Jews admit anti-gay-black-Semitism is a hoax

The NY Times now admits:

The details of the Jan. 29 attack on the “Empire” star Jussie Smollett were horrifying. While returning to his Chicago home around 2 a.m., the actor said, he was beaten and doused with bleach. His assailants tied a noose around his neck and shouted racial and homophobic slurs. “This is MAGA country,” Mr. Smollett said the attackers yelled.

These details also strained credulity from the very start.

Only the Alt-Right was pointing out that the story strained credulity. The NY Times and everyone else accepted it without question.

Smollet is gay, half-black, and half-Jewish.

Now we know it was a hoax, and Smollett will probably go to prison for it.

The article admits that all the other high-profile hate crimes also turned out to be hoaxes, but declares:

The real tragedy in all of this is that hate crimes are, in fact, on the rise in the Trump era, particularly against Jews and Muslims.

What hate crimes? A separate NY Times story explains that, but you have to read down to the end to see who is doing it:

Rabbi Eli Cohen, the executive director of the Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, has begun visiting nearby public schools with Geoffrey Davis, an African-American community leader, to try to understand what may be driving the attacks, as many of the assailants arrested by the police have been young men of color.

So it is African-American New Yorkers who have been picking on the Orthodox Jews, not the White Trump supporters.

This is not anti-Semitism. It is just black crime.

You can count on Jewish newspapers for (1) promoting crazy anti-White-Christian theories and beliefs, (2) crying about fictitious anti-Semitism, and (3) blaming Whites for the bad behavior of non-Whites.

Women want to mate with Neanderthals

Neuroscientist R. Douglas Fields writes in SciAm:

We know that Homo sapiens (meaning the wise one) co-inhabited the earth with Neandertals. What’s more, DNA analysis proves that men and women of both species (or subspecies if you prefer), mated. ...

By and large, H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis stuck to their own when it came to romance. This like-attracts-like is a strong behavioral drive in mating that continues today. Men and women tend to consort with and marry others who are of similar characteristics, what psychologists call assortative mating. We much prefer to become romantically involved with someone of the same race, and we also pick mates who are self-similar in education, height, body mass index, social positions, attitudes, religiosity and even genes. The biggest factor in mate choice is having a similar IQ and this is highly correlated with years of education.

But sometimes women marry up (the lady Neandertal bedding H. sapiens), and sometimes women marry down (the “wise one” female falling in love with the Neandertal). Psychologists have terms for this behavior of selecting mates outside one’s own group: “hypergamy” and “hypogamy,” for marrying up or down, respectively, but as with most technical jargon, the scholarly vocab contributes little. The question is, why do women do it?

Fields is a little mixed up. There is no reason to believe that the African H. sapiens had any higher IQ than European Neanderthals. Neanderthals has bigger brains, better tools, and better art.

Hypergamous women are not so picky about IQ. They will happily mate with whatever man happens to kill their current lovers.

Generally, when a woman chooses a mate outside her own IQ or educational group, she tends to marry up. This tendency cuts across culture, ethnic group and race. Even in developing countries, such as Nigeria, romantic partners tend to have the same level of education, but when there is a difference in schooling, females usually marry up. This is the long-standing pattern in the United States, but it is an inescapable consequence of the fact that females were excluded from higher education.

Females were never excluded from higher education. Even if they were, that would have no bearing on IQ, or mating strategies based on IQ.

Now that the gender gap in education favors females, women in the modern world are more frequently marrying down when it comes to scholastic smarts and income.  

This is not really any change in hypergamy. It still shows women to be mating with the best available man.

Women tend to be pro-immigration because they see the immigrants as invaders and they instinctively desire to be raped by invaders.

Women now get more degrees than men, but this change has no effect on IQ. For the most part, women are getting those degrees in soft subjects, and not pursuing high-income careers, so it is still possible for all the women to marry up.

Romantic partners tend to share the same psychiatric disorders, such as autism, schizophrenia and depression. The same goes for smoking, substance abuse and criminality. A 2017 study finds that people with criminal offences prior to marriage are significantly more likely to marry others with criminal records. After they became hitched, the spouses committed even more similar criminal offenses. To the extent that genetics contributes to such illnesses and criminal tendencies, this is something to ponder in terms of mating choices breeding future problems.

The dysgenic problem is not that mating partners are similar, but those with bad genes are mating at all. Anyone passing on schizophrenia genes will be causing schizophrenia in subsequent generations, no matter who the mate is.

The NY Times reports:

For decades, researchers and physicians tended to think about pregnancies as either planned or unplanned. But new data reveals that for a significant group of women, their feelings don’t neatly fit into one category or another. As many as one-fifth of women who become pregnant aren’t sure whether they want a baby. ...

It shows that some women want to avoid making a decision about becoming pregnant, or have strong but mixed feelings about it. A new analysis of the 2014 results from the Guttmacher Institute combined these results with data from abortion providers. It found that in 9 percent to 19 percent of pregnancies, the woman “wasn’t sure” what she wanted at the time. ...

The research confirms that many unplanned pregnancies can nevertheless become wanted as women’s feelings about pregnancy evolve.

Is anyone surprised by this? I am surprised that the percentages are so low.

Women are fickle and choosy. One day they want a kid, and the next day they don't. They don't really know what they want, or what will make them happy. If we had to wait for women to make definite decisions about kids, the human race would have died out long ago. Maybe that is what happened to the Neanderthals.

To see how crazy women can be, check out the latest NY Times MeToo article. The newspaper has become like a trashy tabloid.

For nearly two decades, Ryan Adams, one of the most prolific singer-songwriters of his generation, has been heralded as a mercurial creative genius and a respected industry tastemaker.

Equal parts punk-rock folk hero and romantic troubadour, Adams, 44, has 16 albums and seven Grammy nominations to his name. He has overseen music by Willie Nelson, written a Tim McGraw hit and recorded with John Mayer.

He has also taken a special interest in the trajectory of female artists, especially younger ones, championing them onstage, across social media and in the studio, where his stamp of approval can jump-start careers.

The paper found some women who complained that he did not help their careers as much as they wanted. An ex-wife complains that he said to her, "You’re not a real musician, because you don’t play an instrument." A teenaged musician girl managed to exchange some flirtatious text messages with him by claiming that she was over 18.

Adams has also written and recorded dozens of songs about his divorce, and other disappointments in his love life. Nobody cares about him, of course. But if a woman has some disappointment, then it is a national tragedy worthy of a NY Times investigation.

Jussie Smollett crime was a hoax

The leftist white-hating news media has been claiming for three years about how Trump supporters were supposedly doing bigoted attacks. So far, their best example was Jussie Smollett. He is a prominent gay black actor who claimed that two white Trump supporters attacked him in a Chicago hate crime.

I did not follow this story, except to note that Alt-Right sites were quietly predicting that this story would turn out to be a hoax.

Now it turns out that the story is a hoax, TMZ reports. Chicago police found the two attackers, and they were black Nigerian bodybuilder Obama-supporting friends of Smollett. Smollett paid them to do it.

So how did the Alt-Right sites deduce that this was a hoax? Smollett could be charged with a serious felony, so telling a fictitious story like that was a big risk. Why risk it, and what did he have to gain?

The leftist white-hating news media portray Whites as bigots who are eager to put black men in a noose. In reality, the most racist Whites are nearly all law-abiding citizens who just want to get away from blacks, not provoke them. Nearly all hate crimes are perpetrated against Whites, not by Whites.

It will be amusing to see how the press covers this story. Now that they have made a national story about how it was a hate crime, they will have to now admit that it was all an anti-White hoax.

Esquire has to kill story about white boy

CBS News reports:

Esquire magazine dropped the cover story for its March issue on Tuesday, and many people expressed their frustration with the 17-year-old boy profiled in the article. The author of the cover story, Jennifer Percy, says the presentation for her feature story was "misleading."

"The Life of an American Boy at 17" follows Ryan Morgan and, according to the cover, "what it's like to grow up white, middle class, and male in the era of social media, school shootings, toxic masculinity, #MeToo, and a divided country."

In an email to CBS News, Percy wrote the "article shows how much work we still have to do to educate boys about inherited white male privilege. It also shows that the teenage years are an ideal time to make change." ...

Several social media users were outraged that the magazine would release a story that highlights white males during Black History Month. ...

Some people thought releasing the now-controversial cover was a strategy to get people talking about Esquire's continuing series, which will later profile other, more diverse people. Some defended Esquires choice in subject, saying Morgan is, in fact, the typical American boy.

So the typical American boy cannot be portrayed as White anymore?

I am guess that only Whites and Jews read Esquire anyway. Why should it cave to demands of the White-haters? This shows how far White hatred has gone.

How the American west coast has declined

End Of The American Dream reports:

Almost everyone that goes out to visit one of our major cities on the west coast has a similar reaction. Those that must live among the escalating decay are often numb to it, but most of those that are just in town for a visit are absolutely shocked by all of the trash, human defecation, crime and public drug use that they encounter. Once upon a time, our beautiful western cities were the envy of the rest of the world, but now they serve as shining examples of America’s accelerating decline. The worst parts of our major western cities literally look like post-apocalyptic wastelands, and the hordes of zombified homeless people that live in those areas are too drugged-out to care. The ironic thing is that these cities are not poor. In fact, San Francisco and Seattle are among the wealthiest cities in the entire nation. So if things are falling apart this dramatically now, how bad will things get when economic conditions really start to deteriorate?

But tax revenue from Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Neflix, etc. have supplied billions of dollars for the govt to what it wants, right? Nope, it can't really do anything:

According to this Wikipeda article, in just six years, between 1863 and 1869, a 1,912-mile railroad line was built to connect the east-coast rail network to California. And they had to deal with stuff that we don’t have to deal with today, like massive buffalo herds and hostile Indian tribes.

Not that I’m saying that California needs a high-speed rail line (they probably don’t), but if they wanted to build one, then it’s pretty pathetic that it took 11 years to study a 450-mile-long line, less than one-quarter of what was built in the 1860s, and then scrap the project.

We used to be a nation that got stuff done, but today we can’t do anything despite having huge technological advantages compared to the 1860s.

Human capability peaked before 1975 and has since declined.

Law professor Peter H. Schuck writes in the NY Times:

President Trump is verging on a declaration of national emergency — purely in order to fund his wall. And if he does, the courts may — or may not — reject his gambit.

But the fact that he may actually possess the legal authority to require agencies to waste billions of dollars simply to fulfill a foolish campaign promise he thinks won him the election is itself scandalous. ...

In Mr. Trump’s case, it has handed an unguided missile to an ignorant, impetuous man-child.

If so, Trump got a huge arsenal of unguided missiles two years ago. We are just over halfway thru his term. Where is the damage from this "man-child"? It appears that the Presidency has too little power if such a person cannot even do any damage when he tries.

Pretend that aliens are invading

I have taken the liberty of a few substitutions in the quote below.

NY Times opinion columnist Farhad Manjoo writes:

“The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells is the most terrifying book I have ever read. Its subject is demographic change, and its method is scientific, but its mode is Old Testament. The book is a meticulously documented, white-knuckled tour through the cascading catastrophes that will soon engulf our browning planet: death by water, death by heat, death by hunger, death by thirst, death by disease, death by asphyxiation, death by political and civilizational collapse.

And should they escape death, your children and grandchildren might subsist instead through proto-apocalyptic ruin. ...

What so riled me up was not just the projected devastation but also the obvious incapacity of our political system to even begin to comprehend the suffering to come, let alone mitigate it. It struck me that what we need to fight demographic change is not just some new political plan but a whole new politics — the sort of thorough reimagining of stakes that humanity has only previously achieved during times of total war.

But demographic change is not war. There is no enemy, other than ourselves. And we are very bad, as individuals or collectively, at fighting ourselves over anything.

This thought chilled me.

Then, one late night after taking a dose of a kind of sleep medicine that is now widely available in California, I had an epiphany:

Pretend it’s aliens. ...

The whole thing is tragic and lazy, when what we need is heroism and bravery.

If the aliens attacked, we’d do better. I’m sure of it.

We would understand the stakes in the battle ahead. We would apprehend the necessity of sacrifice and perseverance. We would be able to perceive what is happening to our planet and our species as what it plainly is: a war for survival.

I only changed the words in italics.

We don't need to pretend. Aliens are invading. We are threatened with death by political and civilizational collapse. Are we able to perceive what is happening to our planet and our species?

The demographic change is likely to be far more significant than climate change. The climate change forecasts are only for sea levels to rise 2-3 feet this century.

Even if you think that catastrophic climate change is the biggest threat to our planet, the long-term threat is mostly from the developing world and from immigration.

Bezos and Woodward have gone nuts

Woodward to Bezos:

Jeff: Proud of you for stepping forward in such a difficult situation. Very gutsy and definitely right. This period reminds me of 1972-1974, perhaps Watergate Redux. So many assaults on constitutional government, common sense and privacy. Let's hope we all get it right — aggressive but careful and fair. Cheers and best, Bob Woodward

What is he talking about?

Bezos is embarrassed because the National Enquirer threaten to expose his crude extramarital messages, and wrote a rant blaming Trump.

Woodward is famous for conspiring with the assistant FBI Director to illegally leak info designed to frame President Nixon for impeachment. Does Woodward think that Bezos is doing something similar to President Trump?

Woodward is also famous for a lot of bogus stories that hide behind fictitious stories, such as the 8-year-old heroin addict.

This is weird. I can see why Bezos thinks he is being blackmailed, but if that is blackmail then so are most of the sexual harassment and MeToo complaints.

Moslem forced to apologize for the truth

The NY Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Telling the truth is anti-Semitic.

Of course pro-Israel lobbying fuels support for Israel. Isn't that obvious? Otherwise, all that lobbying would be a big waste of money.

Lots of Christians support Israel also.

“My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole,” Ms. Omar wrote, adding, “I unequivocally apologize.”

This just proves the power of the Jewish lobby.

When Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, made comments embracing white supremacy, ...

No, he embraced "western civilization", and complained about those who put it down and call it white supremacy.

One of the newspaper's leftist Jewish columnists elaborates:

Consciously or not, Omar invoked a poisonous anti-Semitic narrative about Jews using their money to manipulate global affairs. This came just weeks after she’d had to apologize for a 2012 tweet in which she said that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, phrasing that also recalled old canards about occult Jewish power. ...

After all, it’s hardly radical to point out that lobbyist money has pernicious political effects. ... And I certainly have no problem with denunciations of Aipac, which plays a malign role in pushing American policy ...

So she agrees that the Jewish lobby is buying a malign influence, but says that it is anti-Semitic to point it out.

Personally, I’m happy to accept her apology. Progressive American Muslims and Jews should be natural allies; our mutual future depends on deepening this country’s embattled commitment
...

So Jews hate anti-Semitic Moslems, and will denounce them and force them to apologize. But nevertheless, Jews and Moslems are natural allies because they both hate Christians. They will work together to bring down western civilization by portraying it as a Christian white supremacist plot.

This is a point that a lot of Christians do not understand. They think that because Christians openly support Israel and Jewish causes, and Moslems work to destroy Israel and the Jews, that Jews would see themselves as having much more in common with Christians than Moslems. Indeed, that is true about many Jews. But among many leftist Jews today, such as those at the NY Times and other news media, they would side with the Moslems just because they hate Christianity so much.

How Indian foreigners ran Silicon Valley's biggest fraud

Philip Greenspun explains how importing foreign engineers has corrupted Silicon Valley:

Bad Blood, the authoritative book on the rise and fall of Theranos, describes American- and British-born engineers and scientists being fired for saying “the goal is too ambitious” or quitting when realizing this. Who replaced them? According to the book, almost all immigrants from India, either folks who’d recently completed a degree in the U.S. or coming over on H-1B visas, all managed by Ramesh Balwani, Elizabeth Holmes’s boyfriend.

During the “grand fraud” stage of Theranos, therefore, it was a primarily immigrant show except for the young impresaria.

Greenspun also explains what a disaster California has become.

His description parallels images of the Old South, where rich aristocrats ran profitable plantations, but the economy depended on millions of black slaves, and poor whites who were not much better off.

Today's California economy is based on rich elites importing cheap labor.

Murderer gets imam to watch his execution

The NY Times Editorial Board writes:

When the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to President Trump’s hostility toward Muslims last summer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned, in dissent, that the majority was undermining the Constitution’s “foundational principles of religious tolerance.”

In so doing, she said, the court was sending a message to “members of minority religions in our country that they are outsiders, not full members of the political commu­nity.”

Late on Thursday, the Supreme Court again sent that message, this time to a Muslim death-row prisoner, Domineque Hakim Marcelle Ray, who was awaiting execution in Alabama for the 1995 rape and killing of a 15-year-old girl from Selma. ...

On a 5-to-4 vote, the high court on Thursday allowed the execution to proceed. The imam, Yusef Maisonet, watched Mr. Ray die from behind glass. ...

“Under that policy, a Christian prisoner may have a minister of his own faith accompany him into the execution chamber to say his last rites,” Justice Kagan wrote. “But if an inmate practices a different religion — whether Islam, Judaism, or any other — he may not die with a minister of his own faith by his side. That treatment goes against the Establishment Clause’s core principle of denominational neutrality.” ...

And thus, the Supreme Court compounded the moral failure of its travel ban ruling. In each case, Muslims were diminished. “He wanted equal treatment in his last moments,” said Spencer Hahn, one of Mr. Ray’s lawyers, after Mr. Ray’s execution at 10:12 p.m. on Thursday. “We are better than this.”

The Establishment Clause says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion,

That means Congress may not declare Presbyterianism the national religion, in preference to Catholicism. It does not say what side of the glass a Moslem imam should be when a murderer is executed.

The core principle is not "denominational neutrality". Even if it were, Islam is not a denomination. It is debatable whether it should be called a religion. It is more of an anti-religion.

Kagan is on the Court because she is a leftist Jewish single woman, sympathetic to lesbians. The NY Times likes her for her hostility to Christianity.

Their position is that the Jews on the Court have a moral obligation to force the USA to import millions of Moslems, and to let Moslems celebrate one of their condemned murderers. We have enough murderers already, without bringing in Moslem murderers, and we should not have to respect their murderous beliefs.

The Whiteshift contradictions of multiculturalism

Eric Kaufmann writes in National Review:

Importantly, Duke political scientist Ashley Jardina, in work informing her forthcoming book White Identity Politics, distinguishes between an attachment to white identity and the dislike of racial minorities. This reflects the well-established psychological finding that, in the absence of overt conflict, there’s no correlation between attachment to one’s own group and hostility to outgroups. In the ANES, those who feel warm toward conservatives tend to feel cool toward liberals and vice-versa, but, on average, whites who feel warm toward whites tend to feel warm toward blacks. ...

Again, the own-group attachments of many who seek slower cultural change do not imply hostility toward outgroups. They are conservative, perhaps even clannish, but are not necessarily racist and should not be barred from the democratic arena. Yet many liberals consider white groupishness racist: I find that 91 percent of white Clinton voters with graduate degrees say it’s racist for a white woman to want less immigration to help maintain her group’s share of the population, compared with 6 percent of white Trump voters without a degree. Minority voters, who are less influenced by multiculturalist ideas than are white liberals, lie in between, at 45 percent, while the American average is 36 percent.

That is correct. White and Jewish liberals tend to say that it is racist and white supremacist for whites to want less non-white immigration. But in fact wanting such immigration limits is not necessarily based on any animosity towards any ethnic group.

I know whites whose communities have been taken over by Chinese. These whites often eat Chinese food and admire Chinese culture, and yet they are not happy that their kids don't have any white friends at school.

Liberals now praise Chinese-Americans keeping they Chinese culture, but hate Whites for keeping theirs.

The beginnings of what, in 2004, I termed “asymmetrical multiculturalism” may be precisely dated to July 1916, when Randolph Bourne, a member of the left-wing modernist Young Intellectuals of Greenwich Village and an avatar of the new bohemian youth culture, wrote in The Atlantic that immigrants should retain their ethnicity while Anglo-Saxons should forsake their uptight heritage for cosmopolitanism ...

A central premise of my book, Whiteshift, is that the contradictions of multiculturalism explain the current populist moment. Progressive-inspired elite norms suppressed the expression of white majority identity — or versions of national identity that recognize the majority — in stark contrast to the encouragement provided to minority cultures.

I don't know why he says it began in 2016 if he described it in 2004. Obviously it began long before 2004.

During the Republican primary, Trump was the only one of 17 candidates to make immigration restriction a central feature of his campaign because others were unwilling to challenge pro-immigration norms. This was the key factor helping him win the nomination. Likewise, in the presidential election, my ANES models show that immigration was the pivotal issue for both non-voters and Obama voters who switched to Trump.

That is correct. I thought that other candidates would see that immigration is a winning issue, along with other America First issues, and jump on it to steal Trump's supporters. But none did.

Republicans probably could have retained the Congress if they embraced Trumpism, and funded the Wall. But they never did. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan denounced Trump at every opportunity. Now he is out of office, working as a lobbyist.

Right-wing populism and left-wing identity politics have risen in tandem since 2013. Why?

The connecting thread is the contradictions of multiculturalism, which encourage a “common enemy” form of minority identity while repressing even moderate expressions of majority identity. The former produces antagonistic identity politics on the left, while both contribute to populist blowback on the right.

Since 2013? Left-wing identity politics has been rising since the 1960s. Jews have been promoting it a lot longer than that.

Trump discovered right-wing populism in 2015. I am not sure how much it has risen. Maybe Trump is just taking advantage of the fact that the Left is so obviously unreasonable.

Supposedly right-wing mags like National Review denounce Trump and Trumpism at every opportunity. Right-wingers have been unable or unwilling to do much about immigration or left-wing identity politics.

Heading to soylent green scenario

Wired mag reports:

You know the story. Despite technologies, regulations, and policies to make humanity less of a strain on the earth, people just won’t stop reproducing. By 2050 there will be 9 billion carbon-burning, plastic-polluting, calorie-consuming people on the planet. By 2100, that number will balloon to 11 billion, pushing society into a Soylent Green scenario. Such dire population predictions aren’t the stuff of sci-fi; those numbers come from one of the most trusted world authorities, the United Nations.

But what if they’re wrong? Not like, off by a rounding error, but like totally, completely goofed?

That’s the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrell Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th. After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species. “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”

The argument is that once Third World girls get iphone and birth control pills, they will all lead hedonistic lifestyles and not have any kids. Modern capitalism will then die, because it depends on growing economies.

No, this is crazy. Japan's population is not growing, and it has a sustainable economy. The rest of the world will have to figure that out, because exponential growth cannot continue for very long.

Any system will be gamed by those who take advantage of it. That is just evolution at work. If a group or nation figures out that it can get a greater share of the world's resources by encouraging their women to have ten kids, then that is what they will do. The Earth will be repopulated by those who play the reproduction game successfully.

Most of the world's problems stem from too many people using too many resources. Cutting back to a population of 1800 would alleviate those problems.

How Starbucks made billions

The NY Times reports:

In one email, Ricketts wrote to somebody identified only as S.V. that “Christians and Jews can have a mutual respect for each other to create a civil society,” but “Islam cannot do that.” He went on to write that, “we cannot ever let Islam become a large part of our society,” and that “Muslims are naturally my (our) enemy.”

Major League Baseball released a statement condemning the emails but seemingly tried to absolve Ricketts of some responsibility.

“While many of the emails were not written by Mr. Ricketts, the content is extremely offensive and completely at odds with the values and principles of Major League Baseball,” the statement said.

So the position of MLB is that Islam should become a large part of our society? Is MLB going to tell us where Islam has ever created a civil society?

An op-ed in the same newspaper says:

Corruption is in Russia’s DNA, as it is in Mr. Putin’s.

Really? If a private citizen in a private email says that jihadism is in Islam's DNA, then the NY Times blasts him as a bigot. But if someone says corruption is in Russia's DNA, then the NY Times happily publishes the statement.

The Russian press reports:

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz doesn’t like people using the term 'billionaires' to describe billionaires, instead, the multi-billionaire prefers the term ‘people of means.’

Speaking at a Barnes & Noble book event last week, Schultz responded to a question about whether billionaires have too much power in the US by focusing on the term ‘billionaire.’

“The moniker ‘billionaire’ now has become the catchphrase,” he said. “I would rephrase that and say that ‘people of means’ have been able to leverage their wealth and their interest in ways that are unfair, and I think that speaks to the inequality but it also speaks to the special interests that are paid for people of wealth and corporations who are looking for influence.”

Is Schultz just trolling us?

He seems to have gotten rich off of two ideas:

1. If you charge $5 for a cup of coffee, you can create a chain of coffeeshops where Whites and Jews can sit around in the comfort that no blacks will bother them.

2. If you boost the caffeine in coffee, you can get everyone addicted to your coffee, and will not go back to whatever they were drinking before.

Such ideas are why there are so many Jewish billionaires. Others are not so clever.

These two ideas made Schultz a billionaire. I hate to think what ideas he has for being President of the USA.

Atlantic exposes CPS problems

An Atlantic mag article details CPS terrorizing innocent parents:

Lawmakers set up the system with the best intentions: The goal is to protect abused children and save lives. But one result of pervasive pressure, reinforced with potential civil and criminal penalties for nonreporting, is a skyrocketing number of hotline calls. According to a 2016 report, 7.4 million children came to the attention of child-abuse hotlines in a single year. ...

I had seen doctors work hand in glove with CPS to decide the merits of the hotline calls that their own hospitals had placed — a recipe for confirmation bias. They rarely used independent forensic specialists — a common practice in settings where controversies may arise over contested facts. A select group of child-abuse pediatricians served as the liaisons between accused parents and the state authorities. Later, if cases were filed in court, state prosecutors relied heavily on these same pediatricians to provide medical-expert testimony against the accused parent. None of the families I represented were informed about their assigned pediatrician’s entanglement with CPS. ... The treatment of families such as the Weidners raises serious questions about whether the system runs contrary to the American Medical Association’s codified ethics standards. ...

The CPS system needs some sensible checks to protect the innocent. “When in doubt, call the hotline” inevitably leads to unnecessary stress for wrongly accused families. Unless there’s reason to fear imminent harm to a child, a medical review for “reasonable suspicion” should precede rather than follow the decision to place a call. States need to use neutral decision makers.

No, I do not think that the system was set up with good intentions.

While a prior medical review with independent forensic specialists seems like the most fair and prudent course of action, it is a criminal offense under CPS law in most or all of the 50 states. The law says that suspicions must be reported to CPS. Physicians who consult a specialist before calling CPS are occasionally criminally prosecuted, because the consultation is considered proof that the physician had suspicions, and it is a crime to have suspicions without calling CPS.

The article is summarized:

Her basic point is that, once CPS decides a parent may have abused a child, that parent is in for a long, uncomfortable ride through the CPS system, pretty much irrespective of whether he/she abused the child or not. With the police, we call that “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” The same is true of CPS. Caseworkers can put the fear of God into any parent, even those who know they’ve done nothing wrong.

Yes, CPS has far too much power to harass innocent parents.

Dawkins says nationalism worse than Islam

London news:

“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great medieval cathedrals,” he wrote to his 2.8 million Twitter followers last July. “So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding ‘Allahu akhbar.’ Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” ...

“The problem with tweets is that they’re too short. ... But often ‘Allahu akbar’ is the last thing you hear before you’re blown up. Church bells are never the last thing you hear before you’re murdered.” ...

Six years ago, Dawkins described Islam as the “greatest force for evil today”. Now, he says, nationalism is a better candidate, but he has not ceased his crusade against religion.

Of course Islam is greatest force for evil today. But he switches to blaming nationalism? Is he kidding? Apparently not:

Dawkins is aggrieved by Brexit (“I’m trying to learn German as a gesture of solidarity”), though he conceded with scientific modesty: “I don’t think I know enough to say much about the actual pros and cons of the European Union. ...

He argued that, as with US constitutional amendments, a two-thirds majority should have been required for a binding result. “A simple 50 per cent majority is not good enough on an issue this important.”

Maybe so, but I don't think any country had a 2/3 majority for joining the EU in the first place.

If an educated man like himself doesn't know the pros and cons, what makes him think that the EU is beneficial? Why is he learning German?

If religion is bad, then some religions are worse than others. That is just logic. Dawkins accepts this. But he mostly associates with leftists who are reluctant to criticize any group. He goes along with leftist opinions about Brexit, even tho he doesn't know anything about it.

A good question would be whether he would support a ban on Moslems moving to England. If Islam is evil, then he should want to keep evil out of his country. However, he is too much of a leftist. Sam Harris is the same way. He is a leftist atheist who denounces Islam as evil and dangerous, but he refuses to support any effort to keep the evil out of the USA.

Cat parasites make people crazy

Science news:

Scientists claim they have found new evidence of a link between infection with the protozoan parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, and schizophrenia, in what is described as the largest study of its kind. From a report:

T. gondii, a brain-dwelling parasite estimated to be hosted by at least 2 billion people around the world, doesn't create symptoms in most people who become infected -- but acute cases of toxoplasmosis can be dangerous. Healthy adults are generally thought to not be at risk from T. gondii infections, but children or people with suppressed immune systems can develop severe flu-like symptoms, in addition to blurred vision and brain inflammation.

The alarming thing is that this parasite has been proven to affect rat behavior, and probably affects human behavior also, without the infected person realizing it.

In short, it allows cats to enslave humans to support their needs.

There is no cure, or practical solution except to eradicate all the house cats. If you have a pet cat, you may already be a zombie.

Feds take stricter definition of domestic violence

I mentioned how the definitions of domestic violence and rape are expanding to include normal human activities that no one ever considered criminal.

I am happy to report that the Trump administration has returned to a saner definition.

A feminist site complains:

As of April, as Slate first reported earlier this week, the definition of domestic violence as it appears on the website of the Office of Violence Against Women no longer includes language about non physical abuse.

Here’s how the DOJ defined domestic violence during the Obama administration (emphasis mine), per an archived version of the website:

A pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

Here’s how the DOJ now defines domestic violence as of April 2018, under Trump:

The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.

The Trump administration has limited the definition of domestic violence to criminal physical assault, ... By limiting the definition to physical assault, the DOJ is making it harder for victims ...

“Domestic violence is clearly defined in VAWA, and OVW has always used the statutory definition in carrying out its mission,” the statement read.

Separately, the NY Times has a feminist essay complaining that 90% of sexual harassment complaints to colleges are about off-campus conduct that has nothing to do with the college, and new Trump administration guidelines will not try to make the colleges police such off-campus non-criminal behavior. This is more good news, as colleges should not be punishing students for such behavior anyway.

Catholic bishop joins the Trump haters

Jewish newspaper gets a Catholic bishop to oppose the Wall. Reasons? (1) he wants open borders; (2) it will impede asylum seekers; (3) he doesn't like Trump's style.
NY Times:

Is the border wall ethical? President Trump has suggested the wall is moral and those who oppose it immoral. His critics claim the opposite.

To answer this, we have to consider its effect on humans. What harm could a border wall cause to immigrants and refugees, all of whom are equal to us in the eyes of God? ...

A wall would prevent asylum seekers from asking for protection at any point along our border — their right under the law ...

You must also look at the intent of someone who wants to construct a wall in order to determine its morality. ...

The way in which Mr. Trump has argued for a wall also is instructive.

I don't know how a Catholic bishop got suckered into a partisan political battle like this.

Opposition to the Wall is primarily Trump hatred, and a desire by Democrats to defeat him in 2020, if they cannot impeach him sooner.

Catholic doctrine has never favored open borders.

World's Loneliest Duck Dies

A prominent leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor writes:

When the male mallard Trevor the Duck landed on the tiny island of Niue, administratively part of New Zealand, I was both thrilled and enchanted. How did he get there? Who knows?

And would he survive? Niue has no standing water, and Trevor gravitated towards a small, muddy puddle. But the locals pitched in, feeding him, and even topping off his pond (the Niue Fire Department get kudos here). And, as I’ve recounted here, I offered to pay expenses to move Trevor to New Zealand, an offer communicated to the government by Heather Hastie. Trevor would be better off there, as NZ has bigger ponds and lots of friends and mates for Trevor. Sadly, they turned me down, citing quarantine restrictions, but they did ask a team of Kiwi vets to check out the duck when they visited Niue. He was pronounced healthy.

Sadly, Trevor was killed last week by a dog, and the heartwarming saga has come to an end. The New York Times even wrote Trevor an obituary ...

This is ineffably sad. I still think that the government of New Zealand could have had empathy for one lonely duck, and tested him for disease or even put him in quarantine. Now he’s dead. Yes, he was “only a duck,” but the life of that duck meant everything to him, and that’s what people don’t seem to realize, except for the inhabitants of Niue who cared for him.

I’m a big fan of New Zealand, but this time they dropped the ball.

I am not criticizing him. I am just trying to understand it. He has written good books on evolution, so obviously he understands that animals die in the wild all the time. The whole system of life on Earth depends on it.

While he is a leftist and a Trump hater, he is not part of the Ctrl Left or a subscriber to wacky leftist ideologies like animal rights.

I don't know why he would want to help this duck, or why he would think that he knows what is good for it. Maybe this duck made an extraordinary effort to get to the island, and would be angry if it got moved away.

Perhaps you are thinking that it is admirable that he has empathy for a duck. But no, no one has empathy for a duck on the other side of the world living out its natural life. It doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you think that he wants to impress you with what a caring human being he is. Again, I doubt it, as he is an old curmudgeon who has no need to impress anyone.

Here is an evolutionary view of empathy:

We differ from individual to individual in our capacity not only to understand how others feel but also to experience their pain or joy. This “affective empathy” also differs between the sexes, being stronger in women than in men. Does it also differ between human populations? It should, for several reasons:

- Affective empathy is highly heritable. A recent study put its heritability at 52-57% (Melchers et al. 2016).

- It differs in adaptiveness from one cultural environment to another, being adaptive in high-trust cultures and maladaptive in low-trust ones. There has thus been a potential for gene-culture coevolution.

- Such an evolutionary scenario would require relatively few genetic changes. Affective empathy exists in all human populations, and most likely already existed in ancestral hominids. Differences within our species are thus differences in fine-tuning of an existing mechanism.

So it evolved in high-trust human societies so humans can better cooperate. In a low trust society, empathy gets you killed. The guy probably evolved from high-trust Europeans. But no one would have evolved empathy for a duck on the other side of the world.

Pinker defends his Englightenment book

With White Supremacism getting a bad name, and Steve King getting neutered in Congress for merely using the term to Jewish NY Times reporters, perhaps we should look at the leading intellectuals in the field.

One is Steve Pinker, whose latest book is Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. He just wrote a defense of it on Quillette.

You wouldn’t think that a defense of reason, science, and humanism would be particularly controversial in an era in which those ideals would seem to need all the help they can get. But in the words of a colleague, “You’ve made people’s heads explode!” Many people who have written to me about my 2018 book Enlightenment Now say they’ve been taken aback by the irate attacks from critics on both the right and the left. Far from embracing the beleaguered ideals of the Enlightenment, critics have blamed it for racism, imperialism, existential threats, and epidemics of loneliness, depression, and suicide. They have insisted that human progress can only be an illusion of cherry-picked data. They have proclaimed, with barely concealed schadenfreude, that the Enlightenment is an idea whose time has passed, soon to be killed off by authoritarian populism, social media, or artificial intelligence. ...

I chose the word “Enlightenment” for the title because it was the best rubric for the ideals I sought to defend—catchier than, say, “secular humanism,” “liberal cosmopolitanism,” or “the open society.” ...

Slaves were always the most desirable spoils of conquest, and anyone who has been to a Passover seder or seen the movie Spartacus knows that slavery was not invented in 18th century Europe or America. ...

It’s true that the second half of the 19th century saw the rise of now-discredited scientific theories of racial hierarchies, and to ethnic nationalisms that culminated in 20th-century wars and genocides.

Yes, he is a Canadian leftist Jewish atheist Trump hater who would never identify as a white supremacist. He does not even admit that Christianity has done any good. He makes obligatory statements about racial theories being "now-discredited", whatever that means.

Pinker's books make an extended argument that everything good in the world is due to White Christian men. He uses euphemisms like "Enlightenment", but when he lists all the good things, it is always White men.

He has also written books and essay on how human nature is innate and unchangeable. This applies to almost all human characteristics. There are good people with good traits doing good things, and then there is a world of freeloaders taking advantage of what White men have created.

Obviously he would not be a distinguished Harvard professor if he phrased it that way.

If he were a closeted White Supremacist wanting to keep his Harvard professorship, he would not be doing anything differently.

Or maybe he agrees 90% with the White Supremacist program, and his Jewish brainwashing prevents him from going whole hog.

Or maybe he is just trolling his colleagues.

I have posted many disagreements with Pinker, so I am not saying I agree with him. But there is no doubt that he raises factual issues that are seriously upsetting to the Ctrl Left, and to White-haters.

Half-Jewish NY Times writer rejects Christmas trees

My readers may doubt that the NY Times is a Jewish newspaper, but consider this strange essay by a woman describing expunging Christianity from her life:

me being genetically half-Jewish ...

I didn’t leave Christianity formally as much as I drifted away from it. ...

I dated only Jews from age 16 on. In therapy years later, I recognized that this might have been because I wanted to meet a nice Jewish boy not unlike my father. ...

I’m now with someone who comes from an observant Jewish family. It is alluring to take on his religious identity as my own, and if someone asks if I’m Jewish, I say “yes” instead of “half.” ...

When the time comes, my partner and I will raise our children Jewish. My partner prefers not to have a Christmas tree in our home.

Note that she readily says she is "half-Jewish", but never that she is half-Christian. It is not clear that she even associates religion with beliefs. She plans to have kids with a man, but does not call him her husband, but her "partner" and also as being "now with someone", as if she might be with another man next week.

Being Jewish is genetically determined, and somehow becomes more serious if the family is "observant". Nobody cares if these Jews believe in God or anything else. It is a genetically determinied identity that is symbolized by observing Jewish customs and banishing the Christmas tree.

It is also understood that Jews are plagued with neuroses about their identity and parental relations, and that they require psycho-therapy all their lives.

To Jews, this story is heart-warming because the woman describes being rescued from Christian beliefs, and brainwashed to adopt Jewish customs, neuroses, and rejection of Christianity.

I am not posting this as criticism. I have no interest in this woman's weirdo daddy issues and how they lead her to propagate anti-Christian ideologies. I am just pointing out that this sort of thinking dominates the mainstream news media.

Cohen is anti-nationalist because he is a Jew

Roger Cohen, NY Times Opinion Columnist writes:

Nationalism, self-pitying and aggressive, seeks to change the present ... I hate it with all my being. ...

Not least, I am a European patriot because I am a Jew.

I am a European patriot and an American patriot. I am not from one place but several. The bond that binds the West is freedom — the cry of revolutions on both sides of the Atlantic. There is no contradiction in my patriotisms. Patriotism is to nationalism as dignity is to barbarism. As nationalism equals war, so contempt for the law brings savagery.

It appears that he is not a European or an American. His primary identity is being a Jew.

He uses the word "patriot" to mean anti-nationalist. He seeks to undermine and destroy nations run by White Christians.

The column does not mention Israel, of course. He is an Israeli nationalist. He wants the Jews to have a nation, but no one else. No White Christians, anyway.

Maybe I am belaboring the obvious, but Cohen expresses mainstream Jewish Leftist news media opinions. I am just keeping track of the biases in the news.

For another typical Jewish Leftist view, another NY Times Jewish columnist, Bari Weiss, was interviewed by Joe Rogan. She also pretends to be American, but her true allegiances are to Israel. She believes Israel should be based on "blood and soil", but adamant denies that Americans should have any such national identity. She describes herself as appearing to have white skin, but she says that she does not identify as White. She identifies as a Jew, and seeks what is best for the Jewish tribe. She admits that Jewish religious beliefs, such as belief in God, mean nothing to her and her fellow secular Jews. The essential Jewish belief is advancement of the Jewish tribe, not God. She adamantly defended Israel harshly treating Palestinian Arab Moslems.

Replying to Psychologists about Men

I mentioned that psychologists have outlined a new war on men. Others are pointing out how negative the approach is. Michael Gurian writes:

Without realizing it, over the last 50 years we’ve set up counseling and psychological services for girls and women. “Come into my office,” we say kindly. “Sit down. Tell me how you feel or felt.” Boys and men often fail out of counseling and therapy because we have not taught psychologists and therapists about the male and female brain. Only 15 percent of new counselors are male, leaving 85 percent female. Clients in therapy skew almost 80 percent female—males are dragged in by moms or spouses, but generally leave an environment unequipped for the male nature. ...

Perhaps most worrisome: the APA should be a science-based organization, but its guidelines lack hard science.

Leonard Sax writes:

The authors of the APA guidelines show no awareness of the distinction between sheepdog and wolf. Instead, the guidelines very nearly equate being a traditional man with being a wolf: a Harvey Weinstein, a sexual harasser, a bully, a violent criminal. Nowhere in the guidelines do the authors show awareness that society depends on sheepdogs. Without police, without soldiers, without heroic warriors, society becomes vulnerable to the wolves among us. In recommending that males be indoctrinated in “gender-egalitarianism,” the APA guidelines sound suspiciously like castration.

The APA guidelines are also disconnected from reality. Missing from the guidelines is any smidgeon of evidence that psychologists who preach to male clients about “cisgender masculinity privilege” or “gender-egalitarian attitudes and behaviors” will have any salutary effect at all. The most likely effect of such attempts at indoctrination will simply be to drive men out of the psychologists’ offices and to discourage men from becoming psychologists. That trend is already well underway. Among American psychologists 61 to 70 years of age, the male/female ratio is almost precisely 50/50. Among American psychologists 31 to 35 years of age, women now outnumber men by more than 8 to 1, according to the APA’s own data.

These guys are understating the problem. Even the male psychologists are usually effeminate and/or Jewish influenced. The whole subject of Psychology is permeated with weirdo Jewish beliefs, such as feminism, toxic masculinity, sexual deviancy, emotional dependence, and therapism.

NY Times has token cuckservative

Since I cite the NY Times as a Jewish newspaper, I should mention that some Jews complain that it is too anti-Israel:

The New York Times is rapidly becoming an anti-Israel paper. For every Bari Weiss op-ed (and there’s a good one today), there are several anti-Israeli articles, often filled with lies and misconceptions, like the piece below that appeared Friday.

There is some truth to this. The paper is run by American secular leftist Jews for a subscriber base that is largely American secular leftist Jews. So it often differs from Israel, as Israel also has a lot of conservative Jews. In particular, American secular leftist Jews do not really agree with Left Bank settlement policies. The NY Times exists to appease its subscriber base in the USA.

Israeli Jews have enough other groups to hate, and don't focus on white Christians as American Jews do.

The NY Times pretends to have some diverse opinions, such as having a couple of token conservative columnists. Here is one who identifies as Catholic, and not Jewish:

“Don’t let your Catholic school’s students wear MAGA hats on a field trip for the March for Life,” The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote on Twitter.

He explains in his column:

Also, it’s dumb to wear MAGA caps to a march against abortion; to lots of people they’re a symbol of white-identity politics and a justifiably unpopular president, and the adults from their Catholic school should …

Obviously this is a cuckservative who is paid to please his Jewish masters.

I just had to listen to MLK celebrations complaining about how terrible it was that blacks sometimes had to ride in the back of the bus. Now Douthat is saying white kids in a political march cannot wear hats endorsing the President's policies. That is like saying that black kids in a political march during the Obama administration should not be allowed to wear "Hope & Change" hats.

I am not sure who is more contemptible. The Jews working for White Genocide, or the cuckservatives who readily comply with whatever the Jews want.

NY Times confirms American Jewish beliefs

Jewish NY Times editor Bari Weiss writes in behalf of Jewish-American leftist ideology:

The conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator, the duplicitous manipulator, the sinister puppeteer is one with ancient roots and a bloody history. In the New Testament, it is a small band of Jews who get Rome — then the greatest power in the world — to do their bidding by killing Christ. Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, speaks to the Jews about Jesus in the book of John: “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law.” But the Jews punt the decision back to Pilate: “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.” And so Pilate does the deed on their behalf. In the book of Matthew, the implications of this manipulation are spelled out: “His blood is on us and our children,” the Jews say — a line that has been so historically destructive that even Mel Gibson cut it from his “Passion of the Christ.”

This is pretty crazy for Jews to be so preoccupied with blaming the Romans for killing Christ. Maybe hypnotism is not the right word, but Jews aggressively silence any narratives they don't like.

Those who call themselves anti-Zionists usually insist they are not anti-Semites. But I struggle to see what else to call an ideology that seeks to eradicate only one state in the world — the one that happens to be the Jewish one — while empathetically insisting on the rights of self-determination for every other minority. Israeli Jews, descended in equal parts from people displaced from Europe and the Islamic world, are barely 6.5 million of the world’s 7.7 billion people. What is it about them, exactly, that puts them beyond the pale?

This is where Jews are the world's biggest hypocrites. Whites are only about 10% of the world's population, but Jews are adamantly against self-determination for Whites.

Most White Christians accept Jewish self-determination in Israel, and even support it. But you never see any Jews like Weiss supporting White self-determination.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump blamed “globalists” with names like Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros for America’s economic woes.

Weiss is a Trump hater who says it is anti-Semitic to oppose globalism.

The particular challenge in the case of Ms. Omar is that she is exactly the kind of politician a vast majority of American Jews, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic and who have long aligned themselves with liberal causes, want to celebrate: Here is a refugee, a mother, a Muslim and a woman of color — the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in Congress. It’s no wonder she has already landed on the cover of Time magazine and in front of Annie Leibowitz’s camera. Who wouldn’t want to cheer her on?

Indeed, her identity seems to have fogged the minds of some Jewish commentators, who have insisted that we ought not to criticize Ms. Omar and other people of color ...

Now this is really sick. Weiss here confirms the suspicions of the nastiest of the so-called anti-Semites. American Jews suffer from an emotional groupthink that leads them to be overwhelmingly anti-man, anti-White, and anti-Christian. If American Jews like Weiss have to choose between a White Christian man who supports Israel, or a non-White Moslem woman who wants to exterminate the Jews, then their hatred of White Christian men is so great that their instincts are to side with the Jew-hater.

No, I do not want to cheer on a Somali immigrant with such horrible beliefs. The woman never should have been allowed into the USA. Only Jews, Somalis, and misguided liberals would think that it was a good idea to let her in.

Trying to shame White Christian boys

In case you have any doubt that the news media is dominated by factions that hate white Christians, check out the story of the Kentucky Covington Catholic High School boys in Washington DC. Even the supposedly conservative mag National Review had to retract its Jewish-style shaming of whites.

The white Christian boys were symbols of Western Civilization. They were extremely well behaved, even as they were surrounded by uncivilized troublemakers.

The NY Times also retracts its Jewish shaming:

A fuller and more complicated picture emerged on Sunday of the videotaped encounter between a Native American man and a throng of high school boys wearing “Make America Great Again” gear outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.

No, this is just another lie, to cover up their previous lies. No videotape ever showed those boys doing anything wrong.

It has long been a goal of Jewish Marxists to break down to social order in the West by destroying the family amongy non-Jews. But would they ever do that? They have no power to intervene in the private family lives of others.

Or so you might think. Watch this YouTube video, Selling Divorce to the West. It does not mention Jews or Marxists, but it does make a good argument that Hollywood movies led to a deterioration of marriage in English-speaking countries.

Brazil’s new foreign minister wrote an essay on Trump and the West

However, if we were to open the door for a moment, if we were to stop looking at the map and instead begin to study the terrain, especially the spirit landscape, what we would find is a huge pile of words and feelings, ideas, and beliefs shaped over the course of 25 or 30 centuries (it is not that much, just 100 generations), which we could call the West, or Western Civilization; an organic, living, once-powerful entity, which is today showing serious symptoms of weakness and even dementia, giving the impression that, if left to run its natural course it might, in a few years, disappear for good. ...

And what exactly is the West, which has no choice but to be, otherwise it would disappear as a civilization? Trump explains this in the next portion of his speech: The West is “a community of nations.” The West is a group, certainly, but not a shapeless mass, much less a grouping of states based on some treaty, but a set of nations – entities each defined in terms of its deep historical and cultural identity rather than as abstract legal entities – forged from unique experiences rather than from cold principles or values: a community, therefore, where peculiarities are not an accident but their own essence and part of an organic whole, and critical to the health and strength of the grouping. The removal of borders, the supranational principle, common values – nothing could be further from Trump’s concept of the West as a community of nations.

And what characterizes that community, which is based on, rather than being beyond, nationalities? Trump points, first of all, to art: “inspiring works of art that honor God”; and then innovation; the celebration of heroes, traditions, and ancient customs (which, at the start of our own culture, Camões referred to as “arms and the heroes”); the rule of law; freedom of expression; empowerment of women; family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of life; the habit of debating and challenging, and seeking to know; and “above all … the dignity of every human life, … the hope of every soul to live in freedom.” Then there are “those priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as a civilization,” what we’ve “inherited from our ancestors … has never existed to this extent before. And that if we fail to preserve it, it will never, ever again exist.”

A long time ago, a world leader would never speak that way. Here, Trump is closer to Reagan and Churchill (who viewed themselves as great defenders of freedom and civilization against savagery and oppression).

He appreciates Trump better than the American press.

Jews attack Western Civilization

A Jewish paper reports:

King has long been dubbed "America's white supremacist congressman" for often making remarks in support of white nationalism. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King asked in an interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro responded to King's quote saying, "Congress ought to vote to censure him, and then he ought to be primaried ASAP. …" Shapiro also tweeted he will donate to his primary opponents campaign.

I thought that Shapiro was an advocate of conservative policies and free speech.

He is first of all, an orthodox Jew. Jews like Shapiro and Mormons like Romney tend to hate Pres. Trump, even when they agree with everything he does.

To answer King's question, those things became offensive when Jews got control of the news and entertainment media. They hate Whites and Western Civilization most of all. They would get laughed at if they used the term "Western Civilization", so they call it "white supremacy" instead.

King did not support white nationalism or white supremacy. He merely complained that these terms are being used to smear support for Western Civilization.

Whites are supreme in the USA and Europe in the sense that they are the largest ethnic group, and they have dominated everything that makes the civilization run smoothly.

Jews hate this, and do everything they can to bring in non-whites and non-Christians, and to undermine whites whenever possible.

The Left has been doing this for decades. You might think that the Jews are only doing it because they are leftists, but how do you explain Shapiro? He is not a leftist, and he attacks leftists whenever he can.

Psychologist attack on men

The whole psychology profession is dominated by Jews and feminists, and they are anti-masculinity in almost everything they do. Now they have formalized some of their anti-male advice.

The NY Times reports:

The American Psychological Association has released several guides for psychologists who work with people belonging to certain groups — members of ethnic and linguistic minorities, for example, or women and girls.

It did not have a guide for working with males, in part because they were historically considered the norm. But in August, the A.P.A. approved its first set of official guidelines for working with boys and men.

The guidelines, 10 in all, posit that males who are socialized to conform to “traditional masculinity ideology” are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health.

They acknowledge that ideas about masculinity vary across cultures, age groups and ethnicities. But they point to common themes like “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

Of course the Jewish/feminist psychologist never suggest any manly activity, like lifting weights. They only try to get men to be more effeminate.

Podhoretz against Western Civilization

Have any non-whites ever made a significant contribution to Western Civilization?

You would think that would be an easy question to answer, but the Jewish neocon race-baiter John Podhoretz writes in a NY Post op-ed:

Far-right naked racists, of whom the most prominent in the US is probably Steve King, the nine-term congressman from Iowa.

King gave an interview to The New York Times this week in which he equated “white supremacy” with “Western civilization” and asked this: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? ... Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

King’s history of horrifying comments on race dates back two ­decades. ...

King’s words this week drawing a parallel between “white supremacy” and “Western Civilization” are especially pernicious.

For one thing, Western civilization isn’t “white,” if by “white” one is referring to skin color. Much of what we consider the roots of Western civilization comes from Asia Minor and North Africa.

For examples of great non-whites, he cites Jews, Jesus, St. Augustine, Alexander Pushkin, and Alexander Hamilton!

The only non-white thing about Hamilton is that there was a popular Broadway play that portrayed him as black. Podhoretz is seriously confusing fiction with reality.

Jesus and St. Augustine could have had white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, for all anybody knows. Pushkin was at least 7/8 white. Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair.

The greatness of our civilization can’t be found in its elevation of “whiteness” above all, because it does no such thing. That idea is the core of Nazism, not Americanism. “White supremacy” treats being “white” as a tribal identity. But Western civilization’s greatness lies not only in the beauty of its art and the wisdom of its thought but in the universality of its message.

Now we get to his real issue. Like most Jews, he is a Jewish supremacist. He believes that Jews should control the money and information channels. He is a big promoter of Jewish pride in their tribal identity, but he hates the idea of whites having any tribal identity.

The Jewish religion has no universal message. It says Jews are the Chosen People, and that Jews should do whatever is good for Jews.

As soon as any white non-Jew shows any ethnic identity or pride in Western civilization, Jews like Podhoretz are quick to start name-calling with "Nazism". Really? I thought that Nazis did bad stuff, but according to him, they were just white people recognizing the greatness of our civilization.

I will be watching to see if any Jewish publications denounce this sort of anti-white racial hatred, but I doubt it.

There seem to be some very deep-seated jealousies here. Jews do best in white supremacist countries. Jews are scattered around the world, but where do they prefer to live? White countries. And they they complain about White people all the time.

I quoted someone saying "Jews do not understand the first thing about America." It seems like a silly statement, and Podhoretz appears to be an educated man. He has a funny idea about Americanism. He writes a whole column praising non-whites, but he cannot seem to name any exemplary ones.

The libertarian Reason mag attacks King by quoting:

Take it away, Jean de Crevecouer in Letters from an American Farmer (1782):

What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.

He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

I've noted elsewhere that Crevecoeur has his limits (among other things, he speaks only of men and he owned slaves for a time). But he accurately captures a process by which America is a country that has long aspired to be a place where people could be judged, in Martin Luther King's phrase, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

No, the slave-owner was probably not ignoring skin color.

Crevecoeur was describing a new American race resulting from mixing English, French, and Dutch. In other words, all White people from Northwestern Europe. He is saying that there is an American race, not that Americans ignore race.

Matriarchy leads to narcissistic Peter Pans

Quillette reports:

As David Gilmore’s cross-cultural study of men shows (1990), in the small handful of cultures without patriarchy, men live a narcissistic Peter Pan existence, putting very little into the community and leaving most of the labor to women. Such societies have not developed beyond a rudimentary level, and cannot compete with their more highly organized and structured neighbors. This is why there are so few of them. They are not a suitable model for modern industrial nations to copy.

Copying them, however, is what we have been doing in recent decades as attacks have mounted on the sexual division of labour. ...

Eleanor Rathbone, for example, persuaded the U.K. parliament in 1945 to bypass husbands and pay family allowances to mothers, after conducting a long campaign against what she dubbed the “Turk complex.”

That was the start of a long slow decline into today's matriarchy. Here is more evidence of decline:

Alongside this cultural decline, the bourgeois mindset also seems to have suffered genetic decline. There is growi g evidence that people in Western countries are losing the gene-based improvements their ancestors had gained in cognitive capacity and other mental traits.

The strongest evidence for this regressive evolution is seen in an Icelandic study that shows a steady decline since the early twentieth century in alleles associated with high educational attainment (Kong et al. 2017). ...

Since the 1970s the IQ decline seems to be driven much more by decomposition of the nuclear family: proportionately more births are to single mothers who tend to have children by sexy men who are less intelligent and more prone to violence (see previous post).

It is probably not just the IQ genes that are declining. Many other desirable genes are also.

The market economy, and its power to create so much wealth, came into being because of certain cultural, psychological and, yes, genetic characteristics. Those characteristics are not distributed uniformly around the world. In fact, for a long time they didn’t even exist. They gradually evolved and came together in certain human groups, particularly in northwest Europeans.

Yes, there were similar evolutionary processes in other human groups, notably East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, Parsees, and so on. But those groups, too, will form a diminishing proportion of the world’s population. The cultural, psychological, and genetic basis for the market economy will therefore regress as time goes on.

The most likely scenario is that the market economy will likewise regress. We will return to a low-trust world of spatially localized markets with no market economy, at least not one that will self-generate without coercion. We will all be poorer.

If this is right, then increasing GDP is all an illusion. The world is getting poorer all the time.

American patriots are stockpiling guns

SciAm reports:

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before — that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

So, who is buying all these guns — and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male — but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile. ...

applicants were overwhelmingly dominated by white men. In interviews, they told her that they wanted to protect themselves and the people they love. ...

In a series of three experiments, Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay asked hundreds of liberals and conservatives to imagine holding a handgun — and found that conservatives felt less risk and greater personal control than liberal counterparts. ...

“Those with high attachment felt that having a gun made them a better and more respected member of their communities.” ...

“This is interesting because these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the ‘nation,’ says Froese.

Of course there is a distinction between the federal government and the nation. We currently have a Speaker of the House who says that a wall is an "immorality", and refuses to fund it.

The "nation" refers to the people and the land, not what governance is currently in place. The French nation refers to the those who practice the traditional French language and culture in France, and not Algerians who just moved there several years ago.

I believe that the Ctrl-Left would remove President Trump in a coup, if it could get away with it. They would also abolish the 1st and 2nd amendments to the Constitution. And then they would seek an ethnic cleansing of White Christians, and to replace them with non-white and non-Christian immigrants.

There is maybe a 1% chance that political differences will not be resolved peacefully, and America will degenerate into a civil war. If that happens, the patriots will be well armed. I hope that means that the leftists do not push us into a civil war.

Genius biologist believes animals are egalitarian

I criticized Sapolosky for not believing in free will, but the same interview has this:

We write a lot in Pacific Standard about economic and social inequality, but until I read Behave, it never occurred to me to compare humans with other animals in this respect. You argue that humans have far more inequality than any other species. Any idea why that is?

Because of our psychological sophistication. A low-ranking non-human primate may they get beat up when somebody is in a bad mood, or get the crummiest place to sit when it's raining. Or they'll find something good to eat, and someone (of a higher rank) will take it away from them. But that's basically it. They don't have societal constructs that lead them to think it's their own damn fault.

Humans can be driving down the freeway, and the driver in front of you can signal your lack of socioeconomic success (via their more expensive automobile).

So humans have more social inequality than animals because some humans drive fancier cars than others?

He is not referring to ppl being better off because the car works better. He is talking about someone feeling bad about a low-status car, and says that animals do not have that feeling.

This is crazy. Humans distribute their food so that no one starves. No animals do that. In many species, the low status animals do not eat or reproduce.

I don't know how Sapolsky got to be considered such a genius.

Maximizing human capital

Economists like Tyler Cowen argue that government policies should solely be designed to maximize GDP. If you object that GDP does not take environmental damage into account, he will say that he really wants to use a modified GDP that factors in his favorite causes.

This sort of thinking sometimes goes under the slogan, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Among philosophers, it is called utilitarianism or consequentialism. Cowen's view is a little extreme in that he considers someone in Ethiopia in a millennium to be as important as someone today.

He wrote a book on this subject, and to prove his sincerity, he promised to donate all his profits to some clown in Ethiopia.

Tucker Carlson recently enraged conservatives with an economic rant that included, “Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot.”

I am wondering if any of these smart economists ever tried to quantify human capital.

There are 7 billion people in the world. Some are making the world a better place, and some a worse place. If you take into account consumption of resources in future generations, then the big majority of people have negative value.

Advances in genetic research may soon make it possible to quantify human capital on the genome level. Most human traits are heritable, so once he have good genomic models, we could estimate human capital directly from the genomes.

You might protest that a man is more than his DNA. I would agree, but if you are projecting a millennium into the future, as Cowen does, then a man is just the DNA of his descendants.

A man may have genes for criminal behavior, and never commit any crimes. After a millennium, he could have thousands of criminal descendants.

An ugly woman could have thousands of ugly descendants. If resources become scarce, then no one wants them used up by ugly people.

It may seem harsh to judge people based on their genomes, but if you buy into future utilitarianism like Cowen, then surely it is better to exterminate undesirables now than to somehow correct all the damage in a millennium.

Countries like Taiwan and South Korea have gotten rich by implementing capitalist theories of money. Eventually, I think some countries will try to seriously maximize their genomic capital. If so, they might create paradises of low crime, low strife, high trust, high productivity, and high happiness.

How good or bad this is remains to be seen. Many would argue that any such project would be doomed to fail. If some country does the experiment, we may find out.

The evolutionist plan for genocide

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:

I’m a free-will “incompatibilist”: someone who sees the existence of physical determinism as dispelling the idea of contracausal, you-could-have-done-otherwise “free will”, which is the notion of free will most common among people. Many people find my view disturbing and fatalistic, and I’m often posed this question: “If everything is determined by the laws of physics mediated through our neurobiology, what’s the point of trying to change somebody’s mind?”

My response is that no, we can’t choose (via contracausal free will) whether we want to change someone’s mind, nor can they freely choose (in the same sense) whether to change it. But human brains are wired by both evolution and experience in a way that alters people’s behaviors when (in general) they would benefit from those changes.

Got that? You have no ability to make decisions for yourself, but leftist brainwashers can reprogram your brain to follow their agenda.

Coyne then endorses a fellow leftist-atheist-evolutionist:

A couple of weeks ago, at a speech before a friendly audience, President Donald Trump likened immigrants to poisonous snakes. To biologist and behavioral scientist Robert Sapolsky, it was a revolting but revealing remark.

"That's a textbook dehumanization of 'them,' he said. "If you get to the point where citing 'thems' causes your followers to activate neurons in the insular cortex—the part of the brain that responds to viscerally disgusting things — you've finished most of your to-do list for your genocide."

That sort of sharply stated, science-based analysis has made Sapolsky a popular and influential writer and thinker. A MacArthur fellow, he is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, and the author of several books, including the 2017 best-seller Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.

Sapolsky has spent much of his career in Kenya, studying baboons (among other primates), and he uses that knowledge to put human behavior into a broader perspective. In a recent telephone interview, he discussed the biological basis of our current political fault lines.

So his political view boils down to saying it is okay to compare people to Kenyan baboons, but not to snakes.

Sapolsky's big treatise is a massive tirade against free will.

Let's talk about tribalism. First of all, is that an accurate term for the sorting into opposing camps that's going on today?

Absolutely, in a very primate kind of way. The easiest symbols that we grab onto in deciding if someone is an "us" or a "them" are visceral ones. Being disgusted by someone's personal behavior — the way 'they' do stuff — is a much easier entree to hating them than disagreeing with their views on the trade deficit.

Primates are hard-wired for us/them dichotomies.

For him, he identifies with an "us" consisting of fellow leftist academics and primates, with "them" being religious folks.

But devout religious observance in a group setting is. Studies show that support for terrorism in majority Muslim countries is unrelated to how often you pray, or how devout you are about food prohibitions. But it is related to how often you pray in a mosque. The same is also true of right-wing Jewish extremists in Israel. When sacred values are re-affirmed in groups — that's when things get scary. ...

Scapegoating is an incredibly mammalian thing to do.

So he scapegoats Trump supporters, Muslims, and Israeli Jews. That is his to-do list for genocide.

If he is right, then the only sensible thing to do is to destroy all the mosques. Mosques are just training grounds for future terrorists. Moslems do not believe in free will either. The Western world has the power to bomb and destroy all the world's mosques. With advance warning, it could be done with minimal loss of life. Mecca could be destroyed when hardly anyone is there. China already has experience in re-programming Moslems, so maybe they could lead the plan.

Speaking of primates, here is anthropologist John Hawks insisting that humans must be groups with both monkeys and apes:

Humans are not phylogenetically separate from living great apes; the same common ancestors that connect those apes also are our ancestors. In other words, “apes” in English are not a proper monophyletic group, unless humans are also included. The same is true of “monkeys” – no way of grouping the ceboid [New World] and cercopithecoid [Old World] monkeys is monophyletic unless the apes and humans are also included. (The branch that includes all of these primates is known as the Anthropoidea).

It is funny how these learned academics refuse to admit differences between humans and monkeys.