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.

Opinion from a Jewish feminist former incel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women who want lasting relationships are also big losers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why is he a leftist feminist?

USA does not punish the uneducated

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

NY Times op-ed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most efforts to improve education have been a failure:

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

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

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

When lawyers discover deep pockets

News:

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

This case was always about the money.

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

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

Civilization depends on stopping barbarians

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

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

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

The ancient Greeks really did have a superior civilization.

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

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

Rome fell when it got too soft on the barbarians.

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

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

Impediment to the child’s success and happiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPR gives anti-white advice

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

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

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

DEMBY: OK.

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

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

As an alternative, tell him the Derbyshire talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

New cuckoo bees discovered

UK BBC reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single mom and pervert wants to be honored

From a Huff Post column 2 years ago:

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

By Michelle Manning Barish

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

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

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

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

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

Is this what feminism has become?

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

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

Another right-wing political site is shut down

BuzzFeed reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empirical Examiniation of Jewish Question

The Ideas And Data blog writes:

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

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

Jews are vastly overrepresented in positions of power and cultural influence

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

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

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

He has some impressive data to support these claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: Kevin MacDonald adds:

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

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

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

Even Jordan Peterson has to stay within his Overton Window.

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

Trump owns Ronan Farrow

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

Ronan Farrow and a female coauthor write in New Yorker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder how long this MeToo devastation can continue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish evolutionist denies evolution

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

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

An Irish genetics professor argues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Tully portray crazy mom

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration leads to higher crime rates

NPR Radio News reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPR reported this 5 years ago:

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

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

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

Here is some research on the causes of violent crime.

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

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

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