Jews attack Western Civilization

A Jewish paper reports:

King has long been dubbed "America's white supremacist congressman" for often making remarks in support of white nationalism. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King asked in an interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro responded to King's quote saying, "Congress ought to vote to censure him, and then he ought to be primaried ASAP. …" Shapiro also tweeted he will donate to his primary opponents campaign.

I thought that Shapiro was an advocate of conservative policies and free speech.

He is first of all, an orthodox Jew. Jews like Shapiro and Mormons like Romney tend to hate Pres. Trump, even when they agree with everything he does.

To answer King's question, those things became offensive when Jews got control of the news and entertainment media. They hate Whites and Western Civilization most of all. They would get laughed at if they used the term "Western Civilization", so they call it "white supremacy" instead.

King did not support white nationalism or white supremacy. He merely complained that these terms are being used to smear support for Western Civilization.

Whites are supreme in the USA and Europe in the sense that they are the largest ethnic group, and they have dominated everything that makes the civilization run smoothly.

Jews hate this, and do everything they can to bring in non-whites and non-Christians, and to undermine whites whenever possible.

The Left has been doing this for decades. You might think that the Jews are only doing it because they are leftists, but how do you explain Shapiro? He is not a leftist, and he attacks leftists whenever he can.

Psychologist attack on men

The whole psychology profession is dominated by Jews and feminists, and they are anti-masculinity in almost everything they do. Now they have formalized some of their anti-male advice.

The NY Times reports:

The American Psychological Association has released several guides for psychologists who work with people belonging to certain groups — members of ethnic and linguistic minorities, for example, or women and girls.

It did not have a guide for working with males, in part because they were historically considered the norm. But in August, the A.P.A. approved its first set of official guidelines for working with boys and men.

The guidelines, 10 in all, posit that males who are socialized to conform to “traditional masculinity ideology” are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health.

They acknowledge that ideas about masculinity vary across cultures, age groups and ethnicities. But they point to common themes like “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

Of course the Jewish/feminist psychologist never suggest any manly activity, like lifting weights. They only try to get men to be more effeminate.

Podhoretz against Western Civilization

Have any non-whites ever made a significant contribution to Western Civilization?

You would think that would be an easy question to answer, but the Jewish neocon race-baiter John Podhoretz writes in a NY Post op-ed:

Far-right naked racists, of whom the most prominent in the US is probably Steve King, the nine-term congressman from Iowa.

King gave an interview to The New York Times this week in which he equated “white supremacy” with “Western civilization” and asked this: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? ... Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

King’s history of horrifying comments on race dates back two ­decades. ...

King’s words this week drawing a parallel between “white supremacy” and “Western Civilization” are especially pernicious.

For one thing, Western civilization isn’t “white,” if by “white” one is referring to skin color. Much of what we consider the roots of Western civilization comes from Asia Minor and North Africa.

For examples of great non-whites, he cites Jews, Jesus, St. Augustine, Alexander Pushkin, and Alexander Hamilton!

The only non-white thing about Hamilton is that there was a popular Broadway play that portrayed him as black. Podhoretz is seriously confusing fiction with reality.

Jesus and St. Augustine could have had white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, for all anybody knows. Pushkin was at least 7/8 white. Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair.

The greatness of our civilization can’t be found in its elevation of “whiteness” above all, because it does no such thing. That idea is the core of Nazism, not Americanism. “White supremacy” treats being “white” as a tribal identity. But Western civilization’s greatness lies not only in the beauty of its art and the wisdom of its thought but in the universality of its message.

Now we get to his real issue. Like most Jews, he is a Jewish supremacist. He believes that Jews should control the money and information channels. He is a big promoter of Jewish pride in their tribal identity, but he hates the idea of whites having any tribal identity.

The Jewish religion has no universal message. It says Jews are the Chosen People, and that Jews should do whatever is good for Jews.

As soon as any white non-Jew shows any ethnic identity or pride in Western civilization, Jews like Podhoretz are quick to start name-calling with "Nazism". Really? I thought that Nazis did bad stuff, but according to him, they were just white people recognizing the greatness of our civilization.

I will be watching to see if any Jewish publications denounce this sort of anti-white racial hatred, but I doubt it.

There seem to be some very deep-seated jealousies here. Jews do best in white supremacist countries. Jews are scattered around the world, but where do they prefer to live? White countries. And they they complain about White people all the time.

I quoted someone saying "Jews do not understand the first thing about America." It seems like a silly statement, and Podhoretz appears to be an educated man. He has a funny idea about Americanism. He writes a whole column praising non-whites, but he cannot seem to name any exemplary ones.

The libertarian Reason mag attacks King by quoting:

Take it away, Jean de Crevecouer in Letters from an American Farmer (1782):

What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.

He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.

I've noted elsewhere that Crevecoeur has his limits (among other things, he speaks only of men and he owned slaves for a time). But he accurately captures a process by which America is a country that has long aspired to be a place where people could be judged, in Martin Luther King's phrase, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

No, the slave-owner was probably not ignoring skin color.

Crevecoeur was describing a new American race resulting from mixing English, French, and Dutch. In other words, all White people from Northwestern Europe. He is saying that there is an American race, not that Americans ignore race.

Matriarchy leads to narcissistic Peter Pans

Quillette reports:

As David Gilmore’s cross-cultural study of men shows (1990), in the small handful of cultures without patriarchy, men live a narcissistic Peter Pan existence, putting very little into the community and leaving most of the labor to women. Such societies have not developed beyond a rudimentary level, and cannot compete with their more highly organized and structured neighbors. This is why there are so few of them. They are not a suitable model for modern industrial nations to copy.

Copying them, however, is what we have been doing in recent decades as attacks have mounted on the sexual division of labour. ...

Eleanor Rathbone, for example, persuaded the U.K. parliament in 1945 to bypass husbands and pay family allowances to mothers, after conducting a long campaign against what she dubbed the “Turk complex.”

That was the start of a long slow decline into today's matriarchy. Here is more evidence of decline:

Alongside this cultural decline, the bourgeois mindset also seems to have suffered genetic decline. There is growi g evidence that people in Western countries are losing the gene-based improvements their ancestors had gained in cognitive capacity and other mental traits.

The strongest evidence for this regressive evolution is seen in an Icelandic study that shows a steady decline since the early twentieth century in alleles associated with high educational attainment (Kong et al. 2017). ...

Since the 1970s the IQ decline seems to be driven much more by decomposition of the nuclear family: proportionately more births are to single mothers who tend to have children by sexy men who are less intelligent and more prone to violence (see previous post).

It is probably not just the IQ genes that are declining. Many other desirable genes are also.

The market economy, and its power to create so much wealth, came into being because of certain cultural, psychological and, yes, genetic characteristics. Those characteristics are not distributed uniformly around the world. In fact, for a long time they didn’t even exist. They gradually evolved and came together in certain human groups, particularly in northwest Europeans.

Yes, there were similar evolutionary processes in other human groups, notably East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, Parsees, and so on. But those groups, too, will form a diminishing proportion of the world’s population. The cultural, psychological, and genetic basis for the market economy will therefore regress as time goes on.

The most likely scenario is that the market economy will likewise regress. We will return to a low-trust world of spatially localized markets with no market economy, at least not one that will self-generate without coercion. We will all be poorer.

If this is right, then increasing GDP is all an illusion. The world is getting poorer all the time.

American patriots are stockpiling guns

SciAm reports:

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before — that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

So, who is buying all these guns — and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male — but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile. ...

applicants were overwhelmingly dominated by white men. In interviews, they told her that they wanted to protect themselves and the people they love. ...

In a series of three experiments, Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay asked hundreds of liberals and conservatives to imagine holding a handgun — and found that conservatives felt less risk and greater personal control than liberal counterparts. ...

“Those with high attachment felt that having a gun made them a better and more respected member of their communities.” ...

“This is interesting because these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the ‘nation,’ says Froese.

Of course there is a distinction between the federal government and the nation. We currently have a Speaker of the House who says that a wall is an "immorality", and refuses to fund it.

The "nation" refers to the people and the land, not what governance is currently in place. The French nation refers to the those who practice the traditional French language and culture in France, and not Algerians who just moved there several years ago.

I believe that the Ctrl-Left would remove President Trump in a coup, if it could get away with it. They would also abolish the 1st and 2nd amendments to the Constitution. And then they would seek an ethnic cleansing of White Christians, and to replace them with non-white and non-Christian immigrants.

There is maybe a 1% chance that political differences will not be resolved peacefully, and America will degenerate into a civil war. If that happens, the patriots will be well armed. I hope that means that the leftists do not push us into a civil war.

Genius biologist believes animals are egalitarian

I criticized Sapolosky for not believing in free will, but the same interview has this:

We write a lot in Pacific Standard about economic and social inequality, but until I read Behave, it never occurred to me to compare humans with other animals in this respect. You argue that humans have far more inequality than any other species. Any idea why that is?

Because of our psychological sophistication. A low-ranking non-human primate may they get beat up when somebody is in a bad mood, or get the crummiest place to sit when it's raining. Or they'll find something good to eat, and someone (of a higher rank) will take it away from them. But that's basically it. They don't have societal constructs that lead them to think it's their own damn fault.

Humans can be driving down the freeway, and the driver in front of you can signal your lack of socioeconomic success (via their more expensive automobile).

So humans have more social inequality than animals because some humans drive fancier cars than others?

He is not referring to ppl being better off because the car works better. He is talking about someone feeling bad about a low-status car, and says that animals do not have that feeling.

This is crazy. Humans distribute their food so that no one starves. No animals do that. In many species, the low status animals do not eat or reproduce.

I don't know how Sapolsky got to be considered such a genius.

Maximizing human capital

Economists like Tyler Cowen argue that government policies should solely be designed to maximize GDP. If you object that GDP does not take environmental damage into account, he will say that he really wants to use a modified GDP that factors in his favorite causes.

This sort of thinking sometimes goes under the slogan, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Among philosophers, it is called utilitarianism or consequentialism. Cowen's view is a little extreme in that he considers someone in Ethiopia in a millennium to be as important as someone today.

He wrote a book on this subject, and to prove his sincerity, he promised to donate all his profits to some clown in Ethiopia.

Tucker Carlson recently enraged conservatives with an economic rant that included, “Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot.”

I am wondering if any of these smart economists ever tried to quantify human capital.

There are 7 billion people in the world. Some are making the world a better place, and some a worse place. If you take into account consumption of resources in future generations, then the big majority of people have negative value.

Advances in genetic research may soon make it possible to quantify human capital on the genome level. Most human traits are heritable, so once he have good genomic models, we could estimate human capital directly from the genomes.

You might protest that a man is more than his DNA. I would agree, but if you are projecting a millennium into the future, as Cowen does, then a man is just the DNA of his descendants.

A man may have genes for criminal behavior, and never commit any crimes. After a millennium, he could have thousands of criminal descendants.

An ugly woman could have thousands of ugly descendants. If resources become scarce, then no one wants them used up by ugly people.

It may seem harsh to judge people based on their genomes, but if you buy into future utilitarianism like Cowen, then surely it is better to exterminate undesirables now than to somehow correct all the damage in a millennium.

Countries like Taiwan and South Korea have gotten rich by implementing capitalist theories of money. Eventually, I think some countries will try to seriously maximize their genomic capital. If so, they might create paradises of low crime, low strife, high trust, high productivity, and high happiness.

How good or bad this is remains to be seen. Many would argue that any such project would be doomed to fail. If some country does the experiment, we may find out.

The evolutionist plan for genocide

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:

I’m a free-will “incompatibilist”: someone who sees the existence of physical determinism as dispelling the idea of contracausal, you-could-have-done-otherwise “free will”, which is the notion of free will most common among people. Many people find my view disturbing and fatalistic, and I’m often posed this question: “If everything is determined by the laws of physics mediated through our neurobiology, what’s the point of trying to change somebody’s mind?”

My response is that no, we can’t choose (via contracausal free will) whether we want to change someone’s mind, nor can they freely choose (in the same sense) whether to change it. But human brains are wired by both evolution and experience in a way that alters people’s behaviors when (in general) they would benefit from those changes.

Got that? You have no ability to make decisions for yourself, but leftist brainwashers can reprogram your brain to follow their agenda.

Coyne then endorses a fellow leftist-atheist-evolutionist:

A couple of weeks ago, at a speech before a friendly audience, President Donald Trump likened immigrants to poisonous snakes. To biologist and behavioral scientist Robert Sapolsky, it was a revolting but revealing remark.

"That's a textbook dehumanization of 'them,' he said. "If you get to the point where citing 'thems' causes your followers to activate neurons in the insular cortex—the part of the brain that responds to viscerally disgusting things — you've finished most of your to-do list for your genocide."

That sort of sharply stated, science-based analysis has made Sapolsky a popular and influential writer and thinker. A MacArthur fellow, he is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, and the author of several books, including the 2017 best-seller Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.

Sapolsky has spent much of his career in Kenya, studying baboons (among other primates), and he uses that knowledge to put human behavior into a broader perspective. In a recent telephone interview, he discussed the biological basis of our current political fault lines.

So his political view boils down to saying it is okay to compare people to Kenyan baboons, but not to snakes.

Sapolsky's big treatise is a massive tirade against free will.

Let's talk about tribalism. First of all, is that an accurate term for the sorting into opposing camps that's going on today?

Absolutely, in a very primate kind of way. The easiest symbols that we grab onto in deciding if someone is an "us" or a "them" are visceral ones. Being disgusted by someone's personal behavior — the way 'they' do stuff — is a much easier entree to hating them than disagreeing with their views on the trade deficit.

Primates are hard-wired for us/them dichotomies.

For him, he identifies with an "us" consisting of fellow leftist academics and primates, with "them" being religious folks.

But devout religious observance in a group setting is. Studies show that support for terrorism in majority Muslim countries is unrelated to how often you pray, or how devout you are about food prohibitions. But it is related to how often you pray in a mosque. The same is also true of right-wing Jewish extremists in Israel. When sacred values are re-affirmed in groups — that's when things get scary. ...

Scapegoating is an incredibly mammalian thing to do.

So he scapegoats Trump supporters, Muslims, and Israeli Jews. That is his to-do list for genocide.

If he is right, then the only sensible thing to do is to destroy all the mosques. Mosques are just training grounds for future terrorists. Moslems do not believe in free will either. The Western world has the power to bomb and destroy all the world's mosques. With advance warning, it could be done with minimal loss of life. Mecca could be destroyed when hardly anyone is there. China already has experience in re-programming Moslems, so maybe they could lead the plan.

Speaking of primates, here is anthropologist John Hawks insisting that humans must be groups with both monkeys and apes:

Humans are not phylogenetically separate from living great apes; the same common ancestors that connect those apes also are our ancestors. In other words, “apes” in English are not a proper monophyletic group, unless humans are also included. The same is true of “monkeys” – no way of grouping the ceboid [New World] and cercopithecoid [Old World] monkeys is monophyletic unless the apes and humans are also included. (The branch that includes all of these primates is known as the Anthropoidea).

It is funny how these learned academics refuse to admit differences between humans and monkeys.

Disney is now synonymous with hate

Matt Miller writes in Esquire mag:

a loud section of Star Wars fans, have tragically become synonymous with hate, bigotry, and pervasive assholeness in 2018. From various sinister online campaigns, to racist and misogynistic attacks on actors, to bafflingly stupid takes and interpretations of the film, The Last Jedi inspired the worst impulses of a far-right movement that’s taking hold of the internet and extending its influence into the real world.

The hate began almost immediately after the Last Jedi hit theaters to positive reviews from critics. Days after the movie was released, Rotten Tomatoes was swarmed with negative reviews marking the biggest disparity between fans and critics in the history of the franchise. As of this week, the film has a 91 percent from critics and a 45 percent from fans. ...

"We are tired of being spat on, told that the franchise we so adore is not for us anymore, and of our favorite characters being mistreated by the directors of the new movies. We call upon @Disney for change." ...

It’s fascinating that, as Disney has begun to course-correct Star Wars, it seems that J.J. Abrams is charged by the powers that be with getting both fans and critics excited about Episode 9. And what’s concerning about this is who the people pulling the strings might be listening to. ...

These “trolls” are the anonymous, despicable beating heart of America. They are holding up a mirror to our society. They are insuring that the worst of us have a voice to incite real change. They elected an amoral, racist golden toilet for a president. And that same sickness has bled into something once as harmless as a children’s space movie.

If the moral Star Wars fans — the ones who applaud these films for better representing the people, ideas, and goodness around us — stay silent, well, then the trolls control the narrative. This was a year where the trolls won.

So the fans hated the three Disney Star Wars movies, and this critic is upset that Disney might be listening to the fans?!

I only saw the first Disney Star Wars movie, and hated it. The next two are supposed to be much worse. Disney has been taken over by lizard people who are trying to brainwash us.

You know that something is wrong when the critics love the movies, and the fans hate them. There is also something wrong with the movie critic cannot resist attacking President Trump, and the 60M voters who elected him.

Miller even goes so far as to say that "moral Star Wars fans" should speak up in favor of the hated movies! Disney and the critics are trying to impose a moral order on us, whether we like it or not, and it is not a Christian moral order. It is a sick Cultural Marxist moral order that seeks to exterminate white Christian straight men. Disney, Hollywood, and Hollywood groupies have fallen to the Dark Side.

Maybe the surest way to identify these lizard ppl is to bring up the subject of Donald Trump. You can figure that someone is a bigot if you mention Barack Obama and suddenly spouts some racial slurs, and you can similarly deduce that he is a bigot if the mention of Trump causes him to spout "amoral, racist golden toilet" or something like that.

A new Moslem Democrat Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib was just sworn in, and she immediately went into rant calling Trump obscenities and vowing to impeach him. It will be interesting to see what kind of press she gets, as she wants to exterminate the Jews also. My guess is that they will celebrate her Trump hatred, as if she were a courageous spokeswoman for a moral cause.

The twin evils of modern society

Dalrock tries hard to square Christian teachings with human nature. He writes:

In my previous post I noted that it took me many years of blogging before I recognized that chivalry and not feminism is the primary corrupter of modern conservative Christianity. This understanding is essential, because conservative Christians are laboring under the assumption that chivalry is a tool to fight feminism. Part of what makes this so confusing is that chivalry and feminism are often quite difficult to tease apart. Feminism is fundamentally an appeal to chivalry, which is the essential truth of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism:

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

The fatal conservative error is to assume that doing feminists’ bidding will eventually lead to feminist gratitude. Conservatives foolishly believe that one more act of valiant chivalry will finally win the feminists over. Chivalry is a way to strike a heroic pose while cravenly avoiding the terrifying prospect of opposing feminism. It is cowardice posing as bravery.

Even worse, in the chivalrous mindset feminist expressions of ingratitude are only proof that the chivalrous man is on the right and heroic path. Persistence in the face of cruel scorning by his lady is the very essence of chivalrous manhood.

You have to read him for the explanation of why feminism and chivalry are dual evils.

As he explains, Lancelot became the model of chivalry by humiliating himself for the sake of an adulterous woman.

This situation is analogous to the twin evils of Jewish and Mormon Trump-haters. The Jewish Trump-haters believe in feminism, while the Mormon Trump-haters believe in chivalry. It is debatable which is worse.

Mitt Romney just wrote an op-ed attacking Trump. His first complaint is that Trump badmouths his enemies. But then Romney has no substantial criticism, and he is essentially just engaging in name-calling himself. Weird.

How did Romney get a such a screwed-up view of the world? Many other Mormon politicians have the same disease.

According to this, Romney went on CNN just to complain that Trump was not sufficiently subservient to Jewish causes. Apparently Romney understands that he can get press in the Jewish media by doing this.

Mormons are the mirror image of Jews. They are both brainwashed with views that are fundamentally incompatible with a Christian society.

All mental disorders are linked

Norway science news:

Neuroticism is one of the five higher-order personality traits and pretty much everyone has it to some extent.

People who score high on neuroticism are easily worried and are more likely to experience negative feelings such as fear, anger, frustration, jealousy, guilt, and loneliness. They tend to interpret common situations as threatening, or to feel that small challenges are hopelessly difficult.

Now Eivind Ystrøm, a professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo and his colleagues say that this trait best defines the risk of developing psychiatric problems.

Research also shows that it is mainly your genes that determine your personality, and thus the risk of mental illness.

And for better or worse, your upbringing probably has minimal effect.

All mental disorders are linked

"Previously we thought that mental illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse, were completely separate diseases," Ystrøm says.

But research has now shown that these illnesses are often linked. If you suffer from one mental illness, you are more likely to develop another. And if someone in your immediate family has a psychiatric illness, your risk increases not only for this disorder, but for all other disorders.

The article does not mention it, but women consistently score much higher levels of neuroticism. They also show much higher rates of psychiatric illnesses, and are much more commonly medicated for them.

NY Times blasts James Watson again

It is funny how Jewish publications are obsessed with race and intelligence. The latest is the NY Times article titled "James Watson Won't Stop Talking Race". Actually, that newspaper has had 875 articles about race since the last time Watson talked about the subject.

The paper is always running article on how smart Jews like Einstein are, and how stupid non-Jews like Trump are. And it is always claims that non-Jews are no better than black Africans.

In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.” ...

In response to questions from The Times, Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that most experts on intelligence “consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences.”

This is supposed to be a refutation of Watson, but Watson and Collins are saying nearly the same thing. That is, that white score higher than blacks on IQ tests, and the differences are attributed to genes and environment.

But his remarks have lingered. They have been invoked to support white supremacist views, and scientists routinely excoriate Dr. Watson when his name surfaces on social media.

Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.

“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’

Lander is clever enough to signal the insincerity of his apology. He does not say that Watson is wrong. He only says that Watson's views have caused him to be despised. He also says science must welcome everyone at the same time he says it must not welcome Watson.

It is really crazy to say that Lander cannot make a toast to Watson because of some scientific opinion that Watson expressed once. If Watson were wrong, they would just prove him wrong. They only silence and ostracize him because they cannot prove him wrong.

Some researchers do think that Watson will be proved wrong someday. For a survey of expert opinion, see this.

As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.

Watson is not Jewish, so the paper has to find a way to say he found success by stealing from a Jewish woman.

“If he knew African-Americans as colleagues at all levels, his present view would be impossible to sustain,’’ Dr. King said.

If that is the case, it may not bode well for combating prejudice in biomedical research, where African-Americans represent just 1.5 percent of grant applications to the N.I.H. Biases in hiring by medical school science departments are well documented.

Knowing a few African-Americans colleagues tells almost nothing about averages for the entire race. Biases in hiring could be for or against blacks. Any such biases have nothing to do with correlations between race and IQ anyway.

Jews are big believers in IQ, or they would not be writing these articles. But they always get around to some sort of argument that non-Jewish whites have the same IQ blacks, and thus inferior to the Jews.

What I learned in 2018

At the end of each year, I like to take note of issues where I have changed my mind.

California has been lost. California used to be a paradise about 50 years ago. Then it imported about 20M people, mostly from Third World countries. The schools went from the best in the USA, to only 30% White and the worst. Half the state is on welfare. No Republicans can ever get elected to statewide office, and in a few years, no Whites will be electable either. The real estate is all owned by rich people. The middle class Whites are leaving the state.

The rest of the USA is probably similarly doomed. Hardly anyone has learned the lessons of the California immigration experiment. Maybe President Trump, but he is hated for it. We are in the midst of the dramatic demographic replacement in the history of mankind, and the pro-immigration forces have gained the upper hand. I do not see how it can be stopped.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix are evil. So are all the others who actively work to shut down legitimate opinions with censorship, de-platforming, and name-calling.

MeTooism is the most destructive social trend in a long time.

I used to regularly denounce identity politics. Now I think that it is human nature. Democracy and multiculturalism are incompatible. White people need to accept what the rest of the world accepted long ago.

I used to think of people as intelligent autonomous beings. I would give them credit for having informed and considered opinions, even if they didn't. Now I think that it makes more sense to treat people like 4-year-olds. Most human-human interactions are at about the level of a 4yo child. I just watched a TV documentary on some advanced scientific theories, but even it could have been all explained to 4yo children, if they had wanted to.

Until bad luck is randomly distributed

In a YouTube panel discussion, titled "A Day of Reckoning - 4 - Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Maajid Nawaz, Douglas Murray", one of the Weinstein brothers says:

Until bad luck is randomly distributed, we really do have to err in the direction of
taking seriously claims of structural oppression and what we do about them. [1:37:50]

This is a peculiarly left-wing view. It is nearly incomprehensible to a right-winger.

First, all bad luck is randomly distributed. The words "luck" and "random" mean the same thing here. Presumably he means that the bad luck should be uniformly randomly distributed, so that everyone has the same chances of incurring bad luck.

Eric Weinstein is a mathematician who surely understands that the concept is still not well-defined. There is no way to say how much of someone's ill fortune is due to bad luck, and how much is due to more acceptable causes, and no way to say how that luck should be distributed.

Second, why should we even have a goal of redistributing the luck? If you think that way you will eventually wonder if it was just luck that you were born a human instead of a cockroach. Once you get to that point, there is just no way to say that luck is unfair, and no way to resolve the unfairness.

Right-wingers accept the fact that many things are beyond our control. They have no grand plans to redistribute luck, most of which is unknowable and unchangeable anyway.

Jewish UN plans to brainwash us

The United Nations published:

The unanimous adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of Holocaust Remembrance resolution ...

Tikun Olam (Repairing the World)

The future of Holocaust memory and education lies in its ability to be relevant to the students of coming generations. While study about the Holocaust is important in and of itself, it is even more important to learn from the Holocaust in terms of promoting global citizenship, human rights, religious tolerance and multiculturalism to ensure that such evil does not occur again.

In many locations worldwide, the Holocaust has become a universal symbol of evil. Just as the story of the Exodus from Egypt from the Bible, and the catch cry “Let my people go” epitomises moving from slavery towards freedom, the Holocaust is now the defining symbol of the most terrible denial of basic human rights — an evil that we struggle to comprehend.

Yes, the Holocaust has become a universal symbol of evil, like the Bible story of Exodus.

We have extremely detailed histories of ancient Egypt, and there is no trace of a Jewish Exodus. It is just a Jewish fairy tale.

This UN document explains how Jews want to "repair the world" based on their own self-interests and fairy tales. The phrase is just a euphemism for Jews subjugating non-Jews.

According to the Exodus story, the Jews got out of Egypt by threats, by trickery, and by murdering the first-born sons of the Egyptians. Then God parted the Red Sea for the Jews to escape.

Jewish Holocaust education could be a mistake.

First, reciting certain facts and opinions about the Jewish Holocaust is illegal in many European countries. So it is nearly impossible to get an objective account of what happened.

Second, any thorough education will have to explain why the Jews were singled out for mistreatment. It was not for theological reasons, nor were the Jews just a powerless scapegoat. Hitler had a bunch of specific reasons for hating the Jews. Those reasons must be understood if you struggle to understand the evil.

Third, some people will draw lessons opposite to what is intended. While the above Jewish UN document says that the lesson is global citizenship and multiculturalism, others may see that as part of the problem. That is, if German Jews did not consider themselves German citizens, then maybe the Nazis were justified in expelling them. Maybe admitting some alien culture into your country is just leading to another holocaust some day.

Any Jewish Holocaust education will surely disallow anything antisemitic according to the Working Definition of Antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

I am not sure what this even means, except that Jews will call anything they don't like to be antisemitic.

If you are wondering what Tikkun Olam is, here is an explanation from a Jewish publication:

The community’s secular religion of tikkun olam, or supposedly Jewish social justice, is a fraud.

As Jonathan Neumann puts it in his excellent book To Heal the World?, American Jews have been led to believe that “the purpose of the Jews in the world is to campaign for higher taxes, sexual permissiveness, reduced military spending, illegal immigration, opposition to fracking, the banishment of religion from the public square and every other liberal cause under the sun — all in the name of God”.

It’s not Jewish, just, or even very social, constituting a mish-mash of Marxism, moral relativism and paganism.

So three-quarters of American Jews have contracted a kind of religious auto-immune disease, which has caused them to junk the stuff that will protect their spiritual health while eagerly embracing the stuff that will destroy it.

Judaism is funny that way. It has official beliefs, as explained by their sacred books and orthodox rabbis. And then there are the beliefs of the great majority of Jews, who consistently follow a coherent set of beliefs that are contrary to those official beliefs.

For the most part, nobody cares about the beliefs of those orthodox rabbis. It is the beliefs of most Jews that characterize Judaism.

Lesbian denied parental rights in Kentucky

A parents rights organization complains:

A recent appellate court decision in Kentucky casts doubt on the future of parental rights for unmarried same-sex partners.

Teri Whitehouse and Tammie Delaney were partners. The mutually agreed that Delaney would become pregnant via a sperm donor.

In her Circuit Court ruling, Judge McDonald had found that Teri Whitehouse and Tammie Delaney were in a romantic relationship and both fully participated in the decision to have a child, jointly chose a sperm donor, and held themselves out to the public as the child’s parents. The women had a commitment ceremony after the birth of the child, who referred to Whitehouse as “Momma.”

So Delaney was biologically related to the child, but Whitehouse was not. On that slender reed, Whitehouse was ruled to have no parental rights to custody or parenting time.

Slender reed? We have well-recognized legal processes for marriage and adoption.

Parents should have the rights and responsibilities over their kids. A parents rights organization should recognize that. A lesbian co-habitant is a not a parent unless she did an adoption.

That organization does a good job of promoting shared parenting, and I applaud them for that, but it appears that I do not agree with their underlying reasoning. They appear to rely too much on what the state believes is good for the child.

Some states have common law marriage, where you are legally married if you act as if you are married. Not as many states as there used to be. No states have common law adoption, as far as I know.

The leftist and LGBTQIA authoritarians are disrupting family law to the point where judges and social workers will have the power to dole out parental rights and responsibilities as they see fit. Kentucky will be considered backward for being slower than big states to adopt the trends.

After all, plenty of people – adoptive parents, stepparents - who raise kids don’t have a biological relationship to them. ...

The child in the Delaney-Whiteside case called Whiteside “Momma,” doubtless because she saw her that way. That the appellate court disagrees shouldn’t be what decides the child’s ability to maintain a relationship with the woman she considers one of her parents.

The child may call the nanny "Momma", but that should not nullify the rights of the legal parent.

There is a leftist plot to destroy the family. Same-sex marriage was just one step in the process.

Jews hate comparison to lizard people

Apparently the Jews now consider it anti-Semitic to promote lizard conspiracy theories.

Leftist-atheist-Jewish-evolutionst-blogger professor has all the opinions that you would expect, except that he criticizes what he calls the Regressive Left (and I call the Ctrl-Left), and supports free speech. Here is an example:

Here we have one more example of “intersectionalism” that, instead of dealing with combined oppressions, pits one marginalized group against another. This, of course, has fractured the Left in the last few years. There are two notable examples of how liberal values have collided. The first involves the collision between Muslims on the one hand, and feminists, Jews, and gays on the other. Since many Muslims and virtually all Muslim-majority countries oppress women and gays and often call for the killing of Jews, this pits sympathy for Muslims, seen as a “people of color”, against sympathy for women, Jews, and gays, also seen as marginalized groups.

The other is the collision between black and Jews, seen most prominently in the Women’s March fracas. Jews have long been oppressed (they’re the biggest victims of per capita hate crimes in the U.S/),

No, Jews have not been oppressed. That is just some crazy Jewish myth. In terms of money, power, and influence, they are the highest status group in the world.

It is not true that Jews are victims of hate crimes. The Jewish ADL says so, but that is only based on counting Jewish hoaxes. Someone did shoot some Jews in Pittsburgh, but that guy said that he was mad at them because they were bringing criminals into the USA, not because they were Jews.

while blacks of course are marginalized and have experienced a long history of segregation.  But Jews are now seen as pawns of the hated state of Israel, and so have been demonized by the Women’s March organizers and by Black Lives Matter. I see this as a great shame, as African-Americans and Jews have often been allies, most notably in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

These conflicts have been resolved by a simple rule: favor the most pigmented groups — Muslims in the first case and blacks in the latter. In other words, it’s become largely okay on the Left to ignore the oppression of minority groups by Muslims, with that oppression justified by the Qur’an and its interpretations.

It’s also okay, at least for the Women’s March and their sympathizers, to ignore the fact that Women’s March leaders are great admirers of a homophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic bigot, Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam. I hasten to add that there are plenty of people who have called out the “bigotry of low expectations”, but there’s no denying that the Collision of Oppressions has not only enervated the Left (the Women’s March is no longer seen as a completely progressive movement, and other women’s marches are splintering off), but also made our side look fractious and sometimes ridiculous to centrists and those on the Right.

Now we have another collision — again between blacks and Jews. This involves Alice Walker, a beloved black writer who deservedly won both a Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award for her book The Color Purple. She’s now been accused, justifiably, of not only promoting anti-Semitism but of being an anti-Semite herself.

This all started with this “By the Book” interview in the New York Times, in which Walker was asked to name and discuss the books she’s reading now.

The NY Times is run by mostly Jews for the benefit of its largely Jewish customers, so it is a little funny to accuse it of anti-Semitism.

Its crime here was to quote Walker saying that she was reading “And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” by David Icke. Coyne then quotes Jewish critics of Icke:

Walker’s reference to Icke was first called out by Tablet Magazine, pointing out his book’s numerous anti-Semitic statements. Among those are claims that Jews are “programmed to see themselves as God’s ’chosen people’” and that they are to blame for the prejudice and oppression they have faced. He calls the Talmud “among the most appallingly racist documents on the planet.” Despite the evidence, he maintains he is not an anti-Semite.

Jews are programmed to see themselves as God’s ’chosen people’. That is an obvious fact. If that is anti-Semitic, then so is the Bible.

Making a name for himself on his conspiracy preaching, Icke is a major proponent of the belief that lizard people control the world, a myth that began entering the news roughly 10 years ago. In 2015, Vox called his 1998 book, The Biggest Secret, “an important tome in lizard people theory.” In 2012, Icke spouted his theories in an extensive interview with Vice in which it was noted he’s convinced the moon is actually a hollow sphere used as a space station that manipulates the minds of the public. ...

More than anyone else, the British conspiracist David Icke has popularized the Alien version of New World Order conspiracy. The former sportscaster’s elaborate theory is the Sgt. Peppers album-cover of the genre, featuring the Masons, the Vatican, the Illuminati, the House of Windsor — everyone is there. At the center of the theory is an alien race of lizard people from the fifth-dimension. Though Icke has always denied trafficking in anti-Semitism, he has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — the famous forgery and foundational text of modern anti-Semitism — choosing to call it “The Illuminati Protocols.” ...

The Illuminati are the descendants of a race of shape-shifting, blood-drinking, child-sacrificing alien lizard people. “In simple terms, there is a predator race which take a reptilian form,” Icke told Vice in 2012. “They’re feeding off humanity. They’re turning humanity into a slave race. They demand human sacrifice — that’s where Satanism comes in. They feed off human energy. They feed off the energy of children.”

Many but not all of these evil lizard people are Jewish. Icke is fond of saying that the Rothschilds, a prominent wealthy Jewish family, are lizards. But he has also said that the British royal family the Windsors are too, and so is former President George W. Bush, neither of whom are Jewish. ...

Tablet lays out more of Icke’s anti-Semitic writings. What’s funny is that, as Vox notes, “Icke maintains that he is not an anti-Semite, and that he is criticizing not real Jews, but 12-foot-tall alien lizard people, many of whom seem to be posing as Jews.” I can’t stop laughing when I read that sentence.

The NY Times readers were so upset by this that it had to publish a couple of more articles defending itself quoting Walker.

When Jews complain about being an oppressed people, they usually mean that someone like Icke is promoting conspiracy theories. If lizard people could be plotting to take over the world, then maybe it is plausible that Jews are.

I don't know anything about Icke, but it is bizarre to see Jews complain about this stuff. Usually when Jews want to censor something, it is because there is a truth that they want to suppress.

If Icke were to somehow convince people of his lizard conspiracy theory, who would suffer? Surely George Soros would be fingered as a lizard man, and prosecutor Mueller would be seen as a tool of the lizard people. President Trump would be seen as a hero to the lizard resistance. That must be why Jews see Icke as dangerous.

Coyne summarizes:

it’s emblematic of what happens when the American Left, which seeks to regain political power in two years, turns on itself because it can’t decide who is more oppressed.  It’s also typical of the hypocrisy of much of the modern Left. If, for example, some right-wing American writer was asked what books she was reading, and the list included Mein Kampf or some modern anti-Semitic text, the  Times would be all over her like ugly on a frog. But this is Alice Walker, a much admired black writer, and so the Times doesn’t bother to criticize her, and only writes about the controversy when its hand is forced. This is just what the paper did when the leaders of the Women’s March were accused — by Tablet again — of being anti-Semitic. Don’t expect to see any discussion of this in the New Yorker!

Yes, the NY Times Jews would be triggered by an interviewee reading Mein Kampf, but the book is actually essential reading for anyone who want to understand World War II. It is not adequately summarized anywhere as far as I know.

Jews are always pushed for more education about the Jewish Holocaust. It is bizarre that they complain about reading primary documents on the subject.

Coyne says Walker is "much admired", but she is just a tool of the Ctrl-Left for attacking White men. She gains her status more from being a black woman, than for the crap she writes. No one would pay attention to a White man with her writing skills.

This story seems like just a case of Jews criticizing other Jews, but it reveals a lot. Coyne is an atheist who has written a whole book on how religion is factually incorrect. He opposes orthodox Judaism. So why would he defend the Talmud and Biblical beliefs about the Chosen People? Why would he even care about anti-Semitism?

One possibility is that Coyne is a lizard person himself. He wears just the sort of boots that you would expect a lizard person to wear. He conceals it because he is an evolutionist who understands that lizards are evolutionarily inferior ectotherms.

Another is that, even tho he has formally repudiated all supernatural beliefs and Biblical teachings, he has been programmed to identify with the Chosen Tribe. He does not even believe in free will, so he thinks that all people are programmed. His programming pre-dated his learning about atheism-evolutionism.

Regardless, Coyne has brilliantly exposed what the dominant media manipulators do to denigrate White Christian males and to undermine Western Civilization at every opportunity. Whether you call those media and culture manipulators the Regressive Left, Ctrl-Left, Jews, or lizard people is just terminology. There is an evil plot to destroy the world, and it surfaces as attempts to promote supposedly marginalized groups.

Free speech for white people

A Change.org petition demands the right of free speech to white people:

can’t say, “‘Diversity’ means chasing down the last white person.” (goo.gl/SG3FGd)

I can’t say, “EVERY white country and ONLY white countries are being flooded with third worlders, and whites are forced by law to integrate with them so as to ‘assimilate,’ i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.”

I can’t say, “Diversity is a code word for white genocide.” (goo.gl/3H136D)

I can’t say "White self-hatred is SICK!" (goo.gl/bkVLTC)

The enforcers of no-free-speech-for-whites say they’re anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

But if I say “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” I’m fired. (goo.gl/4HvCFw)

Free speech is denied to whites so that white genocide (goo.gl/6a6e25) can masquerade as "diversity."

I do think that white people should be able to talk about what is happening to whites, without getting fired.

Differences between Christians, Jews, and Moslems

People often minimize the differences between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They say that there is broad agreement on central issues like the Ten Commandments, and that the differences are obscure theological points, or opinions about the divinity of Jesus. You often hear "Judeo-Christian", as if there isn't much difference.

The differences are huge. The biggest differences between Christianity and Judaism are:

1. Tribalism. Jews are primarily concerned with what is good for the Jewish tribe, and others may as well be dogs. Christianity is universalist, and strives to save all mankind.

2. Forgiveness. Christians believe in forgiveness, to the point where all sins can be forgiven, and Christians are encouraged to forgive their enemies. Judaism's biggest holidays and beliefs center around hatred for their persecutors, and how those persecutors should never be forgiven.

3. Materialism. Jews are preoccupied with money and material goods, while Christians believe that the soul and afterlife are much more important.

The biggest differences between Christianity and Islam are:

1. Fatalism. Christians believe man has the free will to do good works and avoid sin. Moslems are fatalists who say Allah has willed whatever they do.

2. Jihad. Moslems believe in killing infidels, while Christians can co-exist with many different belief systems.

3. Government. Christians believe that religion is separate from government, law, and business. Moslems object to any such distinction, and believe that Islamic law should control government and everything else.

These differences are so great that I wonder whether the concept of "freedom of religion" makes any sense. The concept was invented to protect Christian denominations from each other. Christians can tolerate other theological beliefs, but the above beliefs of Jews and Moslems are not even legitimately religious, in the view of many Christians. They are mostly just non-religious excuses for taking advantage of Christians.

Jews and Moslems do not choose their religion. They are born that way, or they accept it as a condition of marriage. To deny free will is to accept the life of a slave. Beliefs in taking over government and killing infidels are not compatible with freedom of religion. Many American Jews do not believe in God or have any beliefs that Christians would recognize as religious.

The USA First Amendment should be reinterpreted to understand religion in a Christian context. And we should be reluctant to accept immigrants who belong to a religion that is hostile to Christianity and to American freedoms. There are about 50 Moslem countries already. One of the requirements for naturalization is good moral character, and that requirement used to be taken more seriously.

Merry Christmas.

Jews find Muslim to attack Christianity

When the Jews at the NY Times want to attack Christianity, they often find non-Jews to do their dirty work for them. This time it is a Muslim named Wajahat Ali. He claims his expertise based on attending a Catholic high school where he read the King James Bible and got As in religious studies classes. I am skeptical about this, because Catholic schools do not use the King James Bible.

He brags about the compassion shown by his selfless service, where he did the 100 hours of community service that his school required. No, that is not selfless service. That is just doing required homework to get a degree.

He complains about "the hypocrisy of white Evangelical Christians" who support Trump, even tho the Bible says that faith alone will not save them. Actually those evangelicals do believe that faith alone with save them.

His main message is to say that Jesus would have favored unlimited illegal immigration for Muslims and gays into the USA, and therefore reject President Trump.

What does Trump have to do with gays? Muslims are the ones who believe in killing homosexuals. My guess is that the word was inserted by a Jewish editor. It is the non-orthodox leftist Jews who always bring up sodomy to show how enlightened they are. No other culture does that.

Muslim countries do not allow immigration from other religions. They do not allow gays either.

Christianity does not favor unlimited immigration. It does not favor suicidal policies either. Muslims and Jews are just pushing for Christian suicide, and the evangelicals who support Trump are not fooled.

This yet another hate article. The goal here is White Christian extermination. Jews know that they don't have enough bodies to displace Christians, so they use Muslims for the purpose. As long as they can manipulate the Muslims to insert pro-gay propaganda into their essays, I guess.

Merry Christmas.

Jordan Peterson is leading a lobster cult

Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychology professor who has developed an amazing cult following. Millions have heard his message, and thousands say he changed their lives.

A lot of what he says is very sensible, and I think he is doing more good than harm, so I don't want to criticize him too much. But he is a slippery character.

He seems to have mastered mind control techniques that make a great cult leader. He convinces right-wingers that he is a right-winger, left-wingers that he is a left-winger, and Christians that he is a Christian. He is none of those things. He appears to be wired into a great many sources of wisdom, such as academic research, the Bible, great literature, great thinkers, and psychotherapy experience. Some of this is interesting, but often he is just bullshitting. He is expert at appearing reasonable, decisive, and emphatic all at the same time.

He apparently honed these techniques with 20 years of being a professor and psychotherapist.

He first got wide attention by protesting a Canadian law about use of gendered pronouns. But seems like a principled political stand is really just a combination of his stubbornness and his antiquated worldview. Ten years ago almost everyone would have objected to the Canadian law, so he is getting credit for being ten years behind everyone else.

Nevertheless, I am in awe of how he has used the issue to gain publicity for himself. I am also in awe of his use of mind control techniques. He says he now makes about $1 million a month from his videos, speeches, books, and interviews.

To a flavor of Peterson, here is a sample from his most famous interview:

Newman: “Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?”

Peterson: “That is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters’ evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.”

This is genius. His followers love this stuff. He smoothly blends science with psychobabble, and does it with a style that impresses you that he is the master and the interviewer is a novice student. He is the cult leader, and others are mere lobsters.

Insurance company pushes miscegenation

I just got this Blue Shield of California ad in the mail.

I am wondering what the intended message is here. A black man is holding the hand and abdomen of a white woman. Does that somehow symbolize "the coverage you want, the care you trust"?

In the USA today, when a white woman is impregnated by a black man, he disappears about 95% of the time. Not that the man necessarily deserves more blame than the woman, but the child is extremely unlikely to reach age 18 with both parents in residence.

So the image seems to symbolize an insurance company that will disappear at the first sign of trouble. It does not symbolize trustworthy coverage or care.

Before you comment that interracial marriage is legal, that is beside the point. Blue Shield made a very deliberate decision to identify its image with a very black man sexually dominating a pretty young white woman. In the old South, a black man might be lynched for sexually violating a pretty young white woman.

It seems to me that Blue Cross is making a political statement here. It is celebrating the fact that the white society can no longer protect its women from black men. To prove it, we have millions of mulatto kids being raised by single moms. Barack Obama was one.

Emerging White Identity leaving Democrats

Thomas B. Edsall writes in the NY Times:

In the 1950s, the Democratic coalition was 87 percent white and 13 percent minority, according to the American National Election Studies; it is now 59 percent white and 41 percent minority, according to Pew Research. ...

For Democrats to counter Trump effectively, a number of scholars believe it is essential to understand the motivations — the needs, beliefs and agendas — of those whites who have moved into the Trump camp.

Edsall explains that white identity political position is developing. Furthermore, research has shown that it is not based on animosity towards other races. In surveys, the Whites might say "blacks should work their way up without any special favors", but they say the exact same thing about Lithuanians.

Whites are being driven to the Republican party by anti-white-male hatred among the Democrats. Elizabeth Warren is embarrassed to be White, and pretends to be Cherokee. Kamala Harris looks black enough to qualify as a white-hater, so she is also considered a presidential candidate.

According to this recent Fox News poll, the group scoring the highest approve for President Trump is Republican women, at 93%. This is even higher than Republican men, at 85%. White score 53%. Even Trump voters only rate him 91%.

87% of Democrat women disapprove of Trump.

The poll does not separate married and unmarried women.

Apparently Whites are bifurcating into Whites who are proud of their identity, without animosity towards other races, and Whites like Warren who are ashamed of who they are, and own political debts to white-haters.

Women are bifurcating into Trump lovers and haters. Happily married white women usually like Trump, while bitter feminist unmarried women hate him.

Six MeToo Lessons in 2018

The MeToo stories of the last year have convinced me of many things.

1. Most people judge men by whether they gain the approval of women. Both men and women place great value on getting the approval of women.

For example, do you ever hear some man recite some ridiculous feminist opinion? No it is not really his opinion. He has just been trained like a dog to seek the approval of women.

Not everyone, of course. Many alpha men, like Donald Trump, seem utterly indifferent to the approval of women.

2. Many will accuse a man of autism or possibly being a criminal predator if a interaction with a woman is botched.

Autism is widely described as a communication disability. But even when a man clearly and unambiguous declares someone about himself, and a woman misunderstands him, people will say that there must have been something wrong with the man that he did not make himself understood.

No, most of the time it is the woman with the communication problem.

3. Most people do not seem to understand that flirting is inherently ambiguous. If done right, you cannot be sure of the intentions of whoever is flirting.

Often a man will be accused of attempting a seduction just because he made a flirting comment.

To see how absurd this is, a woman wearing lipstick is a form of flirting. The main purpose of lipstick is for a woman to advertise her sexual availability. But women also wear lipstick when they are not looking for a sexual encounter.

4. Few believe in "innocent until proven guilty". In today's MeToo stories, no man gets the benefit of the doubt. If a story sounds like it could have happened, then the man is guilty until proven innocent.

5. You cannot resolve a dispute by listening to one side of the story. Alan Greenspan likes to make this point. A criminal indictment often sounds very convincing, until you hear the alibi or the proof that someone else committed the crime.

6. MeToo complaints will accelerate as long as women can get away with bogus accusations. It is analogous to spammer sending spam as long as it is cheap and easy. You cannot expect it to stop just because it is immoral or damaging. It can only be stopped by active measures to shut it down.

For another analogy, there is an old joke: "Why does a dog lick his testicles? Because he can." It is the same with women. They make MeToo accusations because they can.

Boycotting Tucker Carlson is racist

Tucker Carlson is getting heat for this:

“It’s obvious that we need more scientists and skilled engineers, but that’s not what we’re getting. Instead, we’re getting waves of people with high school educations or less. Nice people. No one doubts that. But as an economic matter, this is insane. It’s indefensible, so nobody even tries to defend it. Instead, our leaders demand that you shut up and accept this. We have a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor they tell us, even if it makes our own country poorer, dirtier and more divided.”

It is amusing to see holier-than-thou leftists calling him a racist for this.

Anyone who criticizes Carlson, without actually defending what he says is indefensible, is just making his point.

Also, the negation of a racist opinion is usually racist. If it is racists to say that importing Mexican immigrants is bad for the USA, then it is also racist to say that it is good for the USA. Neither opinion is really racist, because there are a lot of immigration factors besides race, but to the extent one view is racist, so is the other.

Argentine Ants

Wonder what strong ethnic identities lead to?

An example in the animal world is Argentine ants. They are all very closely related. They get along with other Argentine ants, even if not from the same colony. But when they enounter other ants, they fight to the death.

The result is that Argentine ants displace other species of ants. If an area has a diverse population of ants, with different species in different colonies, the Argentine ants will eventually take over and wipe out the other ants.

If you were a non-Argentine ant in charge of an ant colony, would you tolerate Argentine ants? No, that would be suicidal. The sensible strategy for non-Argentine ants is to kill Argentine ants at every opportunity.

Evolution is described as "survival of the fittest", but "fittest" means having a winning survival strategy. That's what the Argentine ants have, as long as they are tolerated by others.

The nature-nurture war is over

Professor Robert Plomin writes in SciAm:

During the past four decades, scientists have conducted long-term studies on special relatives like twins and adoptees to test the effects of nature and nurture. This research has built a mountain of evidence showing that genetics contributes importantly to all psychological differences between us. In fact, inherited DNA differences account for about 50 percent of the differences between us, in our personality, mental health and illness, and cognitive abilities and disabilities. ...

A second crucial discovery is that the environment works completely differently from the way environmentalists thought it worked. For most of the 20th century, environmental factors were called nurture because the family was thought to be crucial in determining environmentally who we become. Genetic research has shown that this is not the case. We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family. ...

The nature-nurture war is over. Nature wins, hands down.

Yes, that is generally accepted research.

The puzzling thing is that you probably assume that if DNA accounts for 50% of differences, then the environment accounts for the other 50%. The environmental causes in development would include whether you were spanked as a kid, whether you went to fancy schools, whether you played video games, etc. But the truth is that almost nothing is attributable to those measurable environmental factors.

To the extent that scientists can measure your psychological and behavior trait causes, they are maybe 50% genetic, 5% environmental, and 45% unexplained. You can think of the unexplained part as "random", but that is just another word for unexplained.

The genes in a population change slowly. A schooling policy towards a particular group is not likely to have noticeable effect. On the other hand, genetic changes can evolve over a millennium or so. So groups can have positive or negative qualities based on centuries of culture.

If you want to change a group for the better, you have to change the culture, start a eugenic plan, and wait a few centuries.

Who can do this today? No one in the West. Maybe China or Singapore or North Korea. The USA spends many billions of dollars on short-term plans that will do no good, and nothing on long-term plans that might do some good.

Evolving definition of domestic violence

Think you know what the term "domestic violence" means? Now it includes verbal coercion, which means talking somebody into something.

A parents group reports:

Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act will be considered by Congress in 2019. The reauthorization bill, H.B. 6545, is dangerously flawed and must be substantially amended. It contains a definition of domestic violence that is almost certainly unconstitutional, makes behavior actionable that non-violent couples routinely engage in and that can be part of healthy adult relationships. It likely would worsen domestic violence by overburdening police and courts with non-serious claims while increasing state intervention into family life.

Here is the definition proposed by H.B. 6545:

The term ‘domestic violence’ means a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim…

This definition does not include a one-time murder, because that is not a pattern of behavior. It does include nagging and a lot of completely normal behaviors.

If you hear some statistic like 10% or 50% or whatever of women or refugees or whatever have suffered domestic violence, remember this definition. I expect that nearly 100% of men and women have suffered years of domestic violence. Anything less than 100% means someone is amazingly conflict-free.

The actual US Constitution does mention the term:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. [sect. IV.4]

That was back when citizens had the liberty of the state not intervening in marriage or family life. A woman could leave or get a divorce of course, but not litigate marital life.

Autism and schizophrenia are opposites

Autism and schizophrenia are severe mental illnesses, but they can also be just a bunch of personality traits in high-IQ high-functioning people.

Psychiatrist Slate Star Codex writes:

There’s been a lot of discussion over whether schizophrenia is somehow the “opposite” of autism. Many of the genes that increase risk of autism decrease risk of schizophrenia, and vice versa. Autists have a smaller-than-normal corpus callosum; schizophrenics have a larger-than-normal one. Schizophrenics smoke so often that some researchers believe they have some kind of nicotine deficiency; autists have unusually low smoking rates. Schizophrenics are more susceptible to the rubber hand illusion and have weaker self-other boundaries in general; autists seem less susceptible and have stronger self-other boundaries. Autists can be pathologically rational but tend to be uncreative; schizophrenics can be pathologically creative but tend to be irrational. The list goes on.

We might finally get some hard science:

For the past two decades, scientists have been exploring the genetics of schizophrenia, autism and other brain disorders, looking for a path toward causation.

It may turn out that some positive brain traits can be credited to Neanderthal genes:

On Thursday, a team of scientists revealed that two pieces of Neanderthal DNA may have another effect: They may change the shape of our brains.

The study, published in the journal Current Biology, wasn’t designed to determine how Neanderthal genes influence thought — if they do so at all. Instead, the value of the research lies in its unprecedented glimpse into the genetic changes influencing the evolution of the human brain.

Someone commented:

Neanderthals were ethnically cleansed from Europe by the invaders from the South. Neanderthals had lower fertility rates than the invading Home Sapiens from Africa, thus were overwhelmed demographically. The peak population of Neanderthals was just 150,000, they had a low fertility rate and could not maintain their species when faced with an invasion of thousands of fertile Africans , who were set on raping all the neanderthal females and killing off the males. Some of the DNA from the few female neanderthals who mated with the invaders can still be found in the DNA of Europeans today.

The same process can be observed today in Europe. The aboriginal Europeans are declining in population, because they have a low fertility rate, they are being invaded from the south by more fertile ethnic clans and thus the aboriginal peoples of Europe will be extinct. It will take just another 200 years at the current rate..in 5,000 years the people living in Europe may well have traces of DNA from the caucasians who once populated Europe. Just as the people of Europe today have some trace DNA from the Neanderthals who once populated Europe.

It is commonly remarked that the African invaders had greater Darwinian fitness, but that just means that they reproduced more.

Jews fail to control feminist group

Feminism has been dominated by Jews over the last 60 years. Most of the leading feminists were Jewish women trying to force their Jewish values on everyone. For the most part, Jews have successfully concealed this connection.

Sometimes this is explained by saying that Jews may be found among the leaders of most of the anti-Christian social movements, such as Communism and other leftist causes, and even causes like libertarianism. There is some truth to this.

Now it appears that Jew-hating feminists have taken over the Women's March. The Jews are upset about this.

It is amazing that Jewish control of the feminist movement lasted so long. When feminists have complained about marriage, family, sex roles, etc., they were really just making a Jewish argument of questionable relevance to non-Jews.

If you mention Jewish involvement, you get accused of racism or anti-semitism:

Speaking on Fox News about the emerging left, Ann Coulter manages to offend everybody with her rant.

‘They all hate one another,’ she began.

‘I mean you have the Muslims and the Jews and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with the college queers.’

The only thing that keeps the Democratic base together is for them to keep focusing on: “No, white men are the ones keeping you down, you must hate white men.” It’s the only thing they all have in common.

On Ingraham’s Fox News show, Ann Coulter describes her version of the Dem party

“I mean you have the Muslims and the Jews and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with the college queers … you must hate white men. It’s the one thing they have in common”

Needless to say, her racist rant was not received well

‘This has to be one of the most racist things ever said on television. Advertisers, are you really going to support this?’ one Twitter user wrote.

What she says is factually correct. The main thing holding the Democrats together is hatred for White Christian men.

Update: For more on how Jews are losing control over the White-hating feminists, see this.

Update: According to this, the Jewish feminists brought on women of color in order to have a broader attack on white men, and were surprised by the anti-semitic and pro-sharia baggage. So they hired a public relations firm to tell Jewish journalists to delete their tweets citing a Jewish mag story criticizing the Women's March. It said: "Promise to delete your tweet about an article we don't like, and we might send you 'facts' you're not allowed to publish because journalism."

James Fields is sentenced to life

The NY Times reports:

In August 2017, Mr. Fields traveled from Ohio to attend the Unite the Right rally, where swastika-toting white supremacists swarmed the streets and clashed with counterprotesters. In an attack that killed a 32-year-old woman, Heather Heyer, Mr. Fields sped down a narrow street packed with counterprotesters, many who were on their way home after the authorities shut down the demonstration.

The jury’s complete sentence recommendation included life in prison for first-degree murder, as well as 419 years of prison time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for the lesser charges. Mr. Fields faces a second trial on federal hate crime charges, which could result in the death penalty.

I wonder if Fields had a competent defense. He did not testify in his own defense.

Usually defendants do not testify, but what did he have to lose? Even if he is a lousy witness, he might convince jurors that this was not premeditated murder.

I saw the video recording, and it was ambiguous as to whether he was acting deliberately, or responding in panic to rioters.

Heyer stood out as 4'11" and 330 pounds, but I doubt that Fields was trying to hit her.

Organizers chose Charlottesville as the site of the Unite the Right rally as a rebuke to the proposed removal of monuments to Confederate generals in the city. The protests started on the University of Virginia campus with a march of hundreds of torch-bearing demonstrators, many of them shouting phrases like, “You will not replace us,” and “Jews will not replace us.”

Those organizers were gone by the time of the Fields car incident, because the city canceled the rally.

The NY Times frequently complains about someone saying “Jews will not replace us.” It refers to Jews at the NY Times and elsewhere advocating importing millions of non-whites to replace the white population.

Cucked Democrats favor Moslems

Breitbart reports:

Poll Shows Huge Democrat Bias Toward Muslims Over Christians

Sixty-eight percent of Democrats say employers should grant a request for prayer space by Muslims — but only 45 percent say employers should grant a similar request by Christian employees, says a survey by Grinnell College. ...

Thirty percent of Republicans say employers should provide a prayer space for Muslim employees and 40 percent say employers should support a similar service for Christians, according to the Grinnell College poll of roughly 500 people.

This is amazing. There are not enough Muslim or Jewish voters to account for these kind of differences.

If there were no bias, Christians would expect Christian perks in a Christian society. We can't have holidays for every religion, so we have holidays in accordance with the dominant religion.

Democrats have apparently been brainwashed to accept overtly anti-Christian policies. Presumably even Christians are so cucked that they want to give superior religious rights to a hostile religion.

Save us from all the foolish Psychology beliefs

The Atlantic mag reports:

Over the past few years, an international team of almost 200 psychologists has been trying to repeat a set of previously published experiments from its field, to see if it can get the same results. Despite its best efforts, the project, called Many Labs 2, has only succeeded in 14 out of 28 cases. Six years ago, that might have been shocking. Now it comes as expected (if still somewhat disturbing) news. ...

That failure rate is especially galling, says Simine Vazire from the University of California at Davis, because the Many Labs 2 teams tried to replicate studies that had made a big splash and been highly cited.

When is anyone going to admit that Pychology is a just a pseudoscience like Astrology?

I am beginning to think that Psychology is just a goofy belief system that Jews have.

Sigmund Freud was the most highly revered psychologist of the XX century, but none of his major theories had any scientific merit. And yet Jews treat him as a great scientific genius, and lots of psychiatrists and psychologists make their money by treating Jewish neuroses.

Psychologists are mostly leftist, effeminate, and mentally unstable. Their beliefs and practices are mostly quackery. When they get involved in some social issue, it is usually something twisted like promoting sexual identity confusion or attacking parental rights.

Intellectually, the fields of Psychology and Psychiatry are dominated by Jews and Jewish values.

Maybe it is time to say that Psychology is a form of Jewish madness like Marxism or Kosherism, and should be regarded as a Jewish religious practice that should have no bearing on non-Jews.

Leftists are now the evolution opponents

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:

Evolutionary biology gets squeezed from both the Right (many of whose adherents simply deny evolution) and now from the Left as well. A moiety of the Left, as I’ve written here frequently, has ideological reasons for attacking parts of evolutionary biology, especially those parts that involve genetics and behavior. So, for example, we see these kinds of views:

1.) Psychological and behavioral differences between men and women are culturally based without evolutionary underpinnings.

2.) There are no meaningful genetic differences between ethnic groups, or “races”, if you will.

3.) In a recent development, there are now common claims that there are not two sexes in humans: that sex is a spectrum, with the implication that it’s continuous.

The evolutionists are fond of attacking those who believe in the Bible, or in intelligent design. But these beliefs don't really have direct practical consequences.

Meanwhile, the Ctrl Left denies evolution in a way that does have direct consequences. Currently, they use bad science to attack the Trump administration.

Update: Coyne also notes that the NY Times published an op-ed saying male and female brains are the same, without mentioning that the cited research has been rebutted:

Ideology trumps science once again: Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine deny the notion of “male vs. female brains” ...

Yet on the same page of Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. where their article appears, there is a note that there are four rebuttals to the paper of Joel et al.:

This article has a reply. Please see:

Multivariate revisit to “sex beyond the genitalia”
Yes, there is a female and a male brain: Morphology versus functionality
Patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females
Joel et al.’s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences

The titles more or less tell you what’s going on: multivariate analyses are actually quite good at discriminating male and female brains into two groups.

NY Times trashes whites again

The NY Times has another Jewish rant about how everybody hates the Jews. It is by their editor Bari Weiss:

Nearly a quarter of the [European] respondents said Jews have too much influence in conflict and wars. More than a quarter believe that Jews have too much influence in business and finance. Nearly one in five believe that most anti-Semitism is a response to the behavior of Jews. Roughly a third say Jews use the Holocaust to advance their own goals. Just 54 percent say Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.

It’s no wonder that to be a Jew in Europe today is to live your life in the closet.

This is like blacks complaining about how many blacks are criminals.

Only 54% are pro-Israel? What percentage of Jews say that France or England has a right to exist as a White Christian state? It would be far less than 54%. Maybe even 0%.

Her examples show that European Christians are far more tolerant of Jews than Jews are of Christians.

All of the links to anti-Semitism in the essay are to Muslims and leftists. And yet she says:

The biggest threat is on the far right. This is the anti-Semitism of “Jews will not replace us” marchers in Charlottesville, Va.

Here she reveals the main goal of herself and her fellow Jews is the extermination of White Christians. If White Christians declare that they are against a program of Jews plotting to replace them, then she announces her hatred for those whites.

Yes, she says she is concerned about Muslims killing Jews, and about Leftists denouncing Israel. But the biggest threat to Jews is the right-wingers who object to Jewish plans to demographically replace whites.

This is not a KKK publication saying this. This is the Jewish NY Times saying that it is anti-Semitic to object to White Genocide. The NY Times has previously published essays with Jews advocating replacing whites.

The whole essay is based on the premise that Jews are better than everyone else. There is no argument that Jews are treated worse than any other group. It pretends to give some scientific-sounding data, but there is no comparison to facts, and no control group.

Consider her statement that "Nearly one in five believe that most anti-Semitism is a response to the behavior of Jews." Okay, but it appears to be true that most of what she calls anti-Semitism is indeed a response to the behavior of Jews. She gives no evidence to the contrary.

If there were a control group, a comparison would be made to attributing anti-Moslem attitudes to behavior of Moslems. Without such a control group, it is pretty meaningless to poll attitudes towards Jews.

But Jews don't believe in comparing to control groups, because Jews believe believe that they are so special that they cannot be compared to any other group. In some European countries, Jews have even made it a crime to compare the Jewish Holocaust to any other historical tragedy.

Anti-Semitism is mainly just some sick delusion that Jews have. It is hard to find any examples of actual anti-Semitism.

For example a lot of people complain about George Soros, but 99% of the time there is no mention of the fact that he is a Jew seeking White Genocide.

The NY Times Jews say that Israel is entitled to be a Jewish ethno-state, but no country can be a White Christian ethno-state. Anyone who objects is called anti-Semitic. CNN even fired someone for saying Israeli Jews should share power with non-Jews. The NY Times Jews say that Jews are entitled to demographically replace whites with non-whites. Again, anyone who objects is called anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, Christians are being persecuted:

Christians who were the first founders of the church are on brink of “imminent extinction”, the Archbishop of Canterbury is warning.

Describing the “daily threat of murder” faced in the Middle East, the Most Reverend Justin Welby says Christians are experiencing “the worst situation since the Mongol invasions of the 13th Century”.