Languages spoken in America

Source

This map is amazing. What is going on?

Leftist gender nonsense invades hockey

Quillette reports:

I can’t help on the ice—Even just to help on the ice, you need this training,” he explains. After having assisted on his son’s hockey team for three years, the father has been removed from all positions because he questioned the necessity of a mandatory gender identity training course imposed by Hockey Eastern Ontario (formerly the Ottawa District Hockey Association) following a 2017 legal settlement involving a transgender hockey player. ...

The underlying Human Rights Tribunal case that had led to the new training requirements was brought by Jesse Thompson, a trans-identified biologically female child who complained that he’d been prevented from using a boys locker room due to his female anatomy. ...

On another slide, amid a parade of variously configured pink and blue male/female stick-people, the concept of “polygender” is introduced to define “people who identify as multiple genders simultaneously and can be several genders all at once. Or they may alternate between their varying gender identities depending on the day or the week.”

Politically motivated falsification of history

A left-wing site argues:

Despite the pretense of establishing the United States’ “true” foundation, the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history. Its aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal “identities” — i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race.

The NY Times 1619 Project argues that America was founded as a White supremacist nation, that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery, that American wealth is largely the result of slave labor, and that hatred of non-whites is essential to White American DNA.

A professor adds:

The 1619 project has been constructed to be convertible to a school curriculum, and in fact it’s been adopted by public schools in several cities, including Buffalo, New York. This is the first case I’ve heard about of a newspaper attempting to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a particular ideological view. I consider this a dangerous precedent.

This is now what the Democrat Party stands for, above all else. It will say or do anything to promote divisive identity politics. Mainly, it means blaming straight White cis-gendered normal Americans.

This had long been a strategy of Commie propaganda. Maybe that is why it is so recognizable to a socialist web site. Supposedly the Russians are still doing it. But now it is mainly a strategy of the NY Times, Democrat Party, CNN, etc.

This is pretty crazy stuff, but what if the Left succeeds in brainwashing the public that it is true?

If so, it is an invitation for non-whites to rebel, and enslave the Whites. We could be headed for a race war.

What made America great?

People cite various factors for what made America great, such as:

abundant natural resources and unsettled land
history of slave labor, and other such exploitation
republican political system
population with high social trust, individualism, and IQ, and low violence
Christianity
egalitarianism
cosmopolitan acceptance of all groups and cultures
political-legal ideologies like natural rights and patents
freedom of speech, religion, guns, etc.
singular achievements of great Americans, such as Lincoln, Edison, etc.
stable monetary system
natural ocean boundaries from enemies

The easy answer is that it was some combination, but what was the biggest factor?

I say the biggest factor is the one that no American History class would dare to say.

Climate alleged to be biggest threat

News:

LONDON, Jan 15 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Climate-change-related threats such as extreme weather, large-scale biodiversity losses and a failure of political leaders to slow planetary heating are now the top long-term risks facing the globe, business and other leaders said on Wednesday.

An annual risk survey published ahead of the World Economic Forum next week put climate threats ahead of risks ranging from cyberattacks and pandemics to geopolitical conflict and weapons of mass destruction for the first time.

"That's new. Last year we didn't have it," said Mirek Dusek, deputy head of the Centre for Geopolitical and Regional Affairs and an executive committee member of the World Economic Forum, of the rise of environmental issues up the list.

Really? The history of humans on Earth has been progressively more violent and destructive wars. Another world war would surely be a lot bigger threat that the ocean level rising a few inches.

There are also possibilities of plagues, famines, meteor strikes, etc.

Islam is on a collision course with Christianity. Islam cannot coexist with other religions. Every country that allows Islam to flourish is eventually taken over by Mohammedans. Unless some corrective action is taken, we are headed for war. Or more wars, I should say, as we have already fought Islamic wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and probably some other countries that I have forgotten.

It also seems likely that Third World population growth will lead to more wars. Already it is leading to most of the above-mentioned climate change threat.

Update: A computer complexity professor heading to Davos writes:

Much as Greta has been doing for the other essential truth here, that civilization’s current m.o. is producing an unfolding catastrophe on a scale where, to find its approximate parallel, you’d have to go back past WWII, past the Black Death, past the extinctions of the Ice Ages, all the way to something like the Chicxulub asteroid? ...

I’m mostly worried about so-called “tail risk,” of runaway warming basically ending both the natural world and agriculture as human beings have known them. And I’m worried mostly because of an additional thing I believe, which is that one generation’s “tail risks” become the next generation’s “tailbone risks” become the rump risks of the generation after that, which indeed is how we got to where we are now. And the world has shown no ability to coordinate on anything as big as decarbonization, to get out of defect-equilibria, and it’s not obvious to me that that will change, even if I imagine the plausibly desperate situations 50 or 100 years from now.

This is way beyond anything predicted by the IPCC.

Pelosi may have sabotaged Sanders and Warren

The NY Times reports:

The first version of the conspiracy theory was hatched on Twitter last Friday, Jan. 10.

“Don’t rule out that the reason Pelosi hasn’t sent impeachment to the Senate is to hurt Warren and Sanders, and to help Biden,” Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, tapped out on his iPad. “By timing the trial so it takes place during the Iowa lead-up, she has leverage over the liberals.”

Somebody needs to tell the NY Times what a conspiracy is. Nobody is alleging any secret agreement.

“This benefits Joe Biden. This harms Senator Sanders, who is in first place and could become their nominee.”

In fact, Mr. Sanders is not the national front-runner for the nomination and never has been, although he had a narrow lead in a recent poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers.

Notice how the paper takes a completely correct quote, and pretends that a fact-check contradicts it.

The term "conspiracy theory" has become a leftist buzz phrase for an inconvenient fact. For example, consider:

The beginning of the 20th century may be taken as the approximate high point of Western world domination, if not necessarily of European civilization itself. Whites made up some 30 percent of the earth’s population and directly or indirectly controlled most of its territory; white economic and technological dominance were even more complete. ...

But in 1905, a surprising turn of events shocked white and non-white alike. Japan gained a decisive military victory over a sprawling European empire with a population more than three times its own: Russia. No one expected such an outcome, yet it was to prove a sign of much to come.

I didn't realize 1905 was a turning point. Interesting. At any rate, any of such a civilization peak is often called a conspiracy theory.

Liberals used to be anti-immigration

Jerry Kammer writes a NY Times op-ed:

I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted

Immigration can invigorate the country. But when it is poorly managed, it can cause social division — just as it’s doing right now.

He makes these points:

Until recently, liberals favored immigration restrictions.
The Democrat Party is an open borders party now.
Republican allies, such as the Chamber of Commerce, have sold us out on this issue.
Ronald Reagan sought a reasonable compromise, but it was sabotaged.
Only the Klu Klux Klan was saying ‘America for Americans’.

He is right, but does not go far enough. We are headed for disaster, and Pres. Trump is just slowing it down. Trump is seeking reasonable compromises, but the Democrat Party and a lot of the Republicans have become seriously anti-American.

Irrational fear of being identified

NY Times op-ed:

Growing up, my brothers and I often teased my mom for having what we thought was an irrational fear of being identified as a Jew.

Jews are funny about that. They have whole organizations that go around complaining about Jews being identified as Jews.
National Revies essay:

“Many in the community look at the Hasidim as locusts, who go from community to community ... just stripping all the resources out of it,” said a Jewish, but not ultra-Orthodox, resident of upstate New York. The resident, who vociferously objects to ultra-Orthodox development and asked not to be named for fear of retribution by the ultra-Orthodox community, added that “nobody here doesn’t like them because they’re Jews. People don’t like them because of what they do. Rural, hardworking people also want to live our lives too.”

I guess it is okay for secular Jews to call ultra-orthodox Jews locusts.

The House appointed seven impeachment prosecutors, and they are not all Jews. Okay, maybe I shouldn't call it a Jew coup. There were a couple of blacks, a couple of women, and a Hispanic. It will be interesting to see who runs the show.

Update: For those who somehow think that Jews are a persecuted minority, see this chart.

Hungary abolishes gender studies

A Voice for Men reports:

Enter Hungary. In an effort to restore curricular and administrative sanity to university education, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party have passed legislation to abolish Gender Studies as an area of official study. Hungary’s Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen has stated that such programs “ha[ve] no business in universities” as they represent “an ideology, not a science,” with a market profile “close to zero.” Similarly, Orban’s Chief of staff Gergely Gulyas said, “The Hungarian government is of the clear view that people are born either men or women. They lead their lives the way they think best [and] the Hungarian state does not wish to spend public funds on education in this area.”

According to reports, Fidesz spokesman Istvan Hollik, echoing Semjen, brought in the economic argument, pointing to the obvious fact that “You don’t have to be an expert to see there’s not much demand in the labour market for gender studies.” But the core of the issue goes deeper. “It is also no secret that our goal is to make Hungary a truly Christian-democratic country, which defends its normality and life and values…And now there’s this situation with gender studies, which is not a science but an ideology and one which is closely linked to liberal ideology, and I don’t think it fits in here.”

They are born baby boys or girls, not men or women. It appears that he was influenced by another leftist ideology to refer to girls as women.

If gender studies were a legitimate academic field, there would be research on the benefits of patriarchy. It has existed for millennia, so there must be some reasons in its favor.

Christian channel gets de-monetized

I have watched some TruNews videos on YouTube. They are a mixture of news, preaching, and commentary, with a Christian perspective. They are only offensive if you think the Christian religion is offensive.

TruNews reports:

The founder of TruNews accused PayPal of conducting a “financial pogrom” hours after the Florida-based Christian broadcaster published a hard-hitting news report that linked the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal to Israel’s Mossad spy agency.

PayPal abruptly terminated the account of TruNews without warning or explanation. The conservative Christian news program has received donations in its PayPal account for more than 16 years without any problems. TruNews is funded by donations from viewers. The weekday Christian news and commentary program started in 1999.

TruNews’ founder and host Rick Wiles accused PayPal CEO Daniel Schulman, a progressive leftwing Jewish business executive, of punishing the Christian broadcaster for its hard-hitting reports on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell:

“PayPal abruptly closed our account on the morning of January 3, 2020. TruNews’ report on January 2 was titled ‘Ghislaine Maxwell: Which spy agency is hiding her?’ Our newscast focused on her father’s longtime service to Israel’s intelligence agencies, how she was Jeffrey Epstein’s handler for Mossad, and how Epstein’s team video-recorded influential American men having sex with underage girls who had been recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell.”

Wiles said the swiftness of PayPal’s action hours after the release of TruNews’ report on the Epstein-Maxwell-Mossad child sex blackmail operation was not a coincidence:

“Any American citizen or entity that questions Israeli actions and its influence in America are now marked targets. Israel’s blackmail operation in America for over 30 years was so successful that it is now dangerous for any law-abiding American citizen to demand a real investigation into the biggest scandal in American history which resulted in much of America’s ruling class being caught in a child-sex blackmail trap.” ...

TruNews also believes that Epstein was not a billionaire, but an imposter recruited by Mossad to act like a billionaire:

“You cannot convince me that Jeffrey Epstein was a self-made billionaire with only one client who owned mansions throughout America and London and Paris. His mansions were owned by wealthy Jews through trusts.”

I guess that these video were considered anti-Judaism because Epstein and Maxwell are Jewish.

I don't know whether TruNews is correct about Epstein and Maxwell, but I do know that the official stories are very fishy. We need independent reporters to tell us what might have happened.

Jews like to whine about being persecuted, but there are no examples of Christians blackballing Jewish views like this. We are becoming a society where Christian messages are subject to Jewish censors.

Breitbart reports:

The once prestigious Lancet medical journal has published a bizarre book review asserting that “white Americans continue to mobilise to maintain or extend the exclusive advantages whiteness offers those who can become white.”

The Lancet selected Rhea W. Boyd, a Minority Health Policy Fellow at Harvard’s School of Public Health, to review a 2019 book called Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl, whose thesis is that “right-wing backlash policies have mortal consequences — even for the white voters they promise to help.” ...

In reality, Boyd concludes, the only real solution “is to eliminate whiteness all together.”

The fact that some people think this way is frightening enough. That the Lancet, which once represented serious medical journalism, would decide to publish it points to a devastating deterioration of the institutional academy as reasoned discourse gives way to incoherent ranting.

The Lancet artice is free if you register with an email address. The article argues for the "elimination" of the White race.

Metzl is Jewish, and Boyd is Black.

This is crazy stuff. I realize that not all Jews want to exterminate White Christians. Probably most don't. But our most prestigious universities and medical journals promote Jewish ideas about the elimination of Whites.

NY Times libels those who want to limit immigration

Politico reports:

Peter Brimelow, an anti-immigration activist who hosts a website that has published the writings of white supremacists, is suing The New York Times for $5 million for labeling him an “open white nationalist” in an article last year.

The characterization of Brimelow that triggered the libel lawsuit appeared in a Jan. 15, 2019 article by Times political reporter Trip Gabriel that offered a chronology of racist and inflammatory comments by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). ...

The suit says that after Brimelow complained about the description of him, the Times performed a “stealth edit” on the online version of the story, removing the word “open” but still branding him as a white nationalist.

Brimelow rejects that label, preferring to be called a “civic nationalist.”

The Times never printed a correction or clarification in the online or print version of the paper, and refused to publish his letters challenging the original description, according to the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“We stand by the story and will vigorously defend,” Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said.

Brimelow’s court complaint also contends that the Times aggravated the impact of its initial statement by adding a link to what he calls a “smear piece” in which the Southern Poverty Law Center described him as a “white nationalist” and suggested he harbors white supremacist views. ...

Brimelow, a British-born naturalized U.S. citizen who lives in Connecticut, runs the anti-immigration website VDare.com and formerly worked as an editor for Forbes magazine and a columnist for National Review. He acknowledged in his letter to the Times that his VDare website published articles written by “those who aim to defend the interests of whites,” but he said the site has carried a wide range of authors who favor immigration restrictions.

Brimelow’s 1995 book about the dangers of unchecked immigration, “Alien Nation,” served as rallying cry for those who support a crackdown on immigration and prompted reviews in such outlets as the Times.

Libel cases are very difficult to win, so I am guessing that Brimelow will lose. But this illustrate how the leftist mainstream media will smear its enemies.

The NY Times could have used a more neutral term, like anti-immmigration, although that appears to be also inaccurate, as he is an immigrant himself.

The people who control that newspaper want to flood America with non-whites and non-Christians. Anyone who resists is called a Nazi, white supremacist, anti-semite, white nationalist, extreme right-winger, or whatever other term they can find to ostracize him.

That same article tried to smear Steve King as a white supremacist largely because he said that we cannot rebuild our civilization with someone else's babies. King is correct.

Note also that when these organizations like the NY Times want to justify some name-calling, they just link to their fellow leftist name-callers. The SPLC has lost at least one lawsuit over its name-calling.

I think we are getting to the point where the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are used synonomously with "against open borders".

The Crisis of the 2020s

Anthropologist Peter Frost explains:

Two years ago I wrote about "The Crisis of the 2020s." I argued that this decade would see a worsening confrontation between two world views ...

The evolution of social complexity is far from easy. One of the main challenges has been the creation of large societies in which economic transactions take place mostly between unrelated individuals. Such societies are impossible in most of the world because of the high level of mistrust between unrelated individuals. Each transaction has to be checked and double-checked for lying, cheating, and outright theft. Many transactions never take place because they just aren't cost-effective.

This obstacle has been overcome in northwest Europe and East Asia. In both areas, the solution is behavioral and psychological. Northwest Europeans are more individualistic, less loyal to kin, and more trusting of strangers. Because they attach less importance to kinship, they have been able to build large, functioning societies on the basis of “impersonal prosociality,” i.e., willingness to obey universal social rules, affective empathy toward nonkin, and feelings of guilt for unwitnessed rule breaking (Frost 2017b; Frost 2019b; Schulz et al. 2019). East Asians are less individualistic but just as willing to obey universal rules, which are enforced more by shame than by guilt. ...

Let's be frank. The high productivity of North America, Western Europe, and East Asia has profound behavioral and psychological causes. It is not due to political ideals, universal education, or a particular legal system. It is due to a higher level of social trust, as well as a higher level of cognitive ability and a lower level of personal violence. When immigrants enter that kind of environment, their productivity dramatically rises. They are now working in a society where laws are observed, where information is reliable, and where disputes are not normally settled through violence. We all benefit from that kind of society — simply by virtue of living in it.

That’s the "unearned privilege" that antiracists and right-wing economists love to denounce. Their argument is deceptively simple: “By what right do we deny this privilege to others? It’s a mere accident of birth! Just think, they’re less productive because we’re keeping them out. So let them in! We’ll all be better off!”

Well, no. Do I have to explain why?

I guess this stuff must be obvious to an anthropologist. People are different in obvious and important ways. You can debate nature-nuture all you want, but people do not change easily. Some changes have taken a millennium or more to affect the whole population. We are in the midst of a vast and dangerous demographic experiment.

Brooks is only good at name-calling

David Brooks writes in the NY Times:

Donald Trump is impulse-driven, ignorant, narcissistic and intellectually dishonest. So you’d think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show we’re not like him — that we are judicious, informed, mature and reasonable.

Yes, he and his Jewish associates would love to show that they are superior to Trump.

He tries to find fault with Trump, but only has name-calling. He cannot bring himself to admit that Trump is the best President we have had in a long time. His hatred for Trump appears to be some weirdo Jewish thing.

We fight viciously about Trump, but underneath, a populist left-right curtain is descending around America,

Another op-ed says that It’s 1856 All Over Again.

If that is true, then the battle lines are being drawn. The Left has chosen to align itself with identity politics all the way, and secondarily with socialist nuts like Bernie Sanders.

There are lots of conservatives who would love to have Brooks on their side, as he claims to have conservative views. But he has made it clear that he will forgo all of his principles to align himself with Trump-hating Jews.

GOP leader silenced for saying who is behind impeachment

The Times of Israel reports:

Delaware GOP leader faces calls for resignation over Facebook posts about Jews
Sussex County Republican Party Vice Chair Nelly Jordan singles out Jews as being responsible for the impeachment of Trump

JTA — A Republican Party leader in Delaware is under fire for Facebook comments about Jews.

Sussex County Republican Party Vice Chair Nelly Jordan in her post singled out Jews as mainly responsible for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Her Facebook page appears to have been deleted.

“What amazes me the most in these theatrical Congress hearings, is to see how many Jews ‘In Name Only’ lend themselves to be in the hoaks (sic) of the pure made up story of Impeachment that the Democrats have woven as spiders catching flies and bugs,” the post said, according to a report Friday in the Delaware State News.

“These jews (sic) have been enrolled to come and testify, to come and interrogate and to be involved in anything that the Democrats enlist them to do to try to look credible to the people of this country,” the post also said.

Jordan also wrote Jews were going against the Lord’s will “as it was in the times of the Old Testament.”

“The remarks made by Nelly Jordan, who was elected to her post by the Sussex County GOP Executive Committee, were offensive, hurtful and anti-Semitic,” state GOP Chairwoman Jane Brady said in a statement issued Thursday.

The statement said since Jordan was elected she can not be immediately removed from her post. “Nelly will have to make a choice of either resigning or going through a process to seek her removal,” Brady said.

It is an objective fact that the impeachment is being led by Jews. It has been called a Jew coup.

But Jordan is an elected official who faced removal from office for pointing out the obvious. The criticism of her is only that it offends the Jews to point out what they are doing, and not that she said anything false.

How is it that the Jews have so much power that they can impeach the President, and then destroy anyone who points it out?

I try reading Jewish publications for explanations, but they just brag about their power and influence. No other ethnic group is so powerful, or so opposed to the American political system.

Debating racism with a woke author

I listened to this conversation: Sam Harris debates racism with woke author.

Harris has a knack for exposing how leftists think. In this case, his guest says that he has written a 500-page book arguing that the Left needs to talk about racial social justice all the time, and when right-wingers don't talk about race, the leftists need to expose their dog whistles.

His best example of a White Supremacist dog whistle was Tucker Carlson saying that foreign-born voters have changed the demographics and politics of Virginia.

Harris made the obvious point that Carlson was just making an objective observation about elections, without any reference to opinions about White people.

Harris and his guest did agree on two things: that we must all do whatever we can to defeat Pres. Trump, and that people do not have free will.

To justify the attacks on Carlson and other right-wingers, the guest kept talking about Charlottesville where some chanted "Jews will not replace us." Since then, he says that it has been clear that the world is divided between those who accept Jewish plans to demographically replace Whites with non-whites, and those who don't. Carlson's comment, he says, indicates resistance to the demographic replacement of Whites, and therefore the Left must use all tools at its disposal to shame him as a racist.

The leftist guest obviously thinks that the public is too stupid to understand demographic replacement. He says we have no free will, and if the media controls the language used, then we will be powerless to do anything about it.

Harris points out that his whole plan is built on lies. The leftist media lies about Trump, Charlottesville, and everything else. Harris thinks it is a very dangerous plan because White may see the lies, wake up to what is going on, and become White supremacists.

A few years ago, I would have dismissed these guys as nuts or trolls. But arguments like this appear regularly in the NY Times and other Jewish-influenced newspaper. Many articles acknowledge that demographic changes are leading political changes, but if you express any resistance, or if you even comment on adverse effects on White people, the papers denounce you in the strongest terms.

The Death of the West

Pat Buchanan writes:

For many First World countries, there are more compelling concerns. High among them is population decline, and, if birth rates do not rise, the near-extinction of many Western peoples by this century’s end. ...

But it is Eastern Europe where the population crisis is most advanced.

At the end of the Cold War, Bulgaria had 9 million people. By 2017, that had fallen to 7.1 million. In 2050, Bulgaria’s population is estimated at 5.4 million — a loss of 40% to death and migration since Bulgaria won its freedom from the Soviet Empire. ...

The tribes of Europe, the peoples of almost every country of the Old Continent, are visibly aging, shrinking and dying. The population crisis of Europe is “existential,” says Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic.

Since this writer published “The Death of the West,” nothing has happened to alter my conclusion as to where the West was destined: ...

We are talking here about what historians, a century hence, will call the Lost Tribes of Europe.

Matthew Yglesias has a new book arguing:

A bold case for massive population growth in the name of national greatness—from Vox co-founder and host of “The Weeds” podcast Matt Yglesias.

America is in decline. Fewer children are born each year due to financial pressure. Thousands flee our iconic cities with their housing shortages and broken infrastructure. ... We need to get bigger, much bigger. We need one billion Americans.

In this timely and provocative book, Matthew Yglesias makes the case for massive population growth through humane family and immigration policy.

Sounds like they agree, right?

No. They are looking at the same data, but not coming to the same conclusions.

Wikipedia says about Matthew Yglesias

His paternal grandfather was of Spanish-Cuban background, and his three other grandparents were of Eastern European Jewish descent.

Yglesias went to high school at The Dalton School in New York City and later attended Harvard University, where he studied philosophy.

Yglesias started blogging in early 2002, while still in college, focusing mainly on American politics and public policy issues, often approached from an abstract, philosophical perspective. Yglesias was a strong supporter of invading Iraq, Iran and North Korea,

Okay, it is starting to make sense now. Steve Sailer calls this the "Invade the world, Invite the world" foreign policy.

If Japan and Bulgaria really desperately need population increases, they could import Third World migrants. But that would not solve the problem Buchanan is discussing.

Demise of White Christian America

I pointed out that White became a minority of American births in 2013, and NBC News reports that White Christian adults have also become a minority:

Of all the changes to identity and belonging, the century’s second decade has been particularly marked by a religious sea change. After more than two centuries of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance, the United States has moved from being a majority-white Christian nation to one with no single racial and religious majority. ...

I noted that the percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points. ...

In addition to white American Christianity crossing the majority-minority threshold, the last decade also saw a particularly significant decline within one subgroup: white evangelicals. While the ranks of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics have been shrinking for decades, white evangelical Protestants had seemed immune to the forces eroding membership among other white Christian groups.

But since 2010, the number of white evangelical Protestants has dropped from 21 percent of the population to 15 percent. ....

In 2017, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that, for the first time, there was an absolute decline in the country’s white, non-Hispanic population. In other words, whites not only lost ground as a proportion of the population, but in actual numbers; there were more deaths than births. The U.S. Census Bureau now predicts that the U.S. will no longer be majority-white by 2045, and among children at every age below 10, whites are already a minority. ...

One PRRI survey question right before the 2016 election made the power of this nostalgia especially clear: “Since the 1950s, do you think American culture and way of life has changed for the better, or has it mostly changed for the worse?” Americans are divided nearly equally on this question, with 48 percent saying things have changed for the better and 51 percent for the worse. But solid majorities of white Christian groups — 57 percent of white Catholics, 59 percent of white mainline Protestants and fully 74 percent of white evangelical Protestants — believe things have changed for the worse. Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, nearly two thirds (66 percent) say things have changed for the better.

This demographic shift has been the result of policies that a majority of White Christians oppose.

BTW, here is yet another example of a supposedly anti-Semitic crime that turned out to be a Jewish hoax. It seems to me that most of these crimes have turned out to be Jewish hoaxes. When the Jewish ADL complains about anti-Semitism, it includes these hoaxes to trick you into thinking that there is a real problem.

Not OK to be White in Wisconsin

The NY Times reports on a U. Wisconsin-Madison kerfuffle:

To students of color, the homecoming video was a glimpse of what they experienced every day as they walked through campus. ...

The homecoming committee, a group of several dozen students, has a simple mission: celebrating the university during Homecoming Week with a string of events including a 5K run, blood drive and parade. ...

Unfortunately, not all the video images produced were included in the final product, including those of students from under represented populations. ...

Emilie Cochran, a reporter for The Badger Herald student newspaper who covered the story: It made people uncomfortable, seeing a lot of people who look alike representing the university. And it woke people up, saying, this is actually what our university looks like.

So the video was accurate, but not sufficiently inclusive.

The campus woke up to a message, scrawled in black.

Someone had taken a copy of The Daily Cardinal, a student newspaper, and written a message on it in large block letters: “UW 4 WHITES ONLY!”

The newspaper was taped outside Science Hall, a stately red brick building on campus, and it stunned the first people who saw it. The response from the university was swift.

At 6:46 a.m., the @UWMadison Twitter account wrote:

UW stands against hate and racism. We’re aware that, last night, a racist message was posted on a building sign outside Science Hall. We are removing this message and any others and @UWMadisonPolice is investigating.

That morning, more signs were discovered around campus. One read, “UW DON’T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE.” Another read, “I’M TIRED OF HAVING TO TEACH MY TEACHERS.”

Soon, the university released a new statement, which read, in part:

These posters appear now to be part of a coordinated campaign calling attention to experiences of underrepresented students.

The Student Inclusion Coalition said it had not orchestrated the campaign. University officials have declined to identify the people involved.

So University initially mistakenly blamed Whites, and in a panic, tried to prosecute a hate crime. But when the University learned that non-whites were responsible, the messages suddenly became free speech.

Fat feminists hate exercise bikes

Business news:

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As a public relations professor, I know a few of my fellow professionals can be counted on to do things that keep my students’ jaws dropping in class each week — and, like 2018, this year was no exception. Here are the five decisions that beat out stiff competition to rank as the worst corporate PR moves of 2019: ...

2. The Peloton ad depicting a svelte woman making a video to thank her male partner for buying her an exercise bike for Christmas. The ad was widely interpreted as disturbing because the woman appeared to many to be frightened. Some pointed out that the woman was already trim and hardly needed to lose weight; others said the ad reinforced stereotypes of women needing to stay in shape in order to keep their affluent significant others (the bike costs over $2,000, before monthly subscription fees). These reactions were of course eminently predictable. ... The ad could have been an easy win just by, say, showing a woman giving the gift to a man instead.

This is sick.

First, did Peloton sales go up or down? The fat feminist complainers were not from the target market anyway. If sales went up, then it was a successful ad.

Second, the woman is excited and happy, not frightened.

Third, what kind of fool believes that skinny women don't excersize? Just visit your local gym, and you will find lots of skinny men and women exercising.

Apparently some people see an exercise bike, and can only imagine it as a tool of misogynistic oppression. Maybe they misheard the audio, and thought that it was an exercise dyke.

Alternate theory of Jewish intelligence

Since I posted NY Times opinions on Jewish intelligence and political attitudes, I post a contrary view from a Quillette article:

Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending argue that high Ashkenazi IQ evolved during the Middle Ages in Europe due to gene-culture co-evolution. Prohibited from entering many blue-collar occupations like farming, Jews turned to finance, particularly money lending, to survive. Records from around the year 1270, for example, report that almost 80 percent of adult male Jews in Roussillon (what is today southern France) made their living as money lenders. ...

There is some evidence in political psychology for a correlation between high IQ and liberal political beliefs. So we might suspect that Ashkenazi Jews, with the highest average IQ in the world, would lean liberal. Interestingly, though, IQ correlates positively with classical liberalism, which emphasizes both social and economic liberty. This seems to be because those with higher intelligence tend to exhibit personality traits like openness to experience and tolerance for different ways of living. But those with higher IQ are more likely to support free-market economic policies (“liberalism” in the old sense of the word). Intelligence is required to understand how trade can be a positive sum game, and how order can emerge from individuals freely interacting with one another.

So Ashkenazi Jews got smart by being money lenders centuries ago, and that is why they are classical liberals like others with high IQ?

The trouble with this theory is that most Jews are not classical liberals. Republicans are more likely to support free-market economic policies, free speech, rules of law, rational discussion, etc. American secular Jews have mostly signed onto the Democrat platform, and that is all identity politics all the times.

I guess I am supposed to believe that Jews were persecuted in 1270 by being forced to be money-lenders instead of farmers. How is that even possible? Have there ever been any Jews who prefer to be farmers, rather than money-lenders?

But MacDonald seems to be right that Jews were disproportionately involved in radical leftist political movements in the twentieth century, and in the US Jews tend to vote Democrat. We think this can be explained by the high average IQ of Jews in combination with their being a persecuted minority, which has tended to push them toward political views that emphasize social toleration and the free movement of people. In other words, MacDonald reverses the correct order of causation: rather than Jews inviting persecution by advocating cosmopolitan policies that thwart the interests of Europeans, Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution.

Persecution of Jews began for religious reasons in the Middle Ages and morphed into political persecution as Jews began to climb the social ladder, and political leaders saw them as a useful out-group to use as a scapegoat for people’s economic and social woes. For example, when Italian traders inadvertently brought the Black Plague from Asia to Europe, thousands of Jews were murdered in retaliation when Christian peasants decided that the Jews had deliberately infected them.

I don't see how these persecution stories could have anything to do with Jewish political attitudes today. Jews are the most privileged ethnic group, and nobody can give any examples of Jews being persecuted. You have to go back to the Middle Ages to dig up examples.

Even in the above example, the Jews were not being persecuted for being Jews. They were being killed to stop them from spreading Black Plague.

The articles do raise a nature-nurture issue. How much of these Jewish traits are attributable to genes, and how much to cultural factors, such as telling persecution myths?

I do not know. It is possible that twin studies could give some quantitative evidence. I am just posting this to balance the NY Times views.

Anti-Semitism is in the news, along with Jewish efforts to blame it on White supremacists. But nearly all the stories are either Jewish hoaxes or perpetrated by blacks or Moslems.

The Jewish ADL head was on all the TV channels arguing that social media should ban negative messages about Zionism, dual loyalty, Soros, and Adelson. They would have to censor the Jewish papers for this to be effective. On CNN, they were lamenting that some marchers in Charlottesville several years ago argued against Jewish policies to replace White Americans with non-whites. It is amazing how Jewish complaints of anti-Semitism are so often coupled with Jewish arguments to exterminate White Christians.

If Jewish leftism really had something to do with persecution, then we would expect to see a correlation. Jewish would be more leftist in countries where they are more persecuted. But the orthodox Jews are the only ones the ADL is claiming are persecuted, and they are right-wingers compared to the secular Jews.

Evidence of sex differences

A leftist-evolutionst professor concedes sex differences:

The two sex differences I find most evolutionarily convincing involve human sexual behavior — in particular the observation that males tend to be relatively indiscriminate in choosing someone to mate with, while females are pickier—and the fact that males are more aggressive than females. I feel that these behavioral differences are likely, at least in part, to be the result of sexual selection in our ancestors. ...

1.) The behavior is consistent across different cultures, when one would expect different degrees and kinds of socialization. ...

2.) We don’t find, as expected under the socialization theory, larger amounts male aggression in societies that have stricter gender roles and less gender equality. ...

3.) Males are more aggressive than females from the very beginning of childhood, presumably before they’ve had a chance to be socialized. ...

4.) The pattern of male aggression conforms to what we expect if it evolved to promote competition for females. ...

5.) In many species of animals, including our closest relatives, males are more aggressive than females.

All this should be pretty obvious.

There is also a lot of evidence for Sex Differences in Cognition.

The professor struggled with this comment:

Be careful. The same arguments you use could be used for the differences in aggression among races.

What are you on about? We are talking about predictions from evolutionary theory as well as experimental results, none of which exist for racial differences in aggression (and I know of none). Which races are you talking about and what are the differences.

Wow, he knows of no evidence? Some races commit violent crimes at ten times the rate of other races. And aggression and a lot of other behavioral traits have been shown to be heritable. Some primate species are more aggressive than others.

NYT apologizes for leaking info about its beliefs

The NY Times often publishes corrections to factual errors, such as getting a name wrong. But it does not correct errors in its opinion columns, whether factual or otherwise. So it was very unusual that the NY Times corrected an opinion column about Jewish intelligence.

Bret Stephens is a Jewish Trump-hater NY Times columnist. Don't be fooled by his name; his family changed it to disguise their Jewish origins. He used to be editor of the Jerusalem Post.

Here is the original essay, and revised version, unpaywalled. The original said:

* Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than everyone else, with what appears to be genes for higher IQ.
* Ashkenazi Jews also have intelligence with "bracing originality and high-minded purpose."
* Outside Israel, Jews are "intimately familiar with the customs of the country while maintaining a critical distance from them."
* Jews believe in knowledge, because everything else about America is perishable.
* The US and the West (but not Israel) should "honor the principle of racial, religious and ethnic pluralism".
* There are moral beliefs “incarnate in the Jewish people”.
* Complaints about anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and white nationalists.

Can you guess what offended the NY Times editors? It was the one claim that was actually backed up by a scientific publication, namely The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending. They also wrote a quite well respected book on human evolutionary trends of the last 10,000 years.

A comment says:

Saying Jews are successful due to genes and IQ is much more acceptable than saying they are a tight knit tribe that covertly cooperates to out compete less organized opponents.

I would agree, but the NY Times editors have other ideas. I am not sure what the reasoning is. Maybe saying the Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ offends the Sephardic Jews.

It is more likely that citing Jewish IQ conflicts with other Jewish narratives.

For one, the NYT is always trying to convince us that Jews are a persecuted minority. That is not plausible, if Jews are smarter, richer, more powerful, and more influential that everyone else.

For another, the NYT is always trying to replace American non-Jewish Whites with lower-IQ non-whites. Stephens does this in the above article by arguing for Zionism (keeping Israel Jewish) and ethnic pluralism in White countries (by importing low-IQ non-whites).

If the NYT were to openly say all these things, then there would be one inescapable conclusion: that Jews seek to maintain their genetic, economic, and cultural superiority by debasing the non-Jewish gene pool.

If these motives were to become apparent, then all the NYT and Jewish Left arguments about their morally superior egalitarianism would be seen to be completely phony. Jews are just promoting Jewish racial superiority by sabotaging their competing races.

Am I reading this wrong? If so, why did the NYT issue this correction? The explanation given is:

After publication Mr. Stephens and his editors learned that one of the paper’s authors, who died in 2016, promoted racist views.

Really? That is the excuse for removing the statement: “During the 20th century, they made up about 3 percent of the U.S. population but won 27 percent of the U.S. Nobel science prizes and 25 percent of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.”

The editors can easily fact-check that statement, and it doesn't matter that one of the co-authors once expressed a racist views. Everyone who writes on the subject of IQ and ethnic groups has expressed racist views.

I would have thought that the NYT would be more eager to remove the text about Jews not being loyal Americans, or believing that America is perishable, or having an Israeli double standard, or having superior morals.

No, the NYT obviously believes that they are smarter than everyone else, so they can bluff with claims of persecution and high-minded morals, and we non-Jews will be dumb enough to believe it.

Whites are now a minority

Pew Research reports :

Nonwhites now account for the majority of the nation’s newborns, as well as the majority of K-12 students in public schools. More than half of newborn babies in the U.S. are racial or ethnic minorities, a threshold first crossed in 2013. Nonwhite students also account for the majority of the nation’s K-12 public school students. As of fall 2018, children from racial and ethnic minority groups were projected to make up 52.9% of public K-12 students.

I am getting tired of people using the term "minority" to refer to non-whites and women. Non-whites are a majority of America today, in the ways that matter the most. Women have always been a majority.

Whites are down to about 30% in California.

This was a result of several anti-white policies. Did you vote for those policies? I didn't.

Mohammad is now the tenth most common name for newborn boys.

The NY Times regularly prints articles bragging about how White America is being destroyed. It was only a fluke that Donald Trump was elected in 2016, and the paper is doing everything in its power to undo the election. About once a week it finds a way to credit Jews with replacing Whites with non-whites. It assures us that Jews are high IQ and high-minded.

Michael Bloomberg has already spent about $150 million in anti-Trump ads.

Jewish Trump-hater Bret Stephens, who was previously an editor at the Jerusalem Post and WSJ, has gotten some blowback for his column on Jewish superiority:

That prompted furious accusations that Stephens was using the same genetics arguments that informed Nazism and white supremacist thinking.

“It’s hard to read this column as expressing anything other than a belief in the genetic and cultural inferiority of non-Ashkenazi Jews; it’s hard to tell if that’s intentional or due to appalling sloppiness, but either way it’s not the sort of thing the Times should be running,” tweeted Tim Marchman, editorial director of Vice.

New York Times contributor Jody Rosen offered on Twitter: “Speaking as both an Ashkenazi Jew and a NYT contributor, I don’t think eugenicists should be op-ed columnists.”

“A Jew endorsing the idea that certain races are inherently superior to other, lesser races, what could possibly go wrong?” asked the journalist Ashley Feinberg on Twitter.

The writer Carrie Courogen posted the phone number to cancel a Times subscription, “citing ‘too many awful Bret Stephens pieces, today’s eugenics propaganda being the final straw’ as why you can ‘no longer in good conscience subscribe’. It was easy & painless & I just did it; you can too.”

Stephens’ latest column is far from his first brush with controversy.

Bedbugs are tiny torturers that ruin lives – no wonder Bret Stephens was upset - Brigid Delaney

In August, he became embroiled in a dispute with a professor who had called him a “bedbug” on Twitter, after it emerged the New York Times had become infested with the insect pest. The spat ended with Stephens cancelling his Twitter account.

It is funny how the Jewish leftists do not say Stephens is wrong. They complain that he is saying something that should not be said publicly.

The racial superiority theory is not the most offensive thing in the Stephens column. We are used to hearing about what great geniuses Freud and Einstein were supposed to be. But Stephens goes on to argue that Israel must be the nation of the Jewish master race, while the United States and the rest of the West ought to systematically replace its White Christian population with non-whites and non-Christians.

There is nothing new about claims of Jewish superiority. Jews have always claimed to be the Chosen People. Judaism has a doctrine called Tikkun olam, which means Jews repairing the world to better suit the Jews. Every claim of anti-Semitism is really just a claim of disrespect for Jewish superiority. The whole effort to impeach Pres. Trump is based on claiming that he is not sufficiently subservient to his Jewish superiors.

Bedbug is a good term for the vermin at the NY Times.

Update: The NY Times has partially retracted the Stephens essay, because it relied on data with politically incorrect origins. That is, the data are correct, but the implications of the data are upsetting to Jewish Leftists.

Science writer befuddled by racial issues

Philip Ball is a science writer, and writes:

It has been common for several years now to assert that science shows the concept of race has no biological basis, and that we must see it instead as a social construct. That case was argued, for example, by Kenan Malik in his 2008 book Strange Fruit, and it is presented, too, in Angela Saini’s Superior (which I reviewed for the Guardian in July), a popular choice on many “books of the year” lists.

I used to be sceptical about this claim. I have all the liberal lefty’s revulsion at racism, but I couldn’t help thinking: “If we insist that race is not biologically determined, won’t that just confuse people, given that it is so blindingly obvious that characteristic markers of race are inherited?” ...

Our concept of race is not really about skin colour or eye shape, and never has been. ...

Saini shows that what we have understood by race encodes the belief that literally superficial aspects of our appearance act as markers for innate differences we can’t see. ...

For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

Wow, Ball is hinting that he is a White Supremacist.

If you want to be a science writer who publishes in mainstream sites like Ball, you have to present as a liberal lefty. And you have to buy into the prevailing fictions on identity politics, such as race not existing.

But, it is blindingly obvious that there are races of humans, and that race is not really about skin color or eye shape. It is about the broad set of traits that get inherited together.

The tell is to say "no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese." The reason for saying something so silly is that his editors expect race denial gobbledygook.

Of course Chinese people are lactose-intolerant because they are descended from other lactose-intolerant Chinese people.

When yesterday's NY Times article described characteristics of Jews, it made a point of restricting to Ashkenazi Jews. In other words, it was a genetic theory of what it considered the Ashkenazi Jewish race.

What is a White science journalist to do? Praise some racist book by a non-white Indian woman with some caste resentments, and hope no one outs you as a White supremacist.

NYT argues for Jewish moral superiority

One of the annoying things about Jews is how they act as if they are better than non-Jews. This was a striking feature of the impeachment hearings. While some of the non-Jewish congressmen and witness wanted to discuss the evidence, the Jews would give an argument like: "I am an important person. My colleagues and I have an opinion about what policies and procedures are for the general good. Trump is not up to our standards, and should be removed."

They showed a style of thinking that is peculiar to Jews. A Jewish commentator now elaborates on that style.

Israeli-American NY Times columnist Bret Stephens writes:

how is it that a people who never amounted even to one-third of 1 percent of the world’s population contributed so seminally to so many of its most pathbreaking ideas and innovations?

The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be, smart. When it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, it’s true. “Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average I.Q. of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data,” noted one 2005 paper. “During the 20th century, they made up about 3 percent of the U.S. population but won 27 percent of the U.S. Nobel science prizes and 25 percent of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.”

But the “Jews are smart” explanation obscures more than it illuminates. Aside from the perennial nature-or-nurture question of why so many Ashkenazi Jews have higher I.Q.s, there is the more difficult question of why that intelligence was so often matched by such bracing originality and high-minded purpose.

Wow, claiming "bracing originality and high-minded purpose" is even more offensive that claiming high IQ.

Some of the most famous Jews of the past several years have been Bernie Madoff, Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein. Where is he finding the high-minded purpose?

Jewish genius operates differently. It is prone to question the premise and rethink the concept; to ask why (or why not?) as often as how; to see the absurd in the mundane and the sublime in the absurd. Ashkenazi Jews might have a marginal advantage over their gentile peers when it comes to thinking better. Where their advantage more often lies is in thinking different.

Where do these habits of mind come from?

There is a religious tradition that, unlike some others, asks the believer not only to observe and obey but also to discuss and disagree. There is the never-quite-comfortable status of Jews in places where they are the minority — intimately familiar with the customs of the country while maintaining a critical distance from them. There is a moral belief, “incarnate in the Jewish people” according to Einstein, that “the life of the individual only has value [insofar] as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful.”

And there is the understanding, born of repeated exile, that everything that seems solid and valuable is ultimately perishable, while everything that is intangible — knowledge most of all — is potentially everlasting.

Stephens is a Trump-hater, and most of his columns are anti-Trump. He seems to be giving a rationale here for Jews opposing efforts to Make America Great, as follows.

Jewish Americans are not really Americans, no matter how many generations they live here. They are aliens who have familiarized themselves with the customs here, while refusing to assimilate. They don't even believe in the American nation, as they believe non-Jewish nations are perishable.

They have one set of moral beliefs for the Jewish people, and another for everyone else. They are offended by Trump's loyalty to the American people. Jews just want policies good for the Jewish people, or policies that equate non-Jewish Americans with the rest of the non-Jewish world. They refuse to accept policies good for Americans.

Isn't this what Stephens is saying? He claims to be a conservative, but he hates Trump so much that he will do anything to oust him from the White House. He favors unlimited Third World immigration into the USA, but wants Israel only for the Jews.

I am getting this from the most respectable Jewish publication in the world. If a non-Jew said this stuff, the Jews would say that it is anti-Semitic.

Update: The NY Times has partially retracted the Stephens essay, because it relied on data with politically incorrect origins. That is, the data are correct, but the implications of the data are upsetting to Jewish Leftists.

Israel has matriarchal rules

A Voice For Men reports:

A prime example of this is a Rabbinical law that automatically assigns the children the wife has from her extramarital affairs to the husband. This Rabbinical exponent is called in Hebrew “Rov Beilut Acharei Habaal“. And on top of that, both the Rabbinical as well as the secular feminist family courts deny DNA testing to the husband when there is fear that the child is the result of the wife’s extramarital affair. However, if a woman claims child support the man will be subjected to a DNA test. Why? Because in both cases it’s about extracting money from the husband and transferring resources from him to the wife.

In other words, a DNA test can be evidence against the man, but not the woman.

The essay goes on to cite some statistics, but I am not quoting them because they cannot be right.

But assuming the above is correct, it shows how Israel is matriarchal. Of course its Law of Return offer citizenship to anyone born of a Jewish mother, so that law is matriarchal, but I didn't know about the one-sided DNA tests.

NY Times op-ed:

The idea that platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram should remove hate speech is relatively uncontroversial. But doing this isn’t easy. Hate speech is fluid, dependent on cultural context and social meaning.

Really? The NY Times used to stand for free speech. Now it stands for censorship.

It has been shown again and again, that removing "hate speech" ends up being mostly just removing opinions from the opposing political party. Facebook and Twitter should just let their users read what they want to read.

Few examples illustrate this need better than the long, strange journey of Pepe the Frog, the crudely drawn comic-book amphibian that originated as a mascot for slackers; was repeatedly altered by white supremacists for racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic memes; was classified by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate symbol in 2016; and was repurposed this summer and fall by protesters in Hong Kong to promote a pro-democracy message that had nothing to do with white supremacy or terrorism. ... Local activists in Hong Kong transformed Pepe into an emoji on encrypted platforms, dressed as a protester or a journalist.

So when Jews want to remove hate symbols, they remove green frogs!

I am filing this under "stupid stuff that Jews complain about".

Another NY Times article:

Using the analytical tools that other technologists deployed to uncover Russian influence during the 2016 election, Mr. Bay found that “bots, trolls/sock puppets or political activists” were using the “Star Wars” debate “to propagate political messages supporting extreme right-wing causes and the discrimination of gender, race or sexuality” and that “a number of these users appear to be Russian trolls.” So it seems that it was political operatives, not fans, who were denigrating the movie and fomenting some of the virulent racism and misogyny against its cast.

Using “Star Wars” as the vehicle was a canny move by the trolls. Fans, like the American electorate, are polarized and angry. Online and in real life, they scream at one another about how Luke Skywalker would really behave decades after finding out that his dad was Darth Vader.

I had already filed the Russian 2016 election interference conspiracy in my file of stupid Jewish complaints, but I had no idea that the conspiracy involved Star Wars and Darth Vader. These gripes are just too stupid.

I would ignore this sort of nuttiness, except that it has brought an effort to impeach Pres. Trump. Everyone involved ought to be denounced as traitors.

Just to be fair, I ought to note that Catholics complain about stupid stuff also. The Pope's Christmas message said:

n his annual Christmas Day address, Pope Francis offered a message of hope and a call for kindness to migrants around the world.

"May the Son of God, come down to earth from heaven, protect and sustain all those who, due to these and other injustices, are forced to emigrate in the hope of a secure life," the pontiff said from the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica.

"It is injustice that makes them cross deserts and seas that become cemeteries," he said. "It is injustice that turns them away from places where they might have hope for a dignified life, but instead find themselves before walls of indifference."

Really, it is an injustice for a nation to turn away migrants? Since when? Is this a religious teaching, or just his personal political opinion? I think that this Pope is an impostor.

The NY Times has another article on the electoral consequences of the Great Replacement of American Whites by non-whites. It cites an expert saying “the country is in an uncomfortably similar position today” to the Civil War. The Democrat Party is increasingly driven by identity politics, and the White Christian married normal citizens form the backbone of the Republican party. But "The number of religious white Americans is plummeting. In the long term, that spells disaster for Republicans." It really means that the percentage is plummeting, as we are importing millions of non-white non-Christians. The Democrat Party no longer stands for workers, and is only unified in preaching hatred for White Christians.

Giuliani attacks Soros puppets

I am not sure about this:

Jewish groups intensified criticism on Tuesday of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor turned president’s lawyer and freelancing Ukrainian envoy, after he attacked Jewish financier, philanthropist and Holocaust survivor George Soros for being “hardly a Jew” and failing to attend synagogue.

Giuliani also asserted he was “more of a Jew than Soros” and repeated a claim that the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, was controlled by the financier.

The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, furiously rebuked Giuliani, who is of Italian descent and was raised Roman Catholic, describing his comments as “baffling and offensive” and a “dog whistle to hardcore antisemites and white supremacists who believe this garbage”.

If Greenblatt is hearing dog whistles, then he is the dog.

The paper calls Soros a Jew because of his Jewish nationality and identity beliefs, not because he follows synagogue teachings.

I am not sure what the thread is that connects the Trump impeachment players. Not all of them are Jewish. They certainly don't attend the same synagogue. Maybe none of them attend synagogue, as orthodox Jews seem to like Trump.

Canadian Jew Dan Rosenberg writes for the Canadian Jewish News:

The one tradition that really irks many of us is the dubious claim that there’s a “War on Christmas,” an idea that is both anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

So I’d like to add the War on Christmas to the list of other bigoted buzzwords that shouldn’t be applied to Jews, or anyone else. Then, if people continue to use them, there will be little doubt of their intentions. Here’s a primer:

“New York lawyers (and bankers)”: those are Jews; “Hollywood Culture”: that means Jewish; “secularists” and “internationalists” who are behind conspiracies like the War on Christmas: those are Jews, too. ...

In modern times, Fox News has been airing segments such as Bill O’Reilly’s 2016 “Naughty or Nice” list, which praised businesses that use “Merry Christmas” and condemned others that say “Happy Holidays.”

He then goes on to argue that people argue that people should say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas". In other words, he is a Jew participating in the war on Christmas.

Why is the idea that some people don’t celebrate Christmas offensive to some? If we look at the white supremacist rally [in] Charlottesville, Va., or the perpetrators of the massacres at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, or the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, we can see that they were all motivated by a fear of immigrants and the anti-Semitic “Great Replacement” theory, which claims that there’s a plot to make whites into a minority.

So some White people don't want Jews to systematically replace Whites with non-white immigrants, so those White people want to say Merry Christmas, and hence Christmas cheers are anti-Semitic?

He is obviously in favor of the Great Replacement. This is some really twisted Jewish thinking. It is so stupid that I don't know how to respond to it. Either he is dishonest, or he suffers from some weird Jewish mental illness.

This Canadian Jew is effectively saying that he and other Jews want to silence and exterminate White Christians, and that anyone who wants to say Merry Christmas is anti-Semitic.

Kevin MacDonald explains that the Jewish war on Christmas is very well documented.

Bad advice to leave a wife

Newspaper advice columns are often so bad that I wonder if they are serious.

Here is Ask Amy advice:

Dear Love Story: This is not a mess that will be easily "tidied." Your wife and children will likely be bewildered, and you'll be spreading a lot of hurt around. NONE of this is their fault. Your choice to leave your family, and to sell the family home and relocate them to another one -- all of this -- is on you.

You must tell the truth. I mean, come on -- don't you think your family will figure this out when you and your ex quickly head off into the sunset? ...

Telling your wife of over two decades that you have (basically) never loved her should be off the table.

In other words, you must tell the truth, but don't even consider telling the truth.

Saying "NONE of this is their fault" is probably another lie. If a man has an unhappy marriage, the wife probably has something to do with it.

Merry Christmas.

I quote from the Peanuts meaning of Christmas:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

This was a daring broadcast in the 1960s, because the network executives told Charles Schultz that it was illegal to quote the Bible on network TV.

The best geologists are white

Here is yesterday's NY Times attack on White people:

Earth Science Has a Whiteness Problem

Barely 10 percent of doctoral degrees in the geosciences go to recipients of color. The lack of diversity limits the quality of research, many scientists say. ...

The messages, sent to affiliates of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia by a person outside the community, said that black people were genetically inferior and did not belong in academia. It was “hurtful and invalidating” to be told that she didn’t belong in the world that had drawn her in since childhood, Ms. Varuolo-Clarke said. “It was an isolated incident. But it brought to the surface what still needs to be done in the field.”

A random email from the outside caused that much fuss? Really?

It is funny that Columbia refused to address whether black people were really genetically inferior.

If they cannot cope with an opinion in an outside email, then it is true that they don't belong in academia.

The geosciences — which include the study of planet Earth, its oceans, its atmosphere and its interactions with human society — are among the least diverse across all fields of science. Nearly 90 percent of doctoral-degree recipients are white. ...

The field’s lack of diversity begins with a pipeline problem, geoscientists say. National surveys have shown that black people are less likely than white people to participate in outdoor activities. One survey, conducted in 2009, queried 4,103 respondents and found that African-Americans accounted for just 7 percent of national park visitors, ...

Compounding the pipeline problem is one of stereotypes. The typical earth scientist is often seen as a rugged white male.

“You think of a bearded guy on top of a mountain wearing flannel and hiking boots,” said Jonathan Nichols, an associate research professor at Lamont-Doherty. “We just had our big fall conference and there were 20,000-plus geologists, and you look around and it’s all old bearded guys.”

So what do they plan to do about it? Make African-Americans visit national parks? Climb mountains?

For some proof that leftist wackos have taken over, see the Harry Potter author get roasted for saying an obvious truth that was universally held a few years ago.

How America Ends

We have more examples of Jews bragging about replacing American Whites with non-whites.

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:

I’ve always given Sidneys to individual essays, but this year it seems right to give one to an entire issue of a magazine, the December issue of The Atlantic, titled “How to Stop a Civil War.” That issue felt like a civic act. I’d particularly recommend Yoni Appelbaum’s essay, “How America Ends,” which captures the political moment we are in. America is undergoing a demographic revolution, with the dominant white majority becoming a minority. We’re also at a moment when hyperpartisans fear that losing an election will be more catastrophic than losing our democracy. Such people are willing to destroy democratic norms to stay in power (look around you).

The essay says:

Within the living memory of most Americans, a majority of the country’s residents were white Christians. That is no longer the case, and voters are not insensate to the change—nearly a third of conservatives say they face “a lot” of discrimination for their beliefs, as do more than half of white evangelicals. But more epochal than the change that has already happened is the change that is yet to come: Sometime in the next quarter century or so, depending on immigration rates and the vagaries of ethnic and racial identification, nonwhites will become a majority in the U.S. For some Americans, that change will be cause for celebration; for others, it may pass unnoticed. ...

In 2002, the political scientist Ruy Teixeira and the journalist John Judis published a book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which argued that demographic changes—the browning of America, along with the movement of more women, professionals, and young people into the Democratic fold — would soon usher in a “new progressive era” that would relegate Republicans to permanent minority political status. The book argued, somewhat triumphally, that the new emerging majority was inexorable and inevitable. After Barack Obama’s reelection, in 2012, Teixeira doubled down on the argument in The Atlantic, writing, “The Democratic majority could be here to stay.” ...

We should be careful about overstating the dangers. It is not 1860 again in the United States — it is not even 1850.

I think America today is like 1850, when attempts to reconcile pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces were failing. There are forces dividing this country, and no reasonable and acceptable compromise is in sight.

Look at the impeachment debacle. Apparently it was all just a show of Jewish power and influence. Consider (1) all of the arguments for impeachment came from Jews; (2) no actual crimes were charged; (3) the Dems are not even permitting a trial.

Speaker Pelosi has effectively vetoed the articles of impeachment.

There is nothing like this in history. It is clear that the Dems would do anything in their power to reverse the 2016, from bogus FISA warrants, to unrelenting Jewish propaganda, to phony impeachment articles. They do not quite have the power.

Their main comfort is that they can flood America with non-white refugees, and destroy America that way. I think that the political divide is going to get a whole lot uglier.

Meanwhile the NY Times published a remarkable critical letter:

We write as historians to express our strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project. The project is intended to offer a new version of American history in which slavery and white supremacy become the dominant organizing themes. The Times has announced ambitious plans to make the project available to schools in the form of curriculums and related instructional material. ...

On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.

You would think that it would be the White supremacists who tell lies about America being founded on White supremacy. Nope. It's the NY Times. The NY Times will say anything to promote racial animosity, and a new Civil War.

Update: Here is more criticism of the NY Times project, from the Left.

Pakistan has death penalty for blasphemy

Al Jazeera reports:

Islamabad, Pakistan - A court in Pakistan has convicted a university lecturer of blasphemy and sentenced him to death in a case rights groups have long cited as emblematic of fair trial concerns in such prosecutions in the country.

Junaid Hafeez, a lecturer at the Bahauddin Zakariya University in the central Pakistani city of Multan, was accused of having insulted Islam's Prophet Muhammad and its holy book, the Quran, verbally and on Facebook in 2013.

A court in Multan found him guilty and sentenced him to death on Saturday after a lengthy trial that saw frequent delays and transfers of judges.

Hafeez has been held in solitary confinement due to security concerns since 2014 when his lawyer, prominent rights activist Rashid Rehman, was murdered. ...

At least 75 people have been killed in connection with blasphemy accusations in Pakistan since 1990, according to an Al Jazeera tally. The murdered include those accused of the crime, people acquitted by the courts, their lawyers, family members and judges connected to their cases.

Apparently some people read stories like this, and say that we should import 1000s of Pakistani refugees!

India has stopped taking Pakistani refugees. China sends its Moslems to re-education camps. I don't know whether China's approach will work. I hope that there are observers who will give an independent assessment.

It appears that China also discourages Christianity, but Christianity is not an existential threat the way Islam is.

This NY Times op-ed sounds like a joke:

On Thursday, J.K. Rowling caused an uproar when she tweeted ...

The beliefs that trans women are not really women and trans men are not really men are the core argument of a movement of so-called feminists who deny the reality of the transgender experience. (They are sometimes referred to as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, though they tend to prefer the term “gender critical.”) ...

As a devoted Harry Potter fan who also happens to be transgender, it was like a punch in the gut. ...

Fans have organized in Harry’s name to donate over 400,000 books around the world, campaign in support of marriage equality and even convince Warner Bros. to switch to ethical sourcing for its Harry Potter-branded chocolates.

So belief in magic is common among transgenders? I believe that.

America was based on WEIRDness and WEMP

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes:

Northwest Europeans are WEIRD ... as in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. These traits are in turn associated with certain behavioral and psychological characteristics: "People from these societies tend to be more individualistic, independent, and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting of strangers) while revealing less conformity and in-group loyalty" (Schulz et al. 2019).

In a recent study, Schulz et al. (2019) argue that WEIRDness is a heritage of Western Christianity: the branch of the Christian faith that gradually evolved into Roman Catholicism and, later, Protestantism: "we propose that the Western Church's transformation of European kinship, by promoting small, nuclear households, weak family ties, and residential mobility, fostered greater individualism, less conformity, and more impersonal prosociality."

Social relations are indeed different north and west of a line running approximately from Trieste to St. Petersburg, Everyone is single for at least part of adulthood, and many stay single their entire lives. In addition, households often have non-kin members, and children usually leave the nuclear family to form new households (Hajnal, 1965; ICA, 2013; Laslett, 1977). This is the Western European Marriage Pattern (WEMP), and there is an extensive literature on it going back to work by John Hajnal.

Frost agrees that this is a heritage of Western Christianity, but cites some evidence that the Church adapted it from earlier Roman law and other European customs.

There are many other cultures, particularly in Asia, that appear to have much stronger marriage and family ties. It is commonly said that they are pro-family and naturally conservative, and should easily assimilate into America. That opinion is wrong.

America used to be dominated by WEMP families, and such families were essential to Americanism. Importing people with different family structures is turning America into something else.

WEIRDness and WEMP took over a millennium to develop in Europe. It will not happen in immigrant communities anytime soon.

On the other hand, here is from the Democrat debate:

MODERATOR: Senator Klobuchar, here in California, people who identify as Hispanic, black, Asian or multiracial represent a majority of the population, outnumbering white residents. The United States is expected to be majority nonwhite within a generation. What do you say to white Americans who are uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a racial minority, even if you don’t share their concerns?

AMY KLOBUCHAR: I say this is America. You’re looking at it. And we are not going to be able to succeed in the world if we do not invite everyone to be part of our economy. Our Constitution says that we strive for a more perfect union. Well, that’s what we are doing right now.

. In other words, she says that our economy and our Constitution require that we replace Whites with non-whites. She doesn't finish the quote about a "more perfect union", because the rest of the sentence suggests a more perfect union of White people.

Michelle Goldberg, NY Times Opinion Columnist, writes:

We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule. Trump, with his braying entitlement, his boastful ignorance, his sneering contempt for pluralism, is an avatar of a Republican Party desperate to return to the 1980s, or the 1950s, or maybe the 1910s. He can’t betray America if, to those who fetishize the 63 million, he embodies it. ...

Women and people of color, of course, were originally outside the protection of those founding documents. But on Wednesday, the most diverse Congress in history declared that even the most powerful white man in the world should be bound by them.

In other words, White men made America great, but Jews are replacing them with women and people of color. Trump's popularity rests on an America that Jews are in the process of destroying.

This is just another example of Jews celebrating White Genocide. They believe that Donald Trump is the last President to embody an earlier era, and they are doing everything in their power to get rid of him.

Richard Nixon was innocent

Geoff Shepard worked for President Nixon when he faced impeachment, and his opinion has changed now that all the documents have been released, as he details:

If the public had known of the totally erroneous accusations made in secret against President Nixon and the judicial and prosecutorial wrongdoing that characterized the Watergate investigations, it is doubtful the Democrats could have mustered the necessary two-thirds vote to convict and remove Nixon from office. And, if he had survived, then the due-process travesty of the cover-up trial might not have unfolded as it did.

In particular, he says that the so-called "smoking gun" tape was thought to be about covering up the Watergate break-in, but actually was about some campaign finance issue unrelated to Watergate.

The so-called independent prosecutor was actually an army of Democrat loyalists who were out to get Nixon. They lied to the grand jury and House Judiciary Committee about having evidence linking Nixon to hush payments, and Nixon never even learned of the lies.

The court system had been corrupted, with Judge Sirica and the appeals court secretly working with the Democrats.

Nixon's chief accuser was John Dean, but the public did not know (1) Dean had committed many crimes, and faced a long prison sentence; (2) Dean was offered a sweet plea bargain deal; (3) Dean changed his story to implicate Nixon only as part of the deal; and (4) Dean never had to serve a day in a real prison.

The article does not even mention how the assistant FBI director was leaking as "Deep Throat" as a personal vendetta against Nixon for not getting a promotion.

Would this have all come out in a Senate trial? Would it have mattered if the public had already turned anti-Nixon? I don't know, but it is too bad we didn't learn the truth at the time.

It is tempting to have a full Senate trial for Pres. Trump, with testimony from all the relevant parties. But it will be a waste of time, as there is no underlying crime, and no firm accusations to investigate. Trump has released the transcript, and explained his defense in a letter. There are no significant facts in dispute.

Trump was exonerated for bribery

A bunch of lawyers have posted a list of crimes for which Pres. Trump should be impeached, in their opinions. It is notable because it is led by the Jew who wrote much of the Mueller report. I did not try to check how many of them are Jews, but it is all Jewish leftist thinking.

The charges are Campaign Finance Law, Bribery, Honest Services Fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Hatch Act, Contempt of Congress, Impoundment Act (non-criminal law).

Some of these are just laughable. But the fact remains that the House Dems considered all of these, and exonerated Trump on them. The more these articles get written, the more obvious it is that Trump has enemies that will say and do anything to remove him from office.

Update: Listening to the impeachment debate, the Dems' case depends on these premises:

Russia is an enemy of the USA.
America vitally needs to send guns to Ukraine to kill Russians.
Exposing Bidens' corruption is solely beneficial to Trump personally.
Trump's intentions can be deduced from third-hand testimony.
The President ought to be subservient to Deep State policy objectives.

I reject all of these. I don't want to revive the Cold War, or to admit Ukraine into NATO. We all need to know about Biden corruption. It can never be a crime to ask for information.

This is a Jew coup, and it has clarified the partisan divide in this nation. The Republicans are united behind Trump as never before. The Democrat Party has become the hate-Trump party.

And why do the Dems hate Trump? It is hard to believe that any of them really care about the timetable for delivery of weapons to Ukraine, or about defending what the Bidens have done.

No, it is because they seek to destroy traditional White Christian America, and Trump stands in their way.