Plotting to replace white Christians

A WSJ op-ed:

When white nationalists and supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Va., last summer, they marched with tiki torches and chanted: “The Jews will not replace us.” ...

Jewish communal organizations led the effort to enact the law [the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965], which eliminated preferential quotas for Western European immigration and increased the total number of immigrants. That led to an increase in non-European immigration. In Mr. MacDonald’s view, the act started the “replacement” of white Christians by a more ethnically diverse population.

It is true that Jewish communal organizations are major supporters of multiculturalism. Then again, so are most mainstream churches, on both sides of the papal divide. Christian communal groups loudly extol their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

It is not true that most churches favor the replacement of Christians by non-Christians. That was mainly advocated by Jews.

It is true that many white Christians voted for the 1965 Act, and that Jews could never have accomplished their immigration and replacement strategy without the cooperation of white Christians.

See WSJ letter for how Jews supported the 1965 Act.

The WSJ is pro-business, and has been a long-time advocate of importing cheap labor, and thus replacing the white Christian population. The pro-business argument for immigration is somewhat different from the Jewish argument. Maybe the Charlottesville marchers should have also chanted, "The Wall Street Journal will not replace us."

Of course not all Jews are in favor of the replacement policies. Only about 90% of them. (At least 90% of the non-orthodox Jews. I am not sure about the orthodox ones.)

Just think about this when you hear from someone who is Jewish, a Trump-hater, and who gives anti-Trump arguments that don't even make any sense. Their hatred of Trump is almost always grounded in a belief that he stands in their way of plans to replace the white Christian population.

Learn how you might be manipulated

I mentioned the granddaddy of Jewish conspiracy theories, and here is an audio translation:

The protocols of the learned Elders of Zion in modern English

A one-page summary.

Goyim are mentally inferior to Jews and can't run their nations properly for their sake and ours. We need to abolish their governments and replace them with the single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it's for a good cause.

Here's what we'll need to do place our agents and helpers everywhere. Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans. Start fights between different races, classes, and religions. Use bribery threats and blackmail to get our way. Use Free Masonic lodges to attract potential public officials. Appeal to successful people's egos. Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail. Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, than despotism. Abolish all rights and freedoms except the right by force, by us. Sacrifice people, including Jews, sometimes when necessary. Eliminate religion. Replace it with science and materialism. Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect. Rewrite history to our benefit create entertaining distractions. Corrupt minds with filth and perversion encourage people to spy on one another. Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor. Take possession of all true wealth, property, and especially gold. Use gold to manipulate the markets causing depressions etc. Introduce a progressive tax on wealth. Replace sound investment with speculation. Make long-term interest bearing loans to governments. Give bad advice to governments and everyone else.

Eventually the goyim will be so angry with their governments. We'll blame them for the resulting myths that they'll gladly have us take over. We will then appoint a descendant of David to be the king of the world and the remaining goyim will bow down and sing his praises everyone will live in peace and obediently order under his glorious rule.

The funny thing is that it doesn't have that much directly to do with Jews. The conspirators could be Freemasons or Commies or leftist globalists or anyone else. After all, the plot involves eliminating religion, and Judaism is a religion. Jews lack social cohesion without Judaism.

I realize that the Russian version of the book is a forgery in the sense that parts of it were plagiarized from earlier works.

Nevertheless, the book is a fascinating insight on how an evil cabal might take over the world.

Ask yourself: How much of this do you see going on? Who is doing it? How many are aware of how they are being manipulated?

Rivers of Blood in Sweden

Slate Star Codex is a very popular blog written by an anonymous rationalist Jewish psychiatrist. It is usually quite good, but I was struck by this off-hand comments:

Compare all the anecdotes and popular lore about how immigrants are criminals. It’s totally false – immigrants have crime rates well below native-born citizens. But we only know that because there have been really good studies. If the studies hadn’t been done, and all we had to go on was the daily lurid stories about a Mexican guy knifing someone, who would believe it? In the absence of real studies, the media’s ability to spin a compelling narrative casting some people as monsters feeds on itself forever. We know that happens relatively often. Are we sure this time is different?

No, there are no such studies. Just propaganda from pro-immigration academics.

What are you going to believe, what you can see with your own eyes, or some bias studies?

Politico reports:

STOCKHOLM — Sweden may be known for its popular music, IKEA and a generous welfare state. It is also increasingly associated with a rising number of Islamic State recruits, bombings and hand grenade attacks.

In a period of two weeks earlier this year, five explosions took place in the country. It’s not unusual these days — Swedes have grown accustomed to headlines of violent crime, witness intimidation and gangland executions. In a country long renowned for its safety, voters cite “law and order” as the most important issue ahead of the general election in September.

The topic of crime is sensitive, however, and debate about the issue in the consensus-oriented Scandinavian society is restricted by taboos.

To understand crime in Sweden, it’s important to note that Sweden has benefited from the West’s broad decline in deadly violence, particularly when it comes to spontaneous violence and alcohol-related killings. The overall drop in homicides has been, however, far smaller in Sweden than in neighboring countries.

Gang-related gun murders, now mainly a phenomenon among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies, increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 last year. Because of this, Sweden has gone from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average. Social unrest, with car torchings, attacks on first responders and even riots, is a recurring phenomenon.

Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities. News of attacks are quickly replaced with headlines about sports events and celebrities, as readers have become desensitized to the violence. A generation ago, bombings against the police and riots were extremely rare events. Today, reading about such incidents is considered part of daily life.

... that some neighborhoods are definitely no-go for ambulance drivers — at least without police protection. ...

Since crime is intimately linked to the country’s failure to integrate its immigrants, the rise in violence is a sensitive subject. When the Swedish government and opposition refer to the country as a “humanitarian superpower” because it opened its doors to more immigrants per capita during the migrant crisis than any other EU country, they mean it. This has resulted in some impressive contortions.

In March, Labor Market Minister Ylva Johansson appeared on the BBC, where she claimed that the number of reported rapes and sexual harassment cases “is going down and going down and going down.” In fact, the opposite is true, which Johansson later admitted in an apology.

Note that the Swedish authorities claim that immigration is a success, while any fool can see that it has ruined the country.

The problems of immigration were famously predicted:

Fifty years ago today, on 20 April 1968, the austere shadow defence secretary Enoch Powell MP made a speech in Birmingham. ...

Powell's River of Blood speech was a first and that's why it was so electric.

It was the first time that a major politician had spoken out against the cosy establishment consensus on immigration which had prevailed between both parties since the war.

By the late 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens had exercised their legal right and settled in Britain. ...

Moreover employers in Britain, facing a labour shortage, actively recruited in the wider English-speaking world, especially where workers were cheap.

Neither Labour nor the Tories had substantially different positions. ...

Powell's greater concern was that immigration would erode the national character. ...

His greatest preoccupation is not even the immigrants coming but rather their descendants, the "native-born" who, he worried, would "constitute the majority" of the ethnic minority population in a few decades hence.

Britain, he said, "must be mad, literally mad, as a nation" to be allowing such "inflow". These native-born would be betwixt and between two worlds and fundamentally alter Britishness for the worse. ...

Moreover Powell, for many years hence legitimised a certain type of nativism. Even today, the words "Enoch was right" can be found on many a far-right placard. ...

In a world where the infamous "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" was a commonplace refrain, this was a significant change. ...

As historian Robert Saunders of Oxford University told me: "If you take that speech in 1968, you have the manifesto of modern populism; the idea that speaking out against immigration is the act of a courageous and visionary statesman, it's the idea that what immigrants want is domination, what they want is the whip hand over the local population, it's the idea that what liberalism is about is about giving privileges and preferences to minority groups and that has been the position of populists ever since."

The UK BBC is rebroadcasting the speech today.

Yes, the immigration was literally mad, and the children of immigrants have fundamentally altered Britishness for the worse.

Update: You can now listen to the UK BBC Radio 4 program. It can be streamed, but not downloaded. It is not really a rebroadcast, because it was never broadcast in the first place. An actor reads it from a transcript. The program interrupts every few sentences to keep telling us what a racist and foolish speech it was.

Boycott Starbucks

I am always hearing how blacks and other minority and majority groups have difficulties in the USA, so it is enlightening to hear examples.

I have read in history books that under Jim Crow laws in the Old South, sometimes blacks had to eat at one end of the lunch counter while whites ate at the other end. I have never witnessed this myself.

Now apparently black men sometimes have to buy something if they want to use the Starbucks restroom.

And Starbucks admits one of the secrets to its success: It can get away with selling $5 coffee because its racist customers are willing to pay extra for the privilege of drinking coffee without blacks hanging around.

The $1 coffee at McDonalds is just as good, but you might encounter blacks there.

The story reveals a difference between whites and blacks. When the police tell white folks that they have to leave a private restaurant, they politely leave.

The Starbucks management was so startled by the behavior of these black trespassers, that they are shutting down their stores for a day to give lessons in dealing with rude blacks.

I am suspicious that Starbucks engineered this whole incident in order to encourage blacks to boycott Starbucks. Blacks who hang around Starbucks without buying anything are bad for business. Of course Starbucks cannot admit this, because it cannot afford to alienate white liberals who pretend to like blacks but do not want to drink coffee next to one.

Update: Wonder why Starbucks is waiting a month for the training shutdown? It only takes a few minutes to tell employees to treat whites and blacks the same. The answer is that Starbucks has hired liberal Jews to spend a month developing the training! I guess the Jewish customers are more valued than the black customers.

Plotting for world domination

The Times of Israel reports:

A Saudi scholar claimed that Jews are implementing the contents of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” by using Hollywood to “target us” and preoccupy the masses with arts, sports and theater.

While stressing that there is no proof of the authenticity of the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, Sheikh Sa’ad ibn Abdullah Al-Humayd, a professor of Hadith Studies at King Saud University in Riyadh, said this didn’t matter since what appears in the book “has been translated into reality.”

He said the conspiracy that Jews are trying to take over the world by using their wealth could have been intentionally distributed by Jews who concluded it would benefit them.

It is funny to hear Saudis complain about others misusing their wealth.

I looked at the Wikipedia article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to see why this book is called a "forgery". Apparently about 8% of it has some identifiable phrases in common with earlier works. The examples mentioned are "obligation to pay interest", and a metaphor about the Hindu god Vishnu having 100 hands has some similarily to an earlier metaphor of Vishnu having 100 arms.

It said that Hitler cited the book, acknowledging these plagiarisms, and considering the book's content important anyway.

My guess is that Hitler figured that if the Jews hatched a written scheme to take over the work, then they would have stolen ideas from Machiavelli and other schemers in history. Were the Jews supposed to have come up with a 100% original plan?

I wonder why Jewish publications are so quick to call this book a "forgery", when all they mean by this is that some of the ideas were derived from earlier works.

The book has also been claimed to be a plot for the Illuminati or the Freemasons to take over the world.

If the Jews or any other group really had an evil plot to take over the world, how would they communicate their plan? You might try keeping the plan super-secret, but that is hopeless if you want group members all over the world to follow the plan. No, the plan would leak out, so you would have to have a backstory to convince outsiders that the plan is a hoax. So the Protocols books is genius.

Islam also has a plan to take over the world. They cannot say that the Koran is a hoax, so instead they have to argue for tolerance of their religious beliefs, or that the Koran is misinterpreted.

Thought on blackmail and other news

Most violent revolutions make the people worse off. If you want to help the Syrians, then you should hope Assad kills as many revolutionaries as possible, by whatever means.

According to reports, the black men in Starbuck did not buy anything, and repeatedly refused to leave when asked by the management. They even refused to leave when asked by the police. Stores also call cops on white ppl under these circumstances, and cops remove the trespassers.

Starbucks is a business, and it doesn't make its money off black men.

James Comey is only proving that he should have been fired sooner.

When the G.W. Bush supporters said "Mission Accomplished", they referred to a mission that in fact had been accomplished.

Yes, Iraq is still a screwed-up place, and it might continue to be for the next millennium.

I blogged many times about how the evidence against Scooter Libby was extremely weak. The main piece of evidence that his recollection of a conversation differed from that of Tim Russert, and it seemed to me that Russert had much more of an incentive to lie.

Valerie Plame deserved to be outed, as she used her CIA position to publicly spread lies about the war. She was apparently outed by herself and Armitage, not Libby.

It is possible that Libby had a secret deal with Bush to be the fall guy for administration lying about Iraq.

It is good to hear that Paul Ryan has given up his war against Pres. Trump. Ryan has been a disaster as Speaker. He was mainly popular among cuckservatives.

It is hard to see how Backpage is any more guilty of crimes than any other dating site. They all include ads from women who suggest sexual availability in exchange for a man's money. And now that there is a new federal law to apply, I don't see how any of the sites can stay clear of the law.

Stormy Daniels is a prostitute who gets paid for performing sex acts on camera, and a blackmailer for demanding payments in exchange for her silence. And a crook for taking the money and then cheating on the deal.

I occasionally hear ppl say that Trump must have had the liaison, or else why would he have authorized payment? The argument is illogical. The purpose of blackmail is to extract money from someone who does not want an allegation made public. In this case, we have no way of determining the truth of the allegations, but it could be seen to be in Trump's interest to not have the allegations made public anyway.

Maybe Trump put a couple of million dollars in an account, and told he lawyer to use it to get rid of nuisance claims that have the potential to cause a lot of trouble, in his own judgment. It is possible that the lawyer paid off Daniels without discussing it with Trump or even having any opinion about whether the allegations were true or false.

Commie roots of WHO and psychiatry

Brock Chisholm was first Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and Wikipedia says:

Religious and other conservative writers and groups have accused Chisholm of being a Marxist or a Communist or subversive.[7] "For instance, Brock Chisholm, a former director of the World Health Organization, pronounced that 'To achieve One-World Government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to their traditions and national identification'."[9] Such accusations fit into a Cold War norm in which some conservatives claimed that "a large percentage of the U.S. Communist Party consisted of 'psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors and social, health, and welfare workers."[10] Others contended that one goal of Communism was to "dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.[11] Some lumped Chisholm among other Marxists and Communists "behind the scenes," including: Wilhelm Wundt, Otto Gross, Wilhelm Steckel, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Kurt Lewin, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Robert Owen, A.S. Neill, Havelock Ellis, John Rawlings Rees, Sigmund Freud, Antonio Gramsci, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and Georg Lukacs.[12]

Here is another quote:

The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training... these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. Would they not be legitimate objectives of original education? Would it not be sensible to stop imposing our own local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that...they may have the ability to size things up and make their own decisions?

He died in 1971, so this is old news.

20k censors to appease Islam

The Facebook-Zuckerberg plan is to hire 20k censors and develop censor bots:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg predicted Tuesday it will be five to 10 years before Facebook has technological tools in place to flag and remove hate speech from the platform before it is posted.
...
“That’s a success in terms of rolling out AI tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community,” Zuckerberg said. “Hate speech, I am optimistic that over a five to 10 year period we'll have AI tools that can get into some of the nuances, the linguistic nuances of different types of content to be more accurate in flagging things for our systems, but today is just not there on that.”

The Facebook CEO said that by the end of 2018, the company will have 20,000 employees devoted to security and content review.

Here is what he wants to censor:

Last month, Facebook censored a German historian who posted a message about Islam's historic impact on Germany. Facebook banned the historian for 30 days, ...

"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight," Hesemann wrote, according to NRW Direkt. "In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

No, this is crazy. If FB wanted to do users a favor, it would merely develop tools to allow users to block seeing Islam-related messages on their home pages, if they want. There is no good reason to block messages from the whole system, because many users will want to read those messages.

That is, no good reason unless you are a Jewish leftist globalist seeking world domination.

Yes, I know that a lot of Jews hate Islam. But they hate Christianity even more, and they like to promote Islam as a way of undermining Christianity.

Debate on Jewish group evolutionary strategy

Nathan Cofnas writes in a new scholarly paper:

[Psychology professor Kevin] MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West.

While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.

The paper is a bunch of cherry-picked criticisms, with a handful of examples of MacDonald making statements stronger that what his sources support.

It is true that not all Jews were Commies, not all Commies were Jews, etc. It is also true that you find Jews in conservative movements. But Jews overwhelmingly stick to a few Jewish ideologies, even if they are secular Jews like Freud. For example, about 70-80% of Jews voted Democrat in the last election, even tho Trump is the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel President in a long time.

The article notes that MacDonald has a very credible following, while many scholars have been afraid to say whether he is right or wrong.

I couldn't wade thru all this. You can read replies and comments here, here, here, here, and here. It appears to me that Cofnas has very little to rebut MacDonald's main theses, but merely nitpicks some of the evidence.

How else do you explain Freud being so popular with such bogus theories? How else do you explain so many Commies being Jewish?

Going to the present day, how else do you explain Jewish-dominated news media, like the NY Times and CNN, being so anti-American?

Violation of European fundamental values

Breitbart reports:

President Juncker said that Poland did not show the proper ‘solidarity’ with the rest of the political bloc because it has only allowed in large numbers of Ukrainian migrants and not Muslims, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.

During a meeting with new Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Juncker praised the country for allowing in many Ukrainians displaced by the country’s internal conflict; however, he later said: “We are in talks with Hungary and Poland. I do not accept them saying, ‘we do not accept coloured people, Muslims, or homosexuals in our territory’. It is a major violation of European fundamental values.”

Jakub Dudziak, an official in Poland’s migration department, said: “In the streets, you can not tell if people are Poles or Ukrainians, we’re very much alike. It may be that the Poles are afraid of people coming from other parts of the world.”

So what are those "European fundamental values"? To accept invaders from other parts of the world?

I am not European, so they can have whatever values they want. But do they really now have fundamental values to bring in coloured people, Muslims, and homosexuals in preference to Ukrainians? For how long has this been true?

Europe has a history of repelling invaders for centuries, if not millennia. It certainly appears to me that the core European value is to create nation-states of similar Christian people. When did that change?

More white hatred from The Atlantic

I posted about the new Utah free-range parenting law, and now the white-haters at Atlantic complain that it discriminates against poor dumb brown single moms:

The middle- and upper-middle-class parents I interviewed never voiced those same concerns. For them, free-range parenting seems relatively risk-free. Consider Lenore Skenazy, the former columnist who coined the term. ...

And even if they had, I, like many well-off parents, probably would have been able to talk my way out of trouble. My own research finds that middle- and upper-middle-class parents are particularly good at exempting their children from many rules and punishments—partly because of savvy negotiating skills, but partly because their class or race affords them the benefit of the doubt. ...

Utah’s new law—and the free-range-parenting movement more generally — doesn’t seem to account for all this. The law doesn’t specify when free-range parenting becomes neglectful parenting, and that gives authorities an uncomfortable amount of discretion. Utah’s law protects parents from having their children taken away, but only if those children are of “sufficient” age and if those children’s “basic needs are met.” But what counts as sufficient? ...

The better-educated, better-paid parents who embrace free-range parenting aren’t preoccupied with questions like these.

Actually, here is what Skenazy said:

Of course “sufficient age and maturity” is vague, but the law is clearly leaning in the direction of giving “Free-Range” parents the benefit of the doubt when they give their kids some unsupervised time, rather than charging negligence.

The vagueness comes from left-wing nanny-state politicians, not from free-range parents.

This Utah law is overwhelmingly to the benefit of low-class poor parents.

This is just another example where the mainstream press uses any excuse to attack white ppl. Even when white ppl push thru a law that primarily benefits non-whites, the magazine blames whites.

Mainstream press endorses scientific racism

Leftist publications are getting all excited about scientific racism again.

The Nation complains:

Nineties-relic Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) is popping up on campuses and in conservative media outlets, much to the delight of those who think his graphs confer legitimacy to their prejudices. Atheist philosopher and podcaster Sam Harris is extolling Murray’s highfalutin version of racist graffiti as “forbidden knowledge.” New York Times’ increasingly off-the-rails op-ed page gave genetics professor David Reich the opportunity to write that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races.’”

Reich goes further than that, explaining:

And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

That means just about all traits, as most of them are 50% or more genetic. In other words, modern genomics is explaining racial differences.

A Wash. Post op-ed rants about Aristotle's logic and concludes:

Instead of discouraging low-IQ individuals from having children or paternalistically assigning them to their “proper place,” as Murray advocates, let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.

That is essentially an argument for sterilizing or exterminating brown and black people.

He complains that Aristotle wrote that many people are by nature fit to be slaves. He doesn’t mention that Aristotle was mostly talking about white people:

There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type.

If she were Jewish, she’d understand!

Here is a 1939 Atlantic article by a Christian woman who married a Jew:

Then my mother pulled out the oldest and bitterest chestnuts that have been hurled against the Jews, accusations as old as the Roman Empire.

'The Jews are essentially an Oriental race,' she stormed, 'East is East, and Jews and Christians cannot really meet any more than Christians and Chinese. Jews are sensual, aggressive, ostentatious, cunning—that is a heritage they can never overcome. They accomplish things in business because they are shrewder than Christians and never hesitate to seize an unfair advantage. They accomplish things in science yes, but mostly windy theories like those of Einstein and Freud. Jewish painters like Picasso and Modigliani are clever but never great. Jews in the theatre—well, you have seen what they have done to Hollywood. The moving pictures are full of sex and sensuality, and cater solely to the Jews' god, money. Has there ever been a Jew who could approach Beethoven or Raphael? Has there ever…’

I guess it was socially acceptable to stereoype Jews back then.

The Wash. Post published this article last week by a Christian woman who dated some Jewish men:

Over almost seven years and two serious relationships with Jewish men who at first said religion didn’t matter — and then backtracked and decided it did — I’ve optimistically begun interfaith relationships with an open mind twice, only to become the last woman these men dated before settling down with a nice Jewish girl.

I can now say with certainty that I am tired of being a Jewish man’s rebellion. ...

Sure, there were some tense moments in these relationships. One of their mothers was extremely overbearing, somehow getting my cellphone number and calling me, asking where her son was. I didn’t know where he was, and her calling me made me incredibly uncomfortable. I asked my boyfriend how she got my number — he swore he didn’t give it to her — and told him I didn’t want this kind of involvement to be part of our relationship. When he talked to her about it, she exploded, yelling, “If she were Jewish, she’d understand!” I wasn’t invited to the seders that his family held, despite my saying I had loved attending them with my friends. There were times at church that I saw couples worshiping together and felt pangs of jealousy. But I told myself every relationship had its problems and these were relatively minor.

These issues weren’t there at first, but they started to appear after some time had passed and we were already in love. After years of dating, religion was suddenly a problem when it never had been before. I didn’t understand where it was coming from, and they weren’t able to explain it.

Not being Jewish was not the official reason either of these relationships ended.

If she is not Jewish, how is she supposed to learn to undertand such matters? the Atlantic magazine isn't telling us anymore.

Update: I posted the 1939 essay without reading all of it. She praises highly her Jewish husband, but is puzzled as to why he clings to his Jewish identity even tho he does not seem to believe in any of the Jewish religion and he married a non-Jew.

The bizarre part tho is that she says that one of their disagreements is about Hitler.

In the eyes of Ben, as in the eyes of all his people, Hitler stands for the Jewish equivalent of the Antichrist—a little, strutting monster whose sole purpose and pleasure in life is to flog, imprison, impoverish, humiliate, and plague Israel. ...

I try to tell Ben that Hitler is merely writing another page in a history that will continue so long as the status quo between Jews and Gentiles remains—a status that only the willing shoulders of both protagonists can remove. ...

He looks upon Hitler as something malignantly unique, and it is no use trying to tell him that a hundred years hence the world will no more call Hitler a swine for expelling the Jews than it does Edward I of England, who did the same thing in the thirteenth century—an expulsion that remained in strict effect until the time of Cromwell, because a hundred years hence another country will be having its Jewish problem, unless…

She also has trouble with his family's clannishness.

Facebook spies on your messages

Bloomberg reports:

Facebook Inc. scans the links and images that people send each other on Facebook Messenger, and reads chats when they’re flagged to moderators, making sure the content abides by the company’s rules. If it doesn’t, it gets blocked or taken down.

The company confirmed the practice after an interview published earlier this week with Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg raised questions about Messenger’s practices and privacy. Zuckerberg told Vox’s Ezra Klein a story about receiving a phone call related to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. Facebook had detected people trying to send sensational messages through the Messenger app, he said.

“In that case, our systems detect what’s going on,” Zuckerberg said. “We stop those messages from going through.”

Google automatically scans gmail messages, and has occasionally reported users to the police.

It is funny that Facebook has been selling users' private data to advertisers and political campaigns for years, but the press only gets excited about it when it is revealed that the data was possibly used for Trump's benefit.

Do you really want Facebook taking sides in a civil war in Burma?

What did you think was happening when you click a "Like" button? That button exists for the purpose of selling your privacy to marketers.

Utah legalizes free-range parenting

Salt Lake paper reports:

So-called free-range parenting will soon be the law of the land in Utah after the governor signed what appears to be the country's first measure to formally legalize allowing kids to do things on their own to foster self-sufficiency.

The bill, which Gov. Gary Herbert announced Friday that he'd signed, specifies that it isn't neglectful to let kids do things alone like travel to school, explore a playground or stay in the car. The law takes effect May 8.

Utah's law is the first in the country, said Lenore Skenazy, who coined the term free-range parent. A records search by the National Conference of State Legislatures didn't turn up any similar legislation in other states.

Utah lawmakers said they were prompted to pass the law after seeing other states where parents had been investigated and in some cases had their children temporarily removed when people reported seeing kids playing basketball in their yards or walking to school alone.

For more info on why this common sense law was needed, see the Lenore Skenazy pages.

A law like this should not be necessary, but it is a welcome protection against the nanny state.

Treating people like 4-year-olds

Supervising 4-year-old kids has changed my view of the world.

4yo kids can speak in complete sentences, and understand very simple reasoning. You can carry on a conversation with them, as long as you don't expect them to think for themselves or to draw on the wisdom of experience.

I am finding that for most people I have to deal with, it is easier if I treat them as 4-year-olds. When I run into store clerks, state bureaucrats, casual acquaintenances, and strangers on the street, it works much better if I treat them as 4yo kids.

The Dilbert cartoonist made a lot of enemies with this 2011 post:

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy.

His critics did not seem to understand the point he was making at all, and threw tantrums like 4yo kids. In other words, their behavior supported his point.

Christina Hoff Sommers is known as the "factual feminist" because she uses actual data to clarify wage issues, and she was recently shouted down at a law school for being a "fascist". There is no point in having a rational discussion with those who refuse to hear facts.

The problem is broader than that. I have now read 100s of anti-Trump essays, and they are pretty much all at a 4yo level. Even if it is a Nobel Prize winner writing in the NY Times, the arguments are at a 4yo level.

If I am dealing with a learned professional, like a physician, lawyer, or dentist, then obviously they have knowledge that far exceeds that of a 4yo. I might ask, "Do I need a filling in this molar?", and that is obviously not something I can ask a 4yo. Once I get outside their specific expertise, they are just as dopey as all the others, and a 4yo kid level conversation works well.

This is especially true of women. Even women with advanced degrees are usually not that interested in having an intellectual conversation. How can you reason with a woman who refuses to distinguish between violent stranger rape, marital sexual relations, and catcalling?

For some people, treating people as 4yo kids even works in their area of expertise. I have run into educators, psychologists, social workers, and others who show no obvious expertise at all. They might pretend to have expertise, and talk down to me as if I were a kid. If I challenge them for some expert opinion, they get very uncomfortable. And if I ask some question requiring a thoughtful response, forget about it.

The path of least resistance is to go along with the game, and treat them as 4yo kids also. It is usually just easier that way.

Again, I am not identifying them with 4yo kids. Neither was Dilbert. If an adult makes an adult argument, then go ahead and give an adult response. But if an adult gives an irrational arguments that makes about as much sense as something a 4yo kid might say, then it is just easier to treat that person as if she were a 4yo kid.

The MeToo movement has exposed a lot of 4yo-level thinking, in both women and men. Most of those commenting on this subject have taken the position that if a women tells an unverifiable story about events many years ago, then it should be believed if it sounds credible, that is, if it sounds as if it could have happened as a reporter retells the story.

How stupid is that? Anyone can tell a plausible story. Just take a real story, and change the names and places.

There are also those who insist that they can determine guilt from hearing just one side of the story. How often does that happen? There are reasons why courts require both sides of an issue before issuing any orders.

There are also people who assume that someone who pays blackmail must be guilty. Since it is obvious that a woman can severely damage a man's reputation by just making an accusation, then it might make business sense to pay hush money to a blackmailer, even if the blackmailer is lying about the facts. Is some cases, it might even be more desirable to silence a liar than a truth-teller.

I am having to rethink my opinions about democracy. What good is it if most ppl are so childish in their opinions? About 90% of the population has political opinions that are predictable from their demographics.

Immigration raises crime rates

The NY Times reports:

As of 2017, according to Gallup polls, almost half of Americans agreed that immigrants make crime worse. But is it true that immigration drives crime? Many studies have shown that it does not.

Immigrant populations in the United States have been growing fast for decades now. Crime in the same period, however, has moved in the opposite direction, with the national rate of violent crime today well below what it was in 1980.

In a large-scale collaboration by four universities, led by Robert Adelman, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo, researchers compared immigration rates with crime rates for 200 metropolitan areas over the last several decades. The selected areas included huge urban hubs like New York and smaller manufacturing centers less than a hundredth that size, like Muncie, Ind., and were dispersed geographically across the country.

According to data from the study, a large majority of the areas have many more immigrants today than they did in 1980 and fewer violent crimes. The Marshall Project extended the study’s data up to 2016, showing that crime fell more often than it rose even as immigrant populations grew almost across the board.

In 136 metro areas, almost 70 percent of those studied, the immigrant population increased between 1980 and 2016 while crime stayed stable or fell. The number of areas where crime and immigration both increased was much lower — 54 areas, slightly more than a quarter of the total. The 10 places with the largest increases in immigrants all had lower levels of crime in 2016 than in 1980.

Crime has gone down in the last 40 years, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with immigration. Everyone agrees to that.

Do immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native white population? It appears that this study does not address the issue. (I cannot tell for sure, as the article is paywalled. It is funny to see the NY Times complain about research that is not publicly available.)

Where I live, most of the reported crime is immigrant-related. This is especially true of violent and gang-related crimes.

I would count the Orlando nightclub shooting as immigrant-related, as the shooter's parents are Afghan immigrants. This study does not, as is therefore ignoring much of the crime that is caused by immigration.

The NY Times is ideologically pro-immigration, and it is lying to us about the crime that it is causing.

Moslems are killing Jews in Paris

The NY Times Jewish opinion writers say this:

One of the suspects told the investigators that the other had shouted “Allahu Akbar” while killing Ms. Knoll, according to Le Monde. ... On Tuesday, Gérard Collomb, the interior minister, told Parliament that one of the attackers had told the other: “She’s a Jew. She must have money.” ...

It’s a neighborhood that has already borne witness to a nearly identical crime. Almost exactly a year ago, a 65-year-old Jewish widow named Sarah Halimi was murdered by her neighbor, 27-year-old Kobili Traoré. Other neighbors said they heard Mr. Traoré scream “Allahu Akbar” as he beat Ms. Halimi, a retired doctor, to near death in the early hours of April 4, 2017. He then threw her body into the courtyard below.

It took months for Ms. Halimi’s murder to be categorized as an anti-Jewish hate crime. “It was scandalous,” said Mr. Goldnadel, the lawyer, who also represented the Halimi family.

It was not so much anti-Jewish as pro-Islam. The NY Times itself was at the forefront of downplaying the Islamic nature of these crimes. See here for proof.

Anti-Semitism was supposed to be a disease of the far right. But the people actually killing Jews in France these days are not members of the National Front. They are Islamists.

“The major crimes against the Jewish community — Ilan Halimi, the Toulouse killings, the Hyper Cacher killings, Sarah Halimi — all of them have all been carried out by radicalized Muslims,” Robert Ejnes, the executive director of CRIF, an umbrella organization of French Jewish groups, told me in a call from Paris. “These young people have French identity cards, but they hate what France stands for. This is the nature of the problem we are facing. And it’s very hard to talk about.”

That's right. Jews blame the far right with every chance they get, but the threat to Jews comes from Islam, and Jews and Jewish organizations have been the main ones pushing for Islamic immigration. For example, the NY Times.

If Jews had any sense, they would join the far right and call for a ban on Moslem immigration. But they won't, because Moslem immigration supports some of their other purposes.

Another NY Times Jewish columnist writes:

Racism is America’s great sin, and if there isn’t continual progress to combat it, the nation becomes ugly to itself.

Moreover, you wind up with the depressing results reported in The Times last week, that even when African-American families do manage to rise to affluence, their boys can’t stay there because of systemic racism and the lack of fathers/role models in their neighborhoods.

No, the study did not find systemic racism at all. This is just another example of Brooks misrepresenting social science research.

Intermarriage rates are also rising. In 1967, 3 percent of Americans married outside their race or ethnicity. Now 17 percent do. Twenty-four percent of black men marry a woman outside their race, as do 12 percent of black women. ...

If we’re going to kick-start another push toward racial integration — which is more or less a moral necessity — maybe the place to start is in the neighborhoods.

It is bizarre how Jews, in Hollywood and in the press, are always trying to get black men to mate with white (non-Jewish) women. Netflix shows are now filled with this. An example is Jessica Jones, who is a white non-Jewish comic book super-hero women, but she regularly get defiled by a big black man. Likewise with a dozen other Netflix shows.

Here this Jewish columnist at a Jewish newspapers claims that promoting such miscegenation is a "moral necessity". But not for Jews, of course, as Africans are kept out of Israel.

Jews disagree about deporting Africans

I hate to admit being wrong, but an Israeli news site reports:

Some 25,000 people participated in a rally against the deportation African asylum seekers in Tel Aviv’s Rabin on Saturday evening. The demonstrators carried signs and chanted slogans such as “There is no difference between our blood and their blood because we are all human beings.”

I don't know what is going on here. These protesters seem to be Jews, altho some could be Arabs or Africans.

Jews move to Israel so they can live in a Jewish state, speak a dead Hebrew language, pray in Jerusalem, harass Arabs on the side, hope their daughters will marry nice Jewish boys, and then they want to import African refugees into their fragile country?! What goes? Have some of them started to believe their own BS about egalitarianism?

Maybe the Israeli Jews read the Talmud too long, and are temperamentally inclined to argue anything just for the sake of argument. It is amazing that country still exists. It won't exist for long, if they keep taking African refugees.

Cloudflare tries to conceal its Nazi past

This is funny:

The Daily Stormer removal also became an issue in the piracy liability case adult entertainment publisher ALS Scan had filed previously. After Cloudflare’s CEO was questioned on the matter, it could now be brought up before a jury during the trial as well.

This is something Cloudflare would like to avoid, it appears. A few days ago the company asked the court to exclude any hate group related evidence or arguments from the trial.

“Cloudflare respectfully asks this Court to exclude any evidence or arguments that ALS intends to offer relating to Cloudflare’s services, including termination or non-termination of services, to hate groups,” the company writes.

“This includes but is not limited to services that Cloudflare historically provided to the Daily Stormer website, and Cloudflare’s decision to terminate services to that website following the tragic events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017.”

ALS previously harped on the fact that the CEO arbitrarily decided to remove one site from the service, while requiring court orders in other instances.

So the jury is likely to hear about how Cloudflare enthusiastically hosted neo-Nazi content for a couple of years, but then arbitrarily blocked the site based on some obscure ideological difference of opinion that is almost impossible to explain.

Since the lawsuit is about Cloudflare's censorship policies, the jury needs to know that it was perfectly fine posting rants about gassing the Jews, but decided to censor based on a remark critical of a Charlottesville protester who was in the news.

I think that it is pretty crazy for companies like Cloudflare to get into the censorship business. They are just information middlemen, like AT&T or Comcast or Google. Google has made this mistake also, and alternates between promoting and censoring neo-Nazi content.

The Daily Stormer managed to get back online. It tries to be offensive. Sometimes to get attention, or to make a point, or to trigger enemies, or to get censored. I can't always tell. Whatever the merits of their site, they should not determine who gets free speech.

Black men do poorly, even if born rich

The NY Times reports:

Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.

White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households.

Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.
According to the study, led by researchers at Stanford, Harvard and the Census Bureau, income inequality between blacks and whites is driven entirely by ...

The study says that they could not find any quantitative evidence for an explanatory cause for black men doing worse than white men, except for the possibility of "differences in innate ability." But if so, it said that the racial differences must be greater for men than for women.

That is, maybe black men are stupid, oversexed, impulsive, violent, and lazy compared to white men, and thus are less successful in the job market. But the same is apparently not true about black women compared to white women. White women seem to have problems similar to black women. Sad,

The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

Not hard to explain. Men are smarter than women. Men are more aggressive than women. Men are more criminal than women. Blacks are more matriarchal than whites. A decent academic study would have considered these hypotheses, as well as a few others.

The authors, including the Stanford economist Raj Chetty and two census researchers, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter, tried to identify neighborhoods where poor black boys do well, and as well as whites.

“The problem,” Mr. Chetty said, “is that there are essentially no such neighborhoods in America.”

Then integrating neighborhoods does not work.

All these studies show the same thing -- that race and sex differences are real. All attempts to find external explanations have failed.

The lead author of the study is Raj Chetty, a politically correct economist who once won a genius prize. He and the Jews who run the NY Times are so eager to argue that white (non-Jewish) American men are no better than black men. Even when the data overwhelmingly lead to that conclusion, they cook up ridiculous reasons for denying it.

Pinker's new book has made many enemies

I criticized Steven Pinker's new book under the assumption that everyone else would praise it. I was wrong. Most of the reviews have been negative. See also here.

The main problem is that his defense of Western Civilization and European Enlightenment is seen as white supremacy and racism in disguise. When he rips into Islamic countries as backward and unenlightened, he is seen as bigoted and colonialist.

Pinker is a leftist Jewish atheist Harvard professor, so I thought that he would be immune to those criticisms. Eg, he calls Steve Bannon a fascist and denounces Pres. Trump. Again, I was wrong.

He also gets criticism from folks who should be ideological allies. Eg, Eliezer Yudkowsky writes:

Pinker’s reasoning on AI was so horrifically bad (as reasoning qua reasoning, not to mention as elementary scholarship; angry and dismissive and failing to consider the opposite or try steeling the imagined argument, as well as ignorant of the Bostrom book that even outsiders who’ve heard of the field have heard is the basic literature), that I’m disinclined to believe anything Pinker says about topics I don’t already know about, lest that just be Gell-Mann Amnesia on my own part. I frankly worry he’s gotten old and run out his supply of precision.

My agreeing with Pinker on elementary points of humanism and being on the same side as him against the anti-Enlightenment does not imply an extension of epistemic credit or forgiveness for invalid argument steps. My side *is* the side that thinks arguments have local validity and statements have local truth regardless of who is on what “side”, and I can no longer trust Pinker to be on that side if he thinks that it’s okay to launch dumb arguments against conclusions that he conceives to support his political foes.

And if Pinker has abandoned that side, then I can’t extend him epistemic credit without checking every little thing he claims, and that’s too much work to put into reading a book–especially one whose “side” I’m already on.

Nathan J. Robinson attacks Pinker for being too tolerant of inequality:

Inequality has been talked about so much that it can be easy to forget why it matters. Today, it’s seen as one of the defining issues of our time even by the plutocrats at the Davos conference. Their particular worries may spring mostly from self-interest (see venture capitalist Nick Hanauer’s warning to his fellow one-percenters that unless they got serious about economic inequality, the pitchforks would soon be coming for them), but there are plenty of people whose opposition to inequality is sincere and principled. Millennials, with their infamous tendency toward socialism, are often fairly bitter about a system in which so many languish in the gig economy while a few others get to fund their own private space program.

Yet there are some serious arguments that opposition to economic inequality is misguided. Steven Pinker, in his new book Enlightenment Now, makes the case that inequality itself does not matter, and that people should stop talking about it so much. Pinker claims that inequality is “not a fundamental dimension of human well-being” and that “an increase in inequality is not necessarily bad.” He admits that economic inequality has been growing, but argues that it is wrong to see this as a “counterexample to human progress.”

Pinker presumably recognizes that inequality is a necessity for civilization. The only way to get closer to equality is thru some massive disaster, like war, plague, or famine killing millions of ppl.

Is it possible that Pinker is some sort of closet Nazi?

He has swallowed the red pill about human nature. If he publicly endorsed right-wing views, he would probably get kicked out of Harvard, and lose the high academic status he now enjoys.

My test for detecting closet Nazis, Commies, and other political extremists is the ask the question: Is he operating on the edge of his Overton Window? In the case of Pinker, the answer is yes.

Out-of-Africa theory in crisis

I have attacked the Out-of-Africa theory on this blog many times, such as here.

Anthropologist Dienekes Pontikos writes:

The sensational discovery of modern humans in the Levant 177-194 thousand years ago should cause a rethink of the currently held Out-of-Africa orthodoxy.

By Out-of-Africa, I mean here the origin of anatomically modern humans, as opposed to the earlier origin of the genus Homo or the later origin of behaviorally fully modern humans.

Two main pieces of evidence supported the conventional OOA theory:

1. The observation that modern Eurasians possess a subset of the genetic variation of modern Africans.
2. The greater antiquity of AMH humans [anatomically modern humans] in the African rather than the Eurasian palaeoanthropological record.

Both these observations are in crisis.

See Sailer for comments.

My suspicion is that the Jews have tricked everyone into believing the Out-of-Africa theory. Eg, a Sept. 2016 NY Times story said:

In the 1980s, a group of paleoanthropologists and geneticists began championing a hypothesis that modern humans emerged only once from Africa, roughly 50,000 years ago. Skeletons and tools discovered at archaeological sites clearly indicated that modern humans lived after that time in Europe, Asia and Australia.

Notice how the story equates "modern humans" with Africans.

At least the above anthropologist distinguishes Africans from "behaviorally fully modern humans".

The gunman said Allahu akbar

I noted in Nov. 2017:

Wajahat Ali writes in the NY Times:

Allahu akbar. It’s Arabic for “God is greatest.” Muslims, an eccentric tribe with over a billion members, say it several times in our five daily prayers. ... I say “Allahu akbar” out loud more than 100 times a day.

It also means "Allah is greater than the Christian God" and "Kill the infidels".

But now the NY Times refuses to say that, and says instead:

About 50 people were in the market in Trèbes at the time of the attack, Mr. Molins said, although he could not specify how many were taken hostage. The gunman shouted “God is great” in Arabic as he entered, witnesses said.

“Saying that he was ready to die for Syria, he called for the liberation of his brothers, before shooting at a client and a store employee, who both died on the spot,” said Mr. Molins, speaking at a news conference in Carcassonne.

No, the gunman said Allahu akbar. It is what a billion Muslims say every day, and it means to kill the infidels who believe in an inferior Christian God or any other non-Mohammedan belief.

The NY Times is sugar-coating this for you because it is run by others who don't like Christians either.

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:

Now we are at a place where it is commonly assumed that your perceptions are something that come to you through your group, through your demographic identity. How many times have we all heard somebody rise up in conversation and say, “Speaking as a Latina. …” or “Speaking as a queer person. …” or “Speaking as a Jew. …”?

Now, when somebody says that I always wonder, What does that mean? After you’ve stated your group identity, what is the therefore that follows? ...

I’m a columnist and I’m supposed to come to a conclusion, but I’m confused.

Our whole education system is based on the idea that we train individuals to be critical thinkers. Our political system is based on the idea that persuasion and deliberation lead to compromise and toward truth. The basis of human dignity is our capacity to make up our own minds. One of the things I’ve learned in a lifetime in journalism is that people are always more unpredictable than their categories.

But the notion that group membership determines opinion undermines all that. If it’s just group against group, deliberation is a sham, beliefs are just masks groups use to preserve power structures, and democracy is a fraud. The epistemological foundation of our system is in surprisingly radical flux.

White Christian cis-gendered straight men are in the last group to think for themselves. Brooks is Jewish, and recites stereotypical Jewish opinions. Ditto for Latinas, queers, Mohammedans, and all the others who have infiltrated our democracy. Yes, democracy is a fraud if we let all those people immigrate into the USA.

Whites are stockpiling guns

A SciAm opinion declares:

When Northland College sociologist Angela Stroud studied applications for licenses to carry concealed firearms in Texas, which exploded after President Obama was elected, she found applicants were overwhelmingly dominated by white men. In interviews, they told her that they wanted to protect themselves and the people they love.

“When men became fathers or got married, they started to feel very vulnerable, like they couldn’t protect families,” she says. “For them, owning a weapon is part of what it means to be a good husband a good father.” That meaning is “rooted in fear and vulnerability—very motivating emotions.”

But Stroud also discovered another motivation: racial anxiety. “A lot of people talked about how important Obama was to get a concealed-carry license: ‘He’s for free health care, he’s for welfare.’ They were asking, ‘Whatever happened to hard work?’” Obama’s presidency, they feared, would empower minorities to threaten their property and families.

If this guy is right, then non-whites and Jews are carrying out an ethnic cleansing of America. Whites have responded by arming themselves with millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo.

I hate to think that we might be headed towards civil war. If so, the history books will probably regard Donald Trump as the great voice of reason in our age.

Libertarians give data vendors a pass

Reason reports a libertarian view:

In America, tech giants know a lot about us. John Stossel says that's fine with him. He knows what information he's handing over and he does it voluntarily. But he says we should worry about becoming like China, where the government is starting to use online data to create 1984 in the real world.

China's government has announced that they'll assign a mandatory government "social credit score" to everyone in the country by 2020. It will be based largely on what you do online. Say something that gets censored, you lose points. Same if you watch porn, or are late in returning a rented bike, or buy lots of alcohol.

China's government boasts that the social credit system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step."

No, the tech giants are grabbing out data, whether voluntary.

Facebook has recently gotten in hot water for turning over user data to political operatives, but the problem is much worse than that. Even if you never use Facebook, it buys info from data brokers on you, and has you better profiled than the Chinese govt has on its citizens.

Europe has laws regulating somewhat how tech giants collect user data. The USA has no such laws.

It is funny that libertarians are so adamantly against govt collecting data on its citizens, but give a free pass to these multinational tech giants who manage our data with little or no accountability. I would have thought that the interests of individual liberty would be for individuals to have some control over their own data.

This is one of many issues where I have become disillusioned with libertarians. Others are immigration, dope smoking, gambling, trade, and family law.

Africans mated with Denisovans

New Scientist reports:

Our ancestors mated with another species of ancient hominins, the Denisovans, on at least two occasions. The discovery suggests that Denisovans were widely across Asia, and apparently co-existed happily with modern humans, to the point of having children with them in two different parts of the ancient world.

The Denisovans were unknown until 2010, when researchers described a fragment of a girl’s finger bone found in Denisova cave in Siberia. Soon afterwards, researchers sequenced its genome from the surviving DNA. The DNA did not belong to any known hominins, such as Neanderthals, so it had to be something new.

What’s more, around 5 per cent of the DNA of some Australasians – particularly people from Papua New Guinea – is Denisovan. Humans evidently mated with Denisovans 50,000 or more years ago. ...

The upshot is that Denisovans bred with modern humans in at least two places: in east Asia, and further south-east in Indonesia or Australasia. “Our research demonstrates that there were at least two distinct populations of Denisovans living in Asia, probably somewhat geographically distant,” says Browning.

Even more interbreeding

“The fact that two episodes of interbreeding occurred suggests that at least in some instances, Denisovans and modern humans were willing to live in proximity and interact,” says Browning.

As well as mating with Denisovans, there is strong evidence that humans interbred with Neanderthals, which were a sister species to the Denisovans.

“This new work is important because for the first time it unambiguously demonstrates a third interbreeding [of modern with ancient hominins],” says David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. “Up to this point, we only had data for two.” There have been claims of a second, earlier instance of interbreeding with Neanderthals, but not everyone is convinced.

Tantalisingly, breeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans may not be the end of our ancestors’ promiscuity. A quarter of the chunks of ancient DNA that Browning found in living humans didn’t match either Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. So we may have also had children with other, unidentified hominins.

This is another nail in the coffin of the Out Of Africa theory, which held that a wave of African migrants completely displaced all other hominins about 50k years ago.

Our school textbooks all say that the human race evolved in Africa. It is not really true, as European and Asian humans evolved mostly outside of Africa.

David Brooks bashes Trump again

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:

In the decades before Trump, the Republican Party stood for an idea: character before policy. To Mitt Romney, John McCain, the Bushes and Ronald Reagan, personal character and moral integrity were paramount. They stood for the idea that you can’t be a good leader or a good nation unless you are a good person and a good people.

Trump asked the G.O.P. to reverse those priorities. He asked the Republican Party to accept the proposition that it doesn’t matter if your leader is a liar, a philanderer and a narcissist. It doesn’t matter if he is cruel to the weak and bigoted toward the outsider. What matters, when you’re in a death match in which the survival of your nation and culture is at stake, is having a bastard in charge who understands and is tough enough to win.

The central Republican bet is that Trump’s moral nature won’t matter. You can be a bad person and have a successful presidency. You can have a good nation without good moral norms. Trump asked for the party’s soul, and he got it. That was the story of 2016 and 2017.

The question of 2018 is whether the Democrats will follow suit.

I have criticized Brooks many times for his silly ideas. I have also noted his bogus research reporting and personal moral failings. He also exhibits Jewish supremacy, and likes to equate Christian Americans with other non-Jewish inferiors. He probably has more allegiance to Israel than to the USA. He treats non-Jews as sub-human. He plays the identity politics game, and has contempt for white Christian America.

No, the most annoying thing about Brooks is that he has been a regular commentator on PBS TV and NPR Radio for many years in which he supposedly represents Republican. There is nothing Republican or conservative about him. He enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and vehemently denounced Trump in 2016. He had plenty of bad things to say about G.W. Bush also.

It is extremely dishonest of him to get paid the big bucks to represent ppl he personally despises. PBS and NPR will have him and a Democrat on, supposedly for balance, and ask both about some Trump issue or other political matter of the day. Both of them will spend their time trashing Trump and other Republicans! Brooks also keeps his job at the NY Times because he is a Jewish Republican-basher, but the paper can pretend that he is a conservative because he is more conservative than the other Jewish Republican-bashers on staff.

Calling Trump a liar is getting tiresome. Trump is the most honest political leader we have seen in a long time. He is called a liar for exaggerating his inauguration crowd, and for a few other trivialities, but he is much more straightforward and honest with the public than Obama and Hillary Clinton ever were. Trump explains what he does and why he does it.

Trump is also much more honest than Brooks. Brooks does not correct his errors or explain his biases.

The Democrat Party sold its soul a long time ago. Most of its campaigning is to attract votes from those who hate white straight male Christian Americans.

Jews have ruined National Geographic

Want an example of Jewish influence on our society today?

Jews took over Disney many years ago, and have now ruined kiddie cartoons, Star Wars, and Marvel Comics.

Hollywood took over National Geographic mag recently (first by Fox, then Disney). They appoint a Jewish editor in chief, who vows to remake the magazine in support of Jewish causes:

For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It
By Susan Goldberg, Editor in Chief

This story is part of The Race Issue, a special issue of National Geographic that explores how race defines, separates, and unites us. Tell us your story with #IDefineMe.

… I’m the tenth editor of National Geographic since its founding in 1888. I’m the first woman and the first Jewish person—a member of two groups that also once faced discrimination here.

She then hires a Jewish journalist to write an article promoting the Jewish version of scientific racism -- namely that all non-Jews are essentially the same as Africans.

There’s No Scientific Basis for Race — It’s a Made-Up Label

It’s been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.

… DNA reveals what skin color obscures: We all have African ancestors.

This illustrates two of the main beliefs of the Jewish religion: that Jews are persecuted, and that non-Jews are essentially the same as Africans.

Goldberg pretends to have some sort of moral superiority because her previous non-Jewish editors often portrayed unclothed savages as lesser beings. She is saying that those non-Jewish white editors were essentially the same as those primitive savages, and so had no right to portray them as less civilization. And because she is a persecuted Jewish woman, she is entitled to say that white people are essentially niggers.

There is, of course, a scientific basis for race. You can go pay $200 to have your genes sequenced, and the lab will tell you what race you are.

You might say that it is unfair of me to single out these authors for being Jewish. But these Jewish supremacist ideas are mostly, if not entirely, promoted by Jews.

Collaborating with Muslims against Christians

I always thought that Jews and Muslims hated each other, but this blog has many articles to the contrary:

Throughout Islam’s existence, Jews have collaborated with Muslims against Christians. Indeed, a strong case can be made that Jews created Islam in the first place to weaponize Arabs against Christians in order to gain re-admission to their homeland, from which they had been expelled centuries before by the Romans.

The Jewish collaboration with Muslims during their invasion of Spain is one of the best-documented Jewish betrayals, one that has eerie parallels with our own times.

It is funny to see Jews rushing to the defense of Muslims immigrating to Europe and the USA.

Labeling Jews a hostile elite

Talking Points Memo reports:

MacDonald has claimed that Jews are trying to change the “racial hierarchy” in the U.S. by promoting immigration from non-European countries, and he has said that Jewish people lack the “moral idealism” that he claims white people possess. MacDonald has written, appeared on and edited for several openly racist media outlets like the Occidental Observer and The Political Cesspool.

In April 2013 he wrote in the Occidental Observer: “Given the prospect that Jews will continue as an elite hostile toward White America and given the ethnic/racial transformation of the country resulting from importing millions of people who do not identify with the traditional people and culture of the country (presumably the Boston bombers) and often have historical grudges of their own to grind, the future of Whites in America is grim indeed.”

In January 2013, he told the David Duke Show that Jewish people “don’t really have moral principles,” but rather “a set of interests.” In December 2012, he claimed that Jewish people are “opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America.”

“I realize that many good people shy away from saying it, but the reality is that Jews have very aggressively pursued policies that benefit them and are opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America and the West,” he wrote. “And because Jews attained status as an intellectual and media elite, they have been able to have a very large effect on public policy and even on the attitudes of non-Jews.”

It is funny how articles like this will quote this stuff, and make no effort to rebut it except to declare it is anti-Semitic.

Okay, I accept that many now use the term to mean saying that Jews pursue their own group interests.

There is a faction of the Alt Right that greatly admires the Jews, and that seeks to similarly pursue their own ethnic group interests.

The Daily Stormer blames the Jews for everything. It quotes the above, and adds:

The Jews absolutely are a “hostile elite.” They are the single most wealthy and powerful group in America, and they use that wealth and power to abuse the native population of this country in absurd, extreme ways. They absolutely are the sole driving force behind the mass immigration agenda.

They are also the sole driving force behind:

Racial integration
The homosexual agenda
The feminist agenda
The pornography agenda
Removing prayer from schools
The abortion agenda
Gun control
The censorship of political speech
The tranny agenda
The anti-Trump agenda

And the list goes on and on and on.

They use their power in the financial industry, the news media, academia and Hollywood to shove all of this stuff down our throats.

This is clearly exaggerated. They are only maybe 50-80% of the driving force behind the mass immigration agenda and those other items. Maybe 90% in the cases of porn, school prayer, and feminism.

For saying things like this, Google and others have expelled the Daily Stormer from the .com world. That is just Google's way of saying that the Daily Stormer is mostly correct. When I have found YouTube videos with warnings, the warnings are invariably based on the video containing uncomfortable truths.

MeTooism will be destroying marriages

Whenever there is a successful social movement, we have to ask how far it will go.

Many of the programs on Netflix openly promote miscegenation. I watched one where the FBI sent an undercover agent to seduce a pretty white woman, and it sent a black man! The woman was bisexual, and they just assumed that she liked blacks. In another, the white Marvel superhero Jessica Jones seduces a big strong black man, and it is implied that no white man could similarly satisfy her.

There is a girl who won a girls wrestling championship by taking steriods, and it was allowed because she claimed to be transitioning to a boy.

Where is MeToo headed? Read this Vox essay:

We need to talk about sexual assault in marriage

Eight years into our marriage, sitting in a therapist’s office with my husband, I mustered all my courage and said my deepest, darkest truth: “When we have sex, I feel like I’m being violated.” The unwanted sex at times made me sick: Once I had to run straight from bed to the bathroom, where I retched into the toilet.
…
I lived every evening dreading the signals of my husband’s desire. I bargained my way out of sex as often as I could. I gloried in being sick enough to have the right to refuse.
…
I read a book to distract myself for as long as I could while he did the thing he needed to do.
…
The majority of sexual encounters in America take place in marriage…. Do we believe there is no painfully “bad sex,” coercion, or sexual assault in marriage?

I believe that prostitution will soon be considered the only morally acceptable form of heterosexual activity. Only explicitly-paid prostitution is fully consensual, according to newer definitions of consent.

Why Most Obituaries Are of White Men

The NY Times apologizes:

So why not more women and people of color on the obituary pages? (Why, for that matter, not more openly gay people, or transgender people?)

The larger answer: Because relatively few of them were allowed to make such a mark on society in their own time. Universities may have barred them. Businesses and political parties may have shut them out. The tables of power were crowded with white men; there were few seats for anyone else.

Do you believe that? About 95% of the great accomplishments of the world are by white men. And that's all because universities, businesses, and political parties have shut out women and ppl of color?

American universities are mostly women. They have not had any barriers to ppl of color for at least 50 years. In many other countries, the opportunities are mainly for ppl of color.

The picture at the top of the NY Times article is that of a South African woman who "began a movement to reforest Kenya by paying poor women to plant trees." Really? Is that what passes for a great accomplishment when the paper wants to write obituaries of ppl other than white men? It is pitiful. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, but Kenya needs to have others pay poor ppl to plant trees. It is a wonder that they do not all starve to death.

Making human-chimp hybrids

Psychology professor David Barash proposes:

It is a bit of a stretch, but by no means impossible or even unlikely that a hybrid or a chimera combining a human being and a chimpanzee could be produced in a laboratory. After all, human and chimp (or bonobo) share, by most estimates, roughly 99 percent of their nuclear DNA. Granted this 1 percent difference presumably involves some key alleles, the new gene-editing tool CRISPR offers the prospect (for some, the nightmare) of adding and deleting targeted genes as desired. As a result, it is not unreasonable to foresee the possibility—eventually, perhaps, the likelihood—of producing “humanzees” or “chimphumans.” Such an individual would not be an exact equal-parts-of-each combination, but would be neither human nor chimp: rather, something in between.

If that prospect isn’t shocking enough, here is an even more controversial suggestion: Doing so would be a terrific idea. ...

In his book, Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith examined how dehumanization goes hand-in-hand with racism and genocide. ...

On the other hand, it seems equally likely that faced with individuals who are clearly intermediate between human and ape, it will become painfully obvious that a rigid distinction between the two is no longer tenable. ...

And—more important—for any human being currently insistent upon his or her species’ specialness, to the ultimate detriment of literally millions of other individuals of millions of other species, such a development could well be a real mind expander and paradigm buster. ...

A lot of u=innumerate ppl do not seem to understand that measurements can be continuous or discrete. That is, you can measure something as a real number, with continuous variation in possible values, or as an integer or true/false value, where intermediates are not possible.

This is fifth-grade arithmetic, but is too much for most ppl.

Leftist egalitarians often argue that it is unscientific to distinguish between human races because they can cross-breed and produce intermediates. Some even argue that it is impermissible to distinguish between the sexes, because of tomboy girls and effeminate boys.

So if this guy produced a human-chimp hybrid, would they conclude that humans and chimps were all the same? Maybe so, but I think that it is more likely that most ppl would conclude that some human races are more evolved than others, and that it makes good scientific sense to distinguish them.

After years of opposition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced in August, 2016 that it intends to lift its moratorium on stem cell research, which holds out promise for treating (perhaps even curing) many serious human diseases, such as cirrhosis, diabetes, and Parkinson’s. Currently prohibited—and likely to remain so—is funding for studies that involve injecting human stem cells into embryonic primates, although inserting such cells into adults is permissible. Insofar as there is a biological line separating human beings from other species, it should be clear that this line is definitely permeable, not hard and fast, and is based more on ethical and political judgment than on science or technology. All sorts of things can be done; whether they should, is another question.

Did President Obama really have an 8-year moratorium on stem-cell research? I thought that 100 Nobel Prize winners endorsed him in 2008, with their main argument being that he was going to do stem-cell research that was going to make the crippled walk again. Didn't he do that?

The opponents of human embryonic stem-cell research pointed to the slippery slope of degrading what it means to be human. They could have cited Barash as proof.

Barash very much wants to blur the distinction between humans and animals, as he wants to attack Christianity and promote animal rights.

But I propose that generating humanzees or chimphumans would be not only ethical, but profoundly so, even if there were no prospects of enhancing human welfare. How could even the most determinedly homo-centric, animal-denigrating religious fundamentalist maintain that God created us in his image and that we and we alone harbor a spark of the divine, distinct from all other life forms, once confronted with living beings that are indisputably intermediate between human and non-human?

In any event, the nonsensical insistence that human beings are uniquely created in God’s image and endowed with a soul, whereas other living things are mere brutes has not only permitted but encouraged an attitude toward the natural world in general and other animals in particular that has been at best indifferent and more often, downright antagonistic, jingoistic, and in many cases, intolerably cruel.

Now I am beginning to wonder if he is trolling us, but I doubt it. He is just carrying goofy leftist opinions to the next level.

Update: I found that NIH announcement:

The National Institutes of Health announced on Thursday that it was planning to lift its ban on funding some research that injects human stem cells into animal embryos.

The N.I.H. announced its proposal in a blog post by Carrie Wolinetz, the associate director for science policy, and in the Federal Register.

The purpose is to try to grow human tissues or organs in animals to better understand human diseases and develop therapies to treat them.

MeToo is a form of mass hysteria

The NY Times reports:

A Yale student who had been suspended by the university was found not guilty on Wednesday of sexually assaulting a fellow student, in a rare college rape accusation to be tried in the courts. The verdict laid bare seemingly gaping divides in the national reckoning around sexual consent and assault. ...

In an interview after the verdict, Norman Pattis, a lawyer for Mr. Khan, said he had tried to challenge “the outer limits of the #MeToo movement,” which he called “a form of mass hysteria.”

“Sex happens, especially on college campuses,” he said.

Yeah, there is a gaping divide between those claiming sexual assault, and the facts.

Yale kicked this guy out of college, and the NY Times printed his name, even tho he is innocent. Meanwhile, they conceal the name of the girl who made the false accusations.

Nearly all of these big publicity rape stories have turned out to be false.

One could also ask why Yale is admitted kids from Afghanistan, or why the USA let the guy in the country in the first place. Surely there are many thousands of better qualified Americans.

Or ask why some dopey white college girl would go get drunk in an off-campus party with an Afghan? Probably no one told her how foolish that is. Not Yale, not her friends, not her teachers, and probably not even her parents.

Of course the MeToo crowd would say that girl should have been free to dress provocatively, flirt with an Afghan, be promiscuous, get drunk, and go home with the guy, without the jury finding out because she is free to do what she wants with her own body.

Our whole legal system has been corrupted by bogus MeToo research:

The example discussed here began with a small study by an associate professor at a commuter college in Massachusetts. The 12-page paper describing the study barely created a stir when it was published in 2002. Within a few years, however, the paper’s principal author, David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts-Boston psychologist, began making dramatic statements that extrapolated far beyond the study’s conclusions. He created, virtually out of whole cloth, a theory that “undetected” serial rapists are responsible for 90 percent of assaults on college campuses, that they premeditate and plan their attacks, and that they are likely to have committed multiple acts of violence.

Lisak was exposed as a fraud, and yet he continues to influence the legal system for the worse.