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”.

CNN fires black for not being Zionist

CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill for a statement siding with Palestinian Arabs against Israel. He said that he favored a one-state solution. He said:

We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grass-roots action, local action and international action that will give us what justice requires and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.

The obvious explanation: The Jews control the news media. Hill was a black professor who got large amounts of air time as long as he was trashing white Americans. But as soon as he says something that displeases his Jewish slavemasters, he is fired.

CNN complains constantly about supposed Russian influence on the 2016, but that was a small fraction of 1% of the Jewish influence on the election.

I have never liked Hill. I've criticized him on this blog. I disagree with most of what he says. I don't agree with his support of Palestinian Arabs either.

But advocating a single Arab-Jewish country of Palestine is not a particularly unusual position.

CNN cried free speech when its misbehaving reporter did not get to ask all his questions at a White House press conference. But CNN opposes free speech whenever it offends Jews, such as here.

Science journal denies sex has scientific basis

Nature, the leading British science journal, editorializes:

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based solely and immutably on the genitals they are born with. Genetic testing, it says, could be used to resolve any ambiguity about external appearance. ...

The memo claims that processes for deciding the sex on a birth certificate will be “clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable”.

The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour.

This distinction between sex and gender does not seem like progress to me. But assuming that distinction, the HHS memo is only about sex, not gender, so all the gender gripes are irrelevant.

Determining sex by genitals and genetic testing certainly does have a basis in science, as that is how scientists usually make the determination.

The idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person’s sex or gender is fundamentally flawed. Just ask sports organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which have struggled with this for decades.

The IOC certainly does make definitive conclusions about the sex of competitors. It only gives female medals to females.

This just proves that the science authorities have gone nuts with political ideology.

For another example, see how physicists are censoring facts about the job market for men and women physicists:

But the CERN suspension wasn’t enough for some members of the academic physics community. A public letter condemning Strumia, co-authored by 18 mostly U.S. based physicists, was posted on a website calling itself Particles for Justice. To date, the letter has received thousands of scientists’ signatures.

I’ve read a lot of public statements by far-left intellectuals, but I think this one might be the most unhinged I’ve ever seen. It begins with a histrionic assertion that the “humanity of any person, regardless of ascribed identities …” is “not up for debate.” ...

Strumia’s basic argument is that when feminists claim that something must be done about physics’ so-called woman problem, and when it can be shown that less-qualified women are being hired in place of more qualified men, then feminist policies are causing discrimination against men in physics.

For examples of how far gone our cultural transgender sickness has gone, see this:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.

See also this:

A Texas father is fighting for his son in court after pushing back on his ex-wife's claim that their six-year-old is a transgender girl.

According to court documents, the young boy only dresses as a girl when he's with his mother, who has enrolled him in first-grade as a female named "Luna." The father, however, contends that his son consistently chooses to wear boy's clothes, "violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home," and identifies as a boy when he is with him.

The Federalist reports that the mother has accused the father of child abuse in their divorce proceedings "for not affirming James as transgender" and is looking to strip the dad of his parental rights.

There is no evidence that transgendering a six-year-old has ever been beneficial.

Now saying simple facts like "men aren't women" can get you permanently banned from Twitter, with the approval of the NY Times.

Crazy opinions from bioethicists

Professional medical ethicists have very strange opinions. Here is an example:

A 70-year old man with advanced cancer was expected to die imminently and was admitted to a hospital pallative care ward in severe pain. While being assessed by a junior doctor, the man expressed a wish to talk about “his life and some of the choices he had made”.

After being assured that what he said would be kept confidential, patient reported that he had been involved with gangs in his youth, and that he had murdered ‘several people’ in contract killings. According to Tincknell et al., “he thought the bodies of some these people may not have been found.” The patient expressed guilt over what he had done, and said that he had spent the last 40 years of his life trying to atone for his crimes. ...

It seems that the doctors did, in the end, tell the police about the patient’s confession, after his death – at least I assume this is what the lawyer means by “The team was permitted, but not obliged, to disclose. The discretion was exercised.”

No, this is crazy. A cancer doctor may have an obligation to keep the cancer diagnosis confidential, but not to cover up murders. If the patient wanted to do a confession, they should have called a priest or a cop.

Here is another bioethicist, writing in the NY Times:

Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?

The platform has been used to disrupt elections, disseminate propaganda and promote hate. Regular users should ask if they are implicated in these failings.

I joined Facebook in 2008, and for the most part, I have benefited from being on it. Lately, however, I have wondered whether I should delete my Facebook account. As a philosopher with a special interest in ethics, I am using “should” in the moral sense. That is, in light of recent events implicating Facebook in objectionable behavior, is there a duty to leave it? ...

For those of us who do not engage in such objectionable behavior, it is helpful to consider whether Facebook has crossed certain moral “red lines,” entering the realm of outright wickedness.

I personally think that it would be great if millions of ppl left Facebook, and joined rival services, but this is ridiculous.

The author seems to be sucked in by NY Times propaganda that Donald Trump only won the 2016 election because Russians or data brokers somehow tricked Facebook. Facebook is run by leftists, and the NY Times thinks that it should have done a better job of supporting H. Clinton.

The chief complaints are that FB users are able to communicate with each other, with messages that might be disagreeable to the Left. Or that political candidates might to some targeted marketing.

If FB became unavailable, there are many other ways of doing those things. What is bad about them anyway?

FB is bad for censoring conservatives, but that is not mentioned.

I cannot remember the last time I heard a bioethicist say something sensible.

Update: I didn't even mention all the silly complaints about China practicing eugenics with CRISPR this week.

Jews want to censor Bible and Koran

The London Daily Mail reports:

Jewish leaders are calling for new editions of the Bible and Koran to carry warning messages which highlight anti-Semitic passages in the holy texts.

The recommendations have been made in a new document called ‘An End to Antisemitism! A Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism’.

It was produced following an international conference organised by the European Jewish Congress, at which academics gathered to discuss how prejudice and discrimination can be tackled. ...

There are several themes in the New Testament that have come under fire for their use as justification for anti-Semitic attitudes.

These include the blame of Jews for the death of Jesus and the seemingly stubborn nature of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.

While there are some negative remarks about Jews in the Koran, and negative portrayals of the people.

It is not enough to censor history textbooks and pass laws against criticism of their religious beliefs, I guess.

I have never heard of other religions trying to change Jewish holy books. Only Jews are so determined to control what everyone else thinks.

Comparing immigration to nuclear power

Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan compares immigration to nuclear power:

Immigration has the ability to double the wealth produced by all mankind. But only 3% of people on Earth are migrants.Why is something so great so rare?

Because government strangles immigration with regulation.

Why do governments strangle it?

Because immigration is unpopular.

Why is it so unpopular?

First, innumeracy. The gains of immigration vastly outweigh all the complaints put together, but the complaints are emotionally gripping. Deaths from immigrant crime are horrifying; vastly higher fatalities from native crime are not. Even immigrant outrages that kill zero people get worldwide media attention, fueling draconian populist regulation.

Second, spookiness. Economically illiterate people can imagine endless far-fetched dangers of immigration. And at risk of sounding elitist, almost everyone is economically illiterate.

Okay, so I am against immigration because I am innumerate and economically illiterate. I am just too dumb to understand the proof of net benefits to immigration.

So I looked at his paper on the subject, so I could educate myself:

In the United States, housing prices and rents rise by roughly 1 percent when immigration raises a city's population by 1 percent (Saiz 2007, 2003). Gonzalez and Ortega (2009) find an even larger effect for Spain. Since Americans own almost all American residential real estate, immigration is a quiet but massive transfer from immigrants to native homeowners. In an era of massive bailouts for underwater mortgages, taxpayers benefit too. ...

Vaguer cultural complaints are harder to evaluate. However, if we equate "culture" with "high culture" or "popular culture," we see a curious pattern. America's top two cultural centers, California and New York, have the largest foreign-born populations in the country - 26 percent and 20 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). While states with few immigrants-like Alabama (2 percent foreign-born), Arkansas (3 percent), Montana (2 percent), North Dakota (2 percent), South Dakota (2 percent), and West Virginia (1 percent)-enjoy great natural beauty, even their tourism bureaus would not paint them as cultural meccas. ...

Millions of Haitians want to move here. Millions of American landlords, employers, and stores would be happy to house, hire, and feed them. For the U.S. government to criminalize these transactions for no good reason is not merely uncharitable. It is unjust.

No, raising housing costs is not a benefit.

I guess some could benefit. If you own your house and have no kids, then rising housing prices makes it profitable to sell out and retire to South America. But the vast majority of Americans are not helped by rising housing prices. On the contrary, it puts them in debt and makes it very difficult for their kids to ever own a home.

Most Americans do not envy the culture of New York City, Los Angeles, and San Jose. California culture was much superior 50 years ago when it was 85% white.

Maybe some employers would be happy to hire Haitians, but most people do not want their neighborhood turned into something resembling Haiti.

Caplan says we could make the Haitians learn English, or charge them a tax for whatever inconveniences they cause. No, that is just crazy talk. Go visit Haiti if you think Haitians are so desirable.

All these arguments that immigration is a net economic benefit are just nonsense. The reasoning is backwards. He does not accept that there is a cost to making America more like Haiti.

On the other hand, nuclear power is a net benefit, especially if you believe that carbon emissions are harmful.

Left celebrates the subjugation of whites

The NY Times reports:

The graphic was splashy by the Census Bureau’s standards and it showed an unmistakable moment in America’s future: the year 2044, when white Americans were projected to fall below half the population and lose their majority status. ...

For white nationalists, it signifies a kind of doomsday clock counting down to the end of racial and cultural dominance. For progressives who seek an end to Republican power, the year points to inevitable political triumph, when they imagine voters of color will rise up and hand victories to the Democratic Party. ...

“It was conquest, our day has come,” he said of their reaction. “They wanted to overpower them with numbers. It was demographic destiny.”

If you are wondering what this means, you don't have to wait. Just visit Detroit, which went from 90% white to 10%, or California, which went from 85% white to 30%.

It is common for non-whites and non-Christians to celebrate this change, and advocate increased immigration in order to accelerate the change. Jewish publications like the NY Times regularly say that using demographics to destroy white society and culture is a good thing.

Anyone with an opposing view is denounced in the strongest terms.

The Daily Stormer trolls Jews a lot, so I don't know if they are serious about this, but they write:

And the bottom line is that the Jews are right: anything right-wing eventually leads to them being purged, pogromed, and at this point, probably just outright exterminated completely. That is what is at stake for them. They know that, I know that, anyone who knows anything knows that.

No, I don't know that, and I don't believe it. But everyone at the NY Times, Wash. Post, and CNN acts as if it is true. If Pres. Trump says anything right-wing, he is immediately compared to Hitler. They refuse to publish any right-wing views.

It is hard to find any right-wingers who have any hostility towards Jews. It is also hard to find Jews in the mainstream news media who are not aligned with policies for the extermination of white Christians.

Trashing Jordan Peterson

Milo Yiannopoulos trashes Peterson:

Jordan Peterson has repeatedly betrayed everything he says he believes in for his own expediency, convenience and profit, at precisely the time it mattered most, and then lied about it all.

Milo and Vox Day take Peterson way too seriously. Vox Day writes:

Jordan Peterson is believed by many to be the greatest thinker that humanity has ever known. He is Father Figure, Philosopher-King, and Prophet to the millions of young men who are his most fervent fans. He is the central figure of the Intellectual Dark Web, an academic superstar, and an unparalleled media phenomenon who has shattered all conceptions of what it means to be modern celebrity in the Internet Age.

He has, by his own admission, thought thoughts that no one has ever thought before. He has dreamed dreams that no one has ever dared to dream before.

But Jordan Peterson is also a narcissist, a charlatan, and an intellectual con man who doesn't even bother to learn much about the subjects upon which he lectures. He is a defender of free speech who silences other speakers, a fearless free-thinker who runs away from debate, difficult questions, and controversial issues, a philosopher who rejects the conventional definition of truth, and a learned professor who has failed to read most of the great classics of the Western canon. He is, in short, a shameless and unrepentant fraud.

His fans also take him way too seriously. Peterson now has an amazing cult following, but he is just a psychology professor. The farther he gets from the subject of psychology, the more dubious his opinions.

Even some of his psychology is a little wacky, as he is a big believer in Jung and says:

I learned as a psychotherapist not to solve my clients' problems. You're a bad therapist if you offer advice. [Slovenia talk, at 0:52:40]

I just saw a conversation between two other public intellectuals, Steve Pinker and Michael Shermer. Their training is in psychology also. Why does anything think that a psychologist would have any wisdom outside psychology?

Psychology is a field that is overrun by kooks. Much of the textbook knowledge is based on sloppy research, and is probably false.

Here is a recent debate between psychologists over whether parenting practices have any beneficial effects on children:

But what if it’s all bunk? What if parenting doesn’t make much of a difference at all to the way our kids turn out? That’s the argument that will be made by the genetics experts in this major Intelligence Squared debate. We all know about the nature vs nurture argument, but it’s only recently that evidence has emerged revealing just how much of who we are is influenced by our DNA – from our personality and our likelihood of developing mental illness to how well we do at school. We might think that certain parenting styles produce certain kinds of children – for example, that overprotective parents cause their offspring to be anxious. But in fact, research suggests that these traits are manifestations of the same genetic influence working in both the parents and children.

See this summary or wait for the podcast to be available.

Isn't this one of the most basic questions of psychology? If psychologists cannot agree on an answer to this, then why would you listen to their answers to other questions, like global warming?

Left is inverting the natural order

Roosh V. writes:

We are now living in the last stage of a plan to invert the individual and society from natural order. The plan will be deemed a success when most human beings on the planet live inverted to their biology and nature, and come to believe that an inverted reality has always been a normal state of affairs.

The elites are performing the inversion to weaken man to such an extent that their rule will never be threatened. In effect, they are creating a permanent slave class that will be as incapable of overthrowing their masters as a herd of cows is incapable of killing the farmer who owns them, even though those cows descended from powerful bulls that could only be handled with specialized training or weapons.

1. Heterosexual sex is rape
2. Nuclear families are fascism
3. Merit is privilege
4. Pedophilia is natural
5. Beauty is ugly
6. Feminine is masculine
7. White is not right
8. Science is God

Amazon has banned some of his books. Too bad. His stuff is worth reading.

New journal for controversial papers

Haixin Dang and Joshua Habgood-Coote attack anonymous publications:

The Journal of Controversial Ideas is Barthes’ idea made manifest – it proposes to allow academics to publish papers on controversial topics under a pseudonym. The hope is that this will allow researchers to write freely on controversial topics without the danger of social disapproval or threats. Thus the journal removes the author’s motivations, conflicts of interests and worldview from the presentation of a potentially controversial idea. This proposal heralds the death of the academic author – and, unlike Barthes, we think believe this is a bad thing. ...

The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – the world’s longest-running scientific journal – was initially published without the names of researchers who carried out the experiments. It was only after the development of the legal institution of authorship in the 17th century that named authors become the norm.

The Victorian bestseller, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which put forward an early version of evolutionary theory, was initially published anonymously. Its readers had to wait 40 years and 12 editions to discover that it was written by Robert Chambers. Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population, which develops his theory of population growth, was also first published anonymously.

More recently, there are some notable examples of pseudonymous authorship. Starting in 1939, a rotating group of mathematicians have used the collective pseudonym “Nicolas Bourbaki” to publish the ongoing Elements of Mathematics series, which has 11 volumes published over 70 years. ...

But the most important function of having authors is to facilitate responsible publishing. If the 1998 Lancet paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism had not listed Andrew Wakefield as its lead author, it would not have been possible to hold him to account for producing fraudulent work, or for contributing to a dangerous anti-vaccination narrative. Authorial responsibility has both an intellectual and a moral flavour: we want to hold people responsible both for producing shoddy research, and for the moral consequences of their publications.

Really? Wakefield is their best example?

Wakefield had some legitimate reasons for linking MMR vaccination to autism. Instead of just doing the research to test his hypotheses, much of the vaccine industry instead focused on personal retaliations against Wakefield, such as stripping him of his medical license.

The above authors are obviously part of the Ctrl Left that has taken over academia, and seeks to use name-calling and shaming in an attempt to control what gets published. There is legitimate research that might be published, except that it would make enemies among the Ctrl Left.

Woman wants laws to regulate online hookups

I am convinced that legal trends will result in legalized prostitution.

A female law professor found her second husband on an online hookup site, and now writes a scholarly essay and Wash Post op-ed arguing that lying on online hookup sites is a form a fraud that ought to be prosecuted under the law.

Anyone who uses an online dating site — Tinder, Bumble and the rest — quickly learns that people don’t always look like their photos, they sometimes add an inch or two to their height and maybe they fudge their weight. One study found that 80 percent of people lie in their profiles. Many falsehoods are mild, easy to see through within seconds of meeting someone in person and do little harm.

But other lies are more dangerous: They become instruments of sexual fraud. A 44-year-old woman in Britain, for example, fell in love with a man who told her he was a single businessman who often traveled for work. A year later, she learned that he was a married London lawyer using a fake name to sleep with several other women whom he had apparently tricked in the same way. ...

Currently, the law only haphazardly penalizes misrepresentations in the context of sex. ... How to handle sexual fraud in the age of Tinder should be a part of those debates.

She has a point, but only if you assume that she was selling her sexual favors online.

Fraud means getting cheated out of money somehow. She is not talking about the cost of a dinner. She means getting into a sexual relationship without the expected financial rewards.

Online dating is increasingly popular, and a lot of other women may feel the same way. The only way to resolve these concerns is to have contracts that cover exactly what is given in exchanged for sexual favors. In another era, marriage law and religion filled that role, but now we need short-term contracts that cover just a few romantic hours.

I am not saying that such contracts are desirable, or preferable to marriage or other options, or good for society. I am saying that cultural and legal trends are making them inevitable.

Our society is not coping with #MeToo very well. No one wants to say that the accusers are stupid sluts who got what they deserved. The actresses who seduced Harvey Weinstein were presumably seeking movie roles. Did they get what they expected? Maybe they did, but there were no written contracts so we don't know. Because of prostitution laws, it would have been hard to have written contracts. If prostitution were legal, and Weinstein required his clients to sign the appropriate waivers, then everyone would be happy according to the way our law currently works.

Investigation shows Facebook Leftism

The Jewish newspaper NY Times has published an investigation of the Jewish social media monopoly, Facebook. It complains:

Mr. Zuckerberg considered it — asking subordinates whether Mr. Trump had violated the company’s rules and whether his account should be suspended or the post removed. ...

Mr. Trump’s post remained up.

That's right, the NY Times complaint is that Facebook did not censor Donald Trump.

It also complains:

In fall 2016, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, was publicly declaring it a “crazy idea” that his company had played a role in deciding the election.

In fact, the company was doing everything it could to elect Hillary Clinton. The NY Times complaint is that it did not block a small number of pro-Trump postings.

The NY Times controls its newspaper enough that all 15 columnists are Trump-haters. No pro-Trump columns are allowed.

Facebook faced worldwide outrage in March after The Times, The Observer of London and The Guardian published a joint investigation into how user data had been appropriated by Cambridge Analytica to profile American voters.

This was manufactured outrage.

We would be better off if Facebook were not a Leftist monopoly, and if it had some healthy competition. For competition to be practical, users and others would have to have some practical way of extracting their data and using it on another platform. Any such attempt is likely to be met by Facebook lawyers claiming that it violates the terms of service.

My hunch is that this so-called Cambridge Analytica scandal was actually beneficial to Facebook. Now, if govt regulators or anyone else demand that Facebook allow data exports for competitors, Facebook will that it cannot do that because we would probably have another Cambridge Analytica breach. Facebook must keep all the data to itself, it will argue, and the Jewish leftists at the NY Times will agree.

Meanwhile, the Jewish TV network CNN is suing Pres. Trump claiming that its reporter has been denied his free speech rights to hog the microphone during a press conference!

CNN has repeatedly supported censoring Alt Right advocates who really are exercising their free speech rights to express political opinions to the public.

Yes, NY Times, Facebook, and CNN are all enemies of the people. They seek to censor everything contrary to their Jewish Leftist politics.

Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat again

Jewish news:

The overwhelming majority of American Jews voted Democrat in Tuesday’s elections, a CNN poll found.

Nearly 80% of Jewish voters polled voted Democrat, while 17% voted Republican. Jews also voted Democrat at the highest rate of any other religion included in the poll, which included several denominations of Christianity. The poll did not include a large enough sample size of Muslim voters to make a determination for the religion.

It was a banner night for Jewish candidates, five of whom picked up Democratic seats in the House as the party retook control of the chamber. Some of the candidates also staged upsets in suburban areas that went for Trump in 2016.

A lot of orthodox Jews vote Republican.

Some Jews say that it is anti-Semitic to generalize about the political opinions of Jews. CNN is controlled by Jews, and is not anti-Semitic.

Jews enable felons to vote Democrat

A Jewish mag brags:

An amendment to Florida’s constitution that would restore voting rights for felons passed Tuesday with the help of Jewish groups that campaigned for the measure.

Amendment 4 won 64 percent of the vote, passing the needed 60 percent threshold for passage.

A number of Florida branches of Jewish groups, including the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Jewish Women and Join for Justice, campaigned for the amendment, which excludes felons convicted of murder and sex crimes.

Florida, long a swing state, could go more decidedly Democratic: Minorities, who form a substantial portion of the 1.4 million newly enfranchised voters, tend to vote for Democrats.

“‘Kol hakavod’ to the Reform Jewish communities in Florida — and across the U.S. — who organized and mobilized to make this happen,” the national Religious Action Center said on Twitter, using the Hebrew term for “well done.” “This is huge. 1.4 million Floridians will have their voting rights restored.”

A number of major Jewish philanthropists contributed to the campaign, including George Soros, Seth Klarman and Stacy Schusterman.

Are there a lot of Jews in Florida prisons? I don't think so.

Anything to help destroy white Christian civilization, I guess.

A lot of Jews retire in Florida, but not enough to control elections. For that, they need more white-haters.

The NY Times says that it is anti-Semitic to blame stuff like this on Soros, but I guess it is okay for a Jewish magazine.

Companies like attractive applicants

Some research has shown that job applicants are much more likely to get called for an interview if they are physically attractive. The study used identical resumes, and only the pictures were different. The effect was more pronounced for female applicants. Sorry, I lost the link.

They authors suggested some subconscious invidious discriminination to the detriment of the hiring company.

Maybe not. Here are other explanations.

1. Maybe beautiful people have superior genes that make them better workers. Evolution would predict this, as the beautiful applicant probably had a beautiful and choosy mom who only mated with a man who was superior in multiple ways, including heritable job skills.

2. Maybe beautiful ppl are happier, better adjusted, and better socialized because they have always been treated with the respect that beauty draws, while ugly ppl are lonely, bitter, uncooperative, and distrustful.

3. Maybe beautiful and ugly applicants do equivalent work, but the beautiful workers inspire co-workers to do better work. Maybe the guys work harder to impress the pretty girl.

If any of these theories is true, then it makes sense for companies to try to hire beautiful applicants. Otherwise, companies could save time and money by hiring the ugly applicants.

Other research shows:

“Our research shows that people infer a wide range of personality traits just by looking at the physical features of a particular body,” says psychological scientist Ying Hu of the University of Texas at Dallas, first author on the research. “Stereotypes based on body shape can contribute to how we judge and interact with new acquaintances and strangers. Understanding these biases is important for considering how we form first impressions.”

Previous research has shown that we infer a considerable amount of social information by looking at other people’s faces, but relatively little research has explored whether body shapes also contribute to these judgments.

Certain psychological traits make ppl much more suited for some jobs over others, so maybe employers should be judging physical appearance more.

Atlantic mag endorses Nazi opinions

Jewish organizations are claiming that there has been a recent increase in anti-Semitism. The evidence for this consists almost entirely of Jewish-perpetrated hoaxes.

The mainstream news media, like the NY Times, reports this supposed anti-Semitism as if it were a fact.

It is almost impossible to find any example of anti-Semitism in the USA. For example, the recent trial over Harvard's admissions policy has shown that the main biases are in favor of Jews and against Asians.

I am beginning to think that anti-Semitism is just some weirdo religious belief that Jews have.

Yes, some lone wolf shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue. But contrary to many news reports, he was not shooting his victims because of who they were or how they pray. He was mad at them for importing criminal migrants. There is no support anywhere for what he did.

The most anti-Semitic site I know is The Daily Stormer. It claims to be the most censored publication in history, as it has been aggressively blocked by Google and other internet companies for its political content.

It is mainly an Alt Right political site, with the distinction that it uses memes, humor, exaggeration, and trolling to make its political points. And it blames the Jews for almost everything bad.

It just does political commentary, and is very much against any violence like the Pittsburgh shooting.

The Daily Stormer writes:

Atlantic Jew: Yes, We Do Support Massive Nonwhite Immigration, And That is Why People Hate Us

So the Jewish response to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting – commonly known as “The Gunfight at O.K. Synagogue” – has been very… strange.

The shooter wrote about opposition to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that is flooding America with the lowest form of life on earth from the entire third world.

Whereas the Jews have typically refused to answer or even acknowledge the question of “why do people hate the Jews?”, in the wake of this shooting, many are coming out and saying “oh yes, many people hate us because we are flooding them with brown people – it’s evil for them to disagree with us on this issue.”

The most shocking “yes, we did that” article thus far is from Peter Beinart, a Jewish professor of journalism at City University of New York. ...

This is a Jew, in The Atlantic – a magazine that once put me on their cover calling me evil – admitting that everything the Daily Stormer says about Jews is true.

The Atlantic magazine article explains that Jews really are overwhelmingly in favor of importing Third World migrants to destroy white Christian America, and therefore any American conservative movement like Trump's is necessarily anti-Semitic.

Yes, the Daily Stormer is anti-Semitic. Their excuse is that they are going to be called Nazis anyway, for taking their political positions, so they embrace the insult and move on. It is probably not a good strategy, as it gets them banned from Google, Facebook, and PayPal.

Jews control much of the news media (like NY Times and CNN), Hollywood, and internet giants (like Google and Facebook). So they can censor the Daily Stormer. But they can't hide the fact that they really are working to destroy white Christian America. Here is how the Jewish Atlantic explains it:

The segregationist anti-Semites of the mid-20th century and the nativist anti-Semites of today are wrong about Jews’ motives. Jews didn’t support civil rights then — and they don’t support immigrants’ rights now — because they want to subjugate white Christians. They’re just predisposed — because of their understanding of Jewish history — to identify with outsiders and fear ethnically and religiously exclusive definitions of Americanism.

Got that? Secular Jews oppose Trump's efforts to make America great again. No question about that. It is anti-Semitic to say that those efforts are motivated by wanting to subjugate white Christians.

Instead we are supposed to say that Jews are just acting out their historical prejudices against Americanism!

It is usually foolish to attribute motives to people. Most people are pre-programmed automatons who cannot explain why they do what they do, and lack the free will to do anything but what they have been told. Their behavior is complicated combination of nature and nurture, and it is very difficult to separate the genetic and cultural causes.

In the case of Jews, certain beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors have persisted for centuries. They even persist in Jews who do not appear otherwise to be religious. Why? Ask scholars who have studied the matter. There is no simple answer, as far as I know.

On this blog, I regularly criticize unjustified attempts to attribute motives to people. There is something about the human mind that wants to attribute motives, and sees motives when they aren't there.

So I am agreeing with the Jewish Atlantic article that Jews are not necessarily motivated by wanting to subjugate white Christians. Likewise, Trump supporters and Alt Right activists are not necessarily anti-Semitic or have any motivation to harm Jews. From what I have seen, most of them don't care about Jews at all, and are happy to see orthodox and Israeli Jews support Trump.

Secular Jews have abandoned what we normally think of as religious beliefs. Instead they maintain their social cohesion by calling everyone else anti-Semitic and working to undermine white Christians. This is confirmed by the Jewish Atlantic article. Just don't call it a motivation, and assume that Jews are pre-programmed to behave that way because of their peculiar understanding of Jewish history.

What is essential to conservatism?

CH writes:

Isn’t [Ben] Shapiro a NeverTrumper?

Jewish “conservatives” are misleading allies, the same as Black “conservatives”. At some point, when their tribal interests are threatened, they revert to the mean – anti-white animus. ...

The reason I assert there is no conservatism without White Christian nationalism is because White demographic hegemony is necessary to perpetuate the ideals of generic anglo-saxon conservatism, which is a creation of WHITE CHRISTIAN MEN. When White Gentiles lose majority rule, their ideals, values, moral sense, and culture go with them.

There is no Constitutional Conservatism without constitutional Whiteness. It really is as simple as that.

I do not think that this is true.

But what if it is true? What if ppl think it is true, whether it is or not?

Perhaps we will find out, if white Christians lose their majority in a country like Sweden. This is an empirical question, and the experiment is being done.

White men have had a long run

TheHill.com:

Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore asked for the “angry white men” of America to “just take a break” in an interview on Thursday.

During an appearance on “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Moore said that he, being an “angry white guy over 50 with a high school education,” is part of President Trump’s targeted demographic.

But he said he and his “fellow angry white American guys” have been “running the show for 10,000 years,” and it’s time to give someone else a chance.

“It’s like, we’ve had a long run as men running everything and the Yankees could never win as many pennants as we’ve won in these 10,000 years as men,” Moore said.

“So, why don’t we just take a break? Let the majority gender run the show. What are you scared of?” he continued. “Women actually like us, most of us.”

No, women do not like Michael Moore. He would just be a slave to the women, Jews, hispanics, and Moslems that he wants to empower.

Of course a Jewish host on a Jewish network is all in favor of enslaving white Christian men. Talk about enslaving any other group would not be tolerated.

Breitbart:

The Los Angeles Times is facing criticism after it endorsed three white candidates in its English edition, but endorsed their Latino opponents in its Spanish edition. ...

The races include:

In addition, the center-right “OC Political” blog notes, the English and Spanish versions differed on two ballot propositions, and the Spanish version left out several races where there were no Latinos running (but in which Latino voters will still be casting ballots).

In addition, the blog noted, “While the LA Times en Español endorsed 7 Latinos and 1 white man, the LA Times English endorsements for Statewide offices were much more ethnically balanced, with 3 white people, 3 Latinos, 2 Asian Americans, and 1 African American for State office.”

Not even 3 white people, unless you count Jews as white.

Is anyone surprised by this? Latinos, Jews, Asians, and African Americans just vote anti-white, as instructed. Only white people make individual decisions, based on the issues. Democracy only works in white countries, or ethnically uniform countries like Japan.

Meanwhile, see these NY Times articles for more proof that anti-Semitism is a Jewish hoax. With some help from a gay black dude promoted by lesbian Democrats.

Telling the truth is called hate speech

The American Spectator reports:

Americans are no longer a free people, if debate on major public-policy issues is effectively criminalized, which is what the Democrats and their allies are attempting to do with regard to our immigration policy. We are now being told in effect that it is “hate speech” to express opposition to the open-borders agenda of Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and such of their billionaire donors as George Soros. ...

George Soros has been a major funder of much of the institutional infrastructure the Left has built during the past 20 years. ...

When Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban took action to halt the influx of “refugees” into his country and named Soros as the sponsor of this invasion, Soros responded: “[Orban’s] plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.” ...

To identity Soros as the sponsor of this open-borders agenda, however, is to be guilty of hate, as explained last week in a Washington Post headline: “Conspiracy theories about Soros aren’t just false. They’re anti-Semitic.” You will not be surprised to learn that the author of that article, Talia Levin, works for Media Matters, which is funded by Soros.

Trump challenges birthright citizenship

A Jewish mag writes:

President Trump’s calls to strip American-born citizens of their citizenship should chill all Americans, but it is especially disturbing to anyone with knowledge of Jewish history.

Citizenship is a profoundly Jewish issue.

No, Trump has not called for stripping anyone's citizenship. There are some Supreme Court rulings making it nearly impossible to strip citizenship, and Trump is not challenging them. He is saying that anchor babies should never get citizenship.

Saying that Jews want to flood the USA with anchor babies, refugees, and migrants is not a paranoid conspiracy theory. Just read any Jewish publication, and you will find Jews arguing that Jewish beliefs include such things. In countries other than Israel, of course. Only Jews get to immigrate to Israel.

England expelled all Jews in 1290. Many British Jews then fled to France. But that didn’t bring a permanent solution; Philip IV, known as Philip the Fair, expelled all the Jews of France in 1306.

In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their citizenship, making them subjects of the state.

I have a friend who has been kicked out of five restaurants. When he tells the story about a particular restaurant, he usually gets some sympathy. But if he says that it has happened at five restaurants, they just ask what he is doing to get kicked out.

The management at Google is supporting a walkout by employees who identify as female.

Okay, that sends a message that the female employees are not doing any work that is critical to the company anyway.

The Google incident was apparently triggered by a NY Times story revealing that a Google hiring manager flirted with an applicant at the Burning Man festival, and she complained about it two years later.

France is 20% Muslim and climbing

Birth news:

As can be seen, France and Belgium have experienced similar developments, with the granting of Muslim names rapidly rising from 5-8% in 1995 to around 20% today

Those kids with Muslim names will have to be Muslims, as Islam does not allow anyone to leave the religion.

ADL defends killing white Christians

The NY Times reports:

The anguish of Saturday’s massacre heightened a sense of national unease over increasingly hostile political rhetoric. Critics of President Trump have argued that he is partly to blame for recent acts of violence because he has been stirring the pot of nationalism, on Twitter and at his rallies, charges that Mr. Trump has denied.

Here is a Jewish newspaper again blaming the President for being pro-America, as if Jewish collective interests were to destroy America.

The President tweeted:

…This evil Anti-Semitic attack is an assault on humanity. It will take all of us working together to extract the poison of Anti-Semitism from our world. We must unite to conquer hate.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2018

I agree with this, but 99% of the hostility between Jews and non-Jews is coming from Jews, and it would help if the Jews would lighten up. Trump himself is a very pro-Jewish President, and is extremely popular among Israeli Jews.

The Jewish ADL writes in the NY Times:

And while Jews have enjoyed a degree of acceptance and achievement in the United States perhaps unrivaled in our people’s history, recent trends have been alarming.

While the overall trend in anti-Semitic incidents has been a downward one, last year we saw the largest single-year increase since the A.D.L. began this annual audit in 1979 — a 57 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in 2017. These incidents include high-profile ones such as neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, Va., chanting “Jews will not replace us,”

For its totals, ADL includes hoaxes perpetrated by Jews, and most of the incidents have turned out to be Jewish hoaxes.

Just what is the objection to someone chanting “Jews will not replace us”? I infer that ADL and other prominent Jewish organizations favor the systematic extermination of white Christians.

Anti-Semitism is being normalized in public life.

As you read this, there are television ads being run by mainstream political candidates and parties that invoke the specter of the Jewish philanthropist George Soros to instill fear in voters’ hearts. ... There are those — including the president of the United States — who rail against “globalists” that are ruining the country, a term those on the far-right use as code for Jews.

So it is now anti-Semitism to criticize Soros and globalism?

These incidents seem small, but add them together, nurture them with silence and acquiescence, and what grows is the poisonous weed of anti-Semitism.

This must end.

Now the Jewish ADL and NY Times is threatening us. They now have the power to censor open communication platforms like Gab, and they are doing it. No one will be allowed to criticize Soros, globalists, white genocide, and other Jewish causes. They seem to be admitting that free speech will result in people hating the Jews.

More than 100 years ago, the lynching of a Jewish factory superintendent, Leo Frank, in Marietta, Ga., shocked the Jewish community and the nation. It directly led to the formation of the A.D.L. to fight anti-Semitism.

Really? Frank was convicted of raping and murdering a Christian girl, and nearly everyone agrees that he was guilty and got a fair trial. Jews at the time defended him just because he was Jewish.

OTOH, no one is defending the Pittsburgh killer. He is a Trump-hater, not a Trump supporter. By all means, prosecute him to the fullest and investigate why he hated the Jews. By some reports, he attacked the synagogue because it was actively involved in importing refugees from anti-American countries.

I will be looking to see whether any prominent Jews denounce this attempt by ADL and the NY Times to provoke hatred against white Christians.

Vox Day slams Jordan Peterson

Vox Day writes:

Jordan Peterson is believed by many to be the greatest thinker that humanity has ever known. He is Father Figure, Philosopher-King, and Prophet to the millions of young men who are his most fervent fans. He is the central figure of the Intellectual Dark Web, an academic superstar, and an unparalleled media phenomenon who has shattered all conceptions of what it means to be modern celebrity in the Internet Age.

But Jordan Peterson is also a narcissist, a charlatan, and an intellectual con man who doesn't even bother to learn much about the subjects upon which he lectures. He is a defender of free speech who silences other speakers, a fearless free-thinker who runs away from debate, difficult questions, and controversial issues, a philosopher who rejects the conventional definition of truth, and a learned professor who has failed to read most of the great classics of the Western canon. He is, in short, a shameless and unrepentant fraud.

Peterson is not what he appears. How can he be a professional psychologist and not understand that Christine Blasey Ford suffers from a serious mental illness?

He is not really a conservative or a right-winger. He just stubbornly doesn't like being told what to say. People think that he is a real-talker because he acknowledges that there are differences between men and women. But those differences were recognized in nearly all of recorded history, and by scientific research today.

He got a lot of fame for objecting to transgender pronound mandates, but he doesn't really take a principled stand on the issue. He was just saying what most professors would have said a few years ago. It is remarkable that so few professors will advocate independent thinking, but maybe Peterson is just an old curmudgeon who has not adapted to the changing academic climate.

He now has a cult following that makes him $5M per year.

Peterson is a big fan of Jung, Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche. Is that why it is so popular? I don't think so. I think people like his style when he tells them to stand up straight and clean up their rooms. He talks about how order is better than chaos, and people find it inspiring.

Why Johnny can't read

A radio program explains teacher stubbornness to use proven teaching methods:

"I am philosophically opposed to jumping on the bandwagon of the next great thing that's going to teach every child how to learn to read," said Stacy Reeves, an associate professor of literacy. "Phonics for me is not that answer."

Reeves said she knows this from her own experience. In the early 1990s, before she started her Ph.D., she was an elementary school teacher. Her students did phonics worksheets and then got little books called decodable readers that contained words with the letter patterns they'd been practicing. She said the books were boring and repetitive. "But as soon as I sat down with my first-graders and read a book, like 'Frog and Toad Are Friends,' they were instantly engaged in the story," she said.

A NY Times essay summarizes:

What have scientists figured out? First of all, while learning to talk is a natural process that occurs when children are surrounded by spoken language, learning to read is not. To become readers, kids need to learn how the words they know how to say connect to print on the page. They need explicit, systematic phonics instruction. There are hundreds of studies that back this up.

Educators ignore this research, and always talk about the importance of reading to kids, instead of teaching kids to read.

This seems scandalous, but it is not news. It was all explained in a best-selling 1955 book.

Trump is a nationalist, not a globalist

The Jews at the NY Times are attacking Pres. Trump again:

Mr. Trump’s opponents quickly denounced his comments, saying they were not-so-veiled appeals to racism and nativism; the word “globalist,” they said, appeals to anti-Semitism.

“The President of the United States openly identifies himself as a nationalist, calls for the jailing of his political opponents, attacks the press & cozies up to dictators, while Republicans in Congress stand idly by,” Robert Reich, a former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote on Twitter.

Trump is not trying to jail Hillary Clinton or other opponents. But many prominent Democrats advocate impeaching and jailing Trump.

The press attacks Trump more that any other person in my lifetime. And yet there is a complaint that Trump attacks the press?

Now they are saying that it is anti-Semitic to be an American nationalist, instead of a globalist. What they are really saying is that leftist Jews hate America. Professor David Gelernter explains it well in a WSJ article on The Real Reason They Hate Trump.

Jews are the only ones in the world who have a problem with nationalism. That is because nationalism to them means Zionism, and the superiority of the Chosen People. Their whole religion is based on promoting Jews, and cutting down non-Jews.

CNN is run by Jews, and reports:

White nationalism, which reared its ugly head in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year is organized under the principle that Caucasians are inherently superior and in order for society to truly prosper, the agenda of whites needs to be recognized as a first priority -- at the necessary expense of anyone who isn't white.

No, Jewish nationalism may be based on beliefs of superiority, but others are not. Almost every nation on Earth has a population that has some national identity that is not based on inherent superiority. If Italians root for Italians in the World Cup, it is not because they think Italians are inherently superior. It is because they identify with other Italians.

USA was once a united people

People sometimes say that USA was founded on an idea, as opposed to being a cohesive people.

Consider The Federalist No. 2:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

Obviously John Jay was referred to those descended from English settlers, and not Indians or African slaves.

Immigration is splitting America in a way that John Jay said should never be done.

We need more identity politics

I sometimes post lists of things that I have changed my mind about.

Up until now, I always thought of identity politics as a bad things. One of the main things I detest about the Democrat Party is that it relies almost entirely on identity politics for it supporters.

The Republican try to appeal to all groups, with superior policies. Eg, Republicans supported Brett Kavanaugh because he is an apolitical follower of the law, while opposition was from political interest groups and identity politics. The Republicans try to stay above identity politics.

This just isn't going to work. It is hopeless to teach ethnic groups to vote other than with their ethnic identities. Blacks vote with blacks, Chinese vote with Chinese, Jews vote with Jews. It is just human nature. Whites are the only ones who do not vote their ethnic identities.

I cannot condone killing Jamal Khashoggi, but let's face it. He was working to exterminate his ethnic enemies. He was not an American, and would never be a real American. The Wash. Post only hired him because he hates white Christians. There is no reason for American to mourn his death.

Elizabeth Warren is apparently embarrassed to be white. She desperately needed some non-white credentials in order to gain status in the Democrat Party.

There is no chance of persuading the non-whites to abandon their anti-white politics. As I write this, I listen to an NPR Radio program that explains that Latinos can be expected to vote for whatever party is perceived as the anti-white party, and how that will be true for generations to come.

Khashoggi was living in the USA so that someday his grandkids could kill your grandkids.

If women are voting for female candidates just because they are female, then men should vote for male candidates, to help balance the voting.

There is something seriously wrong with the USA that being a white male is a political disadvantage.

This is crazy because 99% of American greatness is due to white men.

I now believe that the USA would be much better off if whites adopted identity politics.

CH writes:

Your Daily Ugly Truth: The Purpose Of Nationhood

Nations are in fact distinct geopolitical systems for privileging races and ethnicities. If the heritage stock of a nation isn’t privileged, then what is the point of the nation? It has failed its fundamental duty.

A nation which privileges all comers, from alien races and cultures, will lose the loyalty of the race of people which established the nation for the benefit of themselves and their posterity. It will become de-nationed, a nation in name only, divorced from the mystic chords which historically composed it.

This is right. The French nation is based on being French. Otherwise, what is it?

It the USA is to become a real nation again, then we need an American identity, with an American population that his proud of that identity and willing to defend it.

Scientists stay quiet about population differences

Amy Harmon writes in the NY Times:

[name redacted] is a black high school student in Winston-Salem, N.C., who does not appear in my article on Thursday’s front page about how human geneticists have been slow to respond to the invocation of their research by white supremacists.

But the story of how he struggled last spring to find sources to refute the claims of white classmates that people of European descent had evolved to be intellectually superior to Africans is the reason I persevered in the assignment, even when I felt as if my head were going to explode. ...

But another reason some scientists avoid engaging on this topic, I came to understand, was that they do not have definitive answers about whether there are average differences in biological traits across populations.

She goes on to say that the leading geneticists are unwilling to explain publicly whether the white supremacists are right or wrong.

She did find some who were eager to rebut the white supremacists in trivial ways. For example, she says that white supremacists claim that only European whites can digest milk in adulthood, while geneticists say that there is also an obscure African tribe of dairy farmers than can also do it.

This issue appears to have been precipitated by Elizabeth Warren having a DNA test to prove something about her. Maybe next she will try to show that she has the genes for a higher IQ that she needs to be President.

The real issue with Warren is not whether she has any Mexican DNA, or whether Harvard will admit to giving her racial preferences. Harvard never admits to racial preferences, even tho a current lawsuit is exposing lots of racial preferences.

The real issue is why Warren is embarrassed to be white. She seeks status in the Democrat Party, and that party stands against whites. So Warren must pretend to be non-white.

There is something seriously wrong with a white women who is embarrassed to be white. And there is something wrong with a party that requires some non-white DNA to get ahead.

Meanwhile, the NY Times argues:

To get a handle on what automated fake-news detection would require, consider an article posted in May ...:

The Boy Scouts have decided to accept people who identify as gay and lesbian among their ranks. And girls are welcome now, too, into the iconic organization, which has renamed itself Scouts BSA. So what’s next? A mandate that condoms be made available to ‘all participants’ of its global gathering.

Was this account true or false? Investigators at the fact-checking site Snopes determined that the report was “mostly false.” But determining how it went afoul is a subtle business beyond the dreams of even the best current A.I.

Actually, this is easy for current AI technology.

The article says that it is hard to identify the story as fake news because all the elements of it are true. Leftists want to label it as "mostly false" because it mocks liberal Jewish-promoted values. The Facebook AI programs will just block news that mocks the leftist agenda. FB can do this today.

Update: The NY Times has now redacted the name of the black high school student, so I am doing that also. Apparently he doesn't want to be cited as someone confused by conflicting claims by geneticists. In particular, the article quotes him as saying “It’s convincing me of things I really don’t want to be convinced of.”

Defining white nationalism

Wonder what white nationalism is? Here is a defense of it:

White Nationalists believe that the current social and political system has put our race on the road to biological extinction. If present trends are not reversed, Whites will disappear as a distinct race. ...

Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see White men. And we simply see non-Whites. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as White men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as White people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.

White nationalism will never catch on from whites listening to white nationalists. It will only catch on by whites realizing that they are increasingly attacked by non-whites for being white.

As hostilities increase between whites and non-whites, I expect Jews to decide to either align with the whites or the non-whites.

Now that Elizabeth Warren is celebrating that she is 99.9% white, and possibly 0.1% Mexican, white nationalists are looking at genetic info, as the NY Times reports:

One slide Dr. Novembre has folded into his recent talks depicts a group of white nationalists chugging milk at a 2017 gathering to draw attention to a genetic trait known to be more common in white people than others — the ability to digest lactose as adults. It also shows a social media post from an account called “Enter The Milk Zone” with a map lifted from a scientific journal article on the trait’s evolutionary history.

In most of the world, the article explains, the gene that allows for the digestion of lactose switches off after childhood. But with the arrival of the first cattle herders in Europe some 5,000 years ago, a chance mutation that left it turned on provided enough of a nutritional leg up that nearly all of those who survived eventually carried it. ...

Genetic ancestry tests advertise “ethnicity estimates” (Senator Elizabeth Warren appealed to the perceived authority of DNA this week to demonstrate her Native American heritage, in response to mocking by President Trump), and some disease-risk genes have turned out to be more common among certain genetic ancestry groups. ...

“Science is on our side,” crowed Jared Taylor, the founder of the white nationalist group American Renaissance, in a recent video that cites Dr. Reich’s book. ...

Many geneticists at the top of their field say they do not have the ability to communicate to a general audience on such a complicated and fraught topic. Some suggest journalists might take up the task. Several declined to speak on the record for this article.

It is funny that the geneticists do not want to talk about this issue. The DNA tests allow ancestry to be quantified, along with physical, medical, and behavioral traits.

As a step toward changing that, Dr. Di Rienzo has helped organize a meeting of social scientists, geneticists and journalists at Harvard next week to discuss the social implications of the field’s newest tools.

Participants have been promised that the meeting will be restricted to some three-dozen invitees and that any remarks made there will be confidential.

And David L. Nelson, a Baylor College of Medicine geneticist who is president of the human genetics society, says it will not stay completely quiet on the issue, promising a statement later this week.

“There is no genetic evidence to support any racist ideology,” he said.

If there were never no evidence, then they would not be holding secret meetings.

Of course there is DNA evidence to support racist ideologies. Elizabeth Warren is just the latest example.

Warren has done us all a great service, by exposing leftist nonsense about human biodiversity. The NewYorker mag writes:

It is important to understand that, contrary to the impression created by television and online advertising, a DNA test can never provide definitive information about one’s heritage. ...

Warren, meanwhile, has allowed herself to be dragged into a conversation based on an outdated, harmful concept of racial blood—one that promotes the pernicious idea of biological differences among people — and she has pulled her supporters right along with her.

These are total lies, of course. DNA tests are very good at providing definitive info about heritage and ancestry. And they certainly confirm biological differences among people.

I don't know how leftist can deny, with a straight face, that there are biological differences among people. The differences are obvious to small children, noticed by educated observers for millennia, and quantitatively confirmed by modern DNA science.

Do not take obvious fiction seriously

I can't find it now, but I once read a letter to the editor of a book review periodical that said:

I am surprised that the review of Million Little Pieces took the stories seriously. I don't know anything about the subject matter, but I am a novelist, and I know novels. The book is structured as a novel, and should be treated as a work of fiction.

The letter was correct, and the book was fiction that many mistook for a factual memoir. Many of the stories were wildly implausible.

I am reminded of this when I see people take seriously allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. This was a political hit, making use of a mentall ill woman. Why take it seriously?

Real life memoirs do not have the structure of a novel, and they don't have the structure of a politcal hit either.

Some people actually argued that the phony drug memoir should be taken as real, because it was an inspiring story. Some people tried to determine whether the events in it could have happened. But why? Don't those people know what a novel is?

Likewise, don't people know what a political hit is? Why would you even think that truth has anything to do with it?

I think similar things of a lot of MeToo stories. Most fit the pattern of a revenge seeker, a faker looking for a monetary settlement, or a disturbed person who foolishly believes that personal anxieties can be released by blaming others. Such people need not be taken seriously.

Today's liberals are NPCs

Psychology Today reported several years ago that most people are pre-programmed robots:

But Bernard Baars, one of the leading researchers in consciousness science, says:

Human beings talk to themselves every moment of the waking day. ...

I'm pretty sure that Baars and McWhorter are entirely mistaken. Maybe Baars talks to himself all the time, and maybe McWhorter himself sees images of written words while he talks (there's reason to be skeptical of both claims), but I've investigated such things as carefully as I know how and become convinced that most people (let alone all people) do not do such things.

Kevin Roose reports in the NY Times:

Several months ago, users on 4chan and Reddit, the online message forums, started using the term NPC to refer to liberals. These people, they said, join the anti-Trump crowd not because they are led by independent thought or conscience to oppose President Trump’s policies, but because they’re brainwashed sheep who have been conditioned to parrot left-wing orthodoxy, in the manner of a scripted character.

As a Reddit user, BasedMedicalDoctor, explains in a thread about the appeal of the meme, NPCs are “completely dependent on their programming, and can’t do or think on their own.”

Twitter has now banned these memes, on the theory that they might influence the election.

This is pretty funny. If you read right-wingers, you find lots of different opinions, and reasoning behind those opinions. If you read leftists in the mainstream news media, you just get mindless recitation of stupid pre-programmed talking points. And now the leftists at Twitter are trying to control the election commentary so that more people will vote leftist.

Update: This NPC meme is really taking off. It is a linguistic kill shot.

The term NPC is borrowed from the digital games industry. It refers to characters managed by artificial intelligence whose behavior is limited to certain scripted responses and actions.

The NPC meme began as a satirical attempt to ridicule the New Left’s sound-bite, cliched culture. The BBC quoted one poster saying, "If you get in a discussion with them it's always the same buzzwords and hackneyed arguments…It's like in a [video game] when you accidentally talk to somebody twice and they give you the exact lines word for word once more."

Afraid of discussing Cultural Marxism

Libertarian Brian Doherty writes:

Don't Blame Karl Marx for 'Cultural Marxism' ...

The story goes that these eggheads saw that Marx's predictions about the contradictions in capitalism producing a proletarian revolt were failing to come true. They decided that traditional Western culture was keeping the masses from their revolutionary mission and needed to be annihilated. Religion, the family, traditional sexual mores, belief in objective truth — all had to be overturned. So they launched "critical theory" to demolish the sacred principles that made Western civilization great and pave the way for communist tyranny and an eventual stateless utopia. ...

Andrew Breitbart, who ran articles on his Big Hollywood site in 2009 headlined "Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism" and who appeared that year on Sean Hannity's Fox News show to declare that "cultural Marxism is political correctness, it's multiculturalism, and it's a war on Judeo-Christianity," was one of the major modern vectors of belief in the conspiracy. ...

The cultural Marxism conspiracy cultist who made the most hideous public impact was Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway in 2011. Breivik wrote in his 1,500-page manifesto that "you cannot defeat Islamization or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism." ...

It's true that campus leftists have shifted some of their attention from specifically economic concerns to ones based in cultural identity.

He doesn't like the term "cultural Marxism", but no one blames Marx for it. Maybe some blame XX century Jews, but not Marx.

Libertarians have a huge blind spot on this subject. They refuse to recognize the dangers of giving liberties to your enemies.

Netflix has a new movie on Breivik, 22 July. It is very boring, and does not really explain what he explained in his manifesto. The movie spends a lot of time dwelling on someone who struggles to recover from his injuries, but of course that is trivial compared to whether cultural Marxism is good or bad for Norway. Apparently the movie makers were afraid to explain Breivik's philosophy, for fear that a lot of viewers would agree with it.

Wives who lie about paternity

You think women never lie about something personal or important?

The Atlantic mag reports:

As DNA-testing companies sell millions of kits, they’ve started to rearrange families. The tests have reunited long-lost cousins and helped adoptees find their birth parents, donor-conceived kids their sperm donors. They have also, in some cases, uncovered difficult family secrets.

Earlier this year, I heard from dozens of people who took a DNA test only to discover their fathers were not their biological fathers. Many of them belonged to a private Facebook support group called DNA NPE Friends—where NPE stands for “not parent expected”—that sprang up to connect the thousands of people who’ve had their identities altered by a DNA test.

There are other sides to the story, too. The creator of DNA NPE Friends, Catherine St Clair, recently created a group for the fathers. One such father is Christopher, whose real name we are withholding at his request. Earlier this year, after buying his now-15-year-old daughter an AncestryDNA test, Christopher found out that he is not her biological father. His wife had an affair. (They also have a 13-year-old son, who is his biological child.)

Two and a half weeks after the discovery, he filed for divorce.

Think about what these women do. They lie every day, to their husbands and kids. They lie about who their kids are, and about whom they are asking their husbands to support. They lie every day for 10 to 20 years. They conceal the most fundamental betrayal of a marriage. They only stop lying when they get caught by a DNA test.

Max Boot hates white Christians

Most American non-orthodox Jews are Democrats, but a few prominent ones claim to be conservatives. One is columnist Max Boot. He writes:

The GOP must suffer devastating defeats starting in Nov. It must pay a heavy price for its embrace of white nationalism & know-nothingism. Only if GOP is burned to the ground will there be a chance to build a reasonable center-right party out of ashes.

He is very much in favor of foreign wars that benefit Israel, and very much against white Christians. His hatred for white Christians appears to overwhelm all his other views, as he claims to support GOP policies.

Update: I posted this without realizing that the Max Boot quote was excerpted from a longer essay he wrote for the Wash. Post trashing my mom.

He claims that he is leaving the Republican Party because it has become too extremist. As evidence for his thesis, he says that Barry Goldwater and Phyllis Schlafly were extremists back in 1964.

And what was so extremist? They were anti-Communist, and Goldwater was against using the US Constitution to mandate forced racial school busing.

Boot is more of a foreign policy hawk than the Republican or Democrat Party today, so his problem is not really foreign policy. No, his real problem is that many Republicans do not go along with his Jewish anti-white-Christian policies.

In fairness, many Republican voters and their leaders, from Wendell Willkie to Mitt Romney, have been a lot more moderate. Their very centrism stoked the fury of some on the right. The pattern was set early on, in 1964, with Phyllis Schlafly’s best-selling tract “A Choice Not an Echo.” Schlafly was baffled why Republicans candidates had lost presidential elections in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948 and 1960. “It wasn’t any accident,” she wrote, ominously. “It was planned that way. In each of their losing presidential years, a small group of secret kingmakers, using hidden persuaders and psychological warfare techniques, manipulated the Republican National Convention to nominate candidates who would sidestep or suppress the key issues.” These nefarious “kingmakers” were New York financiers who supposedly favored “a policy of aiding and abetting Red Russia and her satellites.” And how did these “kingmakers” manipulate the GOP? By promulgating “false slogans” such as “Politics should stop at the water’s edge.” In other words, for Schlafly the very idea of bipartisanship was evidence of incipient treason.

This was not the ranting of some marginal oddball. Schlafly was one of the leading lights of the right who in the 1970s would lead the successful campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment. Trump’s claim that he is going to “Make America Great Again” — after it has been betrayed by disloyal elites — is simply an echo, as it were, of Schlafly’s conspiratorial rants.

Max Boot is one of the disloyal elites who are betraying America.

Update: I listened to a long interview of Max Boot on NPR. While he denounces Trump in the strongest terms, he presented no substantive arguments at all. Occasionally he would refer to allegations that Trump paid someone off, or something like that, but that's all.