James Woods banned from Twitter

Zero Hedge reports:

Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor's tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with "nu-male smiles" and text that reads "We're making a Woman's Vote Worth more by staying home." Above it, Woods writes "Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible."

Really? Is that what these companies mean by election manipulation?

The tweet is funny. There is no reason to block it, except that leftist companies hate those with other views.

Monsters in their personal lives

Economist, multi-millionaire, and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman writes:

A trivial personal thought: I don't spend a lot of time with wealthy and/or powerful people, but it does happen occasionally given my line of work. And from now on I'll always wonder how many of the well-spoken men around the table are monsters in their personal lives

Not sure what he means here, but if he is piling MeToo victims, then he should worry about his fellow Jews being monsters in their personal lives.

PBS TV show is gay Jewish propaganda

News:

For years, people who said that Ernie and Bert of Sesame Street fame were a “gay couple” or suspected them of homosexuality were mocked for being ‘religious nutjobs’ and with other pejorative language. However, Mark Saltzman, a Jewish sodomite who wrote many of the scripts for the two characters, admitted in a recent interview that he wrote them and many other characters on the show based on his own life as an active homosexual in a relationship with another man

This propaganda is everywhere. It is not even news anymore. If you donate to PBS TV, you should realize that you are supporting a Jewish effort to undermine Christianity.

Update: Sesame Street denies that these characters are gay, and says that they are just puppets with no sex organs.

More Jewish lying to slander Christians

A Jewish feminist NY Times columnist writes:

Obviously, I believe Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who says that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school while his friend Mark Judge watched and, at moments, egged him on. I believe her when she says that Kavanaugh, who she says was drunk, held her down, covered her mouth when she tried to scream, and ground against her while attempting to pull her clothes off. I believe her when she says this incident haunted her all her life.

There’s rarely hard evidence in a case like this, but Blasey — the surname she prefers to use publicly — has done everything possible to substantiate her claim.

No, just the opposite. She never complained to the police, the school, the parents, or anyone else. There is no proof that she told anyone, until she hatched what was supposed to be an anonymous plot to derail the nomination a few weeks ago.

Her supposed memory of the incident only was reveal to her during a recovered memory session with her shrink in 2012. She cannot even tell us what year the original event took place. It is hard to imagine a more frivolous accusation.

The NY Times role in this is particularly disgusting. The MeToo movement has been mostly about exposing Jewish perverts. When a Jewish feminist says she believes this, what is it based on?

Goldberg goes on to explain how eager she is to paint all conservative Christian men as perverts and rapists, and how it is good to publish baseless accusations in order to achieve that end. Jewish Senator Diane Feinstein has been leading the charge.

Censored explanation of male intelligence

Math professor Theodore P. Hill writes:

In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.

Evidence for this hypothesis is fairly robust and has been reported in species ranging from adders and sockeye salmon to wasps and orangutans, as well as humans. Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores. There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.

This got him into trouble:

Theodore Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Tech, claims that activists successfully pressured the New York Journal of Mathematics to delete an article he had written for the academic journal because it considered a politically incorrect subject: the achievement gap between men and women at very high levels of human intelligence.

This is a subject that women appear to be incapable of understanding. Or maybe they understand it, and are desperate to censor research that they cannot refute. Either way, you can forget about hearing the truth in today's colleges.

Update: This issue has drawn commentary from Terry Tao, Tim Gowers, and Lubos Motl.

It is funny to see these prominent mathematicians make excuses for leftist egalitarian groupthink. Gowers actually says that it is a myth that being good at math is a question of raw brainpower. He presumes that there are no many female mathematicians because of discrimination, lack of role models, and similar reasons. He doubts that women are really so picky as to only want to mate with the top 30% or so of men. So he rationalizes rejecting the paper. He later retracted some of his criticisms of the paper.

It is instructive to see Gowers' thought process in action. He is a brilliant mathematician and he struggles with some fairly simple ideas that are commonly observed about male-female sex differences. It is impossible that the ideas are difficult for him. It can only be that many years of leftist brainwashing have made it difficult for him to think clearly on the subject.

Arabic to replace French in France

RT reports:

France’s minister of national education has expressed support for adding Arabic language to the school curriculum for French children, enraging the country’s right-wing that has warned of dire consequences if the plan goes ahead.

France should draw up a “qualitative strategy” for teaching Arabic language in schools, Jean-Michel Blanquer said during an interview on French television. He insisted that Arabic, along with Chinese and Russian, is one of the “great languages of civilization” and should be learned “not only by people of Maghrebi origin or Arabic-speaking countries.”

Blanquer’s comments were made in response to a report authored by the Montaigne Institute, a Paris-based think tank, which found that middle and high school students learning Arabic have increasingly turned to religious schools that teach Salafism – a radical branch of Islamic that advocates Sharia law. The report called on the French government to incorporate Arabic into the public school curriculum in order to counter the political and religious indoctrination taught at these Salafi schools.

Google insists on qualifying anything from RT as Russian propaganda.

If the Russians are the only ones publicizing this news, then I am all in favor of it. The Democrats and the mainstream news media call this election interference.

France is on a path where it will soon cease to be French. Teaching Arabic is just enabling the eventual Moslem takeover.

Tolerating the intolerant

Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues "The West is currently in the process of committing suicide." [Skin in the Game, chap. 2, p. 86]

This comment follows an explanation of why Islam cannot coexist with other religions. If a society tolerates Islam, then eventually Islam will take over. Islam takes new members by marriage, conquest, and taxation, and it never lets any go.

Other religions are not like that, he explains, and thus can stably co-exist with other religions.

He suggests that society must be intolerant of certain intolerances, or else the most intolerant factions win.

The Silicon Valley monopolists argue that Alex Jones must be banned, because he is the truly intolerant one, and that we should import as many Moslems as possible.

This is crazy. Alex Jones is just a guy with an opinion. Sometimes he recites conspiracy theories.

Moslems believe in killing or enslaving infidels. Their kids will have a religious duty to kill your kids. Their grandkids will have a religious duty to kill your grandkids. And so on. There is no way to avoid it, except to keep Moslems out of your country.

(Before someone tells me that most Moslems are not murderers, I know that. Some Moslems do not believe in killing infidels. In those cases, their kids and grandkids are the bigger threats.)

From Justin Trudeau of Canada:

“The world is moving towards more diversity, not less diversity. It’s a form of entropy where people will come with different perspectives, the advancement of communication, raising standards of living around the world…[it] means that our communities, our boardrooms, are going to be more and more diverse,” Trudeau said at a forum in Canada’s capitol. …

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne quipped, “Entropy is our strength,” mocking Trudeau’s mantra of “diversity is our strength.”

Does he really think that entropy is a good thing?

If you want diversity in your food, you do not add poison. Because once you add poison, it is all poisonous.

French white genocide propaganda

Anti-white propaganda:

How do we make babies?”

This sex education book which, according to the publisher’s website, is designed for children of 5 years and up, seems to think the magic recipe is: find a white woman and a brown man.

It is not just French propaganda. Just watch Netflix. It is full of the same stuff. And it occurs without comment, in an attempt to normalize it.

Norma Rae portrays whites as trash

I recommend this video about the 1979 movie Norma Rae, if you want to understand what Hollywood Jews think of white people. The movie was made by Jews, and won Oscars. Throughout the movie, it mocks white Christians as being inferior humans like blacks. Jews are morally, culturally, and intellectually superior.

You would think that reviewers would at least point out that the main messages of the movie are Jewish supremacy, and Jewish-created animosity among Christians. No, the reviewers praised the movie as telling a true story.

The true part is something about a woman urging some workers to vote to unionize. Maybe the real true story is how Jews think that they are so superior, and how they are doing something noble by putting down white Christians as white trash, and stirring up conflict between whites and blacks. Apparently it is a survival strategy for Jews to undermine white society and support Jewish cohesiveness.

Perhaps you are thinking that if Christians ran Hollywood, then they would make some movies with negative portrayals of Jews. After all, a couple of Shakespeare's plays had negative stereotypes of Jews 400 years ago.

That may be true. But as it is, I get the impression that most of the criticisms of Jews comes from non-Christians.

Meanwhile, the new movie Dragged Across Concrete has been attacked as Mel Gibson’s New Police Brutality Movie Is a Vile, Racist Right-Wing Fantasy. It has gotten some good reviews. I am not sure the cops are really portrayed as good guys. I have not seen it.

The movie was written, directed, and financed by Jews, so it could be a sneaky attempt to make whites look bad.

Babies cannot lie

Neuroscience news:

A new study reports there are cognitive benefits for children who learn to lie early in life. Researchers say children who learn to lie early have more self control, better executive function and improved theory of mind. ...

Children have been found to be capable of fibbing before they are seven years old, and some as early as two. He caught his own son lying for the first time at 14 months. He had taught him some American sign language, and their son gestured for more milk although he wasn’t hungry. “We ran over to the fridge to get milk and he went, ‘Ha ha ha!’ He started to laugh.”

This is a good example of psychologists doing too much mindreading. It is very unlikely that the 14-month old baby was trying to deceive his dad. Babies just don't have thought processes that complex. Maybe the baby can learn that a certain hand symbol has some relation to milk, but that's about all.

Three-year-olds can lie. Probably all kids learn to lie by age four or so.

Human diversity is as large as it ever was

SciAm reports:

At the dawning of Homo sapiens, our ancestors were born into a world we would find utterly surreal. It's not so much that the climate and sea levels or the plants and the animals were different, although of course they were — it's that there were other kinds of humans alive at the same time. For most of H. sapiens' existence, in fact, multiple human species walked the earth. In Africa, where our species got its start, large-brained Homo heidelbergensis and small-brained Homo naledi also roamed. In Asia, there was Homo erectus, a mysterious group dubbed the Denisovans and, later, Homo floresiensis — a hobbitlike creature, tiny but for its large feet. The stocky, heavy-browed Neandertals, for their part, ruled Europe and western Asia. And there were probably even more forms, as yet undiscovered.

How was that any different from today?

All humans today are considered the same species, but it is not known that the above groups were really distinct species either. In fact, those that have been DNA sequenced are known to have interbred. And the hobbit was not really later, as it was dated incorrectly.

The difference between Europeans and Africans is about the same today as it was 100k years ago.

If humans were aware of the rival human sub-species back then, would they have been concerned that alien invaders would wipe them out? The answer is likely to be yes. Basic evolutionary theory teaches that the sub-species will fight to the death, leaving one surviving group. Someday Europe may have another fight to the death with African invaders.

New Yorker writer hates Christians

I listened to Sam Harris Waking Up #131 podcast, with New Yorker writer Russian homosexual Jew queer Gessen. Those descriptors are from her.

She was anti-Russia, anti-Trump, and anti-Christian.

The curious thing was that she was much more tolerant of Islam than Christianity. She was very much in favor of importing Moslems into the USA, and hated evangelical Christians more than any other group.

Harris repeatedly asked for clarifications, and pointed out that Moslem countries treat homosexuals and Jews very poorly, and even kill homosexuals, while Christians treat them very well.

She could not give any example of any harm to the groups she identifies with (homosexuals, Jews, queers, feminists), but she nevertheless made it clear that she hates Christians so much that Moslems are to be preferred to Christians.

Of course she obviously would much rather live in a Christian country than a Moslem country or even a Jewish country.

She is just someone with an opinion, but the New Yorker is not known for permitting a diversity of opinion. If she is expressing these opinions in the New Yorker, then those opinions are probably common to most New York liberal Jews.

It is curious that Jews hate evangelical Christians so much, because evangelical Christians tend to be very pro-Israel and very friendly towards Jews.

Update: The New Yorker just disinvited Steve Bannon, out of some sort of unexplained animosity against whites by themselves and Hollywood allies.

Central values of the US Constitution

UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh discusses the central values of the US Constitution:

We can see that from the Preamble, which reads,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That suggests that the Constitution has many purposes: justice, domestic peace, defense against foreign enemies, general welfare, and liberty alike. To be sure, some of them may be seen as aspects of "liberty" in a large sense, such as liberty from foreign oppressors, or even from domestic criminals. But they are not limited to liberty, or even focused primarily on liberty.

It is funny how he can paraphrase the Preamble, and miss the most important word: Posterity.
The term "We the People" did not refer to American Indians, African slaves, Mexicans, eskimos, or conquistadors. The term "Posterity" did not include future immigrants or foreigners.

Some argue that America is an idea, but what is that idea? Volokh argues that it is not democracy or liberty.

NY Times articles on white genocide

Thomas B. Edsall writes in the NY Times: Who’s Afraid of a White Minority? According to him, some say that we should not worry about whites becoming a minority in the USA, because a lot of Mexicans will identify as white. Others say that whites should be forced to accept being replace by non-whites:

Given the slow and in fact, last year, negative growth of the white population along with its rapid aging — it is important for older whites to understand that the only way we will have a growing labor force will be to embrace the younger racial minority populations.

This last argument is ridiculous because our labor force is growing with robots, and we have no need for immigrants in our labor force.

Another rambles about whites being under attack around the world:

A wounded and swaggering identity geopolitics puts the world in grave danger. ...

the religion of whiteness increasingly resembles a suicide cult. ... will precipitate a chaos throughout the world which, if it does not bring life on this planet to an end, will bring about a racial war such as the world has never seen.

He may be on to something here. Whites are committing suicide by transferring power to non-whites, and the eventual outcome may be a bloody world war over race and religion.

Another NY Times article a week ago mentioned a long-established but under-appreciated fact:

The studies of reared-apart twins have shown that in general, half the differences in personality and religiosity are genetically determined, but for a trait like I.Q., about 75 percent of the variation, on average, is genetic, with only 25 percent influenced by the environment.

Think about that when someone tells you that govt policies are systematically replacing the population with others having different IQ, personality, and religiosity.

China treats Islam as a disease

The Atlantic mag reports:

One million Muslims are being held right now in Chinese internment camps, according to estimates cited by the UN and U.S. officials. Former inmates — most of whom are Uighurs, a largely Muslim ethnic minority — have told reporters that over the course of an indoctrination process lasting several months, they were forced to renounce Islam, criticize their own Islamic beliefs and those of fellow inmates, and recite Communist Party propaganda songs for hours each day. There are media reports of inmates being forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, which are forbidden to Muslims, as well as reports of torture and death. ...

Here’s an excerpt from an official Communist Party audio recording, which was transmitted last year to Uighurs via WeChat, a social-media platform, and which was transcribed and translated by Radio Free Asia:

Members of the public who have been chosen for reeducation have been infected by an ideological illness. They have been infected with religious extremism and violent terrorist ideology, and therefore they must seek treatment from a hospital as an inpatient. … The religious extremist ideology is a type of poisonous medicine, which confuses the mind of the people. … If we do not eradicate religious extremism at its roots, the violent terrorist incidents will grow and spread all over like an incurable malignant tumor.

From China's point of view, Islam is an ideological illness. It figures that everyone will be better off if it eradicates the Islamic beliefs now.

Mollie Tibbetts was brainwashed

I mentioned this delusional murdered couple, but another good example is Mollie Tibbetts, who once tweeted "I hate white people."

I am not blaming her. She was brainwashed with white guilt and self-loathing, like most white girls. Then she was murdered by a non-white DACA illegal alien with an anchor baby. He was working for Republican farmers who wanted the cheap labor.

Can we learn from this? Policy needs to change.

Update: NBC News reports:

The father of Mollie Tibbetts, the Iowa woman allegedly killed by a Mexican man living in the United States illegally, implored people Saturday to stop using her murder to advance their political agenda, a day after President Donald Trump’s son criticized some Democrats and what he called an “open-borders agenda.” ...

“But do not appropriate Mollie’s soul in advancing views she believed were profoundly racist. The act grievously extends the crime that stole Mollie from our family and is, to quote Donald Trump Jr., ‘heartless’ and ‘despicable,'” Mollie’s father wrote.

Okay, I will not pretend that they are anti-immigration.

Her father is so cucked that he is willing to sacrifice his daughter to the cause of white genocide. Mollie Tibbetts was raised to be a self-hating white.

I hope everyone keeps publicizing the Mollie Tibbetts story, until it is widely understood.

Warranted skepticism about South Africa

The Atlantic mag writes:

Despite the many graver human-rights problems plaguing Africa, Trump has somehow seized upon one affecting white people. Yes, there are legitimate critiques of the ruling African National Congress’s (ANC) recent decision to support the expropriation of white-owned farmland without compensation. ...

But in the 1980s, conservative Republicans expressed unwarranted sympathy for South Africa’s white government and unwarranted skepticism of its black opponents. Today, Trump is expressing unwarranted skepticism of its black government and unwarranted sympathy for its white opponents.

In today's leftist groupthink media, you are not allowed to take the side of whites on an issue. Maybe you can acknowledge some "legitimate critique" of non-whites written by a non-white, but that's about all.

Of course it is bad to seize the farms of white people, just to give them to blacks.

The skepticism of South Africa's black politicians turned out to be entirely warranted. They have ruined the country, just as predicted. The country is on a path to becoming like Rhodesia (aka Zimbabwe), where murdering white farmers is allowed.

Has replacing a white government with a non-white govt ever worked out well? One South African city cannot even supply its citizens with water.

Sure, there are probably other African cities with worse water problems. But South Africa used to be a civilized country, aligned with the West.

Trump is restoring honor and integrity

The NY Times publishes a rant by a Trump-hating Republican:

For decades, Republicans, and especially conservative Republicans, insisted that character counted in public life. They were particularly vocal about this during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguing against “compartmentalization” — by which they meant overlooking moral turpitude in the Oval Office because you agree with the president’s policy agenda or because the economy is strong.

Senator Lindsey Graham, then in the House, went so far as to argue that “impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

All that has changed with Mr. Trump as president. For Republicans, honor and integrity are now passé. We saw it again last week when the president’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen — standing in court before a judge, under oath — implicated Mr. Trump in criminal activity, while his former campaign chairman was convicted in another courtroom on financial fraud charges. Most Republicans in Congress were either silent or came to Mr. Trump’s defense, which is how this tiresome drama now plays itself out.

It is a stunning turnabout. A party that once spoke with urgency and apparent conviction about the importance of ethical leadership — fidelity, honesty, honor, decency, good manners, setting a good example — has hitched its wagon to the most thoroughly and comprehensively corrupt individual who has ever been elected president. Some of the men who have been elected president have been unscrupulous in certain areas — infidelity, lying, dirty tricks, financial misdeeds — but we’ve never before had the full-spectrum corruption we see in the life of Donald Trump.

This is so lame that I question the sanity of those with Trump derangement syndrome.

He doesn't even have any argument about corruption in office. His main snipe at Trump is the Cohen plea deal.

Cohen says that Trump authorized paying off an extortionist during the campaign. There is nothing illegal or immoral about that. The problem, according to his accusers, depends on a little mindreading. If the payoff was for his personal benefit and he used campaign funds, then that would have been a campaign law violation. If the payoff was for campaign benefit and he used personal funds, then those funds should have been reported a campaign contribution to himself, in order to be legal. If the payoff was 70% for the campaign and 30% for himself, then the 70% should have been reported as such. If the report said 70% and it was really 80% based on inferences about his state of mind, then his accusers would say that he committed a crime.

The same problem occurs if Trump bought a fancy suit of clothes. Failure to properly allocate his personal and campaign use or benefit could lead to an accusation of a campaign finance crime.

Trump is considered particularly vulnerable to this sort of accusation because he is unusually open and honest as a public figure. He freely comments on his thinking and wishes, while the lawyerly politicians like Obama and the Clinton speak only in measured and lawyer-approved equivocations.

Is this really the best the Trump-haters have to offer as an impeachment argument? It is pitiful.

Trump is restoring honor and integrity to the White House.

In my opinion, pardoning Manafort is the honorable thing to do. I expect Trump to do it after the legal case is settled. Manafort was only prosecuted because Mueller could not get evidence against Trump, and it would be wrong to let a man go to prison for that.

Hollywood as a massive anti-white crucible

I leftist Santa Cruz paper complains about a local white radio talk show host:

Georgia “Peach” Beardslee is still spreading lies and talking about “white genocide” ...

To open up the second hour of her Wednesday, Aug. 8 show, Beardslee called the burning of black churches in the 1960s “a hoax” and then referred to Hollywood as “a massive anti-white crucible.” She spewed made-up statistics about crime, claiming — without evidence — that there are 35,000 cases of “black-on-white rape” a year, while also suggesting the whites seldom rape black Americans.

The article goes on to complain that the Jewish owner of the radio station fired two Jewish hosts for breaking the rule against attacking other hosts on the air, such as "Nazi" and "loved Hiter".

The article does not actually rebut anythi ng Beardslee said. It is true that the burning of black churches was a hoax, and black-on-white rape is 1000s of times more frequent that white-on-black rape.

The Beardslee radio show is amusing. She has a sense of humor, and she advocates freedoms. Sure, she's white, and speaks up for white people. Why is that so upsetting? Other radio programs cater to latinos, veterans, dope smokers, and others.

Is it a coincidence that all these white haters are Jewish?

The US DoJ has just announced that three Trump associates have all agreed to testify against him in exchange for leniency or immunity for their own crimes. It is called "flipping", as Trump says. Michael Cohen, the lawyer who paid off the prostitute/extortionist, Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, and tabloid publisher David Pecker.

Again, these are all Jews. Coincidence?

2018 is going to be the year that Jews became known mostly for two things: MeToo sexual harassment, and lying to frame President Trump.

Not all Jews, of course. Professor Dershowitz has written a book on how Trump is innocent of any impeachable offense. Dershowitz did have some weirdo sexual accusation against him, but it was obviously absurd, and I think he went to court just to prove it false.

But the news media Jews in the NY Times, Wash. Post, CNN, NPR, etc. all actively lie to frame Trump on a daily basis. As I write this, David Brooks is launching attacks on the morals of Trump in paying off a porn star. Brooks himself ditched his wife for the research assistant that he employed.

NY Times wants to impeach President Trump

The Jews at the NY Times argue:

For all of my opposition to Donald Trump, I have long been skeptical of the political wisdom or evidentiary basis of efforts to impeach him. ...

And, like it or not, Trump remains popular with tens of millions of Americans. To overturn the results of an election for anything less than unambiguous evidence of criminal behavior is a danger to democracy itself.

At least that was my view until this week. Michael Cohen’s guilty plea changes this. The Constitution’s standard for impeachment is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The standard is now met.

Trump’s longtime fixer acknowledged in court on Tuesday that he violated campaign finance laws by paying hush money to two women “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office.”

No, there is no law against paying off blackmailers.

Something does not become a crime just because some sleazy Jewish lawyer says so in plea deal to avoid jail time. And not just because some Trump-hating Jewish newspaper says so either.

These vegan Trump-haters did not believe in evil

Daily Wire reports:

A young American couple who took a year-long bike trip around the world, believing that evil was a make-believe concept, took a fatal route in Tajikistan near the Afghan border, where alleged ISIS terrorists stabbed them to death.

Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, 29, quit their jobs last year in order to make their trip. Austin was a vegan who worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Geoghegan, a vegetarian who worked in the Georgetown University admissions office.

Austin had a personal blog on which he wrote in June 2017, “I’ve grown tired of spending the best hours of my day in front of a glowing rectangle, of coloring the best years of my life in swaths of grey and beige. I’ve missed too many sunsets while my back was turned. Too many thunderstorms went unwatched, too many gentle breezes unnoticed.”

Their trip, which lasted 369 days, took them from the southernmost tip of Africa in Capetown, South Africa, to Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Montengro, Kosovo, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and finally Tajikistan, where they were murdered along with two other cyclists, one from Switzerland and the other from the Netherlands.

And of course they have some incoherent complaints about President Trump. They had no kids.

The New York Times reported:

A grainy cellphone clip recorded by a driver shows what happened next: The men’s Daewoo sedan passes the cyclists and then makes a sharp U-turn. It doubles back, and aims directly for the bikers, ramming into them and lurching over their fallen forms. In all, four people were killed: Mr. Austin, Ms. Geoghegan and cyclists from Switzerland and the Netherlands. Two days later, the Islamic State released a video showing five men it identified as the attackers, sitting before the ISIS flag. They face the camera and make a vow: to kill “disbelievers.”

CBS News added, “ISIS followed an initial claim of responsibility in print with a video showing the five purported attackers pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.”

I am surprised that they trip lasted as long as 369 days.

Here is warped leftist pacifist thinking at work. There were probably nice people, but no civilization could ever survive if it were dominated by folks like that.

NY TImes promotes dubious sexism studies

The NY Times keeps publishing articles with supposedly scientific data on how sexism is harmful to women. Recent examples are A ‘Generationally Perpetuated’ Pattern: Daughters Do More Chores and How Sexism Follows Women From the Cradle to the Workplace:

New economic research suggests that the attitudes toward a woman when she is born have a lasting impact on how much she works, and earns, as an adult.

But these worthless studies hardly show anything, except that some women value being a housewife and homemaker, and those women do more house work and less work-for-hire outside the home.

MeToo advocate gets MeTooed

Variety news:

According to documents obtained by the New York Times, leading #MeToo advocate Asia Argento settled an accusation of sexual assault from former child actor and musician Jimmy Bennett for the sum of $380,000 to be paid over the course of a year and a half.

The claim and resulting discussions of payment are included in documents between the lawyers for Argento and Bennett. The claim states Bennett was a little over 17 years old at the time of the alleged assault, which took place in a California hotel room in 2013 when Argento was 37. The legal age of consent in California is 18.

As part of the agreement, Bennett, who is now 22, gave a selfie of he and Argento in bed and its copyright to Argento, now 42. Three people familiar with the case told the New York Times that the documents were authentic. ...

She’s recently faced online persecution after her boyfriend, Anthony Bourdain, took his own life. Online trolls began harassing her, saying that she caused his death. Numerous sexual assault and harassment survivors penned on op-ed in the Los Angeles Times supporting her. ...

Bennett appeared in films including “Daddy Day Care” and Argento’s “The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things,” in which he played her son.

Is it incest if she seduces a kid playing her son in a movie? Did the movie convince her that her heart is deceitful?

Someday this MeToo hysteria will pass. With enuf stories like this, maybe ppl will realize that the MeToo women should never have been taken so seriously.

Homo Erectus was lazy

LiveScience reports:

Homo erectus first appeared 2 million years ago and went extinct some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. But compared with other hominins, like Neanderthals, this species may have been quite lazy and more reluctant to adapt to a changing environment, according to new study published July 27 in the Journal PLOS One. ...

A little way away from the Homo erectus camps was a rocky outcrop that had higher-quality rock but required a trek up a hill. “But rather than walk up the hill, they would just use whatever bits had rolled down and were lying at the bottom,” Shipton said.

When the researchers examined the rocky outcrop, they found that it was untouched by Homo erectus — no traces of activity, no artifacts and no quarrying of the stone, Shipton said in the statement. By contrast Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens climbed mountains for high-quality stones and transported them over long distances, according to the statement.

Homo Erectus lived in Africa. Neanderthals lived in Europe. Supposedly both went extinct, but DNA evidence has proved that European and Asian races are descended from Neanderthals.

More identity politics at the NY Times

The NY Times is back to attacking white Christian males. It has lots of articles attacking Catholics, even tho none of the current allegations are likely to be criminal.

In fairness, the paper has published a lot of MeToo movement stories, which have mainly targeted Jewish male sexual practices. I guess feminist man-bashing is more important.

There are opinions promoting identity politics.

Article defending Israel's new law making Jewish supremacy official there.

Then there is this weird article about how black boys worry that they might go into a white neighborhood, and get called out for selling water without a license. They also worry that they might get robbed or beaten up in black neighborhoods, but the article does not mention that.

It also says that black girls have no fear at all in white neighborhoods. On the other hand, most white girls do not go into black neighborhoods at all. A white girl going in a black neighborhood has a thousand times greater chance of being raped than a black girl going in a white neighborhood. Or maybe a million times. I have never even heard of a black girl being raped for wandering into a white neighborhood. The NY Times refuses to tell us comparative crime data like that.

Update: I didn't even mention the wacky white guilt letter. Even if the letter is a hoax, it shows the editors believe in white guilt.

Negative news for Catholic Church today

Some of my readers complain that I criticize Jews too much, and that I should criticize the Catholics now that there is a grand jury report on homosexual Catholic priests. Maybe so, but there are some differences.

I criticize Moslems much more harshly than Jews. There are now about as many Moslems as Jews in the USA, but Jews have contributed about a million times more.

The Catholics don't go around telling me what I can say or do. The Catholics did not censor Alex Jones. The Catholics are against the death penalty, but do not actively try to pass laws to abolish it.

The Catholics do not openly condone or promote homosexual behavior, or statutory rape.

If Pennsylvania priests committed crimes, then I am all in favor of prosecuting them. But these allegations are decades old, and there does not appear to be any way to substantiate them.

There will be attempts, probably by Jewish lawyers, to make today's Catholic parishioners pay millions of dollars for alleged crimes from decades ago. The effort will be supported by the Jewish press. Supposed victims will suddenly have recovered memories about alleged abuse. Why pay? Public schools do not pay millions of dollars every time a schoolteacher seduces a high school kid.

Some will say that the large number of allegations makes the Church guilty. I don't see it that way. That only shows that some sharks are smelling blood. I will be looking to count the number of contemporaneous criminal complaints. That is the more telling number.

Feminists okay Jewish lesbian to harass gay man

The NY Times reports:

Mr. Reitman, who is now 34 and is a visiting fellow at Harvard, says that Professor Ronell kissed and touched him repeatedly, slept in his bed with him, required him to lie in her bed, held his hand, texted, emailed and called him constantly, and refused to work with him if he did not reciprocate. Mr. Reitman is gay and is now married to a man; Professor Ronell is a lesbian.

Professor Ronell, 66, denied any harassment. “Our communications — which Reitman now claims constituted sexual harassment — were between two adults, a gay man and a queer woman, who share an Israeli heritage, as well as a penchant for florid and campy communications arising from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities,” she wrote in a statement to The New York Times. ...

Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.

So they are both sick and irresponsible perverts, but they are Israeli heritage Jews and he's gay and she's a lesbian feminist so their behavior is all okay except that a law designed for feminists to punish men is being used to hold a woman accountable.

The NY Times is obviously quite conflicted on this one.

In other NY Times news:

Stephen Miller’s Uncle Calls Him a Hypocrite in an Online Essay ...

But in an essay posted online Monday, Dr. David S. Glosser, Mr. Miller’s uncle, argues that the family would have been turned away if the immigration policies currently backed by Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller were in place at the time. ...

In the article, Mr. Glosser related in detail the story of Wolf-Leib Glosser, who arrived on Ellis Island in 1903 from the village of Antopol in Eastern Europe, fleeing persecution and forced conscription. Wolf-Leib Glosser was Mr. Miller’s great-grandfather on his mother’s side, writes Mr. Glosser. ...

Mr. Miller — who attended Santa Monica High School in Santa Monica, Calif., one of the country’s most liberal communities — has pushed for an end to the family-based immigration laws that went into effect in the mid-1960s, arguing that the United States should restrict entry to those who can contribute the most to the American economy.

Will someone send a dictionary to the NY Times?

Miller is not a hypocrite just because his great-grandfather was a draft-dodger who came to the USA who came to the USA with goofy stories about how Jews were persecuted. Miller is trying to reform a 1965 law, and that has nothing to do with what happened on Ellis Island in 1903.

Why is it news that someone has an uncle with a differing political opinion? Don't most people have such uncles?

It is news because the Jews at the NY Times have a political agenda here. They expect all Jews to support the eliminationist rhetoric of the anti-whites, so they find excuses to attack Miller.

What stands out about Miller is that he is a Jew who is actually a patriot who is working to make the USA great. And the Jews at the NY Times hate him for that.

Jews concerned about eliminationist rhetoric

I mentioned the NY Times hiring a white hater, and sure enough, Jews and Jewish publications are defending gte white hater.

In defense of Sarah Jeong

Why Andrew Sullivan and the conservative media are wrong to call the New York Times’s latest hire “racist” for attacking white people.

He says Jews are not really white. Also, Jews are not really marginalized either, as they are wealthier than white people.

He says it is politically acceptable to say whites run America, as Jews like himself believe in complaining about white people. But if you point out that Jews run America, the Jews will accuse you of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and try to ruin you.

The reason for this double standard, he explains, is that Jews have a religious belief in pretending that they are a marginalized group.

He says Jews have "experienced the consequences of actual eliminationist rhetoric firsthand", and whites have not, so whites cannot complain when Jews advocate for the elimination of white nations.

Not all Jews use eliminationist rhetoric about whites, of course. But it is the vast majority. Of the Jews at Jewish-dominated papers like the NY Times, it is nearly 100%. Almost every day it has articles promoting or celebrating policies that will eliminate white majorities in the USA and elsewhere.

NY Times endorse White Genocide columnist

The NY Times announces:

On Wednesday, The New York Times announced that it had hired Sarah Jeong as the lead technology writer for its editorial board, ...

There was soon an outcry on right-wing websites over tweets Ms. Jeong wrote from 2013 to early 2015, which referred to white people with terms like “groveling goblins” and “dogs.” ...

Soon after The Times announced that it had hired her, screenshots of her old tweets — which, in one case, included the phrase “#CancelWhitePeople” — began circulating on Twitter.

Jeong's excuse is that she is the victim because she is non-white, and continues to blame white people.

The NY Times leads the charge in ostracizing anyone who ever makes pro-white comments, and endorses those making anti-white comments. She also sided with ridiculous and false accusations against white men, such as UVa fraternity rape and Duke lacrosse rape.

Jeong posted that her plan is for white people to go extinct.

I do not favor unpersoning anyone for offensive tweets, but the NY Times is taking sides here. It is firmly on the side of advocating the extinction of white people, and blocking any columnists who defend whites.

The Jews at the Wash. Post write:

It is likely true, as many have pointed out, that if any minority group were substituted in the place of white people into Jeong’s statements, she would not have kept her job. Some edited Jeong’s tweets to hammer home that idea, replacing the words “white people” in her tweets with “black people” and “Jewish people.”

But Cabrera said the idea was “a complete false equivalence,” noting that whiteness isn’t a cultural identity the way being black, Japanese American or Jewish is.

So Jews give this as an excuse for advocating the extermination of white ppl?!

No, it would be more accurate to say that whites do not wage war against rival ethnic groups, as blacks, Japanese, and Jews do.

Of course there is a white cultural identity. It is the essence of modern civilization. It is so popular that blacks, Japanese, and Jews mimic white culture as much as they can. In Jeong's case, and with the NY Times, there is some insecurity and resentment. They get their following by promoting white hatred, but they desperately want all the benefits of white culture.

Flores fossils are much older

The NY Times just reported, referring to research from a couple of years ago:

As the researchers extracted DNA from the samples and analyzed it, other scientists were taking a new look at the Homo floresiensis fossils. They realized that the initial estimate of their age was wrong. Instead, the fossils are at least 60,000 years old.

I missed this story about the Flores fossils.

The Flores skull was a huge story because it appeared half-human, half-ape, and only 12k years old. Apparently that age estimate was completely wrong.

Identifying the globalists is called a slur

The Jerusalem Post reports:

US President Donald Trump used an antisemitic slur to attack Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, sibling megadonors to the Republican party, in a post to Twitter Tuesday. …

Trump has used the term “globalist” before. Trump called his former economic adviser Gary Cohn a “globalist” when he resigned from Trump’s administration in March of this year. Cohn is Jewish.

“He’s been terrific. He may be a globalist, but I still like him.” Trump said. “He is seriously a globalist. There’s no question. In his own way, but you know what, he’s a nationalist. He loves our country.”

The Anti-Defamation League defines “globalist” as an antisemitic slur.

“Although the term is not inherently antisemitic, ‘globalist’ is often used as a pejorative term for people whose interests in international commerce or finance ostensibly make them disloyal to the country in which they live,” the ADL website states.

“Because of the long history of antisemitic associations of Jews with money and commerce, and allegations that Jews place their transnational ethnic affiliations ahead of the interests of their non-Jewish neighbors, these pejorative subtexts quickly take on antisemitic connotations,” the website says.

Antisemites and white nationalists often use the term as a code word for Jews, according to the ADL.

So how else are we supposed to describe “people whose interests in international commerce or finance ostensibly make them disloyal to the country in which they live”?

The Koch brothers are not even Jewish, as far as I know.

In other news, Jews are not against quotas anymore:

we feared that our hard-earned right to be admitted on the merits would be taken away. The WASP quotient would be held constant, and the Jews and African-Americans would be left to fight over the crumbs. … What happened is that Jews have become the WASPs. They are among the dominant groups on campus, in terms of numbers.

Too many orientals invading the universities, it appears. Harvard needs to find excuses to limit them.

Si Valley is now anti-freedom

Steven Johnson writes in Wired mag:

If you asked a similar question today—is there a new Silicon Valley politics? — it would be pretty clear that libertarianism is no longer the answer. ...

Today many people working inside Silicon Valley, and many on the right who vilify it from a distance, consider the community to be “an extremely left-leaning place,” as Mark Zuckerberg recently put it in congressional testimony.

This article is fine as far as it goes, but it fails to explain why Si Valley has gone Left.

Si Valley has been taken over by foreigners. Most of them are from countries where the concept of freedom is not understood, so of course they are not libertarians.

Zuckerberg is American-born, but he is Jewish and has a Chinese wife.

Today's Si Valley has no loyalty to America, or anything else. They got where they are by stealing ideas, and importing labor. They cater to overseas markets, and consider themselves citizens of the world. They are more connected to China than to Kansas.

They are destroying the middle class. There is a large upper class that lives in million dollar homes, and a large underclass that has no hope of ever owning a home. They need to have a lot of social programs, like food stamps, or else they would not have the manual laborers that they require.

California has become a one-party state, with Democrat dominating state-wide offices and elections near the coast.

Hardly any voters are influenced by the issues mentioned in the article. They vote according to identity politics. Political alliances are held together by hating white Christian men. Indians vote with Indians. Gays vote with gays. Feminists vote with feminists. Jews vote with Jews. White cucks vote with white cucks. Nobody really cares about the supposedly tech issues like net neutrality.

Tweeting is not obstruction of justice

The NY Times top story a couple of days ago was about how Trump's tweets could be an obstruction of justice!

I am wondering why these Jews get so hysterical about tweets, Russian TV, and Wikileaks. These are the things that are at the center of attempts to impeach President Trump, or complain about Russian attempts to influence American opinion.

What do these things have in common? The Trump-haters seem completely crazy.

One possibility is that those are the new media outlets that are not under Jewish control.

In the 2016 election campaign, the Jewish-dominated news media was 95% Trump-hater propaganda. Even since, they have been complaining about the other 5%. The CIA/FBI/NSA report on Russian influence mostly complained about RT TV broadcasts critical of Hillary Clinton.

Even if Putin personally ordered RT TV to endorse Donald Trump, why would that be a bad thing? The Jewish news media was overwhelmingly putting out anti-Trump lies, so if some obscure TV channel gave a different view, so much the better.

Meanwhile, the NY Times does not seem to realize that Ronan Farrow is a Nazi. He is apparently getting his revenge against the Jews for some personal problems related to his bizarre upbringing.

Jewish physician gets doxxed for his views

A Jewish mag reports:

Jewish doctor at a New York City hospital has been “placed off duty” after an article posted online Monday claimed that he was Facebook friends with white supremacists and had frequently commented on some of the web’s most high-profile hate sites, ...

The doxxer spent six months investigating Bechhofer, and was in contact with people who knew him personally; documents shared with the Forward claim that the investigation included in-person surveillance.

Revealing Bechhofer’s private writings was justified because co-workers and patients ought to know his views, the doxxer said — especially considering the potential that his views of minorities could affect his diagnoses.

The investigation was done “so his neighbors know who he is and who they’re living near,” the doxxer added. “Just like child sex offenders get registered.”

Wow, 6 months of spying just to dox someone posting anonymous political opinions? And a hospital firing him for his opinions?

We have no free speech, if this is the consequence. Having a political opinion is not like being a convicted child sex offender. It should not be, anyway.

Here is his apparently most inflammatory opinion:

“I’ve had it in my head to write a little something called ‘A Jewish Defense of Anti-Semitism,’ but it’s been slipping my mind. In short, the vocal majority of Jews act so irritatingly and display such reprehensible attitudes – publicly and privately – that I’d rather see a ‘tempered’ anti-Semitism now than see Jewish perfidy continue without consequence until, as Johnny Cash might say, the man comes around. Because he will. As I frequently tell Jewish acquaintances, if there is another Holocaust, it will be entirely of their doing (I don’t get too into the genesis of the first one… I once tried, but mouths fell open and I was practically kicked out of the apartment). So, yes – I like to see (((them))) named and exposed where relevant. I would like to see a general boycott of Hollywood coupled with some Semitic realism. And I’d like to see the fanatical AIPAC supporters exposed as the dual nationalists that they are.”

Genetically, Ashkenazi Jews are half-white. So I guess they can be white nationalists.

Jews, like most other ethnic groups, prefer to live in a white Christian nation. Even if they hate the white Christians, the white Christian nations are better places to live.

My concern here is for free speech. How many people share his views, but are afraid to say so, because they don't want to get fired like him? We will find out when the man comes around, I guess.

No one earned his or her DNA

Texas Psychology professor Kathryn Paige Harden writes in the NY Times:

Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans, but researchers focused on the remaining 1 percent and found thousands of DNA variants that are correlated with educational attainment. This information can be combined into a single number, called a polygenic score. ...

No one earned his or her DNA sequence, yet some of us are benefiting enormously from it. ...

Our genes shape nearly every aspect of our lives — our weight, fertility, health, life span and, yes, our intelligence and success in school. Scientists have known this for years, based on results from twin and adoption studies, but it’s only recently that we have been able to measure DNA directly and use it to predict outcomes with any degree of certainty.

Genetic differences in human life are a scientific fact, like climate change. Many progressives resist acknowledging this when it comes to education, fearing that it will compromise their egalitarian beliefs. But just like acknowledging the reality of climate change is necessary to ensure a sustainably habitable planet, acknowledging the reality of genetic differences between people is a necessary step for us to ensure a more just society.

So if you are benefiting from your education, then you are really benefiting from your DNA and your polygenic score.

Likewise, you did not earn your character, personality, industriousness, or anything else. There are polygenic scores for those, also.

Yes, genetic research is incompatible with progressive egalitarian beliefs.

Science mag endorses racist bots

A Nature mag article says that AI is going to be sexist and racist, unless the data is fudged to be more like some ideal leftist egalitarian world, instead of the world as it is. It says:

Various approaches are being pursued. One involves incorporating constraints and essentially nudging the machine-learning model to ensure that it achieves equitable performance across different subpopulations and between similar individuals8. A related approach involves changing the learning algorithm to reduce its dependence on sensitive attributes, such as ethnicity, gender, income — and any information that is correlated with those characteristics9.

Such nascent de-biasing approaches are promising, but they need to be refined and evaluated in the real world.

An open challenge with these types of solutions, however, is that ethnicity, gender and other relevant information need to be accurately recorded. Unless the appropriate categories are captured, it’s difficult to know what constraints to impose on the model, or what corrections to make. The approaches also require algorithm designers to decide a priori what types of biases they want to avoid. ...

As computer scientists, ethicists, social scientists and others strive to improve the fairness of data and of AI, all of us need to think about appropriate notions of fairness. Should the data be representative of the world as it is, or of a world that many would aspire to?

Note that it won't work to just omit ethnicity and gender data from the databases, and assume that the resulting AI system will be ethnicity and gender neutral. That is because they see the "world as it is" as biased, so ethnicity and gender have to be put into any AI model, and then experts need to fudge the data and cook the algorithms so that the results are more like the world that good lefty social justice warriors aspire to.

This article is probably not even controversial in academic circles. They take it for granted that data and algorithms need to be manipulated to achieve their left-wing goals. They can't get there if machines deal honestly with raw facts.

Reason.com wants a new slave trade

The Libertarians at Reason.com are advocating a new African slave trade:

If we want our economy to grow, what America needs more than anything is workers. ...

In the two decades from 1980 to 2000, the share of foreign-born residents in the U.S. nearly doubled, from 6.2 percent to 11.1 percent. In the next decade and a half, from 2000 to 2015, it rose only from 11.1 percent to 13.4 percent. ...

Before the recession of 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau predicted that the country's population would reach 439 million by 2050. ...

From 2010 to 2040, just two regions of the world are likely to enjoy increasing labor forces: India and Africa. After 2040, sub-Saharan Africa is projected to become the only region in the world with a growing workforce.

This is where many of our workers will need to come from. Imposing extra barriers on people from regions that are seen as "undesirable" is therefore a catastrophically bad idea. But it's also a mistake to create strong preferences for skilled as opposed to unskilled migrants. ...

The solution is to substantially increase immigration from today's diminished levels.

I would not be surprised if the USA reaches 500 million people in 2050. The Democrat Party is switching to being fully in favor of open borders, and Donald Trump is one of only a few Republicans with the guts to stand up to them.

Psychology discredited again and again

The NY Times reports:

In recent months, researchers and some journalists have strung cables around the necks of at least three monuments of the modern psychological canon:

The famous Stanford Prison Experiment, which found that people playacting as guards quickly exhibited uncharacteristic cruelty.

The landmark marshmallow test, which found that young children who could delay gratification showed greater educational achievement years later than those who could not.

And the lesser known but influential concept of ego depletion — the idea that willpower is like a muscle that can be built up but also tires.

The assaults on these studies aren’t all new. Each is a story in its own right, involving debates over methodology and statistical bias that have surfaced before in some form.

But since 2011, the psychology field has been giving itself an intensive background check, redoing more than 100 well-known studies. Often the original results cannot be reproduced, and the entire contentious process has been colored, inevitably, by generational change and charges of patriarchy.

Isn't Psychology just some goofy field that Jews believe in?

There are some scientific reproducible research results in psychology, but the entire field has been dominated by quacks ever since Freud. Much of what they say has negative value. That is, listening to their advice makes you worse off.

Israel votes to be a Jewish state

Israel news:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel passed a law on Thursday to declare that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country, something members of the Arab minority called racist and verging on apartheid.

The "nation-state" law, backed by the right-wing government, passed by a vote of 62-55 and two abstentions in the 120-member parliament after months of political argument. Some Arab lawmakers shouted and ripped up papers after the vote.

"This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and the history of the state of Israel," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset after the vote. ...

"I announce with shock and sorrow the death of democracy," Ahmed Tibi, an Arab lawmaker, told reporters.

Netanyahu has defended the law. "We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel's democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides," he said last week.

"An absolute majority wants to ensure our state's Jewish character for generations to come."

That is democracy. Democracy means following the wishes of the majority, not the minority.

Every great nation was founded on ethnic identity, including the USA. Except for white Christians, nearly all ethnic groups vote according to their ethnic identification. Blacks vote with blacks, Mexicans with Mexicans, Jews with Jews, Arabs with Arabs, etc. Those Israeli Arabs are only complaining because they are in the minority.

Ron Unz explains how he changed his views about Israel:

To put it bluntly, Jews have divine souls and goyim do not, being merely beasts in the shape of men. Indeed, the primary reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve as the slaves of Jews, with some very high-ranking rabbis occasionally stating this well-known fact. In 2010, Israel’s top Sephardic rabbi used his weekly sermon to declare that the only reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve Jews and do work for them. The enslavement or extermination of all non-Jews seems an ultimate implied goal of the religion. ...

And while religious Judaism has a decidedly negative view towards all non-Jews, Christianity in particular is regarded as a total abomination, which must be wiped from the face of the earth.

Whereas pious Muslims consider Jesus the holy prophet of God and Muhammed’s immediate predecessor, according to the Jewish Talmud, Jesus is perhaps the vilest being who ever lived, condemned to spend eternity in the bottommost pit of Hell, immersed in a boiling vat of excrement. Religious Jews regard the Muslim Quran as just another book, though a totally mistaken one, but the Christian Bible represents purest evil, and if circumstances permit, burning Bibles is a very praiseworthy act. Pious Jews are also enjoined to always spit three times at any cross or church they encounter, and direct a curse at all Christian cemeteries. Indeed, many deeply religious Jews utter a prayer each and every day for the immediate extermination of all Christians. ...

If the Gentile population became aware of these Jewish religious beliefs and the behaviors they promote, major problems for Jews might develop, so an elaborate methodology of subterfuge, concealment, and dissimulation has come into being over the many centuries to minimize this possibility, especially including the mistranslation of sacred texts or the complete exclusion of crucial sections. Meanwhile, the traditional penalty for any Jew who “informs” to the authorities on any matter regarding the Jewish community has always been death, often preceded by hideous torture.

He goes on to say other surprising things about Jewish history. I cannot confirm any of it, but discussion is not allowed, so draw your own conclusions.

You are considered anti-Semitic if you say things about Jews, but Jewish newspapers regularly print weird and unsubstantiated allegations against Christians. Today's NY Times alleges:

But James’ allegations — that he was repeatedly sexually abused as a minor — are the most explosive yet to be leveled against the cardinal, who is now 88 and living in seclusion in the Washington, D.C., area. On Monday, James filed a police report detailing his accusations against the cardinal with the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office in Virginia, where he lives. ...

The last time he visited Archbishop McCarrick, in 1989, he asked for money, he said; McCarrick refused, and never called him again. By then, James was 31.

Instead of feeling relief, James said, he spiraled downward. “I am done,” he said. “He has thrown me away.”

His marriage fell apart, and in 1991, he said, he attempted suicide. He landed in detox and has been sober since, he said.

So James claims to have had a homosexual affair with a priest that ended when the accuser, at age 31, attempted to extort money in 1989. James was upset that the affair ended.

Why does he tell his story now? According to the article, he just learned that he could possibly sue the Church for millions of dollars.

The article smears the poor 88yo priest, but refuses to give James' last name. There is no corroboration for any of the accusations, and there is not likely to be as they go back 45 years. I think that James made up this story in order to extort money from the Church, and the NY Times prints it in order to falsely smear Christians.

What to do if we are doomed

Roy Scranton writes in a NY Times op-ed:

A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.

Anyone who pays much attention to climate change knows the outlook is grim. It’s not unreasonable to say that the challenge we face today is the greatest the human species has ever confronted. And anyone who pays much attention to politics can assume we’re almost certainly going to botch it. ...

Some people might say the mistake was having a child in the first place. As Maggie Astor reported, more and more people are deciding not to have children because of climate change. This concern, conscious or unconscious, is no doubt contributing to the United States’ record-low birthrate. ...

Take the widely cited 2017 research letter by the geographer Seth Wynes and the environmental scientist Kimberly Nicholas, which argues that the most effective steps any of us can take to decrease carbon emissions are to eat a plant-based diet, avoid flying, live car free and have one fewer child — the last having the most significant impact by far. ...

To take Wynes and Nicholas’s recommendations to heart would mean cutting oneself off from modern life. It would mean choosing a hermetic, isolated existence and giving up any deep connection to the future. Indeed, taking Wynes and Nicholas’s argument seriously would mean acknowledging that the only truly moral response to global climate change is to commit suicide. There is simply no more effective way to shrink your carbon footprint. Once you’re dead, you won’t use any more electricity, you won’t eat any more meat, you won’t burn any more gasoline, and you certainly won’t have any more children. If you really want to save the planet, you should die. ...

When my daughter was born I felt a love and connection I’d never felt before: a surge of tenderness harrowing in its intensity. I knew that I would kill for her, ...

If Scranton really believes all this, then the logical conclusion is not to kill himself. That will not solve anything. It is to kill for the sake of his daughter.

He should favor a World War III, the purpose of which is to exterminate everyone from China, India, and Africa. That is where population growth and economic development will cause those disastrous carbon emissions.

Going vegan or avoiding flying is silly. Such personal decisions will have no effect on carbon emissions, as he recognizes in his essay. Neither will any other likely policy. Only massive war and genocide have any hope of saving us.

I think that he has greatly exaggerated the harm from climate change, but that is not the point here. If you are convinced that billions of people are destroying the planet, what can you do? Killing billions of people is drastic, but the climate change doomsayers present such a bleak picture of the future that killing billions may be preferable.