Overusing terms until meaningless

The Slate Star Codex shrink writes:

A few months ago, a friend confessed that she had abused her boyfriend. I was shocked, because this friend is one of the kindest and gentlest people I know. I probed for details. She told me that sometimes she needed her boyfriend to do some favor for her, and he wouldn’t, so she would cry – not as an attempt to manipulate him, just because she was sad. She counted this as abuse, because her definition of “abuse” is “something that makes your partner feel bad about setting boundaries”. And when she cried, that made her boyfriend feel guilty about his boundary that he wasn’t going to do the favor. ...

The moral of the story is: don’t set thresholds for category membership so far outside a distribution that they stop conveying useful information.

He also explains how calling Pres. Trump a "liar" or "racist" requires such a loose definition of these terms that they lose all meaning.

Indeed, modern academics say that everyone is a racist. Even if you are a blind man and do not even know the race of anyone else, you are still a racist for failing to appreciate white privilege.

Likewise everyone is a liar. If you tell the truth too much, psychologists will diagnose you with Asperger syndrome or autistic spectrum disorder.

By some measures, Trumps is the most honest and least racist President we have had in decades. For example, Barack Obama's book shows that he has all sorts of racist views that no one has detected in Trump. Most of the argument for impeaching Trump is based on him being too honest in his explanations.

Most of Trump's enemies have given up calling him a liar or racist. They have moved on to call him a Nazi or a fascist or whatever worse epithets they can find. They appear to running out of meaningless slurs.

More Democrats have turned extremist

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman writes that a political party can win elections by saying "nigger nigger nigger". The Atlantic mag says the same. That has become the Democrat strategy.

It is rare to hear a Republican say anything about race, as Republicans do not appear to even think that racial issues are important. But listen to the Democrats, and its nigger nigger nigger all the time.

Plus, Democrats are now the Party of Open Borders. Someone tried to convince that this was a straw man, by pointing to this Elizabeth Warren essay on immigration reform. But the only reforms she advocates are to eliminate all limits on non-white immigration. So it is all open borders, and racially inflammatory language.

We are all descended from invaders

Nat. Geographic reports:

Now scientists are delivering new answers to the question of who Europeans really are and where they came from. Their findings suggest that the continent has been a melting pot since the Ice Age. ...

In an era of debate over migration and borders, the science shows that Europe is a continent of immigrants and always has been. “The people who live in a place today are not the descendants of people who lived there long ago,” says Harvard University paleogeneticist David Reich. ...

In Britain and some other places, hardly any of the farmers who already lived in Europe survived the onslaught from the east. In what is now Germany, “there’s a 70 percent to possibly 100 percent replacement of the local population,” Reich says. “Something very dramatic happens 4,500 years ago.” …

“To me, the new results from DNA are undermining the nationalist paradigm that we have always lived here and not mixed with other people,” Gothenburg’s Kristiansen says. “There’s no such thing as a Dane or a Swede or a German.” Instead, “we’re all Russians, all Africans.”

The nationalist paradigm is that a nation must defend its borders, or else it will be wiped out by invaders.

The DNA results prove this. Become a fierce nationalist, or be exterminated. That is the history of Europe.

All I hear from Democrats today is that they want to replace the American White population with non-whites. There is not even one Democrat presidential candidate who has a policy position to put limits on non-white immigration.

Celebrating the Fourth is White

Salon.com, a typical leftist site, posts this anti-Trump rant:

Donald Trump is one of the best storytellers in recent political memory because of his skill in manipulating the emotions of the audience. ... Trump's Fourth of July event was a great example of these gifts. ...

White Christian conservatives are a key constituency for today's Republican Party, and many of them apparently believe that Donald Trump is a messenger and savior sent to them by God. White conservatives, especially right-wing Christians, also believe they are in a literal, existential struggle for survival against black and brown people and "the secular world."

Donald Trump has combined these attributes and further weaponized them in the form of overt white supremacy and white identity politics. In this right-wing social imaginary Donald Trump stands as savior and father figure. Loyalty and obedience to Trump provides life and salvation to his followers.

This essay does not even quote anything from Trump! Instead it complains that his recent July 4 speech did not say anything about immigrants.

Got that? A white politician is a white supremacist if he fails to credit non-white immigrants.

Trump never says anything white supremacist, or white nationalist, or white identity political. It is the Democrats and his other enemy who inject anti-white racial matters into everything.

The NY Times has an article by a black woman who says she was bused two hours a day, and it worked because nobody can learn anything in a predominantly black school. It narrowed the white-black test scores, she says.

This article is much more white supremacist than anything Trump says. It is anti-white identity politics. It is written to boost the chances of Kamala Harris, who doesn't have much going for her except that she is a non-white female. She has a white grandparent and a Jewish husband, but she is campaigning on anti-white, anti-male identity politics.

Everyone is disassociating with Epstein

There is a big rush to disassociate with Jeffrey Epstein, and here is Steve Pinker:

My review of the history of rape and battering in The Better Angels of Our Nature  ... The lengthy section lauds feminist writers like Susan Brownmiller who first documented the prevalence of rape and the historic indifference to it, and who called for concerted measures to eliminate it. ...

Given my longstanding distaste for everything Epstein, it’s galling to be publicly associated with him based on some photos and mutual associates, but I suppose this is one of the dubious perquisites of fame (by academic standards).  And it’s a particular hazard in the era of social media — last year I was featured in a New York Times op-ed by Jesse Singal called “Social Media Is Making Us Dumber. Here’s Exhibit A”; this year I appear to be Exhibit B.

It is funny that he thinks that this somehow exonerates him.

Pinker is despised by the Left because he meets this definition of being red-pilled, and because he acts like a closet neo-nazi. If he is going to write a scholarly work on violence, he is going to pay homage to feminism. He has to, if wants to continue as a respected Harvard professor.

So obviously he is going to disavow Epstein.

I do not agree with guilt-by-association, but leftists do. I am not blaming him, but a lot of leftists are portraying Epstein as the world's greatest evil, and blaming everyone connected to him.

This is just another leftist media frenzy over stale and dubious accusations.

They say that a search of his house uncovered some child porn, but that is the surest way to frame someone. The evidence never becomes public, and the target goes to prison for life.

The most interesting question here is how Epstein made his money. He appears to be extremely rich, without any honest source of income. I have never heard of someone making so much money, while being interconnected with a lot of famous people, without any obvious explanation. Now there are rumors that he was an extortionist, blackmailer, con man, swindler, etc. I assume that we will find out the sources, as the feds are good at tracing money. They may not figure out why others were willing to invest money with such a goofball. Did we ever get an explanation of why people trusted Bernie Madoff?

Update: Inside Higher Ed piles on with Pinker attacks. I think that Pinker's enemies are not willing to say why they really hate him.

Twitter and Amazon increase their censorship

Twitter announces that it will not ban messages critical of religion:

We create our rules to keep people safe on Twitter, and they continuously evolve to reflect the realities of the world we operate within. Our primary focus is on addressing the risks of offline harm, and research* shows that dehumanizing language increases that risk. As a result, after months of conversations and feedback from the public, external experts and our own teams, we’re expanding our rules against hateful conduct to include language that dehumanizes others on the basis of religion.

The word "research" is just a euphemism for some Jewish opinion articles.

This would appear to ban a Christian saying that non-Christians will go to Hell.

And Amazon is now banning some self-help books:

After Amazon knuckled under pressure from LGBT activists to ban books offering help to those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction, ...

Among the banned books are several by Catholic psychologists Joseph Nicolosi and Gerard Van Aardweg, as well as autobiographies of individuals who left active homosexuality.

“We are outraged that a smear campaign by one individual (who stated here that he never read these books) could convince Amazon to censor all books, audiobooks, and Kindle material related to our experiences and viewpoints,” reads the petition. ...

Here are the books known to have been banned by Amazon, which former gays and lesbians are demanding be restored:

Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy, by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi;

Restoring Sexual Identity: Hope for Women Who Struggle with Same-Sex Attraction, by Anne Paulk;

The Battle for Normality: A Guide for (Self-)Therapy for Homosexuality, by Dr. Gerard J. M. Van Den Aardweg; ...

Note that these bans are not based on anything being false, or dangerous, or infringing, or illegal, or anything like that.

Again, this bans some mainstream Christian opinions.

You might argue that these books have no proven effectiveness. But most of psychology and most self-help books have no proven effectiveness. These books are not any worse than the typical books in this genre. If Amazon were to ban ineffective books, a lot would have to go.

Women cannot distinguish fantasies from reality

A Nautilus article explains why imagination and memories are so similar in the brain:

It’s long been common knowledge that imaginings are re-combinations of bits from memory. But now we’re seeing that the act of recalling something that happened to you looks very much like what happens when you imagine something new.

A large number of women have fantasies about having sexual relations with the President. After a while, it becomes impossible for the women to distinguish the memory of a real event from the memory of a fantasy.

A recent accuser got a lot of publicity, and many wondered whether she was telling the truth. That is the wrong question, as it is unlikely that she knows whether she is telling the truth. Her book told a lot of wild stories, so she probably has many fantasies and real experiences, and she cannot distinguish them. A reporter found a couple of women who said that she should be believed, but of course they say that all women should be believed.

Netflix has convinced the public that a confession could be a false confession, even if it is videorecorded in the presence of parents and lawyers and results in a long prison term. If so, then a MeToo confession can be a false one also. If someone might confess falsely and get a 40-year prison term, then someone might confess falsely to get a million-dollar book contract.

Here is a MeToo allegation in today's news:

For a year, Araoz said, she was brainwashed into giving Epstein massages while wearing only her underwear. He would masturbate until he finished — and then leave her $300.

But in 2002, Araoz claimed, Epstein told her to remove her underwear because he wanted to “try something a little bit different.”

Epstein is a creep with deep pockets, and the vultures are closing in on him. It sounds as if the accuser suddenly remembered this story after 17 years, and after signing a deal with a lawyer to make a claim.

NY Times quotes Roissy blog

This blog is getting some unwanted attention from this NY Times article:

The technological frontiers being explored by questionable researchers and unscrupulous start-ups recall the discredited pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology, which purport to use facial structure and head shape to assess character and mental capacity.

Artificial intelligence and modern computing are giving new life and a veneer of objectivity to these debunked theories, which were once used to legitimize slavery and perpetuate Nazi race “science.” Those who wish to spread essentialist theories of racial hierarchy are paying attention. In one blog, for example, a contemporary white nationalist claimed that “physiognomy is real” and “needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.”

This is not a reference to this blog, but to the now defunct Chateau Heartiste blog. It was banned by Wordpress, without public explanation. I doubt that it was banned for white nationalism, as I never saw him express such views.

However he wrote about beauty and ugliness a lot, and he discussed social trends. Yes, many of his opinions would be called racist by the NY Times leftists. He said a lot of things that leftists despise.

It is outrageous that his blog was banned, as it was filled with fascinating insights about human nature. He often did cite scientific studies to back up his views.

I just quoted his comments on physiogonomy in 2016 as provocative. Most everyone does make some judgments based on appearance.

The NY Times says:

Affect recognition draws from the work of Paul Ekman, a modern psychologist who argued that facial expressions are an objective way to determine someone’s inner emotional state, and that there exists a limited set of basic emotional categories that are fixed across cultures. His work suggests that we can’t help revealing these emotions. That theory inspired the television show “Lie to Me,” about a scientist who helps law enforcement by interpreting unforthcoming suspects’ expressions.

Dr. Ekman’s work has been criticized by scholars who say emotions cannot be reduced to such easily interpretable — and computationally convenient — categories.

Ekman does seem to overstate what can be done with his approach, and reading the emotions of others can often be wrong.

But nearly everyone reads emotions from facial expressions. Some claim that dogs can do it. If you cannot do it, then psychiatrists say you have autism.

If physiognomy gained traction, “one will hang children before they have done the deeds that merit the gallows,” Lichtenberg wrote, warning of a “physiognomic auto-da-fé.”

Soon AI systems will be predicting criminality based on DNA, faces, habits, friends, health, and anything else available to the surveillance state.

Jews want Holocaust education mandatory

RT reports:

The World Jewish Congress is pushing US lawmakers to make Holocaust education mandatory in all schools, citing statistics from a 2018 poll revealing half of millennials can’t name a single Nazi concentration camp.

The WJC started a petition calling on Congress to “make Holocaust education mandatory in every school in the United States,” that has garnered 8,500 signatures so far. The petition points to a rise in antisemitism and warns that “the horrors of the Holocaust are fading from our collective memory, especially among millennials.”

It refers to statistics found in the 2018 Holocaust Knowledge and Awareness Study which surveyed 1,350 Americans aged 18 and over and found 49 percent of millennials and 45 percent of adults couldn’t name a concentration camp or ghetto in Europe during the Holocaust. It also revealed that 41 percent of millennials think the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was two million or less, rather than six million.

I am just posting this as an example of how Jews think. Draw your own conclusions.

Feminist rabbi wants open borders

The Boston Globe reports:

A lively and fast-moving stream of about 1,000 Jewish activists and others shut down traffic in the heart of the city during rush hour Tuesday evening, chanting, singing, and drumming to protest immigrant detention in the city and across the country. ...

Many of the demonstrators were young, wearing prayer shawls and head coverings, and drawing on lessons learned in Hebrew school ...

“I think it’s particularly important for Jews, who face anti-Semitism, and have an ancestral history of trauma, to speak out on behalf of other people,” said Rabbi Becky Silverstein, who wore a prayer shawl and carried a shofar, a ram’s horn used during some Jewish holidays.

Here is yet another example of feminist leftist Jews seeking to impose their weirdo beliefs on the rest of us.

In particular, she makes a delusional charge of "anti-Semitism" to justify exterminating White Christians. This Jewish group has the slogan "Never Again" to mean that they will never again miss a chance to seek the demographic displacement of White Christians. They adamantly say that ICE must not stop non-white migrants from invading the country.

In America, of course. It is okay for Jews to block migrants moving to Israel, because that is how Israel maintains a Jewish ethnostate.

In June, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., weighed in, releasing a statement that it “unequivocally rejects efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary.” That prompted more than 400 scholars of the Holocaust and genocide to rebuke the museum, saying that its position “makes learning from the past almost impossible.”

I am not sure which side of this is more absurd. Either way, it is clear that Holocaust stories are only to be used to advance political agendas against gentiles.

Red Pill people seek facts

The Rational Male writes:

Red Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

• They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.
• They believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists. ...

Blue Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

• They believe that reality is subjective, and what is “true” is simply a matter of who you ask. What is called “truth” is simply a codification of someone’s perspective, and it is therefore pointless to argue about what is “true“. They are factual relativists.
• They believe that there is exactly one set of moral laws, which human beings have gradually discovered in a historical climb towards ethical perfection (or degeneration). Certain people are ethically better or worse based not only on what they do, but also on what they believe. They believe that different ethical systems exist, but they can be ranked from ethically worst to ethically best based on a sort of meta-ethics whereby they can be tested for degree of compliance with the one absolute set of ethics that underlies reality. They are moral absolutists.

He is on to something here.

Like the Red Pill people, I often post about human nature, and I am primarily concerned with just understanding the facts. I am not trying to get men to behave more like women, or vice-versa. Just to understand their nature. Blue pill people do not accept facts about human nature.

It is only the Blue Pill people who go around condemning others for stating facts.

Others use the term Red Pill somewhat differently. Usually it means accepting realities of human nature, in spite of almost everyone telling convenient lies.

Deus Vult

29 societies of Medievalists have made a statement relating Medieval scholarship to "white supremacy" and the Crusades. It says:

Every generation of scholars creates its own interpretations of the past.

It is hard to tell what the real issue is, because it does not cite or link to whomever it is criticizing.

Reading between the lines, it appears that nearly everyone who seriously studies Medieval history comes to the following conclusions:

1. 3000 years ago, the most advanced civilizations were in Middle East, Persia, India, and China. Europe was lagging.

2. During Europe's so-called Dark Ages, it built a civilazation that was to leap frog far ahead of those outside Europe.

3. The primary ingredients for success were White people and culture, Christianity, and a willingness to fight for their beliefs.

4. The success was not based on any technology, natural resources, or conquests.

5. The Crusades and related battles kept Moslems and Jews from taking over Europe, as they would have ruined it.

If these conclusions are wrong, then I expect that the politically-correct Medievalists would try to rebut it. Instead they just say that they are free to create their own interpretations and things like this:

Scholars disagree about the motivations of the Crusades — or, indeed, whether the idea of “crusade” is a medieval one or came later — but it is clear that racial purity was not primary among them.

Sure, the Crusades were more about religious purity than racial purity.

White Christian Europe achieved greatness in the last 500 years, while the Islamic world declined. Various explanations have been given. I do not know which is best, but I am pretty sure I won't get it for those 29 Medievalist societies. They have already said that they oppose discussing scholarship that "hurts people in the present". I am pretty sure that any good explanation will cause bigotry complaints.

Daily attacks from the NY Times

A Jewish NY Times columnist writes:

The United States and Britain would then be led by men with striking similarities, and not just on the hair front: two charlatans and narcissists with flimsy notions of the truth, utterly unprincipled, given to racist slurs, skilled practitioners of the politics of spectacle, manipulators of fear, nationalist traffickers in an imaginary past of radiant greatness, fabulists of reborn glory, with giant holes at their centers where conscience and integrity went missing.

Of course he would be claiming anti-semitism, if anyone said this about a Jew.

Another Jewish NY Times columnist praises a German woman as a heroine, because she smuggles African migrants into Italy.

Another Jewish NY Times story complains that the better NY schools have white teachers, and hence not diverse enough.

There is a big article complaining that the most prominent art critics are white. It counts Jews and gays as being white.

Another NY Times column complains that close to half of Republicans view the news media as “the enemy of the people.” He complains that Republicans are against the First Amendment, but nearly all the forces of censorship in America today are from Democrats. He praises Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln, but of course all of them would be considered White supremacists today.

There are probably a bunch more anti-white anti-gentile articles in today's paper, but that is all I read so far. This garbage is printed every day. If there were prizes for hate speech, the NY Times would be winning.

Update: This comment explains how censorship has become almost entirely an activity of the Left:

Say what you will about the right but I've never had a right wing website censor me, hell go to any right wing website and say you're a Bernie Bro and see what happens...they will make fun of you, probably call you a moron , but they won't censor you.

Now go to a left wing website like HuffPo or Daily Kos and say you are for any right winger or their stance and see what happens...I'll wait...got yourself erased pretty damn quickly didn't ya?

You don't see the right calling to ban Colbert or Maddow or anybody else, oh they will make fun of them and make memes, I personally enjoyed the "Rachel Madcow Russia meme" where they spliced together how many times she said Russia on one episode, I quit counting at like 23 and it just kept going, but they don't censor. Its the left you see calling for shadowbans, removing those they do not agree with from platforms, and erasing people from history like a good Stalinist.

And when it comes down to it if the choice is a bunch of assholes where I'm allowed to point and say "they are a bunch of assholes!" or a bunch of social justice Marxist wannabes that tries to erase anything they don't agree with as "badthink"? I'll go with the assholes, at least they aren't trying to tape my mouth shut, dox me, or bash my head in with a bike chain because i don't buy their bullshit.

That's right. The Right believes in free speech, while the Left believes in censorship. I occasionally see articles by leftists criticizing Facebook and Twitter for censorship, but they always urge a different and more aggressive form of censorship.

Whitewashing of American history

Artnet news:

For decades, a series of murals illustrating the life of George Washington on the walls of a San Francisco high school has been the subject of heated debate. Some say the 13-panel painting, which depicts violence against Native Americans and slaves, should be taken down. Others believe the work of art, which was painted nearly 90 years ago by Russian-born artist Victor Arnautoff — a noted critic of the whitewashing of American history — is an invaluable teaching tool.

Last week, the city finally settled the issue. The San Francisco Board of Education voted unanimously to cover up the murals at George Washington High School — a project that will cost as much as $845,000 in taxpayer money. Not everyone is pleased with the decision. ...

The school board still has to decide whether it will paint over the mural or cover it with paneling. The latter option would cost between $600,000 and $845,000 and would be completed within two years, according to the Times. Painting, while ostensibly cheaper, would first necessitate an environmental impact study, which would run roughly $500,000. The timeline for this option is unclear.

The mural should have been destroyed a long time ago for being Commie propaganda. But paying $500k just to destroy it? Can't we do anything for reasonable cost anymore?

My guess is that there will be lawsuits over this, so that it will eventually cost $2M and 5 years. Or worse.

But apparently computer programming can still be done on the cheap. According to this article, Boeing 737s were crashing because it outsourced critical programming to $9 per hour Indian coders.

The revisionist history continues:

Thomas Jefferson Day has been canceled for Toxic Male Whiteness in Charlottesville, where Jefferson invented the American college campus with his landscape design for the University of Virginia.

So what American heroes are left? Not Martin Luther King, Jr., as he has been revealed to be a Commie fellow traveler and a philanderer, and even egged on a rape, if these sources are to be believed.

BTW, the NY Times has yet another Jewish rant about how Trump is like Hitler and how it is fascist to resist the demographic replacement of whites by non-whites. It concedes that Trump is not as bad as Hitler, but persists in the analogies nevertheless. It says Trump is not anti-Semitic, but he is interfering with Jewish plans to exterminate white gentiles. It is amazing how the mainstream media is now so open about such opinions.

The Struggle for Gay Rights Is Over

From an Atlantic mag essay:

The Struggle for Gay Rights Is Over

For those born into a form of adversity, sometimes the hardest thing to do is admitting that they’ve won. ...

America is rapidly becoming a post-gay country. Gay people were once policed as criminal subversives, depicted in the popular culture as deviants, and pathologized by the medical establishment as mentally ill. Now most of America views homosexuality as benign. ...

On television, one cannot change the channel without coming across prominent lesbian and gay characters. ...

Every day seems to bring welcome examples of how Americans are becoming more relaxed about sexual orientation. ...

Nonetheless, hysteria about America’s supposedly deepening homophobia flourishes. Earlier this year, an academic journal quietly retracted a study by a Columbia University professor purporting to show that living in areas with high levels of antigay sentiment reduces gay people’s life expectancies by a dozen years. Before it was withdrawn, the paper was cited 141 times in other academic publications.

It is a little bizarre how the LGBT crowd claims that they are persecuted. They have gotten everything they want, and they control the media.

Likewise, it is strange to hear feminists complain, when they have gotten their feminist utopia.

Obviously these groups are going to complain endlessly, no matter what. It is their religion to complain about being persecuted.

Name-calling against this blog

A reader accuses this blog of being anti-semitic.

Almost every day I see the mainstream media attacking President Donald Trump in the harshest terms. They lie about him almost every time. Most of the time they are Jews, working for Jewish-dominated organizations, like the NY Times or CNN. Sometimes they are politicians, like Schumer, Nadler, and Schiff.

Jews aren't the only Trump-haters. There are also Mormons, Moslems, blacks, and others. I attack them on this blog also for their political stances. But the mainstream media is dominated by Jews, so they get the most attention.

So 90% of the media is Jews attacking Trump, and I defend Trump, and that makes me anti-semitic?

No, that is not a criticism. That is just throwing epithets. Jews go around launching ridiculous political attacks on everyone, and they should not be immune from criticism. There are far more examples of Jews attacking Trump than anyone attacking Jews.

We live in a world now where Nike says that the American flag is a white supremacy symbol. CNN just had a program on white supremacy, titled "The State of Hate". I did not see a free copy online, but you can listen to one of the main interviews on Youtube.

A funny part of the interview was that CNN's Fareed Zakaria (GPS) was very eager for Jared Taylor to classify him as White, Caucasian, and intelligent. Taylor said that Zakaria had a Harvard PhD, and therefore was probably very intelligent, and that some groups do have higher average IQ than Whites.

Zakaria said that he was descended from Aryan invaders of North India several millennia ago, and is therefore Caucasian. Those invaders developed a caste system in India just to maintain separation of the Aryans from the native Indians at the time. It is true that when the world is divided into the Caucasian, Oriental, and Negro races, Indians are considered Caucasian. Zakaria also spent a lot of time arguing about whether Hispanics should be considered White.

I don't know the point of all Zakaria's arguments were. Obviously we now have DNA tests to objectively determine someone's ancestry. It is not debatable. The discussion was probably edited out of the CNN broadcast, as he seemed foolish. If he understands how his fellow Indian Aryans maintained their ethnic distinctiveness, then he presumably understands how other groups wish to as well.

Law professor brags about her weirdo mothering

It is amazing what Jews promote as maternal values.

The NY Times published an op-ed by a divorced Jewish law professor who brags that in 2013 she abandoned her children in favor of freeing a black man from prison.

The kids weren't really abandoned, as they have a father, but he is another Jewish lawyer who is probably also pretending that dismantling the White society is a virtue.

I’ve Picked My Job Over My Kids
I love them beyond all reason. But sometimes my clients need me more. ...

My son was one of the last children to speak. He stood up and, in a clear voice, said: “I appreciate my parents for being lawyers because they get people out of jail. ...”

This is sick. At the same time, the author's sister, Emily Bazelon, another Jewish lawyer writer, was on PBS TV News supporting wild and unsubstantiated against Donald Trump and others. She had no mention of the possibility that he might be innocent, and seemed only concerned about the accusers feeling bad because their stories are questioned.

It is obvious that these feminist women have no actual concern for innocence or justice. They are just working to promote their political agendas.

RT reports:

Whether one agrees with Trump’s idea to build a wall on the US-Mexico border or not, “he is at least looking for a solution,” Putin said, while the proponents of the so-called liberal values are “not doing anything,” insisting that everything is just fine even as unprecedented numbers of migrants come across their borders.

"So, the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population."

The same thing is happening in Europe, the Russian president said, noting that other leaders he spoke with saying nothing can be done because there are laws.

“Well, change the laws!” he said.

Putin is right. The liberal idea has had a gone run, but now it is in conflict with the interests of the people.

The regular NY Times opinion columnists are not supposed to reveal their voting preferences, but usually it is obvious anyway. David Brooks has somehow made a second career pretending to represent Republicans on PBS TV and NPR Radio. They frequently have two guests giving political commentary, implying that one is the Democrat and one is the Republican. When asked about whether he is a Republican, he would coyly say that the NY Times does not allow him to say.

Today Brooks writes:

I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?

Apparently he is much more in agreement with Trump than the Democrat candidates.

So why does he hate Trump? I have read dozens of his columns on the subject, and here is the best explanation I can see. Trump is Jewish, and the tribe has made a collective decision to do everything to undermine Trump. Brooks is far too much of a dishonest creep to say this explicitly, but he fails to give any coherent arguments against Trump either.

It is not even that Trump ever does anything contrary to the Jews. But Jews like Brooks and the NY Times management firmly believe that the Jews should control politicians, and they don't control Trump. So they hate him.

Why sluts are undesirable mates

Slate Star Codex blog writes:

Did cultural evolution create sexual purity taboos to prevent the spread of STIs? A few weeks ago, I wrote a post assuming this was obviously true; after getting some pushback, so I want to look into it in more depth. ...

Most likely purity taboos came from both paternity issues and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. But I think it’s fair to speculate that STIs played a part.

He is a Jewish psychiatrist with peculiar sexual preferences. Perhaps that explains why he sees STIs as the main reason against promiscuity in partners.

I don't doubt that he is more worried about STIs than paternity. Likewise for women.

But his post and the comments do not adequately consider the differences between men and women.

Men normally have instincts to be promiscuous. The evolutionary benefit is for the man to spread his seed widely.

Women do not. They have instincts for Alpha Fux Beta Bux. They will have an affair with a more alpha man, or shift to a better resource provider, but they prefer to stay with a man they are happy with.

So why do men prefer not to marry a promiscuous woman? Yes, she could have diseases and try to trick him into raising another man's child.

But there are a couple of other reasons: She will be psychological disordered and impossible to please.

A man does not want a psychologically disturbed wife.

Crazy Cat Lady writes about her large number of sexual partners:

But if you have been sexually active [for] 10 plus years, it is surprisingly easy to rack up a number so big you can’t even precisely recall.

Of course if I were a man I would be celebrated for this. But I’m a woman so many men simply call me a slut and refuse to date me (but still offer me the privilege of having sex with them). ...

Anyone who has been single in a major city know that you can line up a weeks worth on tinder dates in a matter of hours. Sometimes multiple meet ups in the same night.

I regularly get tested, I don’t have daddy issues, and I was not abused as a child ...

Maybe I should just lie? But honestly, it’s not something I’m that embarrassed about. My collection of cats, crushing student loans, and pitiful excuse for a car are things that embarrass me. Not my number.

Apparently she is too embarrassed about her number to put it in her essay.

If you wanted to marry this woman, you could have her tested for diseases, and DNA test any child she bears. But that would still not solve the problem that she has some sort of weirdo itch that you will never properly scratch.

Promiscuous women are never happy, because they always think that they deserve something better than what they have.

The reason that Monica Lewinsky is unmarriageable is not that she is promiscuous. It is that she has dated her ideal alpha man, and no one else would ever measure up.

Why Bill Cosby was prosecuted

From Wikipedia on Bill Cosby:

Cosby received an award at the celebration of the 50th anniversary commemoration of Brown v. Board of Education ruling—a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that outlawed racial segregation in public schools. Later, in May 2004, he made public remarks that were critical of African-Americans who put higher priorities on sports, fashion, and "acting hard" than on education, self-respect, and self-improvement. He pleaded for African-American families to educate their children on the many different aspects of American culture.[82][83] In the Pound Cake speech, Cosby asked that African-American parents teach their children better morals at a younger age.

You would not think that such a speech would be so controversial, but NPR Radio reports that Cosby is in prison today because others sought revenge for that speech. It began when a comedian attacked the speech, and accused Cosby of being a rapist. The spurred others to try to frame Cosby, and then also a judge:

There were motions that had excerpts from his deposition in the case, and a federal judge in July of the next year allowed those to be unsealed because he said Cosby had given up his right to privacy by all the public scolding he had done to people through the years. So that narrowed his right to privacy.

Cosby was convicted by a jury, but only after some major manipulation by experts:

I think the prosecution had run a much better case the second time around. They put a sexual assault expert up first to testify about rape myths and debunking rape myths, and, you know, all of the victim behavior that might seem odd to you — like waiting to report it to authorities, or reporting it at all — is the norm for sexual assault.

So she kind of set the stage for the jury to say, 'You're going to hear some strange things, but this is the normal thing for sexual assault victims.

Wow, I did not know that the prosecution could get away with such prejudicial expert testimony ahead of the facts. Obviously he could not have been convicted on the raw facts and testimony, so some phony expert had to interpret the evidence to lead the jury to conviction.

It is a scandal that some 80-year-old popular actor got imprisoned by recovered memories of accusers about events of 30 years previously. And that the recovered memories conveniently matched what was needed to drain Cosby's fortune.

But most of all, it is outrageous that this was all done as a political hit to punish him for expressing some mainstream conservative views. And NPR and the major news media fully supported the prosecution.

We have become a society where people get destroyed by their enemies. Harvard rescinded the admission of Kyle Kashuv because he supported Trump and his political enemies sent Harvard some of the boy's private comments that were potentially offensive if made public. Almost every day there is some story of someone being ruined because of enemies exposing some supposed past sin.

Indians to surpass Chinese in 2024

The Times of India reported in 2017:

UNITED NATIONS: India's population could surpass that of China around 2024, two years later than previously estimated, and is projected to touch 1.5 billion in 2030, according to a UN forecast.

The World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that currently China with 1.41 billion inhabitants and India with 1.34 billion remain the two most populous countries, comprising 19 and 18 per cent of the total global population.

"In roughly seven years, or around 2024, the population of India is expected to surpass that of China," the report said.
The 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects is the 25th round of official UN population estimates and projections. ...

The report said the current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100.

"With roughly 83 million people being added to the world s population every year, the upward trend in population size is expected to continue, even assuming that fertility levels will continue to decline, it said.

Ten countries are expected to account collectively for more than half of the world s projected population increase over the period 2017-2050: India, Nigeria, Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, Indonesia and Egypt.

Among the ten largest countries worldwide, Nigeria is growing the most rapidly. Consequently, the population of Nigeria, currently the world s 7th largest, is projected to surpass that of the US and become the third largest country in the world shortly before 2050.
Further, large and persistent economic and demographic asymmetries between countries are likely to remain key drivers of international migration for the foreseeable future. Between 2015 and 2050, the top net receivers of international migrants (more than 100,000 annually) are projected to be the US, Germany, Canada, UK, Australia and Russia.

The countries projected to be net senders of more than 100,000 migrants annually include India, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan and Indonesia.

So every year: 83M new people, 100k migrants.

It seems obvious that: Third World countries cannot accommodate these population increases; 100k migrants is a small percentage of the excess population.

I think 10M migrants a year is a lot more likely. Maybe even a lot more.

There are Indians who say they have a right to invade First World countries, and subjugate the White populations there.

Defining American Nationalism

Dennis Prager is a politically conservative orthodox Jew with a large following. He supports Donald Trump and Israel. He regularly attacks wacky leftists, including Jewish leftists, and praises orthodox Jewish morals. He wrote a column to clarify nationalism:

In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.

The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But in a second paragraph, it adds, “especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Let’s be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. ...

American nationalism, based as it is on the motto “e pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally “white.” ...

Human beings need a descending order of commitments: first to oneself, then to one’s family, then to one’s community, then to one’s nation and then to humanity.

It is fine with me if he is loyal to Israel, as an ethnic nationalist state dominated by Ashkenazi Jews, but where does he get the idea that American nationalism is based on including everyone?

The "many" in the motto refers to the original 13 colonies, as led by those who fought the revolution and adopted the new constitution.

Americans certainly do have a long history of putting national culture and interests above foreign ones. It is hard to see how the nation would have survived otherwise.

Perhaps the most important political division today is not right v. left, but nationalist v. globalist.

Update: Hunter Wallace comments:

ACKSHUALLY Dennis, the decoupling of American national identity from whiteness didn’t occur until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

The U.S. Supreme Court was declaring non-White immigrants ineligible to become naturalized American citizens on the basis of race until the mid-20th century. We had an immigration system designed to preserve not only a White majority in the United States, but a Northwestern European majority until the Immigration Act of 1965. The current pathetic deracinated and cosmopolitan version of American national identity was conceived by a group of Jewish activists known as the New York Intellectuals and was only popularized in the Cold War era. The Boomer generation was the first generation in American history to be brought up to believe this nonsense that their country was created to be some kind of miniature version of the United Nations.

Glaciers will not be gone by 2020

Our national parks used to have signs saying that the glaciers will be gone by the year 2020. The glaciers are not gone, and some of them have gotten bigger, so the parks are changing the signs to avoid further embarrassment.

Supreme court may affirm white rule

CNN reports:

In the census-citizenship case, the Supreme Court may once again affirm 'white rule'

By John Blake, CNN

Updated 4:52 PM ET, Sun June 23, 2019

(CNN)On June 7, 1892, a dapper shoemaker purchased a first-class ticket on a Louisiana train for a short journey he knew he wouldn't finish.

The 30-year-old man of mixed-race heritage sat in the whites-only section of the train. When a conductor ordered him to move to a dingy rail car reserved for blacks, he refused, was arrested and convicted at a trial.

The man appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Four years later, the court rejected his claim that sitting in a segregated train car stamped him with "a badge of servitude."

Affirm white rule? Who knew?

Note that the 1896 guy did not suffer any monetary or measurable damages. He just suffered the indignity of being told that he had to sit on the train with black people.

Plessy, the man who took the historic train ride, still had hope in the Supreme Court of his era. His trip wasn't random. He was an activist who stepped in the whites- only railroad car expecting to be arrested.

Okay, so he was just trying to create a test case.

What does all this have to do with asking citizenship? They seem to be claiming that the whole concept of citizenship is racist.

Feminist turns gratitude into anger

Darcy Lockman writes in Atlantic mag:

Don’t Be Grateful That Dad Does His Share

I’ve spent the past year interviewing married or cohabiting heterosexual mothers across the United States about the distribution of child-care labor in their home. Most of them did the lion’s share of the work and were angry with their partner. Yet many of them told me they were “grateful.” Over and over again, I heard women complain that they were doing more than their partner, only to then insist that they were lucky to have any help at all. ...

Andrea’s misplaced gratitude is not only common, but also an impediment to the elusive goal of equity in the home. ...

Gratitude is a brand of benevolent sexism, ... Only once gratitude is relinquished for righteous anger will gender rules in this realm be rewritten.

I don't know whether Lockman is Jewish, but Jewish publications love this sort of feminist rant.

This is completely alien to Christian thinking.

Most women want to get married and have kids, and are happy to put the kids to bed. They often see such child care as the most worthwhile thing that they could be doing.

If a woman is trying to think up of reasons for turning gratitude into anger, then she is headed for madness.

You would think that Melinda Gates would be one of the most grateful women in the world, but no, she has a bunch of weirdo feminist ideas about equality:

It takes patience being married to the second richest man in the world. …

One recurring problem was Bill’s struggle to find work-life balance. She recalled being angry with him years ago because the voracious reader was paging through a book about Winston Churchill instead of helping her get their three children ready to go out, or packing up the car.

Light sentence for raping a non-virgin

Feminists are always complaining when a rape defendant accuses the victim of being a slut who enjoyed being raped.

From Australia news:

A female teacher charged after having sex with a student of a North Queensland school where she was working at the time has been acquitted of unlawful carnal knowledge.

The District Court in Townsville heard Sarah Joy Guazzo seduced the then-16-year-old student, drove him to secluded locations, gave him alcohol and had sex with him on several occasions in 2016. ...

"She told [the student] how she and her husband hadn't slept together in a while — she said he wasn't giving it to her," Ms Orr said. ...

"You might have got the impression that he was not virginal — quite an experienced practitioner in the art of love-making." ...

It took the jury just 15 minutes to reach their not guilty verdict.

It is fair to infer that this jury believes that raping a girl is a more serious crime than raping a boy, and raping a virgin is more serious than raping a promiscuous kid. Probably everyone thought those things until a few years ago.

Attempt to remake the demographics

The Democrat Party is getting more and more explicitly anti-White. Example:

Let's call this what it is: an attempt to remake the demographics of our country by cracking down on immigrants. That this threat is coming from the President of the United States is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. We will fight this. https://t.co/AUShhjLh1H

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) June 19, 2019

If you are wondering what "our" means, her father is Jamaican, her mother Indian, her political mentor black, her husband Jewish, and she has no kids.

Our whole immigration policy is a plot to remake the demographics of our country, in order to marginalize White Christians and create and anti-White Democrat majority.

The NY Times reports:

Newly released census data show, for the first time, that the total population of children in America under 15 is now majority nonwhite.

Any future political maps that exclude those children and noncitizens would further depress the power of urban areas that tend to vote Democratic and that are already structurally disadvantaged in redistricting.

So the White majority has already been replaced, in the next generation. But the electoral effect is not soon enough for the Democrat Party. It wants to marginalize Whites today. Extermination is planned for later.

Could the USA put down a rebellion?

From a Reddit post:

Former red team planner for the government here.

The United States Government has extensively studied the concept of second American Civil War (along the assumption that it will be left versus right. HMM. I WONDER WHY THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY DO THAT.)

Their conclusion is as follows: They don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning. The moment civil war is declared, the government loses. No scenario or outcome ends in their success. Period. It’s just a matter of how long it takes.

This post is probably a hoax, but some of it is plausible.

Private rifles and handguns are pretty feeble compared to US military firepower, but most of those military weapons will be useless against a truly popular uprising. It would be a bloody disaster.

Evidence of California's decline

Here is the new California budget:

The state would give $650 million to local governments to tackle homelessness and pump $500 million into a tax credit program to spur construction of residential rental units.

Lawmakers would spend $5 million on grants to homeless shelters so they can accommodate pets.

California still has plenty of rich people, and they pay taxes so that homeless people can have pets.


Update: New research claims that dogs have evolved a special eye muscle just

You know that face your dog makes, the one that’s a little bit quizzical, maybe a bit sad, a bit anticipatory, with the eyebrows slanted? Sometimes you think it says, “Don’t be sad. I can help.” Other times it quite clearly asks, “No salami for me?” ...

It is, he said, “another piece of the puzzle of what connects dogs to people.”

And there is now a boom in people claiming that their pets are emotional support animals, deserving a special consideration by others:

“We’ve seen everything from reptiles to insects,” said Amanda Gill, government affairs director for the Florida Apartment Association, which represents landlords.

“Obviously, you want to accommodate people with legitimate requests, but that’s harder to do when you have so many bogus requests,” Ms. Gill said. “Everyone is recognizing that this is a growing problem right now.”

More than two dozen state legislatures have enacted new laws to crack down on fraud. ...

“It’s really hard to draw a bright line,” said Todd Weiler, a state senator in Utah who said that an old high school classmate of his keeps an emotional support pig. “To a large extent, everybody could benefit from having a pet,” Mr. Weiler said. “When is it an emotional support animal and when it is a pet?”

It used to be that service animals were extremely well-trained, and providing a valuable service to their owners. Now 99% of them are just pests.

Women are not more valuable than men

Peter Ryan writes:

As I discussed in my article on Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus¹, there is a prevailing assertion in the wider gynocentric culture that women are superior to men. The central tenet of this belief system is that because women give birth and are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, they are more biologically valuable than men. The relative biological value of life, and the value of life in general, of males and females, is reduced down to their relative investment in reproduction.

He goes on the debunk the argument. There is a sense in which fertile eggs are more valuable than sperm, but it does not extend to women being more valuable.

I stumbled across inequity aversion in animals, from a few years ago. In a widely seen video, a capuchin monkey thows a cucumber slice after seeing another monkey get a grape for the same talk.

Supposedly this is proof of a fairness instinct. But this is really just anthropomorphizing monkeys, as explained here. The monkey is probably just trying to get a grape, without regard to fairness.

Canada punishes religious commentary

In America, the First Amendment allows up to comment on past events. Not elsewhere.

Canada news:

A Quebec man who was found guilty last May of inciting hatred against Muslims has been sentenced to 30 days in jail.

The sentence handed to Pierre Dion of Terrebonne, Que., Tuesday went beyond what the Crown had recommended.

Quebec court Judge Gilles Garneau sentenced the 49-year-old man today at the courthouse in Laval, opting for a stricter sentence to send a message of dissuasion to the community.

Dion published two videos of himself this year on Jan. 28 and 29 — the two-year anniversary of an attack on a Quebec City mosque that left six dead.

In the videos he praised the convicted killer and urged Canadians to “kick Muslims out of the country.” He was arrested two days later.

The Crown had recommended a sentence of community service while the defence had suggested 18 months of probation, strict restrictions on internet usage and a $1,500 donation to a Muslim organization.

Garneau instead ordered incarceration to be served one day a week beginning June 21.

When the verdict came down on May 22, Garneau said there wasn’t any doubt to him the accused’s remarks were directed at an identifiable group as indicated in Criminal Code provisions covering hate speech — in this case, Muslims.

Those who encourage Moslem immigration are not punished. Just those who oppose it.

I wonder how many people are quietly in favor of kicking Muslims out. They would not openly say so, because that is illegal in Canada.

Blaming Men on Fathers Day

There are lots of sites blaming men for all sorts of imaginary grievances. Here are a couple I just discovered.

Fathers Day seems to be mainly an occasion for blaming fathers for all society's ills.

Men are often blamed for wanting to much sexual relations from a wife, and this site says men are abusive for wanting too little:

Withholding Intimacy Can Be Abusive, Too ...

In many relationships, it’s often the man who asks for sex more often than the woman. But sometimes, roles are reversed. Weston freely admits she has “either a higher libido than most women or am more sexually liberated,” and it was something her abuser discovered he could use against her. ...

She says her abuser used the following tactics to assert his power over her: ...

3. Carrot tactic. “He also used to tempt me and taunt me with the expectation of sex to get me to be nice to him when I shouldn't have, or to lessen my the response to some other abuse he just inflicted. He used sex to reel me back in, time after time, when we’d break up.”

So the wife will decide that she should not be nice to her husband, but he engages in "abuse" by seducing her and reeling her back into being nice!

Some men speak precisely. They say what they mean and mean what they say. This site considers that a disorder:

Many men with AS are unaware they have the disorder, and in that case it’s far easier to spot. With that said, here are the signs:

Their speech is pedantic, meaning that it is filled with obscure, minute facts and details; is overly concerned with formalisms; displays a narrow concern for book learning and formal rules; and is overly concerned with the precise meanings of words.

They have difficulties with pragmatic, or social, language. This includes saying inappropriate things, not taking turns in conversations, speaking in a way that is not appropriate for an informal social setting, or speaking in the same manner to a two-year-old and an adult.

They may speak too fast, have a monotone or robotic voice, or speak too loudly.

They have difficulty with semantics, such as understanding the meaning of words within different contexts. They may not understand that you “love” pizza in a different way than you “love” your mother.

Their speech is marked by the use of “technical” or “scientific” words, or even a “high-brow vocabulary.” ...

They are always right. ALWAYS. They will frequently say that you are being irrational or illogical.

So the husband uses words according to their dictionary definitions. The wife is unhappy that he is not as dumb and sloppy as she is.

This site discusses crazy wives who get psychotherapy for their craziness, and still blames the husband:

Mental health professionals often exacerbate the party’s troubles by falling into the pattern of blaming the acutely distressed neuro-typical partner for being an alarmist, for having inappropriate anxiety which feeds into problems and for having unrealistic parenting expectations of the other parent. The more the non-neurologically impaired parent is blamed for the pseudo-conflict the worse it becomes. ... the neuro-typical partner has anxiety and is usually the party who winds up being investigated as being the source of the conflict.(8) This is more than ironic. It places children at risk and it places the neuro-typical parent at-risk of depression or despair.

So the wife is acutely distressed, has anxiety and unrealistic expectations, and is at-risk of depression or despair. But somehow she is called the "non-neurologically impaired parent", as if being a man is a neurological impairment. And these are situations where a mental health professional thinks the wife is the impaired one.

These sites often have wives complaining that they have trouble communicating their feelings. So they see a psychotherapist who gives them lessons in articulating their feelings. But that is not what she wants. She wants her husband to intuit her feelings from her body language.

Lisa Feldman Barrett writes that reading emotions from body language is impossible:

And yet ... despite the distinguished intellectual pedigree of the classical view of emotion, and despite its immense influence in our culture and society, there is abundant scientific evidence that this view cannot possibly be true. Even after a century of effort, scientific research has not revealed a consistent, physical fingerprint for even a single emotion. When scientists attach electrodes to a person’s face and measure how facial muscles actually move during the experience of an emotion, they find tremendous variety, not uniformity. They find the same variety — the same absence of fingerprints — when they study the body and the brain.

It is pretty crazy for a wife to blame her husband for not reading her emotions from body language, when expert psychologists cannot even do it.

Jews are defined by maternal DNA

The London Guardian reports:

In February of this year, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the peak religious authority in the country, had been requesting DNA tests to confirm Jewishness before issuing some marriage licenses.

In Israel, matrimonial law is religious, not civil. Jews can marry Jews, but intermarriage with Muslims or Christians is legally unacknowledged. This means that when a Jewish couple want to tie the knot, they are required by law to prove their Jewishness to the Rabbinate according to Orthodox tradition, which defines Jewish ancestry as being passed down through the mother. ...

In February of this year, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the peak religious authority in the country, had been requesting DNA tests to confirm Jewishness before issuing some marriage licenses.

In Israel, matrimonial law is religious, not civil. Jews can marry Jews, but intermarriage with Muslims or Christians is legally unacknowledged. This means that when a Jewish couple want to tie the knot, they are required by law to prove their Jewishness to the Rabbinate according to Orthodox tradition, which defines Jewish ancestry as being passed down through the mother.

It is all-important that the mother have Jewish DNA, but not the father, as shown by this Jewish Forward article:

California Cryobank says it exports more sperm to Israel than to any other country in the world. ...

However, some of the demand for imported, non-Jewish sperm comes — surprisingly — from the Orthodox community, according to Ronen.

Many rabbis have ruled that sperm donation should be done with non-Jewish sperm in order to avoid the possibility of incest if the child unknowingly marries a sibling years later.

“If you have a non-Jewish male and a Jewish female, the child, for purposes of Jewish law, has no father,” said Rabbi J. David Bleich, a scholar of Jewish medical ethics at Yeshiva University. Without a legally recognized father, the threat of incest under Jewish law is removed, according to Bleich.

Jewish men are prohibited from donating sperm to begin with, since by doing so they would violate traditional Jewish law’s ban on masturbation. ...

So if you’re a Jewish man seeking to alleviate the sperm shortages in America or Israel, don’t get too cocky. On the offhand chance that you’re not a carrier for a genetic disease (1 in 4 Ashkenazi Jews is a carrier), your sperm quality is probably too low.

And if there is some sign of trouble:

What do parents do if they discover the baby could be born deaf? Or sterile? Or suffer from a disease? Israelis choose to terminate such pregnancies much more frequently than in other Western countries

Yes, Jews are big believers in eugenics.

The Jewish religion is obviously very different from any other. It is debatable whether it should even be called a religion, since it has very little to do with beliefs, God, or spiritual values.

This is part of why feminism is a mostly Jewish movement. The Jewish religion is matriarchal, and men are not even valued for their sperm.

Update: When I posted this, I did not realize that Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race?

This is apparently how the Nazis popularized the term Big Lie.

White liberals have become radicalized

The mainstream news media keeps telling us that right-wingers have become radicalized, but it is much more accurate to say that left-wingers have been radicalized.

Zach Goldberg writes in the Jewish Tablet mag:

In reality, “wokeness” — a term that originated in black popular culture — is a broad euphemism for a more narrow phenomenon: the rapidly changing political ideology of white liberals that is remaking American politics.

Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal. ...

“In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter. This change amounts to a ‘Great Awokening.’” There is no simple or single explanation for how this process got started. ... The years between 2012 and 2016 were a watershed for white liberal racial consciousness. ...

At the same time, there are growing levels of support for policies without such obvious connections to race. For instance, between 1965 and 2000, the percentage of white liberals preferring increased immigration levels never deviated far from 10%. From the mid-2000s to roughly the end of President Obama’s term in office, this figure gradually ascended into the 20-30% range. As of 2018, it sits at over 50%. ...

Along with the sweeping changes on race and immigration issues is the reversal of white liberal attitudes toward Israel. Between 1978 and 2014, white liberals consistently reported sympathizing more with Israel than the Palestinians. Since March of 2016, this trend has turned on its face. Currently, significantly more white liberals report greater sympathy for the Palestinians than for Israel.

If trends continue, we are headed towards Civil War 2.0.

The radicalization is not coming from the right-wing, Alt Right, or Donald Trump. Trump is the most centrist President we have had in decades. There is a systematic effort by leftists and lizard people to destroy our civilization and exterminate us.

Am I overreacting? If so, explain to me why they want to bring in more immigrants and migrants, after America has already seen the biggest invasion of foreigners the world has ever seen.

We have no need for the immigrants, and the immigration will not significantly alleviate any problems elsewhere in the world. So what is the purpose? What shifted the opinions of white liberals so radically?

SPLC gloats about White Genocide

The SPLC, an anti-White hate group, announces:

The SPLC’s Lecia Brooks testified today before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (Committee on Oversight and Reform) about the need for federal action to confront the deadly white nationalist movement. ...

The falsehood of “white genocide” is pervasive. The people behind these murders share a common fear of the end of a white majority in U.S. And this dangerous myth is seeping into the mainstream, ...

One, in the mid-1980s, 77 percent of the U.S. population was white. Today, it’s roughly 60 percent. In 30 years, it will be under 50 percent. ...

Two, the internet is a highly effective tool for spreading propaganda and indoctrination.

So it is true that the White majority is being extinguished. It is not a "falsehood" or a "dangerous myth".

I certainly do not agree with any murders. It is far superior for those making a statement about white genocide to peacefully post their messages and videos in the internet. But the lizard people at the SPLC are against that also! They want federal action and Youtube censorship against those who say that policies are driving the White population below 50%.

NYT only endorses Youtube free speech in Russia

From Two NY Times stories:

He is scarred by his experience of being radicalized by what he calls a “decentralized cult” of far-right YouTube personalities, who convinced him that Western civilization was under threat from Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists, that innate I.Q. differences explained racial disparities, and that feminism was a dangerous ideology. ...

“The entire social, political part of television is controlled by the authorities,” said Leonid G. Parfenov, an independent news anchor who has been shut out of state TV since 2004 for being too critical of the government. “For that reason, you cannot consider this television journalism — it is just propaganda, they are just employees of the presidential administration.”

Yet voices that the government would mute are heard regularly by tens of millions of Russians in another format: YouTube.

It is funny how the NY Times is in favor of Youtube free speech in Russia, but not in America.

This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that the lizard people at the NY Times are not really for free speech. They simply want a controlled message, with their own lizard people at the controls. They control the American media to their satisfaction, but not the Russia media.

If the issue is publishing Donald Trump's tax returns, then the NY Times is all in favor of publishing. But if someone is saying that feminism is a dangerous ideology or that Jews control the media, then the message must be censored.

A NY Times op-ed lays out what is supposed to be the strongest case for impeachment:

4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report - Some troubling-to-outright-damning episodes have been lost in the noise around its release.

[1] Rick Gates, a top adviser, said that the campaign was “planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release” of Hillary Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. ... Mr. Mueller has alleged that Mr. Stone, a Trump affiliate, sought [unsuccessfully] to obtain information about WikiLeaks’ planned release of anti-Clinton material and pass that information to the campaign. ...

[2] At a July 27, 2016, campaign rally, Mr. Trump said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — referring to Clinton emails reportedly stored on a personal server. ... Mr. Flynn, in turn, reached out to a Republican Senate staffer and a party operative who worked separately [unsuccessfully] to obtain the emails. ...

[3] Mr. Gates likewise told the special counsel that Mr. Manafort believed sharing the polling data with Mr. Kilimnik, who passed it to a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, would help resolve a financial dispute between Mr. Manafort and the Russian oligarch. The report also states that Mr. Manafort hoped his campaign work would help him recover money he was owed by the other oligarchs. Yet Mr. Mueller “could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose” in sharing the data with Mr. Kilimnik. ...

[4] Simply firing Mr. Mueller would have been within the president’s power. Asking a private citizen to [unsuccessfully] deliver that message, however, moves this outside the realm of the president’s management of the executive branch and toward clearer-cut obstruction of justice.

None of this is illegal or improper.

The argument seems to be that Trump and some associates attempted to do some things that would have been completely legal if they had succeeded, but because they did not succeed, we cannot be completely certain of their motives, so that makes it improper in a way that no one can explain.

From a NY Times op-ed, by some guy with a Third World name:

There is a lot of debate these days about whether the United States owes its African-American citizens reparations for slavery. It does. But there is a far bigger bill that the United States and Europe have run up: what they owe to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order, for the excess carbon they have dumped into the atmosphere.

He previously wrote:

It is every migrant’s dream to see the tables turned, to see long lines of Americans and Britons in front of the Bangladeshi or Mexican or Nigerian Embassy, begging for a residence visa.

Okay, this is just White jealousy and hatred at work.

Some of the Democrat presidential candidates are being pressured to endorse such reparations.

I am beginning to think that it is a good idea. We should have some sort of global accounting for the good and evil done by each ethnic group, and those with deficiencies should be forced to make amends somehow.

About 99.9% of what is good about civilization today is due to White Christian men. Most people cannot even name any significant contribution by anyone else.

I mentioned that someone tried to attribute arabic numerals to the Moslems, but Moslems stole them from India, and never did figure out how to write decimal fractions. That was done by Western European Christians.

Did African-Americans make Chicago and Detroit better or worse?

Yes, they have made some wonderful Jazz music. But add it all up, and an accounting is likely to show that blacks owe whites a huge debt.

America has spent maybe $10 trillion dealing with Moslem problems in the last 20 years. What benefits has anyone ever gotten out of the Moslem world?

The Moslem world would be 500 years behind Europe, if it did not have the benefit of Western Civilization.

I look forward to an objective accounting, so reparations can be paid.

YouTube imposes new censorship rules

The Jews are ramping up their ideological censorship of opposing views.

Alphabet Google Youtube announces:

YouTube has always had rules of the road, including a longstanding policy against hate speech. In 2017, we introduced a tougher stance towards videos with supremacist content, including limiting recommendations and features like comments and the ability to share the video. This step dramatically reduced views to these videos (on average 80%). Today, we're taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.

These examples make the agenda clear. Jews are obsessed with maintaining their narrative about the Jewish Holocaust, and do not tolerate any other views.

Mentioning Sandy Hook is a direct shot at Alex Jones. He is not anti-Jewish, but his radio program was pro-Trump, and Jewish leftists hate him for that. Nobody actually cares about his Sandy Hook theories.

These examples have no purpose except to signal that Youtube censorship will have the primary purposes of policing Jewish narratives and attacking Trump.

If that isn’t obvious enough, Reuters reports that Jews are taking credit for the Youtube censorship:

Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, which researches anti-Semitism, said it had provided input to YouTube on the policy change.

"While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism," he said in a statement.

Other types of videos to be removed under YouTube's new rules include conspiracy theories about Jews running the world, calls to deny women civil rights on the grounds they are less intelligent than men, and some white nationalist content, Shadloo said.

So Jews get control of the platform for 90% of web videos, push thru some policies favoring Jewish interests, and then declare that no one can theorize about Jews running the world!

Nearly all religious followers believe that their particular religion is superior to the others, and hence to be preferred. It would appear that the new Youtube policy prohibits expressing such opinions.

A new book on the science of racial superiority has received mixed reviews. Some say that race does not exist, while others point to thousands of scientific studies showing racial differences.

Is Youtube really going to allow just one side of this debate?

My guess is that non-Jews will have to start speaking, if they want to evade the Jewish censors. Maybe that book is actually written by a White supremacist masquerading as a brown woman obeying orders from Jewish masters. Her web site says that she is now making a BBC documentary on eugenics. Maybe she will recite a bunch of obviously-false gobbledygook to discredit herself.
Update: Youtube justified this using some story about Steven Crowder calling someone a "gay Mexican", but I did not realize that the gay Mexican is also Jewish, according to a source.

Biden leads the white-hater party

Joe Biden is leading in the polls because many Democrats would rather have an imbecile than a crazy man or woman.

News:

"'OK, fair,' Moulton relented, 'It was a mistake, because we should have been a lot more careful about going into Iraq, we should have questioned the intelligence.' "

NPR: "Rep. Seth Moulton Announces Mental Health Care Proposal By Sharing His Experience" — "Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., Iraq veteran and presidential candidate, revealed at a campaign event Tuesday that he was treated for PTSD after his deployment and he continues to see a counselor monthly."

His proposal is to get everyone else under the care of mental health professionals!

It sounds like a Jewish plot, but he appears to be not Jewish. He served in the Iraq War.
Also:

MOULTON: We have a problem with racism in America today. If this country wasn't racist, Stacey Abrams would be governor because people of color are being systemically denied the most basic right in a democracy, which is the right to vote. That's why we need a new voting rights act in America. Second, let's talk about criminal justice reform for a second. Look, I smoked weed when I was younger. (LAUGHTER) I didn't get caught, but if I had - (LAUGHTER) - I would have been fine because I'm a white guy.

Really? White guys get to illegally smoke weed?

Stacey Abrams only did as well as she did because of favortism towards black women. Nobody supported her for any other reason.

The Democrat Party is the party of the identity politics of hating straight white males. Moulton is a straight white male, so he desperately needs the status of some sort of handicap. So he claims mental illness! Somebody should tell him that President is a full-time job, and we don't want a mentally ill man with his finger on the nuclear button.

Biden seems to have gotten a pass by virtue of being Barack Obama's stooge. Blacks accept him because he had a black master.

The NY Times black columnist writes:

Everything that has happened during recent years is all about one thing: fear by white people that they will inevitably lose their numerical advantage in this country; and with that loss comes an alteration of American culture and shifting of American power away from white dominance and white control. White people don’t want to become one of many minority groups in America and have others — possibly from Asia, Latin America, Africa or the Middle East — holding the reins of power, and dictating inclusion and equity.

He goes on to explain how everything from impeaching Trump to concealing citizenship from census data is guided by Jews, blacks, and other white-haters wanting to subjugate the White race.

He could be onto something here. Look at statements by leading Democrat politicians, NY Times editorials, and other leftist statements today. About 90% of it is explainable by white-haters wanting to subjugate White men and reduce them to being a powerless minority.

It is interesting to see the NY Times admit this. It is also interesting to see it trash two prominent Jewish intellectuals, Naomi Wolf and Jared Diamond. These two have written many widely-aclaimed books, and they are garbage. They only get praise because their anti-white-male ideology is consistent with Jewish leftists. Read these reviews, and you will never read their books again. Their books are filled with so many errors that you cannot rely on anything they say.

David Frenchism is a disease

The NY Times has yet another article on how the Jews should be able to use the FBI to shut down anyone not going along with the Jewish agenda. The article pretends that it is just going after "racist violence", but includes attacks on those who peacefully protested removal of Confederate monuments.

There is an article by someone who says that she has pushed for regulation of "behemoths like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple" for years, but now she is unhappy because right-wingers have joined the fight, and they might want free speech for everyone, including neo-Nazis. Any regulation should allow censoring opinions Jews do not like, I guess.

Another article tries to explain how National Review's David French can be a prominent conservative and a Trump-hater. Beats me, as I cannot make any sense out of his views. His anti-Trump rants say weird things like "Do Trump’s insults deter his opponents or motivate them?" So he joins the Trump-haters in insulting him. French has adopted an Ethiopian girl, if that helps understand him.

Then the paper finds "Mustafa Akyol is a senior fellow on Islam and modernity at the Cato Institute" to write this nonsense:

Should Americans, as part of their school curriculum, learn Arabic numerals?

CivicScience, a Pittsburgh-based research firm, put that question to some 3,200 Americans recently in a poll seemingly about mathematics, but the outcome was a measure of students’ attitudes toward the Arab world. Some 56 percent of the respondents said, “No.” Fifteen percent had no opinion. ...

There is a reason these Western terms have Arabic roots: Between the eighth and 12th centuries, the Muslim world, whose lingua franca was Arabic, was much more creative than Christian Europe, which was then in the late Middle Ages. Muslims were the pioneers in mathematics, geometry, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, architecture, trade and, most important, philosophy.

Wikipedia calls it the Hindu–Arabic numeral system:

It was invented between the 1st and 4th centuries by Indian mathematicians. The system was adopted in Arabic mathematics by the 9th century.

The Muslim world stole it all from more advanced civilizations that it conquered.

Western conservatives, who are passionate about protecting the legacy of Western civilization, which they often define as exclusively “Judeo-Christian.” Of course, Western civilization does have a great accomplishment worth preserving: the Enlightenment, which gave us freedom of thought, freedom of religion, the abolition of slavery, equality before the law, and democracy.

Those values should not be sacrificed to the postmodern tribalism called “identity politics.” But Western conservatives retreat to tribalism themselves when they deny the wisdom in, and the contributions of, sources that are not Judeo-Christian.

There is something seriously wrong with conservatives who talk about protecting a "Judeo-Christian" legacy. Jews had even less to do with Western Civilization than the Moslems.

Of course, we Muslims ourselves have a big question to answer: Why was our civilization once so creative, and why have we lost that golden age?

The answer is that they had a golden age of military conquests, but that is all. Their creative output was much less than what was previously in Persia, Egypt, India, etc.

Why is this article even in the NY Times? It serves no purpose except to allow Jews to put down Christians.