “very dishonest & weak”) and praising our enemies (e.g., calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “tough,” “smart,” “talented,” “funny”) while launching trade wars and tearing up international agreements.

Many have warned that this country will pay a heavy cost in the long run for Trump’s destructive acts. ...

The almost 2,000 kids taken from their families over a six-week period and warehoused in detention facilities that some compare to Nazi concentration camps are not speculative, theoretical victims. ...

His GOP enablers are so craven, so soulless, so abject in their dishonor that they will allow any amount of human suffering rather than risk suffering the wrath of Trump. The president may finally decide to end the family-separation policy simply to stem the deluge of calamitous publicity, but he won’t be forced to act by Congress. If only we could keep the hard-working Latin American newcomers and deport the contemptible Republican cowards — that would truly enhance America’s greatness.

In other words, he wants a policy that will let in Latino illegals, as long as they kidnap a child on their way to the border.

I am actually a little surprised that he goes Nazi with his argument. I thought that it was anti-Semitic to compare anything to the Holocaust. At any rate, Boot is the one here who suggests deporting American-born citizen white Christians as undesirables.

It seems clear that Boot has no allegiance to the USA, and that he seeks to undermine non-Jewish whites at every opportunity. Apparently it is completely respectable for mainstream newspapers to print this garbage.

Yes, newspapers like the Wash. Post are enemies of this country. Yes, the FBI has been exposed as corrupt. The term "shithole countries" refers to conditions on the countries, and not the skin color. But of course Jews like Boot generate racial animosity at every opportunity. Yes, Trump has had to deal with traitors. Boot probably wants war with N. Korea and Russia, as he often advocates war elsewhere. I am glad we have a President who tries to avoid war.

The vast majority of high-profile Jews in the USA are liberal Democrats, who openly attack white Christian conservatives at every opportunity. Boot is one of those rare Jews who calls himself a conservative, but he also attacks white Christian conservatives at every opportunity.

Speaking of Nazis, RT reports:

A scale model of a fictional Nazi flying saucer has been removed from sale after the controversial product faced harsh criticism from German historians and child protection groups.

The scale plastic model, entitled ‘Flying Saucer Haunebu II,’ has been sold on Amazon for €49.99 since May. But the model’s producer, Revell, announced on Tuesday that it has removed the model from its stock due to “criticism in recent days.”

This is weird. I guess I knew that swastikas were illegal in Germany, but banning a Nazi flying saucer?! The Nazis did not really have flying saucers. What could the Germans possibly be worried about?

How sociologists define racism

An NPR Radio program interviewed a couple of sociologists with some weirdo anti-white racial theories:

Why use the phrasing "racial resentment" in the survey? Why not "racism"?

That's an interesting question. There are two parts to this answer. The first is that sociologists, political scientists and other scholars distinguish between older, more explicit forms of racial prejudice — founded on assertions of biologically-based differences between racial groups — and more "modern" forms of prejudice.

Since the civil rights movement, white Americans increasingly reject old-fashioned or "Jim Crow-style" racism (statements like "white people are more intelligent than black people"). However, they continue to hold a number of negative attitudes toward African-Americans, including a tendency to attribute racial inequality to individual failings of black Americans and the belief that black people are responsible for the racial tension in this country.

So, the use of "racial resentment" distinguishes that it's the latter type of attitude that is triggered by threats to whites' standing.

The second is that Americans generally tend to think of "racism" as a stable characteristic of individuals, not something that can be prompted or change in response to changing circumstances or social trends. Since we're highlighting the way that changing perceptions of the social world influence whites' racial attitudes, we wanted to use a term that emphasized that these attitudes can change over time, which feelings of resentment more clearly communicates.

No. Jim Crow racism means separating races at restaurant lunch counters.

Statements about average intelligence of groups are simply statements of fact, and have nothing to do with anyone's politics or opinions.

Nobody thinks that attitudes about lunch counters cannot be changed. They have changed. Nobody thinks that knowledge of facts is unchangeable. Everyone can learn new facts.

Having negative attitudes towards blacks does not necessarily have anything to do with "threats to whites' standing."

The NPR program has anti-white messages all the time.

Women do not yet run Austria, and it is doing something about its invaders:

Austria is closing seven mosques and could expel dozens of imams from the country, the government has announced.

At a press conference on Friday, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting down a Turkish mosque and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community, which runs six mosques.

The Austrian government's actions stem from a 2015 law, which bans foreign funding of religious groups and required Muslim societies to have "a positive fundamental view towards [Austria's] state and society".

"Parallel societies, political Islam and tendencies toward radicalisation have no place in our country," Kurz said.

Austria is home to an estimated 600,000 Muslims, mostly of Turkish origin.

Turkey expelled its Christians long ago.

Here is a chart of a Jewish newspaper using the word racism.

Make the lie big, and they will believe it

I collect things we cannot say anymore, and here is a new one to me. The NY Times reports:

A Massachusetts high school student captioned his senior photo in the school’s yearbook with a quote generally attributed to the Nazi leaders Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, the school’s principal said in an apologetic letter to parents this week. ...

The quote, which reads “Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it,” is widely associated with Hitler and Goebbels’s use of propaganda to build the Nazi empire.

So how is this offensive? It is just a well-known statement of how propaganda works.

Nationally, reported anti-Semitic incidents surged 57 percent in 2017, up to 1,986 from 1,267 in the previous year, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which believes the increase is linked to the divisive state of American politics, the emboldening of extremists, and the effects of social media. ...

Robert Trestan, regional director of the A.D.L. in Boston, which is helping the school respond to the episode, ...

Mr. Trestan said he hoped the school would hold sessions in the future to teach students about anti-Semitism.

Wait a minute -- do the Jewish organizations really consider this an anti-Semitic incident?!

Most of those anti-Semitic incidents have turned out to be hoaxes by Jews and other minorities. Some turned out to be natural causes, like the weather. But this is neither. It is just an innocent quote that has no obvious connection to the Jews.

There is a Wikipedia article on Big lie, but it says Goebbels was talking about English leaders. It also says Hitler used a related phrase in his famous book in connection with blaming Jewish Marxists. I would not call it anti-Semitic to accuse the Communists of lying about something, as that was what Hitler was doing. The Communists really do have a long history of big lies.

Anyway, when you hear some Jewish group complain about anti-Semitic incidents, remember that it might have just been someone using the phrase "big lie."

Not enough white kids to go around

An Arizona legislator is being asked to resign for saying this:

60 percent of public school children in the state of Arizona today are minorities. That complicates racial integration because there aren’t enough white kids to go around. ...

Immigration today represents an existential threat to the United States. If we don’t do something about immigration very, very soon, the demographics of our country will be irrevocably changed and we will be a very different country. It will not be the country you were born into.

The reasoning behind the school integration cases like Brown v Board of Education was that schools need enough white kids to go around.

It is an obvious fact that immigration is turning the USA into a very different country. I don't know of any great country that has survived this sort of demographic change.

The liberal news media was complaining all day yesterday that illegal kids from Honduras sometimes get separated from their parents. I have never heard any of those creeps express concern about American kids get separated from their parents, as happens every day in family courts and in CPS actions. I am disgusted by any suggestion that foreigners should have more rights than Americans.

Einstein had funny opinions about Chinese

The London Guardian reports:

Einstein's travel diaries reveal 'shocking' xenophobia

Private journals kept by the scientist and humanitarian icon show prejudiced attitudes towards the people he met while travelling in Asia ...

The publication of Albert Einstein’s private diaries detailing his tour of Asia in the 1920s reveals the theoretical physicist and humanitarian icon’s racist attitudes to the people he met on his travels, particularly the Chinese.

Written between October 1922 and March 1923, the diaries see the scientist musing on his travels, science, philosophy and art. In China, the man who famously once described racism as “a disease of white people” describes the “industrious, filthy, obtuse people” he observes. He notes how the “Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse.” After earlier writing of the “abundance of offspring” and the “fecundity” of the Chinese, he goes on to say: “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

... “even those reduced to working like horses never give the impression of conscious suffering. A peculiar herd-like nation [ … ] often more like automatons than people.” ... “I noticed how little difference there is between men and women; I don’t understand what kind of fatal attraction Chinese women possess which enthrals the corresponding men to such an extent that they are incapable of defending themselves against the formidable blessing of offspring”.

Einstein identified as Jewish, not white. He was not religious in the usual sense of believing in God, praying, and attending religious services and customs, but he was very much Jewish in the sense of supporting Zionism, identifying with those of Jewish ancestry, promoting Communist causes, and politically attacking white people. His quote about racism being a disease of whites was in connection with Jewish Communist efforts to create racial animosity among white folks.

“Einstein’s diary entries on the biological origin of the alleged intellectual inferiority of the Japanese, Chinese, and Indians are definitely not understated and can be viewed as racist – in these instances, other peoples are portrayed as being biologically inferior, a clear hallmark of racism. The disquieting comment that the Chinese may ‘supplant all other races’ is also most revealing in this regard,” writes Rosenkranz.

“Here, Einstein perceives a foreign ‘race’ as a threat, which … is one of the characteristics of a racist ideology. Yet the remark that must strike the modern reader as most offensive is his feigning not to understand how Chinese men can find their women sufficiently attractive to have offspring with them. In light of these instances, we must conclude that Einstein did make quite a few racist and dehumanising comments in the diary, some of which were extremely unpleasant.”

Consider the idea that "Chinese supplant all other races." Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Obviously it would be extremely racist and offensive to advocate Chinese people eradicating all other races. But then it should be less offensive to disagree with the idea.

Apparently you cannot have any opinion on demographic trends, without being called a racist.

Jews consider non-Jews to be biologically inferior. No news there. It would be surprising if he did consider Chinese people to be like himself.

Update: The London Guardian ran a followup with Chinese opinions:

Many were in strong support of the scientist: “This is called insulting China? That’s ridiculous. Did the Chinese in that era look dirty? When I see the photos from then, they look dirty, Einstein depicted the true state of that era.”

Others compared the scientists’s observations to that of Lu Xun, considered the father of modern Chinese literature, who was best known for his scathing satire of Chinese society in the early 20th century. “We praise Lu Xun because he pointed out our disadvantages. Why should we blame Einstein for this?”

Historical narratives promoted by the Chinese government often paint the days before China’s communist party took power in 1949 as chaotic.

And here is a Jewish opinion:

The ‘Jewish race’ is the smartest in the world and possesses the highest human capital, so Israelis ought to be skeptical about the current corruption probes into Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, a Likud party lawmaker has claimed.

“I can tell you something very basic,” MK Miki Zohar said, during a debate on Radio 103FM on Wednesday, as cited by the Times of Israel: “You can’t fool the Jews, no matter what the media writes. The public in Israel is a public that belongs to the Jewish race, and the entire Jewish race is the highest human capital, the smartest, the most comprehending.”

It is now acceptable to hate men

The WashPost published this lesbian rant against men:

Why can’t we hate men?

by Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.

... it seems logical to hate men. ...

So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? ...

maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise ...

So men, .... Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this.

Of course today's college campuses only allow hating white Christian heterosexual men in this way.

There is no factual basis to anything she says. She complains about "women have lower rates of property ownership". Women have higher rates in much of the world, and her only source for the statement is a claim that women have a lower rate in the country of Jordan. She complains that "women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels", but colleges today are about 55% women.

Here is a man who seems to follow her logic:

I challenge myself and fellow male Princetonians to be co-agents with our newly vocal “sisters.” We see from history that slaves acting alone could not un-enslave themselves; they required a dedicated abolitionist movement of the enslavers, namely whites. Women now require a dedicated abolitionist-like movement of men who are dedicated to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with activist women, awakening our country to the imperative of no-longer-delayed respectful treatment of women.

The man must be mentally ill.

For a contrasting view, Dalrock explains how we have already turned into a matriarchy. He is particularly disgusted by Christians, who should know better, but nevertheless badmouth men and fathers at every opportunity. He writes:

Father’s Day is a difficult day for modern Christians. While modern Christians have contempt for fathers 365 days a year, this is the day that makes the contempt for fatherhood most difficult to contain. For while the feeling of contempt for fathers (especially married fathers) is all but universal, it is also something which modern Christians still feel the need to deny.

Dalrock is right. If Christian preachers will not honor fathers, what hope is there for anyone else?

Just one male for every 17 females

Some archaeologists announce:

Live Science reports that population geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University has proposed a new explanation for the population bottleneck between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago detected in the genes of modern men, which suggest that during this stretch, there was just one male for every 17 females. Feldman and his team conducted 18 simulations that took into account factors such as Y chromosome mutations, competition between groups, and death. The study suggests that warfare among people living in clans made up of males from the same line of descent could have wiped out entire male lineages and decreased the diversity of the Y chromosome. In this scenario, there are not dramatically fewer males, but there was significantly less diversity in their genes. “In that same group, the women could have come from anywhere,” Feldman said. The study found no bottleneck in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to child. “[The women] would’ve been brought into the group from either the victories that they had over other groups, or they could’ve been females who were residing in that area before,” he said, since the victorious male warriors may have killed all the men they conquered, but kept the women alive and assimilated them. To read about genetic adaptation to life at high elevations, go to “The Heights We Go To.”

Wow, this would be wild. Are there modern evolutionary psychology consequences to this?

It suggests that women have an instinctual desire to be raped by foreign invaders. After all, those were the only ones who reproduced 6k years ago. There were better off being in the harem of a conquering warrior, in terms of reproduction.

Even today, we see women much more in favor of immigration than men. We see a feminist utopia like Sweden taking in so many Moslem immigrants that it now has one of the highest rape rates in the world. And the feminists who run Sweden do not seem to object.

Trying to find motives for pursuing racial conflict

Steve Sailer posts:

Here’s an interview with a Jewish professor of history, Marc Dollinger, who points out some fairly obvious truths that have gotten lost in all the retconning. ...

So there are basically three areas advanced for why Jews would involve themselves in the struggle for racial equality. All three turn out to be false. But the first would be the history argument, that says blacks and Jews share a common history, and therefore Jews empathize with the historical experience of blacks, and therefore they’re willing to help. ...

The second argument is a sociological one, which is to say Jews experience social marginalization; blacks experience social marginalization. Since Jews understand what it is to be on the margins, they help blacks. ...

The third one, the one we get today, is Judaism: that the religion of the Jews argues for social justice, tikkun olam. Prophetic Judaism, the Reform movement, is involved with all of that.

It turns out to be simple identity politics.

The simpler explanation is that Jews see it in their interests to promote racial animosity among non-Jews. As the above article points out, the other explanations don't make any sense.

As a comment says:

Jews, like any group, have group interests. And those interests often are not in alignment with White American interests.

Yes, that's true, but Jews are the only ones who so actively go around creating animosity in other groups against white Christians.

Just to take one example from the day's news:

Starbucks (SBUX) announced Monday that Schultz will step down later this month as executive chairman, the end of a 36-year run at the company.

In an interview with The New York Times, he acknowledged that he may consider a bid for the White House.

"I want to be truthful with you without creating more speculative headlines," he said. "For some time now, I have been deeply concerned about our country — the growing division at home and our standing in the world." ...

Schultz has spoken frequently about race, and Starbucks has taken progressive stances on social issues — including gay marriage, immigration and Trump's travel ban. Last year, the company said it plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years. ...

The company drew protests in April after two black men were arrested while they were waiting inside a Philadelphia store. Starbucks closed 8,000 stores for an afternoon last week to teach employees about racial bias.

He is supposed to be a great business genius for figuring out that he could bilk caffeine addicts into paying $5 for a cup of caffeine-boosted coffee. The coffee is essentially the same as the $1 coffee from McDonalds, except that Starbucks has higher caffeine levels.

Besides selling coffee, he is primarily known for policies of creating racial animosity among non-Jews. And he is proud of it! Among his Jewish interviews at the NY Times, he is probably a great hero who should run for President. What could be better than squeezing money out of non-Jewish addicts, and baiting them into racial conflicts?

President Trump’s Amused Mastery

From a CH post:

Decent people view an apology as a positive gesture and usually reciprocate with the same level of generosity and good faith.

Leftists however view any apology as (1) an admission of Guilt and (2) a sign of Weakness that needs to be exploited.

Never apologize to Leftists.

This is one of the big reasons Donald Trump drives the Left into such a frothing rage. He never apologizes, never admits guilt and appears to have no sense of shame whatsoever — and he keeps getting away with it no matter how loudly they scream and stomp their feet. Their entire schtick revolves around shame and guilt: when the Commander in Chief refuses to go along with their show trial, it shows just how impotent they really are.

In Game terminology, what Trump displays is the attitude known as Amused Mastery. It’s the demeanor of a man who brushes away impertinence from his lessers, shit tests from women, and screeching indignation from the media. He answers shaming tactics with shamelessness, phony opprobrium with ridicule, and smarmy moralism with Chad-crafted nicknames.

What he doesn’t do is get defensive, apologize, or supplicate to his would-be inquisitors to gain their favor (or a brief reprieve from their hate). Trump’s attitude is all alpha, with the tiniest of beta morsels occasionally thrown in to utterly disorient his detractors and, more crucially, to peel away more fence-sitters to his side, the kind of disengaged normies who can’t understand why the media is crying hitlerwolf for the millionth time because Ivanka posted a touching photo of herself cuddling with her little boy.

This is correct.

It is true that there are decent people who appreciate and accept an apology without animosity. But they are in the minority.

The really good people do not require apologies. One of the most famous movie quotes ever is Love means never having to say you're sorry.

The bad people, especially the leftists, just use an apology as a weapon, just as police and prosecutors use a confession against a criminal defendant. They do whatever they can to extract the confession, and then use it to put the confessor in prison.

Much of the leftist media coverage of President Trump consists of leftists trying to badger him into an apology that they can use against him. They even want him to apologize for what Roseanne Barr says!

Trump is the President. He should not be apologizing.

Greer says most rape is just bad sex

Think that today's feminists are the heirs to the ones from 50 years ago? I think not. Greer was one of the more famous feminists from back then, and her story is nothing like what we hear today.

Britain news:

Germaine Greer has sparked anger after she said that rapists should be given an ‘R’ tattoo on their cheek instead of being jailed in a speech at the Hay Literary Festival.

Greer, who was raped at a party days before she turned 19, said that most rape was actually just ‘bad sex’ and ‘don’t involve any injury whatsoever’.
'Christian Grey poseur' who brutally raped two women jailed for 20 years

She told an audience: ‘We are told it’s one of the most violent crimes in the world – bullshit’.

She added: ‘Most rape is just lazy, just careless, just insensitive.

‘Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal right, he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.

‘Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime – and some rapes are – think about it as non-consensual, that is, bad sex.

This is so retro it is funny.

Of course most of today's MeToo complaints about about what most people have called consensual sex.

Meanwhile, here is today's trend:

It seems unjust for the law to provide impunity for their abusers. This may explain why several states have recently abolished statutes of limitations in rape cases (as California did in 2016), a trend that was galvanized by the pileup of accusations against Bill Cosby. Still, about half the states impose a statute of limitations in cases of rape.

It seems to me that rape needs a statute of limitations more than any other crime, because the evidence is gone in a matter of hours. Unless it is reported and investigated within a day, it is often impossible to tell who is telling the truth.

And in Greer's words, it might be just someone complaining about bad sex.

Atheists may be genetic mutants

Lance Welton writes:

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality. Belief in these kinds of gods was selected for, they maintain, because once we developed cities we had to deal with strangers—people who weren’t part of our extended family. By conceiving of a god who demanded moral behaviour towards other believers, people were compelled to cooperate with these strangers, meaning that large, highly cooperative groups could develop. ...

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here) they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

Woodley suggests that weakened Darwinian selection would have led to the spread of “spiteful mutations” of the mind, which would help to destroy the increasingly physically and mentally sick group, even influencing the non-carriers to behave against their genetic interests, as carriers would help undermine the structures through which members learnt adaptive behaviour.

This is exactly what happened in the infamous Mouse Utopia experiment in the late 1960s, where a colony of mice was placed in conditions of zero Darwinian selection and eventually died out.

If this is even partially correct, then it has a lot of implications.

Humans do have the ability to cooperate with strangers, and no other species does. So presumably this ability evolved, is genetic, and is more prevalent in some groups than others.

Cooperating with strangers is a good feature for building a civilization, but many people seem to cooperate only with their own clan. With genetic diversity, you get many situations where A cooperates with B, but B does not cooperate with A. This seems unstable, unless A is willing to ostracize B.

Adoptions use fake birth certificates here also

The NY Times reports:

Now, the Irish government, after years of inaction, has begun pulling away the veil. On Wednesday, it apologized after an inquiry into what some activists fear was once common: falsifying birth certificates to make it appear that adoptive parents were the birth ones.

That inquiry, into just a single adoption agency, found that at least 126 children were affected. ...

Ireland has begun grappling in recent years with the legacy of its treatment of unwed mothers, as scandal after scandal from its past as a strongly Roman Catholic country emerge. They have helped propel a cultural shift in Ireland, and a weakening of the church’s influence, and led to referendums legalizing divorce, gay marriage and, last week, abortion. ...

In at least 126 cases, the authorities said, babies born to unmarried mothers were adopted and their adoptive parents’ names were written on their birth certificates, instead of the name of the birth mother.

This is yet another bigoted anti-Catholic article from this Jewish newspaper.

How was this Irish practice any different from how things are done the USA today? From an adoption site:

When a child is adopted, along with finalization papers, an amended birth certificate (ABC) is issued which can show any or all of the information on the original but replaces the birth parents’ names with those of the adoptive parents, and the child’s name given at birth with the new name (if this is being changed). This is given to the adoptive parents.

The original birth certificate is then placed with other adoption records and the file is sealed by the court. The original birth certificate is generally not available to the adopted person… ever.

In some states, there is no original birth certificate if the adoption is done before birth. The only birth certificate is the one with the adoptive parents.

Maybe adopted kids should be told about the adoption and their birth parents, but American law has no such obligation. The adopted kid can get his own birth certificate, and never have any clue that it has been faked to show his adopted parents as his birth parents.

The NY Times article does not mention any of this, but instead just blames Irish Catholics and cheers trends towards divorce, gay marriage, and abortion. This is just another Jewish attempt to undermine Christianity. Christian newspapers don't write articles complaining about Jewish adoptions.

More things you cannot say

Robby Soave argues this analogy:

Huge ratings weren't enough to save the rebooted Roseanne, which was formally cancelled by ABC on Tuesday after star Roseanne Barr described former Obama administration aide Valerie Jarrett as if "the Muslim brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby" on Twitter.

It was a vile thing to say, though no one has any right to be surprised that Barr said it. The notoriously pro-Trump comedian—who is otherwise something of an ardent leftist—has a long history of offensive, nonsensical utterances. ...

But conservatives are already coming for people's livelihoods. Not even a week has passed since the NFL caved to pressure from conservative viewers—as well as the president himself—and banned players from kneeling during the national anthem as a protest against police violence.

And that's the problem. Conservatives won't watch football unless all the players comport themselves perfectly, rigidly adhering to the right's version of patriotic correctness.

No, the players can stay in the locker room if they want, and they can also tweet whatever they want on their own time.

The problem is that the football situation was not a "protest against police violence." It started as a show of support for Michael Brown attempting to kill a police officer in Ferguson Mo. That is how Colin Kaepernick explained it.

Threatening to kill cops for racial reasons is 100x worse that making fun of someone's ugliness. Or whatever Roseanne was referring to. Jarrett was born in Iran, and is partially African-American. I did not see the tweet that Roseanne was responding to.

It appears that the Roseanne show was only popular because it was marketed as featuring a pro-Trump conservative. But it was false advertising, and the ratings were dropping fast.

Apparently all the Roseanne critics think that Africans look like apes, even tho Jarrett does not even look particularly African.

Meanwhile, England's Tommy Robinson is being jailed for a year for reporting on some criminal trials. I don't know the details, because the UK makes it illegal to report them. It has something to do with the UK govt importing Muslims to rape British children. Apparently it is considered offensive to say anything about it.

England is being invaded. They fought the Nazis, but they appear to no longer have the will to defend themselves.

Finally, Starbucks closed early yesterday. Every news report I saw described the problem as being a Philadelphia Starbucks manager having a couple of blacks arrested for just sitting a few minutes without ordering anything. No, they were no arrested for that. They got mad because they were told that the restrooms were for customers only. The police only arrested them after they created a scene, and refused to leave even after the police told them that they would be arrestped if they continued to stay without buying anything.

According to widespread comments, black ppl in the USA commonly think that only black ppl are treated this way. I can tell you from personal experience that this is completely false. I have been told that restrooms are for customers only. Whites are often told that they have to leave if they don't buy anything. The cops will arrest anyone who refuses to leave a business after the business asks him to leave and who continues to refuse after confronting the cops. That is how things work in civilized society. I don't see how blacks can really think that these are rules that only apply to black ppl.

Update: I checked what the Jews at the NY Times are saying, and they are running many articles about Roseanne. But they just have anti-white and anti-Trump slurs, and not arguments. There is just name-calling that is about on the level of Roseanne's tweet. The paper continues to tell lies about the Philadelphia Starbucks, but doesn't really explain what it has to do with a light-skinned woman from Iran.

Late merging is more efficient

Not everyone realizes it, but the rude drivers are the ones who changes lanes before it's necessary.

From TV news:

Drivers whose lane of traffic is going away might think it’s polite to merge early but when highways are congested, expert advice is to wait and merge late.

Studies show traffic moves more safely and efficiently if drivers use all lanes to a merge point where cars take turns moving forward on the remaining roadway.

But the concept is so counterintuitive to some drivers, HowStuffWorks.com reports a number of state departments of transportation have campaigns to educate drivers about proper merges.

In Missouri, the advice is not to think about merging as one lane moving into the other, but as two lanes merging into one. Colorado tells drivers late merges are a safer, more courteous and more efficient way through cone zones. Kansas created a video of two animated traffic cones discussing how early mergers back up traffic by creating one slower lane versus cars moving ahead with more efficient zipper merges.

The early mergers are a problem because they disrupt traffic by cutting in front of someone not expecting it, they waste a lane of traffic, and then they tend to try to block those who are doing it properly.

Opinion is a crime in England

The UK BBC reports:

A man described as a "poster boy" for a banned far-right terror group has been jailed after using social media to post racist and anti-Semitic material.

Wayne Bell, 37, made hundreds of posts on Twitter and a Russian social media site, including one describing Jewish people as "destructive" and "vile".

He was a prominent member of National Action before it was banned in 2016. ...

Sentencing him to four years and three months in jail, Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb said: "It is simply an act of birth that you are white and another man is black but you regard yourself as superior. ...

His online activity between March and December 2016 started when he set up a profile on the Russian site VK under the pseudonym Celtic Raider.

So I guess it is illegal in England to hold the opinion that whites are superior to blacks and that Jews are destructive and vile.

What to make of this? The obvious conclusion is that the lawmakers, prosecutors, and judge Cheema Grubb all think that whites are superior to blacks, and the Jews are destructive and vile.

No one bothers to punish people for telling obvious lies. Censorship is almost entirely concerned with covering up truths.

I am not endorsing these generalities. Obviously the above does not describe all Jews, whites, and blacks. But nobody would be jailed for saying that Jews were good people, or that blacks were superior to whites. Think about that.

The Farrow family gets exposed

Ronan Farrow and the MeToo avengers continue to pursue their path of destruction. Before you accept what they are doing, you should learn about what sort of damaged creeps you are listening to.

His brother, via adoption, Moses Farrow, writes:

I’m a very private person and not at all interested in public attention. But, given the incredibly inaccurate and misleading attacks on my father, Woody Allen, I feel that I can no longer stay silent as he continues to be condemned for a crime he did not commit. ...

But the fatal dysfunction within my childhood home had nothing to do with Woody. It began long before he entered the picture and came straight from a deep and persistent darkness within the Farrow family.

A lot of ppl have formed a negative opinion of Woody Allen, but read the above about the background of his chief accuser, Mia Farrow. From her family, there are stories of molestations, suicides, lies, adultery, vengeance, etc.

However bad Woody Allen is, Mia Farrow and her relatives are 10x worse.

It is not clear whether Ronan Farrow knows whether his father is Woody Allen or Frank Sinatra. Either way, he is a deeply disturbed man from a deeply disturbed and damaged family. The whole MeToo movement is being driven by sick people.

On the subject of MeToo, here is an 80-year-old gay actor dealing with a dubious accusation from 1981. The accuser cannot seem to get his story straight, but who remembers anything from 1981 anyway?

The Double-Edged Sword Of Identity Politics

CH writes:

Leftoids love identity politics — less euphemistically, race and sex politics — because to date they’ve been able to exploit nonWhite and feminist shrike tribalism (aka identity) to advance their political goals, which is basically the destruction of European Christendom.

Inciting chauvinist and tribal feelings in women and minorities against White men has worked out well for the Left, because Whites are the least tribal race on earth and therefore the most susceptible to accusations of privilege and oppression and to pleas for warped notions of fairness that handicap Whites to the benefit of the anti-Whites.

But I’ve noticed something simmering in the last few years, as realtalk about race and sex has seeped into the neural crevices of the Chaimstream Media hivemind. That old anti-identity politics Boomer meme is finding new purchase in the rhetoric of the goyennes of acceptable discourse. You’re gonna hear in the coming months and years a lot more calls to “abandon identity politics” from the Left and the CuckRight (but I repeat myself), and the reason is simple: they’re afraid. Afraid that White men are embracing identity politics with the same eagerness that nonWhites and women have embraced it. The Left wielded a double-edged identity politics sword and now that blade is swinging back at them.

And that’s gonna kill the Left’s identity politics cash cow for good, because White men (as distinguished from (((fellow white men)))) organizing politically and culturally for their own benefit means White men resisting their psychological and economic fleecing and disrupting for good the host-parasite relationship that has been the primary feature of the Anglosphere since WWI.

I think he is on to something. There are lots of whites who have not identified much with other whites, but now they are forced to. The non-whites are ganging up on whites and making whites the enemy. If they have to play identity politics to survive, that is what they will do.

Promoting the Noble Lie

I just found this quote, explaining neoconservative philosophy:

In an interview, the late Irving Kristol stated he was deeply indebted to Leo Strauss for an understanding of the “noble lie.” “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people,” he said. “There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Steven Pinker criticizes this view in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, and so does John Derbyshire.

There is some truth to this, but it is a very elitist view. It appears to be followed by pseudo=intellectuals from the NY Times to National Review. They say all sorts of things that they must know to be false.

They preach a kindergarten-level of politics and morality. I guess they think that most people are dumb enough to fall for it.

I think that the best course is to relentlessly hammer them with uncomfortable truths, until everyone sees their noble lies for what they are.

Some Mormons think Islam is a religion

From a NY Times op-ed:

Pointing to this history of Mormon persecution, in 2017, a group of scholars with expertise in Mormon history ...

Their interest in the rights of people of other faiths has also been traced to the views of the Mormon founder Joseph Smith, who put it this way: “If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist or a good man of any denomination.”

Yes, this obviously means any mainstream denomination of Christianity.

The article praises Mormons for not saying stuff like this:

"Although Islam has a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology," Hice wrote in his book titled "It's Now Or Never: A Call To Reclaim America." "It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection." ...

"Most people think Islam is a religion, it’s not. It’s a totalitarian way of life with a religious component," he said. "But it’s much larger. It’s a geo-political system that has governmental, financial, military, legal and religious components. And it’s a totalitarian system that encompasses every aspect of life and it should not be protected [under U.S. law]."

Hice didn't stop there.

"This is not a tolerant, peaceful religion even though some Muslims are peaceful. Radical Muslims believe that Sharia is required by God and must be imposed worldwide," he said. "It’s a movement to take over the world by force. A global caliphate is the objective. That’s why Islam would not qualify for First Amendment protection since it’s a geopolitical system ... This is a huge thing to realize and I hope you do. This will impact our lives if we don’t get a handle on it."

He also doubted the compatibility of Islam and the Constitution.

"These things are in no way compatible with the U.S. Constitution ... Islam and the Constitution are oceans apart," Hice said. "It’s about controlling your behavior, when and where you can worship and legal issues. The number one threat is to our worldview and whether we chunk it for secularism or Islam."

Much of that is factually correct. Islam is a way of life, and religion (as Christians use the term) is just one component. Essentially all Moslem scholars say this.

The 1A says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It was written to refer to Christian denominations, with the exercise of religion being things like praying in church on Sunday.

Moslems may believe that imposition of Sharia law is part of their exercise of religion, but that is not what the 1A is for.

Whether Islam is a movement to take over the world by force is debatable. Much of the Islamic world has certainly believed that for over a millennium. Even today, most or all of the 50+ Islamic countries do not respect religious minorities. Those countries behave as if Moslems intend to take over the world.

NY Times wants free black African babies in China

The NY Times reports:

GUANGZHOU, China — A day after Juliana Brandy Logbo gave birth to twins this month through an emergency cesarean section in a Chinese hospital, she thought the worst was over. Then the demands for money began. ...

Ms. Logbo is living in China on an expired visa and can’t speak Chinese. But her experience is an extreme example of what millions of Chinese people deal with in an inflexible health care system that sometimes requires patients to pay upfront for treatment. ...

Ms. Logbo acknowledged that her situation complicated matters. Her boyfriend, also a Liberian and the father of her twins, has been detained in China since September, she said, accused of lending his Chinese bank account to a friend for a money transfer. ...

On May 10, they were told that they had to pay $800, according to Ms. Logbo. Ms. Logbo told the hospital that she had no money. It reduced the price to $707. ...

A woman surnamed Tang, who works in the hospital’s medical disputes department, challenged Ms. Logbo’s account. “There definitely isn’t this situation of demanding that she first pay up before letting her see her children,” said Ms. Tang, who declined to give her full name. She said hospital workers had merely been “reminding” Ms. Logbo to pay up.

Ms. Tang said Ms. Logbo’s babies were premature and could not be taken out of the newborn department. Many Chinese hospitals have a policy of denying parents access to premature babies because of a lack of nurses to monitor the visit and a fear of infections. ...

Ms. Logbo, who has a degree in business management from the University of Liberia, gets some income from giving tours to African tourists in Guangzhou. She and her boyfriend, who was also in China on an expired visa, lived in a one-bedroom apartment bordering Beijing.

Why is this a story? Why do NY Jews care about Chinese hospital bill collection?

Do black Africans think that they can stay in China illegally, commit financial crimes there, give birth there, get good medical treatment, and not pay the bill?

Why do NY Jews think that Chinese hospitals should be doing charity work for the sake of illegal black African babies?

It appears that the black African mom and the hospital bill collectors do not even speak the same language. So it is unlikely that the NY Times is even telling an accurate story.

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.

Update: This Libertarian, Ronald Bailey, now says:

I believe that Americans of whatever ancestry living in 2050 will look back and wonder why anyone cared about the ethnic makeup of the American population. America is an ideal, not a tribe.

The ones who care are the non-whites and non-Christians who seeks to change American demographics. And if America is an ideal, it will cease to be by 2050.