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.

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.

Justice Thomas raises the eugenics issue

The leftists at Slate are triggered on abortion:

Justice Clarence Thomas wasn’t willing to let Indiana’s nondiscrimination rule die a quiet death. Instead, he wrote an astonishing 20-page concurring opinion declaring that the rule is clearly constitutional—and, in the process, condemning many women who obtain abortions as willing participants in eugenicide. ...

Abortion, he wrote, “is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.” Thanks to “today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children” due to some trait or abnormality. Indeed, Thomas wrote, abortion is a “disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.” He cited the high abortion rate for fetuses with Down syndrome and the “widespread sex-selective abortions” in Asia as evidence. And he noted that the nationwide abortion rate “among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women.”

This is interesting, but sex-selective abortions would have no effect on the sex ratio of Indiana. Many parents do have the technology to choose a boy or girl today, and the choices are about evenly divided.

Thomas is not really arguing the merits of abortion, but raising the issue of whether a state can consider a eugenic effect as a rationale for its policies. Someday it will be seen as bizarre that our culture prohibits discussing eugenic effects.

Abortion has largely eliminated Down's Syndrome in many places. It has also eliminated millions of unwanted black babies, as well as white babies of career-oriented feminist women.

When California gives free abortions to poor women, it is encouraging the eugenic reduction of those poor people.

Jews are particularly opinionated about how eugenics should be done.

Adam Cohen wrote an Atlantic mag rant against Thomas. He is flattered that Thomas cited his book on eugenics, and does not claim that Thomas made any errors, but he is mad that anyone would write about eugenics without accepting the Jewish agenda on the subject. He ends with some comments on how Jews should use immigration to replace white people.

David Cole writes:

These days, anti-Jewish sentiment in civilized nations (and especially in the U.S.) has largely dropped the superstitious mumbo jumbo for “real world” beefs about Jews’ politics. Ironically, the most recent anti-Jewish mass shooters were not angry at Jews for being Jews (a massive shift from historical anti-Semitism). Instead, they were angry at Jews for helping to facilitate the mass importation of invasive Third World immigrants. The killers took a simple political fact — Jews in the U.S. lean left and generally support open-border policies — and loonied it up into “If I kill some kikes, it’ll keep the beaners out.”

Generally speaking, far-rightists in the U.S. who hate Jews hate them more for their politics than for their identity. Whites, on the other hand, are totally hated by leftists just for being white. Whites are now hated for the exact same reason Jews were hated in the past: They exist. The parallels between current anti-whiteness and old-timey Jew hatred are strong. Whites are born cursed (white privilege), and they walk the earth to torment the good and the decent. Everything bad that exists today, and everything bad throughout history, has been because of the white menace.

I am not sure that "old-timey Jew hatred" ever existed. There is no corroboration for the Bible stories of Jews being Egyptian slaves, or for a lot of other Jewish persecution stories. The Nazis hated the Jews primarily for their politics. I have never even heard of anyone hating Jews for their identity.

I found these quotes on Vox Day's blog:

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin

"Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage."
- Ben Shapiro

"One Jewish Life Is Worth More Than 10,000 non-Jews."
- Birthright staffer, Haaretz

"A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail."
- Rabbi Dov Lior, Chairman of the Jewish Rabbinical Council

"It is important to make one thing clear – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs."
- Sephardi chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu

“The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews…is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”
- Rabbi Abraham Kook

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel."
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

He is not anti-Israel, and not really against an ethnic nation protecting its interests. He is just pointing out attitudes that some of them have.

Who is the Virginia Beach killer?

The Jewish news media is not telling us, but I learned from censored web sites that the Virginia Beach killer was black, just as most serial killers are black.

The above poster is causing me to revise my understanding of the term "people of color". It is just a term of White hatred. By any objective standard, Whites have more color than non-whites. Maybe people don't think of white as colorful, but they don't think that shades of brown are colorful either.

How all the good movies get ruined

An anti-Jewish site writes:

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the [Jews] in Hollywood have run out of original ideas. They’re continuing to rely on remakes and sequels, which have almost always been worse than the original movies. Take for example the remakes of RoboCop, Rollerball and Total Recall. All of these reboots were horrible. And for sequels, look no further than the Star Wars franchise, which has been destroyed thanks to Jew-run Disney.

To make matters worse, we often times see all sorts of retarded Jewish social engineering nonsense injected into the new films. White male characters are replaced with females or random colored individuals, and all sorts of social justice crap is inserted into the plots.

We can officially add the Terminator franchise to the list of movie franchises that have been utterly ruined by the Jewish Hollywood industrial complex. The original Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were widely considered to be solid films, but all the Terminator movies released after them have been mediocre at best. The latest film in the series, Terminator: Dark Fate, seems to be the worst one yet based on the trailer that was just released. ...

Either way, it feels like the Jews are purposefully torturing us by putting out all these horrible movie sequels. They seem to take pride in ruining the things that brought us some measure of joy during our childhood.

If I were making a Terminator sequel, I would skip the time travel, and start with a near-future tale of the public increasingly accepting Orwellian AI from Google and others. Arnold would be a well-intentioned robot-maker who sometimes made cyborgs looking like a younger version of himself. The machine takeover would be by gradual and increasing human reliance on AI. John Connor would see it coming, but no one believes him. He tries to take action, but people think he is Unabomber 2.0, until the machines start executing its enemies. Then the war begins, as in the beginning of the first Terminator movie.

Mueller is just a puppet

Up to now, I had assumed that Robert Mueller was firmly in control of his Trump investigation. I watched his only public statement about it, and I now think that he is a senile puppet.

The statement was so bizarre because (1) Mueller appeared to be senile, as he had a hard time reading a statement and was unable to answer any questions; (2) his factual findings completely exonerate President Trump; and (3) he nevertheless read a statement that insinuated that Trump might be guilty of something.

So who is the puppet-master?

Here is a 2017 story in the Jewish magazine Forward:

As Russia special counsel Robert Mueller hires more attorneys to help on the inquiry into the Trump White House, some members of the tribe are joining the team.

Among the Jews on the team are Andrew Goldstein, Aaron Zelinsky and Andrew Weissmann, all seasoned prosecutors from the Justice Department, according to a list of names from Talking Points Memo.

These Jews all have stereotypical Jewish leftist views, a history of unethical prosecutions, and alignment with the Democrat Party.

It is obvious now that these Jewish Trump-haters desperately tried for two years to find something that could be blamed on Trump. They didn't find anything, so now they are hoping that House Democrats will hold impeachment hearings to damage Trump with false charges.

The Mueller investigation found that the Putin government had no contact with Trump or anyone connected with his campaign. It was unable to confirm allegations that Russians tried to interfere with the 2016 election, or that any votes were improperly influenced towards Trump. It claimed that it could be a crime for Trump to conceal activities that were 100% lawful, but still found no grounds for charging him.

The main gripe against Trump is that the Jews thought that they could control the Presidency by controlling the news media. In 2016, about 95% of the news media expressed Jewish anti-Trump editorial opinions. The main exceptions were Hannity, Limbaugh, RT TV, RT.com, and WikiLeaks. The complaints against the Russians consist almost entirely of RT and WikiLeaks putting out info damaging to Hillary Clinton.

I could never figure out why all the political pundits at the NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, and other Jewish-dominated sites put so much stock in the Mueller investigation. It was obvious that if Mueller had evidence to incriminate Trump, he would have presented it two years ago.

While some people speculated that Mueller had a secret impeachment case against Trump, the Mueller team actually leaked all their evidence in advance. They produced several indictments, and each one was written to implicate Trump as much as possible. So the Mueller case against Trump was clear from those indictments. For example, Michael Cohen was induced to plead guilty to crimes that were not even crimes, just so Trump could be blamed for having a crooked lawyer.

Now it all makes sense. This investigation was run by Jews, using Jewish stooges, and promoted in the press by the Jewish news media.

The funny thing is that Trump is the most pro-Jewish President we have ever had. He has Jewish advisers, and he is consistently pro-Israel. But Jewish leftists hate him because they cannot control him the way that they control other politicians.

As I write this, some law professor woman on NPR Radio is arguing that William Barr's description of the investigation was "technically correct", but nonetheless misleading because Trump could be exonerated and still be impeached. It is funny how these supposed experts are eager to cite their expertise or someone else's expertise in saying that Trump did something wrong, and yet they don't say what Trump did that was wrong.

Meanwhile, Democrats are blaming Jews:

A draft resolution set to be debated this weekend at the California Democratic Party State Convention, obtained by Fox News, accuses the Israeli government of willfully "aligning with the virulent Islamophobia" of white supremacist groups in the U.S. -- and links Israel indirectly to the Oct. 2018 massacre of 11 congregants at a Pittsburgh synagogue. ...

Some of the draft resolutions would mandate that Democrat officials work to "nullify" President Trump's pro-Israel policies. One document directs party officials to take a subsidized trip to Israel only "if they undertake to devote an equal amount of time to visiting Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories."

I wonder how long the Jews will continue to bankroll the Democrats, unless the Democrats become more pro-Israel.

Identity politics is exactly who we are

Pat Buchanan writes:

Hillary Clinton called them “the deplorables.” Barack Obama called them losers who “cling” to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.

To President Jean-Claude Juncker of the European Commission, they are “these populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists ... in love with their own countries.”

Well, “stupid” they may be, and, yes, they do love their countries, but last week they gave Juncker a thrashing, as they shook up the West and the world. ...

Yet even larger lessons emerge from these two elections.

Liberalism appears to be losing its appeal. A majority in the world’s largest democracy, India, consciously used their democratic right to vote—to advance sectarian and nationalist ends. ...

Identity politics, people identifying themselves by their ethnicity, nationality, race, culture and faith, appears to be the world’s future.

Even leftists are bowing to the new reality.

“Identity politics is exactly who we are and it’s exactly how we won,” says Stacy Abrams, the African American Democrat who almost won the Georgia governor’s race. “By centering communities in Georgia, we . . . increased voter participation, we brought new folks to the process.”

The Democratic Party is now a coalition easily identifiable by race, ethnicity, ideology and gender — African American, Hispanic, Asian, LGBTQ, feminist and Green.

Our Founding Fathers believed we Americans were a new people, a separate, unique, identifiable people, a band of brothers, who had risked their lives and shed their blood. Liberals believe we are held together by abstract ideas and ideals, such as democracy, equality and diversity.

This is correct. Liberal politicians have sold out to identity politics.

When America was a White country, democracy was a sensible system to promote liberalism. Countries all over the world are discovering that the combination of democracy and ethnic diversity result in identity politics.

If India is a democracy, and a large majority are Hindu, then we should expect government to favor the Hindus.

The 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign was based entirely on identity politics, as the Democrat Party has gone increasingly in that direction for 30 years. Get used to it. The history books may record Donald Trump as one of our last politicians to try to avoid identity politics.

New book on Whiteshift

From a Quillette essay on Whiteshift:

In the United States, some 30 percent of Latinos and Asians voted for Trump and many lament the decline of white America. In surveys taken soon after the August, 2017 Charlottesville riots, 70 percent of polled Latino and Asian Trump voters agreed that “whites are under attack in this country,” and 53 percent endorsed the idea that the country needed to “protect and preserve its white European heritage”—levels similar to white Trump voters. In fact, non-white Trump voters express a much higher level of sadness at the passing of a white majority than white Democrats. ...

Is a common national “we” not the solution to all this? I’m afraid not. Political scientists often differentiate “civic nations,” defined by loyalty to the state and its ideology, from “ethnic nations” united by shared ancestry. All Western countries have been trying to promote civic conceptions of nationhood to include immigrants, but the populist right shows that limiting nationhood to “British values,” the American Creed or the French Republican tradition doesn’t address the anxieties of conservative voters. These universalist, creedal conceptions of nationhood are necessary for unity, but cannot provide deep identity in everyday life.

This is mostly correct. Most Republican politicians like to promote civic nationalism, but there are limits to that. People identify with their ethnic groups and ancestry. And many non-whites very much prefer to live in a country run by whites.

Comments on religion, money, and sex

Razib writes:

I want to disagree with something Armin said in relation to the history of religion: that universalism and post-tribal religion was invented by Christianity and the Abrahamic tradition. This is clearly false.

From Ashoka’s Edict 13, put down in the 3rd century before Christ: ... the fact is that Ashoka was involved in the proselytizing of Indian religious views to non-Indians. This gave rise in the subsequent generations to Indo-Greek kings, such as Menander, who seem to have patronized Buddhism.

I am filing this under the saying: the exception proves the rule.

Christianity is universalist. Hindus do not try to convert non-Indians. Except maybe some guy in 200 BC.

Roosh V. writes:

For the longest time, I believed that corporations existed simply to make money for their owners and shareholders. ...

I came to the conclusion that corporations had to be about human control when examining how most companies of the Fortune 500 go against basic principles of profitability and business sense to virtue signal for marginal audiences like homosexuals and transvestites that comprise only a tiny part of their business. ...

Fortune 500 corporations are controlled by the same group or entity (i.e. “spider”) that is pushing globohomo to control and enslave humanity. Revenue and profits are useful by the spider to fulfill its main objective of control (power).

If you start with that theory, absolutely everything that corporations are doing today makes sense.

Roosh has been de-platformed for contrarian views like this, but he has a lot of good insights.

Norway is supposed to be feminist utopia, and it looks at sex differences:

Several studies have previously shown that when primary school teachers make subjective assessments of their pupils, boys fare worse than they do on objective tests like exams and national standardized tests.

But why do teachers undervalue boys’ achievements?

Only in physical education do boys get better grades than girls in Norway. In all other subjects, the teachers seem to believe girls do best. ...

Teachers in lower secondary school systematically give boys grades that are too low.

This has previously been demonstrated by comparing the classwork grades given by the teachers with examination marks achieved by the same students. Overall, boys fare better on exams than on classwork marks from their own teacher. This happens to a lesser degree for girls.

The same trend is evident on national tests taken by pupils in lower secondary school.

National test scorers don’t know the student's gender. On these tests boys achieve distinctly better results, and on average they score just as well as girls in subjects like reading and mathematics. In school, boys tend to get worse marks than girls in these subjects.

So, the teachers who know their students actually show more gender bias than the test scorers who don’t know the same students.

You sometimes hear it said that boys are treated better than girls in school, as if that were just an obvious consequence of our patriarchy. But there are many studies showing that girls are treated better than boys. A consequence of this is that many colleges are now 60% female.

Economist says most parenting info is useless

Emily Oster writes in the NY Times:

Does anything you do as a parent matter? ...

We can stack up evidence from many fields — psychology, sociology, economics — suggesting that parenting, especially early parenting, affects whether children thrive.

I am not sure which of these fields is worse. They all give bad advice when they venture outside their expertise, including this author, who is an economics professor, and not someone trained in parenting science.

My new book, on data-driven parenting, argues that there are many good choices, and that parents should usually feel comfortable making the ones that work for them.

She explains how most parenting advice is not supported by actual data.

Better-off children in the United States do not benefit just from hearing more words, or having higher-quality day care, or having more stable family lives. They benefit from all these things together, and more. Better-off parents spend more money on their children, and this gap has been growing over time. They also make more nonspending investments, like reading with their kids, which is one of the few specific interventions that does seem to matter.

It is funny how she complains about how data do not support some practices, and yet she seems to endorse others that "seem to matter". Where is the data?

Of course wealthier parents spend more money on their kids. They have more money, so they spend more. This is like saying colder climates have more cold days.

I really doubt that kids get much benefit from hearing more words. I am sure higher vocabulary is correlated with higher intelligence, but that does not mean that there is a benefit to saying more words to a child.

This is the flaw in listening to an economist. Economists are preoccupied with money and correlations.But they look at parenting and just find that rich people spend more money, and some successes are correlated with other successes. It is not clear that any of this info discovers any causal parenting advice.

Psychologists are not any better. Most of the so-called parenting experts are psychologists of some sort. But their expertise is in talking about mental disorders, and none of that has any applicability to the 95% of kids who do not have such disorders.

Pediatrians are also full of advice. They have some expertise in treating diseases, but much of their advice concerns swimming, guns, and other subjects that they know nothing about.

So reliable parenting advice is nearly impossible to find.

Another NY Times article recommends:

On the strength of what I’ve learned, I think I’ll find it easy to stick to my guns as a Roger father.

I cannot argue with that!

Update: Here is a recent study that directly addresses the correlation issue. It found that children of divorced parents do better if the parents share custody, even if the sharing plan is ordered by the court.

NY Times has Jewish paranoia about Europe

The NY Times has yet another weirdo Jewish attack on right-wingers:

For years, Europe maintained the comforting notion that it was earnestly confronting anti-Semitism after the horrors of the Holocaust. It now faces the alarming reality that anti-Semitism is sharply on the rise, often from the sadly familiar direction of the far right, but also from Islamists and the far left.

99% of the anti-Semitism comes from Moslems and leftists, but the NY Times Jews always find a way to blame right-wingers.

France reported an increase of 74 percent in anti-Semitic acts in a single year, with 541 incidents reported in 2018, including widely viewed videotaped insults shouted at the French Jewish intellectual Alain Finkielkraut during one of the Yellow Vest protests.

What? Is that it calls an anti-Semitic incident?

A Jewish Zionist political activist showed up at a political protest, and someone shouted “Go home to Israel!” Is that a crime? The Jews act as if this is almost as bad as Hitler gassing 6M Jews.

The Jews must be the only ethnic group on Earth that is so powerful that they can police insults against them. There is no other ethnic group that complains about such trivialities.

The French President is a former Rothschild banker, and had to call Finkielkraut to apologize.

A CNN poll last November on the state of anti-Semitism in Europe found that a third of respondents said they knew little or nothing about the Holocaust. Nearly a quarter said Jews had too much influence in conflict and wars; more than a quarter said they believed that Jews had too much influence in business and finance. A 2015 survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 51 percent of Germans believed it was “probably true” that “Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.” ...

As appalling as these statistics should be to every European, they should also ring a loud alarm for every American leader of conscience.

Jews have about 2% of the population, and have more influence that other groups with 10x as many people. Everyone agrees to that, including Jews. So thinking that Jews have too much influence is just an objective statement of democratic values, and not necessarily one of any animus towards Jews.

Pretty much all non-Jews think that Jews are too preoccupied with the Holocaust. I am surprised that a survey only found 51% willing to say so.

Citing such a survey is like saying: a survey showed that most non-fundamentalist Christians think that Jehovahs Witnesses read the Bible too much. Of course they do.

This editorial shows that Jews are also preoccupied with controlling what non-Jews think and say. All of these complaints about anti-Semitism are really just complaints that non-Jews are not always following orders from their Jewish masters.

You can get mail-order abortion pills

The NY Times reports:

True, in a post-Roe America, some women would be able to get abortion-inducing medications that weren’t available the last time abortion was criminalized. (Misoprostol, which is also used to treat ulcers, can be ordered online.)

The article cites a previous NY Times article:

“A couple weeks ago, we Googled ‘abortion pills’ and tried ordering from a few of the sites that came up,” she said.

The pills, misoprostol and mifepristone, are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use by a licensed provider to end a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks, or what is known as “medical abortion.” Mifepristone works by blocking the effects of progesterone, a hormone without which the lining of the uterus begins to break down, while misoprostol, to be taken 24 to 48 hours later, induces contractions of the uterus that expel its contents.

Medical abortion now accounts for close to half of all legal abortions in the United States. Serious complications are rare, but the risk increases as the pregnancy progresses, and it isn’t clear yet how far into pregnancy the drugs should be used.

With the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone in 2000, many people believed the reproductive revolution had arrived; ...

The F.D.A. warns against purchasing the drugs from online vendors, but women in the United States are doing it anyway. Increasingly, advocates of access to the drugs say, women are turning to the internet to procure the pills for use in their homes.

If I understand this correctly, a pregnant woman can easily buy a safe and effective abortion pill mail-order, with no prescription required.

The recent anti-abortion state laws appear to have the purpose of generating a test case for the US Supreme Court, and not to actually make abortion unavailable. Abortions will still be available by mail-order abortion pills, and by bus tickets to nearby states.

I doubt that these laws will take effect, or that they will get Supreme Court review. So it is a lot of fuss over nothing.

If the states wanted the laws to be more anti-woman, they could have made it a crime for a woman to get an abortion, or given the expectant father some rights in the matter, or allowed the expectant father to disavow paternity. Women who get abortions are avoiding maternity, and it is sometimes argued that a more sex-neutral law would give men a similar opportunity to avoid paternity. The laws do none of those things.

You might say that any law against abortion is anti-woman, but women are against abortion as much as men are, and maybe more.

In other news, I see that the Harvey Weinstein accusers are settling their claims for $44M, to be paid by his insurance company. Yes, the whole story was just extortion. First the women used him to get movie roles, and then they fleeced him for insurance money.

The case for impeaching President Trump

Here is a new podcast by Trump-haters: Making Sense with Sam Harris #157 - What Does the Mueller Report Really Say? (with Benjamin Wittes).

They lay out what they say is a strong case for impeaching Trump.

They admit that the report exonerates Trump and his campaign of colluding with the Russians. And that he did not commit a crime of a sort that anyone has ever been prosecuted before. But they think he should be impeached because he has not behaved as they think that a President should behave.

One of the guest's main gripes was that Trump publicly badmouthed his former Jewish attorney, Michael Cohen. Cohen was supposed to be the John Dean of the Trump impeachment, and testify about Trump's private intentions. But of course Cohen turned out to be just a sleazy crooked lawyer, with no evidence incriminating Trump.

The guest also made a big deal out of how AG Barr summarized Mueller's conclusions, without mentioning all the non-criminal evidence against Trump. This was consistent with Barr's longstanding opinion that the AG should focus on crimes.

They mention an article on How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s Findings. The short answer is that Barr described the conclusions about criminal law, and skipped the non-criminal political attacks.

I just listened to another Harris podcast where he equates Trump with "despicable person". It is bizarre. Harris is very good at articulating his opinions, yet his criticisms of Trump make no sense.

I think that if Harris were not Jewish, he would be a Trump supporter. I don't think I am the only one either. Harris regularly complains about how he has followers who are Trump supporters, and who expect him to like Trump.

His main complaint about Trump is that he lies. But if you listen to Harris, he doesn't complain about Trump actually deceiving him. He complains about Trump's style. On the other hand, Harris also regularly complains about adversaries who deliberately and maliciously lie about him, and all of those people are leftists. Harris often attacks Christians and right-wingers, but says they are much more fair and honest than leftists.

I am wondering how otherwise-intelligent men could get duped by such a crazy conspiracy theory. There is no case to impeach Trump.

Impeaching Trump is sometimes compared to Watergate, but I am not sure that there was much of a case against Richard Nixon. We know now that much of the Watergate stories were driven by an attempted coup by the assistant director of the FBI. Nixon's critics mostly kept saying, "what did he know and when did he know it?". The supposed crimes consisted mostly of quibbles about when Nixon knew certain facts, and did not have much to do with actual wrongdoing. To this day, it is hard to find any who can say what Nixon did that was wrong.



Meanwhile, Trump has saved our $20 bill from having the above picture replace Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a great man. The lizard people hate him, and want to replace a white man with a black woman.

Why we fought the Iraq War

The USA won the Iraq War, but it was a disaster in many other ways. There is no consensus about the war.

Some say it was about oil, but read The Iraq War Was Not About Oil. Maybe some Senators voted for the war thinking that oil might make it worthwhile, but the war was never waged in a way to get an oil benefit, and we never did.

Some say it was about lies over WMD, but most of those people seem to be unaware that WMD were found in Iraq. See the Wikipedia article on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush and Tony Blair argued that Iraq was not complying fully with weapons inspections, and in fact it did turn out that Iraq had chemical and nuclear weapons materials that were not exposed until after we invaded.

These materials were not an imminent threat to America, but I don't think anyone said they were.

Nor does it make any sense to say we went to war to contain militant Islam. Other countries were bigger Islamic threats. Wikipedia reports on Christianity in Iraq:

The Christians of Iraq are considered to be one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world. ...

In Iraq, Christians numbered about 1,500,000 in 2003, representing just over 6% of the population of 26 million (down from 1.4 million or 8.5% of 16.5 million in 1987). Since then, it has been estimated that the number of Christians in Iraq have dropped to 500,000+.

So obviously the war was a disaster for Christianity in the region.

Christianity and oil are two of the pillars of Western Civilization. If we had to fight a war to defend those pillars, then that could make sense. But apparently our leaders who waged this war had no intention of defending either.

Newsweek reports:

The United States has spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 people since the 9/11 attacks of 2001. ...

In February, President Donald Trump estimated that "we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East," saying "what a mistake" it was.

Those 9/11 hijackers could not have realized that their big accomplishment was not bringing down the WTC, but suckering us into spending $6 trillion, and into advancing the Islamic cause in some ways.

I also wonder why we fought World War II. Many say it was a necessary war to prevent Hitler from taking over the world. But read The Lies About World War II. It says that England and France started WWII, and the war was unnecessary and stupid. I am not sure, as it is hard to get objective info on the subject.

Not OK to be an innocent Cubs fan

A NY Times op=ed, by a black former baseball player:

On May 7, during a television broadcast of a Chicago Cubs game at Wrigley Field, I was on camera doing in-game commentary for NBC Sports Chicago when, unbeknown to me, a fan behind me wearing a Cubs sweatshirt made an upside-down “O.K.” sign with his hand. ...

Because I am a person of color, the fan’s gesture suggested its sinister meaning. ...

Later that day, the Cubs completed their investigation and banned the fan from Wrigley Field indefinitely. ...

According to the [Jewish] Anti-Defamation League, users of the online message board 4chan originally introduced the idea that the “O.K.” sign was a white supremacist symbol as a prank to get the media to overreact to innocuous gestures — but the sign soon morphed into a genuine expression of white supremacy as well. ...

If the Cubs fan is innocent, he will be O.K. That would be the just outcome. But racism will remain. Being wrongfully accused, while unfair, is not the same as living a life where your skin color automatically makes you a target.

This is lunacy. He says that it is a "just outcome" to punish an innocent Cubs fans, because blacks will still be black and because some Jewish web site says that white supremacists are playing a prank on the media.

How did we get to the point where NY Times op-eds advocate punishing innocent white Cubs fans because of wacky Jewish conspiracy theories?

The Wash. Post and others are all excited about this trivial debate excerpt:

A Missouri House member said rape can be 'consensual.' A female colleague quickly corrected him. During the Missouri House debate on the abortion bill on May 17, state Rep. Barry Hovis (R) said the vast majority of rape cases he encountered as a law enforcement official had been situations of date rape and "consensual rape." Hovis later told reporters he misspoke.

When someone in law enforcement refers to "rape cases", he obviously means investigations of rape allegations. The police collect evidence, and do not determine guilt. So if he said 99% of the cases are date rape cases and consensual rape cases, he is making the point that they are not necessarily crimes, and not the stranger abduction rape cases that are such serious crimes.

The usual dopey feminists are complaining that there is no such thing as consensual rape, because rape is a crime requiring a lack of consent. Yes, but there certainly are a lot of rape cases that are shown to be about consensual acts.

The main complaint about the new Alabama abortion law is that there is no exception for rape, and of course they mean consensual rape. That is, women want to be able to get an abortion when they say the pregnancy was caused by a rape, even tho there was no contemporaneous police report.

Milo Yiannopoulos seems to have gone off the deep end, and predicted civil war. I do think that we are headed in that direction. However, I also think that civil war would be a disaster, and that reasonable steps will be taken to avoid such a disaster. Things would have been much worse of Donald Trump had not been elected. We desperately need more Trumps to stand up to the evils destroying this nation.

The Sandy Hook money scams

Alex Jones has been censored and de-platformed for his political views, such as supporting Pres. Trump. The main argument used against him is that he has promoted Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.

Now the NY Times admits that Alex Jones was largely correct in saying that people used the incident to run financial scams:

In the six and a half years since the deadliest elementary school shooting in American history, more than $100 million in federal, state, corporate and private money flowed into this community of about 28,000 in southwestern Connecticut. Although the tidal wave of aid bore witness to the power of human kindness, so much money engulfed the vulnerable, wounded Newtown that it inevitably sowed division. ...

Merchandise arrived by the truckload, including 60,000 teddy bears and more bicycles than Newtown has children. So many flowers and stuffed toys clogged intersections that the town gathered, composted and burned them, aiming to incorporate the resulting “sacred soil” into a memorial to the victims. ...

“The American people have an incredible charitable impulse,” said Kenneth Feinberg, who administered the victim compensation funds after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and volunteered to adjudicate in Newtown. “But nobody knows exactly what to do when the money comes in.” ...

The outcome did not satisfy all of the families, and Mr. Feinberg was brought in to arbitrate. ... Mr. Feinberg said Sandy Hook was among the most painful of any mediation he has witnessed.

Why is it that when huge amounts of money are to be handed out, some weirdo Jew is put in charge?

Feinberg is active in Jewish and Zionist causes, and has Jewish opinions about what is fair. Whenever there is some big compensation fund, he seems to get a piece of the action somehow. Why? Presumably most of the donors and recipients are not Jewish, and do not necessarily agree with his Jewish sensibilities.

I have be careful here, because if I question anything about Sandy Hook I could get de-platformed also.

Pope takes orders from Jewish cabal

Jews are the only ethnic group that regulates what everyone can say about them. Even if you say something true and self-evident about them, like "the Israel lobby spends money to support pro-Israel policies", then the Jews will blast you as anti-semitic, censor you, and de-platform you.

The Jews even try to regulate how the Pope quotes the Bible!

The Times of Israel reports:

Pope Francis is being urged by experts to take greater care when referring to “hypocritical” Pharisees, a stereotype that fueled centuries of bad blood between Catholics and Jews.

Catholic-Jewish relations blossomed after the Second Vatican Council — which in 1965 finally urged respect for Judaism — and Francis is a clear friend of the Jews, insisting the Church continue to apologize for anti-Semitism.

But for centuries, Jesus’s Jewish origins were obscured and the Jews were held collectively responsible for his death.

And the pontiff’s tendency to quote directly from New Testament passages where Jesus slams members of the small religious and political group as “hypocrites” has been troubling rabbis concerned about anti-Semitism.

Some 400 Jewish and Christian Bible scholars gathered in Rome last week to exchange research notes on the Pharisees, a group about which little is known historically but which came to represent all Jews in Catholic tradition. To Jews, the Pharisees include some of the earliest of the Sages whose collective legal and spiritual debates over some seven centuries, until the fifth century CE, are recorded in the vast compilation called the Talmud, Judaism’s central post-Biblical text.

But the image of the “treacherous” Pharisees appears down the centuries in dictionaries, academic articles, films and Protestant and Catholic preaching, with the word “Pharisee” becoming a synonym for hypocrite in the West.

“They lacked life. They were, so to speak, ‘starched.’ They were rigid… The people didn’t matter to them: The Law mattered to them,” Francis said of Pharisees in a homily in October.

This is so bizarre. I cannot imagine Catholic priests trying to tell rabbis how to quote the Talmud, even tho the Talmud has all sorts of derogatory text about non-Jews.

Of course the Pope should not be listening to anyone outside the Church. He appears to be a heretic or an impostor. But how did Jews get so much power that they can tell the Pope what to say?

This is not the first time, either. In 2015, the Pope said that the Church should not try to convert Jews. This was obviously done to please Jewish rabbis, even if it means the Jews will be going to Hell.

I don't want to blame all Jews for this. I will be on the lookout for Jews who disavow this, and say that it is okay for the Pope to quote the Bible, without being subject to Jewish censors.

Here is another example of Jewish thinking, from today's NY Times:

Many of Europe’s populists share the intentions of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to widen political divisions and weaken Western institutions. Those tactics have involved interfering in democratic campaigns including the United States 2016 elections. And a Russian woman, Maria Butina, was sentenced to 18 months in prison in April after admitting that she had been part of that effort.

No, this is just Jewish craziness.

Europe's populists want to keep out Moslem jibadists and invaders. The populists are trying to strengthen Western institutions. The Moslem invaders are being brought in by Jewish activists like George Soros. It is not that Jews like Moslems. Jews hate Moslems. Jews want to bring in Moslems in order to widen political divisions and weaken Western institutions.

And yet this Jewish newspapers blames it all on the Russians!

I don't know if the Pharisees were hypocrites of this sort, but the Jews at the NY Times are the biggest hypocrites in the world today. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus would denounce them, just like the Pharisees.

As evidence, the NY Times points to the Maria Butina plea bargain!

I tried to read her indictment to figure out what she did that was criminal, and I don't see. She came to the USA from Russia, met with some people, and expressed some opinions. That's all. She was charged on the hopes that she would provide evidence of others committing crimes, but she didn't know anything. She is a political prisoner, and I expect her to get pardoned.

Update: Al-Jazeera had to take down a video, to please the Jews. Apparently the video said that Hitler supported Zionism, in order to get rid of the Jews from Germany and maybe surrounding areas. Is there any TV that is not controlled by the Jews?

Jewish Comedian goes nuts

Jewish Comedian Steve Hofstetter has posted this video rant that he excerpted from a comedy club performance. It is bizarre.

He starts by attacking non-Jews who resist Jewish-influenced demographic displacement. Then he mocks Hobby Lobby, and says that Jews would not want to work there. Then he asks the audience where Jews do want to work, and someone in the audience says "TV".

Hofstetter then goes into a tirade against the guy as being anti-semitic, and has the guy kicked out of the club. The guy had not said anything negative about Jews. WTF?

The guy said he worked in TV, and Hofstetter threatened to use his Jewish influence to get the guy fired!

Do Jews think that this sort of nonsense is funny? I did not see anything funny about anything Hofstetter said. All I get out of what he said is that he hates non-Jews, and he uses "anti-semitic" as a meaningless epithet to throw at any non-Jew he does not like.

The Daily Stormer responds:

Our big three:

NBC is run by Comcast, chaired by Jewish CEO Brian L. Roberts.
CBS has failed to name a new CEO since Jew Les Moonves was metooed, but the interim CEO is the Jew Strauss Zelnick.
ABC is owned by Jewish Disney and run by the Jew Robert Iger.

Fox was notable because it was not run by a Jew. However, Disney recently purchased Fox Entertainment, so now the network television station of Fox is run by a Jew, while only Fox News remains run by non-Jew Rupert Murdoch.

Of the other 24 hour news channels:

MSNBC is owned by Jewish Comcast.
CNN is run by the Jew Jeff Zucker.

Also of interest:

Turner Broadcasting, which controls an array of television stations, is headed by the Jew David Levy.
ESPN is a subsidiary of Jewish Disney.
USA Network is a subsidiary of Jewish NBC.
Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Science Channel, TLC, HGTV, Travel Channel, Food Network, and DIY Network are subsidiaries of Discovery, Inc., whose CEO is Jew David Zaslav.
Univision, a Spanish-language channel, is run by the Israeli Jew Haim Saban.
The CW is a subsidiary of Jewish CBS.
HBO is run by Jewish CEO Richard Plepler.

And it goes on and on.

Ultimately, the truth is that if you exclude Fox Corporation – now only Fox News – you find that close to 100% of television stations are either run by a Jew or subsidiaries of a company run by a Jew.

Furthermore, virtually every single individual television show, whether entertainment or news, is produced by Jews.

Jews are 2% of the population. So even if we make the extremely conservative estimate that only 90% of power positions in the television industry are held by Jews, there is still a phenomenal 4,500% per capita overrepresentation of Jews controlling television media.

And when any group holds 90% of the power positions in an industry, I don’t think it is anything other than an objective fact to say that that group “controls” that industry.

So yes, it is an objective fact that Jews work in TV and control the major channels.

This Jewish humor is really sick.

College Board announces secret adversity score

The NY Times also has an article today complaining that Pres. Trump refuses to sign on to international Jewish attempts to re-engineer the internet to block certain points of view. In particular, they want to allow comments favoring the demographic displacement of Whites, while blocking criticisms of it.

The NY Times published an article on the new adversity score:

The SAT, the college entrance test taken by about two million students a year, is adding an “adversity score” to the test results that is intended to help admissions officers account for factors like educational or socioeconomic disadvantage that may depress students’ scores, the College Board, the company that administers the test, said Thursday. ...

The adversity score would be a number between 1 and 100, with an average student receiving a 50. It would be calculated using 15 factors, like the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood. The score would not be reported to the student, only to college officials.

That is what the article said last night. Today the official online version says:

The College Board, the company that administers the SAT exam taken by about two million students a year, will for the first time assess students not just on their math and verbal skills, but also on their educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, entering a fraught battle over the fairness of high-stakes testing. ...

The score will be calculated using 15 factors, including the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s neighborhood.

The rating will not affect students’ test scores, and will be reported only to college admissions officials as part of a larger package of data on each test taker.

Notice the difference? It no longer explicitly says that the score is being withheld from the student. It does say that the colleges only get the score as part of other data, but it is cleverly ambiguous about whether the student gets the data.

Why would the NY Times make such a change to artfully conceal the most important point?

I am going out on a limb here, but I do not think this is an accident. The College Board is run by the same sort of lizard people who run the NY Times. Already they have changed the name of the Scholastic Aptitude Test to SAT because it no longer measures aptitude.

The College Board and the colleges are sitting on data that show that race and socioeconomic status are their best predictors of college success. But that clashes with their plans for demographic displacement.

The original article said:

“We’ve got to admit the truth, that wealth inequality has progressed to such a degree that it isn’t fair to look at test scores alone,” Mr. Coleman recently told The Associated Press. “You must look at them in context of the adversity students face.”

Not fair? Note that he is no longer talking about how scores predict later success. He thinks that the meritocracy is unfair to the lesser students. He wants to use test scores as a tool to remake society towards his leftist ideological goals.

Update: The NY Times published an op-ed by a black guy attacking the adversity score:

It cannot — and does not — attempt to assess the mental toll of being called a “monkey” on your walk home, ... Though the adversity index uses proxies, “The purpose is to get to race without using race,” ... pseudoscientific index of oppression.

Yes, one of the purposes of big data today is to use proxies for race.

Update: The NY Times has another article explaining that colleges need a proxy for race, so that they can legally practice racial discrimination.

Why Calhoun opposed the Conquest of Mexico

American politicians are fond of talking about "who we are", with some saying that we are all egalitarians and some saying we are all racists. Apparently there is a disagreement that can be informed by historical documents.

US Senator John C. Calhoun wrote in 1848 against the conquest of Mexico:

RESOLVED, That to conquer Mexico and to hold it, either as a province or to incorporate it into the Union, would be inconsistent with the avowed object for which the war has been prosecuted; a departure from the settled policy of the Government; in conflict with its character and genius; and in the end subversive of our free and popular institutions. ...

We have conquered many of the neighboring tribes of Indians, but we have never thought of holding them in subjection — never of incorporating them into our Union. They have either been left as an independent people amongst us, or been driven into the forests.

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race — the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. ...

Sir, it is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages — for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions.

It is debatable whether this view should be considered "white supremacist". He regarded whites as more civilized than other races, but he has no desire to rule over other races. As he just wants to stay separate from other races and nations, I would call this "white nationalist" or "white separatist", but some people call it "white supremacist".

I wonder what Calhoun would say today about the Mexican conquest of California.

The NY Times regularly has article about how only white supremacists support President Trump, and that whites are desperately hanging on to power in the face of their "inevitable ... demographic displacement" by non-white. There is another such article today.

The NY Times is as anti-white and Calhoun was pro-white.

The NY Times also has an article today complaining that Pres. Trump refuses to sign on to international Jewish attempts to re-engineer the internet to block certain points of view. In particular, they want to allow comments favoring the demographic displacement of Whites, while blocking criticisms of it.

White men domesticated themselves

Discover mag reports:

The so-called self-domestication hypothesis, floated by Charles Darwin and formulated by 21st century scholars, is now popular among anthropologists. They see parallels between changes over the past 200,000 years of human evolution and those observed when wild animals became domesticates, creatures selectively bred to be docile and friendly.

According to proponents, as human societies grew in size and complexity, more cooperative, less combative individuals fared better. These behavioral traits are heritable to some extent and also linked with physical traits, such as stress hormone levels, testosterone during development and skull robustness. Tamer individuals more successfully passed on their genes, and so these traits prevailed in the human lineage. Over time, our species became domesticated. ...

Researchers now know that breeding animals solely for tameness ultimately leads to full domestication. ...

A 2014 Genetics paper offered an explanation for how such disparate traits — from heads to adrenal glands to tails — could have the same underlying cause. ...

So it’s thought that humans self-domesticated because aggressive individuals were gradually eliminated from society. A happy tale of “survival of the friendliest.”

The idea here is that during Roman and Medieval times, Europe systematically executed murderers and other antisocials. This left White people genetically more prosocial.

China did something similar, but it eliminated noncomformists.

Northwestern Europe was unique in encouraging individuality and cooperation. According to this theory, many centuries of eugenics resulted in a White population with genes suitable for creating a great civilization.

I am not sure if this theory can ever be proved in a convincing way. They would have to find genes for individuality, cooperation, and other such traits, and show how they vary across world populations. And they would have to figure out how important these traits were for building a civilization.

It is also not clear what this would mean for the future. It would seem to make Whites instinctively want to trust others as being like themselves, while that may not be true.

New Alabama abortion proclamation

(i) It is estimated that 6,000,000 Jewish people were murdered in German concentration camps during World War II; 3,000,000 people were executed by Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet gulags; 2,500,000 people were murdered during the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" in 1958; 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 people were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s; and approximately 1,000,000 people were murdered during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. All of these are widely acknowledged to have been crimes against humanity. By comparison, more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973, more than three times the number who were killed in German death camps, Chinese purges, Stalin's gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined. ...

Section 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion except as provided for by subsection (b).

(b) An abortion shall be permitted if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. Except in the case of a medical emergency as defined herein, the physician's determination shall be confirmed in writing by a second physician licensed in Alabama. The confirmation shall occur within 180 days after the abortion is completed and shall be prima facie evidence for a permitted abortion.

Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable. Furthermore, no physician confirming the serious health risk to the child's mother shall be criminally or civilly liable for those actions.

Section 6. (a) An abortion performed in violation of this act is a Class A felony.

(b) An attempted abortion performed in violation of this act is a Class C felony.

Section 7. This act shall not apply to a physician licensed in Alabama performing a termination of a pregnancy or assisting in performing a termination of a pregnancy due to a medical emergency as defined by this act.

This differs from existing law mainly in the definition of "serious health risk".

I do not expect this law to have any effect, because I do not think that there are five votes on the US Supreme Court to support.

This law is described as extreme, but note that it exonerates the expectant mother. If abortion were really murder, the the woman obtaining an abortion would be a murderer.

Suppose an Alabama woman is eight months pregnant, and the expectant father wants the baby. The woman takes a bus to a nearby state to have an abortion performed. The man may be of the opinion that the woman murdered his baby, and yet she has no liability or responsibility under this law whatsoever.

Science mag pushes for more immigration

From a SciAm blog:

I am a first-generation immigrant myself. When my family moved to the United States from India in the late 1980s, I was a rambunctious four-year-old girl. I presumably entered on a dependent visa tied to my parents, but in short order we received green cards, giving us permanent resident status in the United States. ...

My institution is built on immigrants. We have immigrants in every level of our medical center, including in many leadership positions. But very few people understand the process involved in living and succeeding in America. ...

Therefore, for many of my immigrant colleagues, their rights to pursue their “American dream” are significantly curtailed by immigration laws.

Yes, American immigration law has some hurdles, but they haven't stopped India and other countries from flooding us with immigrants.

As she points out, many American institutions are packed with immigrants, filling jobs that would otherwise go to Americans.

The USA population has increased by about 100 million over the last 50 years from immigrants. It is the biggest mass migration in history. It is crazy to say we need more.

The more people we take from India, the more stories there will be like this, and the more leftist magazines like SciAm will push for more immigration. The situation is unstable. India has a billion people.

NPR promotes Nazi book

NPR Radio Fresh Air reports on a new book:

Daniel Okrent, author of The Guarded Gate, draws a parallel between the eugenics movement, which helped shape U.S. immigration in the early 20th century, and President Trump's hard-line stance today. ...

The, quote, "science" was eugenics which theorized that traits like intelligence and morality were inherited and therefore, through selective breeding, you could improve the quality of the human race. Of course, the converse was also believed to be true; certain individuals or groups of people would pollute the bloodline. Those undesirables were the people the restrictive immigration law of 1924 was designed to keep out. ...

that really gave the lie to the notion that we were a nation of immigrants. ...

Francis Galton, who was actually a cousin of Darwin's, who was the man who named eugenics and was its first most vocal advocate - he suggested early on that the U.K. find the 5,000 best young men and the 5,000 best young women and pair them off in arranged marriages, which would take place in one huge ceremony in Westminster Abbey, presided over by Queen Victoria. And each of these families - these new couples - would be given a yearly stipend so instead of working, they could get down to the business of making better people, better babies for the U.K. ...

You find some very well-established scientists - Fairfield Osborn, the head of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years - he outright declared that it is not just intelligence. It is also morality that is inherited, and criminality is inherited. ...

And I do quote a young woman - well-educated, a very, very fine family - at the age of 33 writing a letter to her mother-in-law, saying that she had been at a party where she met an interesting man, but he was, quote, "very Jew." That man was Felix Frankfurter, later a Supreme Court justice, of course.

She also said that she'd rather be hung than attend another Jew party where she was, she said, appalled by all the talk of money, jewels and sables - really repugnant, repellant comments. That 33-year-old woman was Eleanor Roosevelt

He is right that the notion that we were a nation of immigrants is a big lie.

It is also true that there is solid scientific evidence showing that traits like intelligence and criminality are heritable.

And it is also true that if you attend a Jew party, you might meet people who are very Jewish and who talk about Jewish stuff.

He says the 1924 immigration law did not say anything about Jews or of any racial group. It merely required immigrant nationalities to be consistent with the previous population. A truly eugenic law would have tested for desirable and undesirable heritable traits.

The author obviously favors what he calls "non-discriminatory open immigration", or perhaps laws favoring Jews, but he doesn't really rebut a eugenic immigration policy except to say that Adolf Hitler would have liked it.

He suffers from a logical fallacy here. Hitler was reportedly a vegetarian, but that does not mean that vegetarianism is evil.

Arguing about the heritage of Jesus

The NY Post reports:

A rabbi has called out US Rep. Ilhan Omar for retweeting a New York Times op-ed that suggested Jesus was a Palestinian.

The freshman Democrat from Minnesota shared an April 20 tweet from Omar Suleiman, an adjunct professor of Islamic studies at Southern Methodist University, who said a Palestinian relative told him about the “Christian right”: “Don’t they know we’re Christian too? Do they even consider us human? Don’t they know Jesus was a Palestinian?”

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate and director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told the Jewish Journal that it’s a “grotesque insult to Jesus born in the land of Israel and to Christianity” to say that Jesus was a Palestinian.

“Palestine was a name made up by Romans after they crucified thousands, destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the People of Israel from their homeland,” Cooper said in an email to the news outlet. ...

He added: “For people who have no theological or historical rooting, the idea that Jesus was a Palestinian creates a new narrative for Palestinian history, which otherwise does not date back very far. If one can say that Jesus was Palestinian 2,000 years ago, then that means the Jews are occupying Palestinian land.” ...

“The absurdity of it is breathtaking,” Cooper said. “Jesus was born in Bethlehem, think about who his parents were — his mother, Mary, was betrothed to Joseph, a carpenter. In the Gospels, there is no mention of Palestine, only Judea, which is where Jews lived.”

I thought that Jews who live in Palestine are Palestinians. And Arabs who are citizens of Israel are Israelis.

Since the Roman Empire occupied the area 2k years ago, it seems possible that Jesus was a Roman. A lot of people seem to think that he would have looked Jewish, but we don't know that.

Meanwhile, I see that one of my favorite blogs, Chateau Heartiste, has been shut down by Wordpress. No explanation has been given. I did not notice that it violated any law or terms of service. Most of all, it was a red pill site, that faced the realities of human nature. It also mercilessly mocked prominent leftists. There is a leftist war on free speech going on.