Thursday, June 30, 2016

White age is 56, Hispanic is 9

The Daily Caller reports:
U.S. Census data of American residents shows that the most common age for white Americans is by far the oldest. The most common age of Hispanics is 47 years younger.

Do You Think America Will Still Be A White Majority Country In 2050?

Yes No

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The most common age of white American residents is 56 years old, 27 years old for Asian Americans, 25 years old for black Americans, and nine years old for Hispanic Americans, according to June 2016 census data.

It was recently reported that whites were now the minority when it came to births in 2015. Fifty-two percent of births in 2015 were of racial and ethnic minorities. In 2015, whites also became a minority when it came to people under age five. In 2013, the fertility rate among whites was 59 per thousand women of reproductive age. For Hispanics it was 73 births per thousand women aged 15-44.

With current trends, whites are poised to become a minority in the United States during the mid-2040s.
This is not an accident, or the result of some natural or inevitable trend. It is the policy of Democrats and lizard people to systematically replace the white race.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Why Aziz Ansari hates white males

Actor Aziz Ansari writes in the NY Times:
I am the son of Muslim immigrants. ...

Being Muslim American already carries a decent amount of baggage. In our culture, when people think “Muslim,” the picture in their heads is not usually of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or the kid who left the boy band One Direction. It’s of a scary terrorist character from “Homeland” or some monster from the news. ...

There are approximately 3.3 million Muslim Americans. ...
The latest monster in the news is the suicide shooter and bomber at the Constantinople airport. Most people call it Istanbul now, as the Moslem have driven out all the Christians.

Any guesses on the religion of the monster? My news sources did not say, but only Moslems do stuff like that.

Ansari says that he did not cheer the 9-11 WTC attack, because he was too busy worrying about his personal safety in Manhattan.

Okay, I accept that. But he have any understanding of why Americans do not want to import people sympathetic to terrorism? Nope.

Instead, he blames Trump, white males, and the NRA.
The vitriolic and hate-filled rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump isn’t so far off from cursing at strangers from a car window. He has said that people in the American Muslim community “know who the bad ones are,” ... By Mr. Trump’s logic, after the huge financial crisis of 2007-08, the best way to protect the American economy would have been to ban white males.
Does he mean Jewish males? The NY Times would not have printed his op-ed if he said that. No, they all want to blame non-Jewish white males.

Actually, there are a lot of people wanted to prosecute the bankers who could be blamed for that crisis. There are also a lot who blame the people who defaulted on their mortgages, and many of those were non-white.

Comparing terrorist killings to mortgage derivative trading is disgusting. It is just an attempt to make excuses for Moslems murdering people.

He complains that his Moslem background makes people think that he has terrorist sympathies, but if that is not true, then I suggest that he disavow terrorism and jihad. But he does not in the essay.

All I get out of this essay is that Ansari hates white males. America has treated him very well, and he has gotten rich and famous, but he is mad that American white males are not more tolerant of Moslem terrorists.

The essay is titled: "Aziz Ansari: Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family". But the only examples of him being scared in the essay are from Islamic terrorism, not Trump or Americans or white males.

The NY Times is trying to scare people into opposing Trump, and it publishes this essay to convince that even moderate non-religious Moslems have good reason to oppose Trump. My reaction is just the opposite. This jerk has no reason to oppose Trump except that he hates white males, and that he wants import millions of more Moslems so that America will become more Islamic.

I am sick of these arguments about how America is bad because of all the terrible things white males have done. White males built America and made it great. This guy is treated better in America by white males than he would be in any Islamic country. We do not need immigrants from Moslem countries or anywhere else. They guy should be grateful to be here, and not trying to start his own jihad against white males.

Fox News reports:
Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.
Even Al Qaeda has figured out that terrorists can target and kill white Americans without being charged with a hate crime.

In response to some geniuses who babble anti-Trump hysteria, I found this comment:
The United States faces an existential threat from a plan that is racist, criminally motivated and treasonous. The Democratic Party wants to give citizenship and the vote to millions of illegal immigrants with the selfish intended goal of capturing a block of votes and stealing elections for decades to come. It’s the same plan with convicted felons. Meanwhile vicious “progressive” bullies want to destroy free thought and free speech in universities and everywhere else. The Left has become overrun with racist sociopathic ideologies and will definitely destroy this country if it can.

I have always regarded myself as solidly left of center, and always will, but for me it is a very easy decision to vote for an only mildly conservative centrist like Trump, (and to hold my nose and vote Republican down the entire ticket despite being vehemently opposed to many of their ideals) because if the Democrats capture the presidency and both houses then this country will be destroyed. By contrast, the absolute worst case I see in a Trump presidency is is mild inconvenience.

By the way, I am a highly educated intelligent person, for the snobs keeping score.
He is correct. Do you want to elect Trump and save the country, or instead worry about hurting the feelings of some first-generation Moslem who hates white people anyway.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Trump is not the authoritarian

A lot of people try to compare Donald Trump to Hitler.

The comparison does not make much sense, but I want to look at one aspect -- the claim that Trump is authoritarian like Hitler. It appears to me that Hillary Clinton is much more authoritarian, as she is the one who wants to ban guns, to start wars, and to support questionable executive action such as the one that the Supreme Court just declared illegal.

The accusation usually comes from Jews who are extremely authoritarian themselves. There is actually decades of social science research on this, where authoritarian is defined to be right-wing authoritarian (the bad Hitler kind), and not left-wing authoritarian (the good kind, according to the professors). This research was initiated by a Jewish group purporting to identify people who might support another Hitler.

Peter E. Gordon writes:
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian. Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate — Republican or Democrat — whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.
So they consider you authoritarian if you want your kids to be respectful, obedient, well-behaved, and well-mannered?!

Hillary Clinton wrote a whole book on how your kids should be in govt day centers. That is an example of left-wing authoritarianism. Democrats are all about creating a nanny state, and about forcing policies that would not get majority approval. Those right-wing authoritarians just want well-behaved kids.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Academics accusing Trump of authoritarianism

A lot of people try to compare Donald Trump to Hitler.

The comparison does not make much sense, but I want to look at one aspect -- the claim that Trump is authoritarian like Hitler. It appears to me that Hillary Clinton is much more authoritarian, as she is the one who wants to ban guns, to start wars, and to support questionable executive action such as the one that the Supreme Court just declared illegal.

The accusation usually comes from Jews who are extremely authoritarian themselves. There is actually decades of social science research on this, where authoritarian is defined to be right-wing authoritarian (the bad Hitler kind), and left-wing authoritarian (the good kind, according to the professors). This research was initiated by a Jewish group purporting to identify people who might support another Hitler.

Peter E. Gordon writes:
my poll asked a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian. Based on these questions, Trump was the only candidate — Republican or Democrat — whose support among authoritarians was statistically significant.
So they consider you authoritarian if you want your kids to be respectful, obedient, well-behaved, and well-mannered?!

Hillary Clinton wrote a whole book on how your kid should be in govt day centers. That is an example of left-wing authoritarianism. Those right-wing authoritarians just want well-behaved kids.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Orlando shooter was not gay

The public has probably moved on from this, but I am afraid that some false info has been burned in.

The Democrats and the (((news media))) have been trying to convince us that the Orlando shooter was not a Moslem jihadist, but really a gay suffering from repression by Republicans.

Now the LA Times reports:
Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers.

But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said. ...

On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.

But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation.

In seeking to verify the reports, federal agents have culled Mateen’s electronic devices, including a laptop computer and cellphone, as well as electronic communications of those who made the claims, law enforcement officials said.

So far, they have found no photographs, no text messages, no smartphone apps, no gay pornography and no cell-tower location data to suggest that Mateen — who was twice married to women and had a young son — conducted a secret gay life, the officials said.
Wow. This was just straight Mohammedan terrorism. If the USA had a reasonable immigration policy, Mateen never would have been here.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Another Freddie Gray defendant acquitted

The Democrat race war is based on convincing non-whites that they are being persecuted, as shown by cases like Trayvon Marton, Ferguson Mo, and Freddie Gray. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have personally said things to encourage race riots.

I have always assumed that some blacks are mistreated, by why can't the Democrats and (((news media))) find any examples?

Another genius physicist has joined the Trump-haters:
Letter to My Friends, by Leonard Susskind

I’m watching this thing that’s happening with disbelief, dismay, and disgust. There is a lunatic loose — I’m sure we all agree about that — but I keep hearing people say that they can’t vote for Hillary. ...

The lunatic may be just that — a lunatic—but he is also a master of smear and innuendo. He is a gigantic liar, and he knows that if you keep saying something over and over, it sticks in people’s minds. It’s called the Big Lie, and it works. Say it enough and it sows confusion and distrust, not only among the know-nothings, but even among those who know better.

The lunatic and his supporters are exceedingly dangerous. Tell your friends: don’t be fooled. The only thing between us and the lunatic is Hillary. Get off your ass and vote in Nov.

Leonard Susskind
Director, Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Stanford University
There is no real argument here, except the opinion that everyone agrees that Trump is a lunatic.

(((Susskind))) is a well-respected theoretical physicist, but he is mainly known for work that has no relation to the real world, such as info leaking out of black holes. It is not mathematically rigorous either.

I mentioned other genius Trump-haters, who also rely on simply saying that all their friends are against Trump.

Is this really the best they can do with their 180 IQ?

If he said that an asteroid were going to destroy the Earth, then I would expect some verifiable evidence, and an estimate of the damage. What damage will a Trump candidacy cause?

No explanation is given. My inference is that it is all part of hating white people.

All of the experts, political leaders, globalists, super-rich, and other elites have been telling Britain that it has to stay in the EU. Pollsters and bettors were saying that it would vote to remain. It has now voted to leave. This is amazing. The British people have voted to stand up for their national self-interest, over the advice of the elites who have been selling them out. America needs to do the same in November.

Update: Lenny defends his letter, but only with arguemnts to appeal to brainless leftists.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

What we mean by America First

Donald Trump summarizes what his campaign is about in a speech today:
Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people really first. We have to go back to putting our American people first.

We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.

We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed. They get punished!

This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs.

We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again.

That’s what we mean by America First.
This is the essence of why Trump is such a timely and important candidate. Everyone else has abandoned Americanism for globalism.

Putting America First should be the top job requirement for the President. It swamps all other issues. Why vote for a candidate who does not put America First? Hillary Clinton and the anti-Trump Republicans just seem like traitors in comparison.

Why White-haters vote Democrat

A WSJ op-ed asks:
Many of this year’s college graduates will cast a vote in a presidential election for the first time in November. If they are Jewish or Asian-American, as we are, the odds are that they will vote Democratic. Among Jews, 78% backed Barack Obama in 2008, and 70% did in 2012, despite a foreign policy that at best could be described as rough on Israel. Asian-American support for Mr. Obama grew between 2008 and 2012, from 62% to an even more lopsided 73%. What accounts for this overwhelming support for Democrats?
It is funny how people ask this question, and then give a bunch of answers that do not make any sense.

It is real simple. Jews and Asians are extremely ethnocentric. The Democrat Party has become the hate-White-Christian party.

White Christians are the least ethnocentric people on Earth, and even have a hard time understanding how others could be so preoccupied with identity politics. But to most others, it is very important, and to Jews and Orientals, it is nearly everything. Jews will vote for the Jewish party, and Chinese with vote for the Chinese party. Since these groups are too small to have their own parties, they just vote for the anti-white party.

Democrats also get votes from self-hating whites, such this famous German-American moral philosopher. I mentioned this case, and now there is a follow-up:
Yale philosophy professor Thomas Pogge has “engaged in behavior that violates the norms of appropriate professional conduct,” states an open letter signed by over 200 of his peers. “Nothing is more important to our philosophical community than the trust he has betrayed.” ...

The open letter states that Pogge appears to have “engaged in a long-term pattern of discriminatory conduct,” including “unwanted sexual advances, quid pro quo offers of letters of recommendation and other perks, employment retaliation in response to charges of sexual misconduct, and sexual assault.” It notes that other allegations have surfaced since BuzzFeed News’ investigation was published, and that all of the public allegations to date have been made by women of color.
Really? Nothing more important?

Sexual assault would be a crime, but no one has complained to the police. The complaints are pretty lame, from a legal view, as no one suffered any harm. They are troublesome for Yale because of Obama Title IX policies.

It is funny what they choose to complain about. They do not complain about his adultery or his preference for young colored women. Most of all, they do not complain about his horrible moral philosophy, which mainly consists of thinking up of new ways to blame white people for varous real and imagined ills. It is not clear whether he really believes the nonsense he spouts, or if it is just a ruse for fame and fortune in academia, or for seduction of young non-white girls who are impressed by his white hatred.

"Nothing is more important"? No, nothing is more important to academics than blaming white people, as that is how this charlatan got promoted in the first place.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Science of physiognomy

CH argues:
Pman sells the science of physiognomy short. There’s evidence (re)emerging from the labcoats’ mental masturbatoriums that a person’s looks do say something about his politics, smarts, personality, and even his propensity to crime. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air, and the historical wisdom that one can divine the measure of a man (or a woman) by the cut of his face has empirical support.

For instance, facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is a reliable cue to dominant social behavior in men. Another study found that wide-faced men are untrustworthy. You CAN judge a book by its cover: ugly people are more crime-prone.

Shitlibs have a look. Shitlords have a look. And you can predict with better than 50/50 chance which 2016 presidential candidate a person supports based on nothing more than their photograph.

Physiognomy is real. It needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and the snarling equalists who lied and slandered good men to suppress the investigation of physiognomy should have their faces rubbed in the realtalk. Physiognomy isn’t just an illusion of confirmation bias, or of backwards rationalization of evoked emotions. The connection between facial appearance and character is observable and measurable, not a figment of cognitive self-bias. There are exceptions, of course, but the existence of exceptions should not be used as an excuse to sweep the reality of the rule under the rug.
The CH blog has its own jargon that makes it hard for outsiders to read. Sometimes I think that he does this deliberately, because the typical blue-pill reader will not grasp his points, and be offended by his posts. His jargon is a way of directing his message at those who will get it.

Part of the purpose of Uber and Airbnb is to let the vendors and customers see each other before making a deal.

The leftist egalitarians complain that it is discrimination to judge someone based on appearance. Of course it is. It is also essential to human civilization.

Americans get taught in kindergarten to treat everyone alike, and not to make any judgments based on appearance. This goes against science, and against human nature. Adults who say this stuff are just mindlessly reciting what they learned in kindergarten. It is nearly impossible to reason with such people because they are brainwashed. They have a kindergarten morality that is ingrained like a religion. Most people do not critically examine their religious beliefs. When someone has been sticking to a belief since an early age, even in the face of obvious counterexamples, he will probably not be persuaded by any logical argument.

Monday, June 20, 2016

ABC News bans Christian from show

Here is an opinion from someone calling himself the "friendly atheist":
Here’s an interesting move: ABC News had scheduled Christian hate group leader Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council) to appear on today’s episode of This Week, then quietly removed him from the lineup after many people complained.

Whether the removal was the direct result of the complaints hasn’t been confirmed, but given Perkins’ previous statements about LGBT people, it’s difficult to see what he would have contributed to any discussion on the Orlando shootings.

Zack Ford of ThinkProgress notes:
FRC has long been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a prominent anti-LGBT hate-group, and Perkins himself has a notorious reputation for his anti-LGBT vitriol. Though he often tames his rhetoric in mainstream news appearances to sound like his anti-gay views represent all U.S. Christians, he then tells FRC’s audiences things like that homosexuality leads to “eternal damnation” and is “harmful” to individuals “and to society as a whole.”
Writer Laura Bethany Taylor also asked ABC in an open letter, “How tolerant would the national media be of a KKK leader speaking on a massacre of African Americans?”
So why does an atheist care about Christian damnation?

My guess is that most Americans believe that homosexuality is harmful to individuals and to society as a whole. Whether that is true depends on what you mean by harm.

But Moslems commonly believe that homosexuals should be put to death. Many Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuals. However offensive Perkins might be, he is a big friend to LGBT folks, by comparison.

I don't watch ABC News, but does it ever have Moslem guests? If so, and if they represent mainstream Islam, then they are 1000x more offensive to LGBT. If they are putting gay Moslems on the air, then they are misrepresenting Islam.

I suspect that they are suppressing the truth about Islam.

I have heard (((SPLC representatives))) on NPR radio, and almost everything they said was based on hatred of whites and Christians. You would think that if he wanted to defend LGBT rights, then then he would criticize the ideologies that favor killing homosexual. Nope. All they want to do is to spread their own hatred.

Florida killer audio censored

One reason we get so many wacky crime stories out of Florida is that it has a very strong open records law. So mug shots, 911 calls, and police evidence are released to the public.

But in the case of the Orlando gay bar shooting, the Barack Obama administration is now censoring the 911 calls from the Afgan-American Moslem killer Mateen. The FBI says that he declares his allegiance to Islam, and the recording might give people the impression that Islam is a religion of violence. So it is being suppressed for the duration of a multi-year investigation.

We have one Presidential candidate who says that Islamic terrorism is a problem, and we have another who says that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and that we should ban guns instead.

We have a (((mainstream media))) trying to convince everyone that the massacre was caused by guns, Republicans, American schools, homophobia, racism, etc. Maintaining their power depends on keeping people brainwashed.

Ask yourself: Why is it taking years for the FBI to figure out what Donald Trump deduced within an hour of the news of the shooting? The answer is that destroying Christendom requires concealing the motives of the lizard people.

Update: The censored portion has supposedly now been released.

Tech companies go full Leftist

It was widely reported that (((Facebook))) is rigging its system to favor Hillary Clinton, but so are the other big tech companies. See Anonymous - Google manipulating Hillary Clinton, Twitter blocking conservatives, and Apple fighting the GOP.

Apple is always adding gay emojis, but it and Microsoft have now banned the rifle emoji.

I tried watching some video clips of late night comedy shows on Trump and Clinton. They are just pro-Clinton propaganda, and not funny at all. Jay Leno would at least make an effort to make fun of both Republicans and Democrats. The shows today do not do that at all.

These tech companies are all heavily invested in betraying America. They want open borders, and to integrate America with the Third World. They want to import cheap labor, and subsidize foreigners to get hooked on their products. They want socialist control over all of your communications.

If Clinton is elected, look for a special law sheltering Google from liability for self-driving cars. Or maybe a fully-socialized car insurance system. Buying influence gets favors.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Famous feminist reveals damaged family

The lead book review in today NY Times is of a new memoir by man-hating feminist (((Susan Faludi))).

Previous books have trash her father as embodying all the evils of the patriarchy. Now she decides that he is not so bad, because in his 70s he traveled to Thailand to have his genitals chopped off, and now he is dead.

She says "she was born in Hungary", referring to her father. She says that his/her real name is Friedman, and he/she were from a wealthy Jewish family.

The NY Times caters to a Jewish audience, and celebrates this sort of story. This hits many of their favorite themes: Jewish, leftist, man-hating, emasculated man, family betrayal, social destruction, America-hating, Holocaust reminder, bitter feminist, sordid, etc.

The NY Times promotes this book with an author interview and rave review. Actually I didn't read the review, and I am just judging by the interview. What is so great about this garbage? This is the sad story of mental illness and emotional damage. I think that this is more evidence of control by lizard people.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

The latest goofy value judgments

I keep seeing complaints that 20yo Stanford swimmer Brock Allen Turner was only sentenced to 6 months or less for a rape conviction.

No, he was not convicted of rape, and his sentence was not just 6 months. He was also sentenced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Those requirements are so onerous that many find it necessary to move out of state or out of the country.

I did not follow the case, so maybe he deserves the punishment. But it is disturbing the way everyone overstates the crime, and understates the punishment. Just part of the war on men, I guess.

One of the great advances in the history of philosophy is the conclusion that "ought implies can". Immanuel Kant said that if you ought to do something, then it must be that you can do it. That is, you cannot be morally commanded what you are unable to do. Now experiments supposedly show that people do not reason this way at all. The philosophers go on to argue whether Gandhi's morality can be said to be any better than Hitler's. I guess the idea is that both were popular extremists who were just doing what they could to help their people.

Such is the sorry state of philosophy.

Non-philosophers in respectable publications are not much better. This Julia Ioffe essay concludes:
No religion is inherently violent. No religion is inherently peaceful. Religion, any religion, is a matter of interpretation, and it is often in that interpretation that we see either beauty or ugliness — or, more often, if we are mature enough to think nuanced thoughts, something in between.
Her main argument is that the early Christians persecuted the rival Manicheans about 1700 years ago.

(((She))) is just another Trump-hater.

Yes, Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. Islam was founded by a military conqueror, and teaches killing its enemies. Christianity teaches peace.

Friday, June 17, 2016

No free speech at Catholic college

Breitbart reports:
After a tepid apology to college Republicans last week after disruptive protests and threats of violence forced the early cancellation of their event with Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, the President of DePaul University has released a statement kowtowing to left-wing activists on campus.

The President, Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, has faced a week of pressure from left-wing activists after he released a statement apologizing to the college Republicans for the disruption of their event, and criticizing protesters for their actions (which included grabbing a microphone from the event’s host, waving it in Milo’s face, and threatening violence).

In the wake of his apology (which included a condemnation of Milo as a “self-serving provocateur”), Terry Smith, a Distinguished Professor of Law at DePaul authored an article in the campus newspaper calling on him to step down or be fired, due to, among other things, betraying “marginalized” students by allowing the Yiannopoulos event to take place on campus.
The DePaul President has now resigned.

You would think that a private Catholic university could have a guest speaker with some non-leftist opinions. I have seen a couple of videos of this Milo character, and I did not see anything particularly offensive. He is not even very right-wing. He is some sort of gay anti-feminist.

Our colleges are in a sorry state. I think even the Catholic schools are run by (((lizard people))). Holtschneider's statements do not even sound human. The Pope is also suspect.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Secret Lizard Person denial

Gizmodo reports:
Mark Zuckerberg hosted his first ever Facebook Live Q&A today. And it went about as well as you’d expect. One of the key things we learned? Mark Zuckerberg is not a lizard person. Or so he says.

The hour-long Q&A has been viewed by nearly 6 million people, and it even had a celebrity cameo in the form of a very awkward looking Jerry Seinfeld. But the most interesting part of the Q&A was when Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and billionaire, denied that he was actually a gigantic lizard posing in human form.

There have long been conspiracy theorists who believe that the world’s most powerful people are actually lizards disguised in giant human-shaped costumes. David Icke, the British conspiracy theorist, is perhaps the most famous person who contends that almost all powerful people are actually shape-shifting reptilian humanoids.

But Zuckerberg insists that he isn’t one of them.

“Mark, are the allegations true that you’re secretly a lizard? Um... I’m gonna, I’m gonna have to go with ‘no’ on that. I am not a lizard,” Zuckerberg said seeming oddly nervous.

“But keep the high quality comments coming in please, this is surely on track to be a great Live Q&A if we continue getting stuff at that level of quality,” Zuckerberg continued sarcastically.

The weirdest part is that the questions seemed to be pre-screened, at least in part. It almost seems like Zuck wanted to address the issue.

A 2013 poll found that roughly 4 percent of registered voters in the United States believe that “lizard people control our societies by gaining political power.” At the time of this writing 11,275 people have liked the Reptilians fanpage on Facebook.
Of course (((Zuckerberg))) would deny it.

The more relevant question is: If he were a secret lizard person, how would he behave any differently?

If there were a conspiracy of lizard people, the first thing they would do would be to set up a FaceBorg network to control all the humans on the planet, and brainwash them against any allegiances that would resist the lizard people.

I am going to use echo parentheses for (((suspected lizard people))).

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Clinton to flood USA with Moslems

Hillary Clinton said:
Let's be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Donald Trump says:
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.

If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.

The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.

We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.

Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
This alone is reason enuf to support Trump over Clinton.

The Democrat Party reliably gets the votes of those who hate white Christians. So they import Moslems. Clinton is betraying the country for short-term political gain. Your grandkids may live under Moslem rule, if she gets her way.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Echo parentheses

Wonder what the latest sinister threat on the internet is? It is extra parentheses:
In the early days of the social web, putting someone's name in multiple parentheses was meant to give that person a cute virtual hug. Today, it's something far more sinister. ...

"I get plenty of anti-Semitic things, but this was different," said Michael, a Jewish journalist who was targeted by right-wing trolls in 2015 following a story he wrote that was critical of the GOP. (Michael asked Mic to use only his first name to protect his family.)

"[The echo] is a way of bringing attention to people who are Jewish — intimidating," Michael said. "They try to threaten." ...

Coded hate speech like ((())) may not be searchable, but it is public; tweets containing it can be reported to Twitter for abuse and shut down. This will not stop abusers from simply creating new accounts, and it will not stop other users from swarming on victims once they've been identified using the ((())) symbol — a method of abuse known as "dogpiling." ...

Whether they know it or not, Neo-Nazis on Twitter have discovered a brilliant loophole — a code that's difficult to filter whose meaning incites waves of hate before the target realizes what's happening. Jewish writers can report those tweets all they want, but the damage ((())) sets into motion may only be beginning.
This is funny. The mainstream news media is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. A political candidate represents about half the population, but the big newspapers, TV, radio, etc. are filled with vile Trump-hating nonsense.

A few trolls mock the Trump-haters with echo parentheses, and their immediate reaction is to try to censor excess punctuation on Twitter!

Supposedly the parentheses are anti-Semitic because a lot of the news media Trump-haters are Jewish. Nor is it anti-Semitic to point that that they are just echoing propaganda.

It is not anti-Semitic to point out that people like Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Tom Friedman are Jewish. Jewish identity politics dominates their thinking.

If anyone is anti-Semitic, it is the Moslems and liberals supporting the BDS movement.

You may be thinking that hate is not justified under any circumstances. From what I have seen, the anti-Trump forces have far more and invidious hate than the Trump supporters.

At political rallies, anti-Trump forces have initiated violence against Trump supporters, while the pro-Trump forces have not bothered anyone.

In the NY Times, Wash. Post, NPR radio, etc, the Trump haters regularly disseminate some of the most hateful stuff I have seen in the mainstream media. And it is all against Trump, Republicans, whites, Christians, and cis-gendered males.

Maybe I will start using the parentheses for (((Hillary Clinton))), (((Trump-haters))), and others using identity politics to make America a worse place.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Banning interracial marriage

China is banning interracial marriage:
The Supreme People’s Court of China today passed legislation that will ban Chinese women from marrying non-Chinese men, with the law coming into effect at the beginning of 2018. The policy had been fiercely debated for a number of months before it finally won approval from the required number of legislators earlier today. Civil rights groups in China have condemned the restriction, pointing out that it discriminates against women by still permitting males to enter into interracial marriages.

“We strongly urge the People’s Court to reconsider this new law, and repeal the legislation before it comes into force.” A small group of protesters staged a rally outside the courthouse in central Beijing today, but were soon dispersed by authorities. Following decades of the one-child policy, China is now faced with a shocking gender imbalance – for every girl below the age of 18 in China, there are now three boys. “The law was introduced in order to promote social harmony,” commented one of the People’s Courts legislators. “We need to ensure there are enough Chinese women available for marriage; otherwise there is a high probability of increased levels of rape and other violence.” One of the more controversial aspects of the new law is the fact that Chinese men are not banned from marrying women of other races. “Because we have such a shortage of women in China, we need to make sure Chinese men have as many opportunities as possible to find a bride.”
See also Muhammad Ali on interracial marriage and couples. Ali is hilarious, white the white liberal is stunning into babbling nonsense.

The academic research on interracial couples is pretty horrifying, especially for white women.

If you think academic research might be biased, check out this Retraction Watch notice:
Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism. That paper also swapped ideologies when reporting on people higher in neuroticism and social desirability (falsely claiming that you have socially desirable qualities); the original paper said those traits are linked with liberal beliefs, but they are more common among people with conservative values.
Got that? The papers said that conservatives are high in psychoticism and liberals are high in social desirability, while the data said the opposite.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Why did Hillary Clinton win?

Hillary Clinton's nomination is usually explained in terms of her advantages in super-delegates and in fundraising. But she had those advantages in 2008, and still lost.

The difference in 2016 is that she had identity politics on her side. She ran a campaign based on hating white people, and she picked of the votes of the blacks, hispanics, and other non-white groups. The polls showed that Sanders won in white states, and Clinton only did well in areas with a lot of non-whites.

This is also my impression from listening to a lot of Clinton and Sanders supporters. I never hear any Clinton supporters say that they like her personally, or that they prefer her policy positions, or that they find her trustworthy, honest, or competent. I have never even heard anyone agree with her foreign policy.

It all comes down to identity politics. They want her because she is pro-feminist and aligned with anti-whites. She is the most racially divisive candidate since the segregationist Democrats of the 1960s.

So vote for Hillary Clinton if you want a race war.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

More smart people hate Trump

Scott Aaronson is one of the 30 Smartest People Alive Today, and he now joins the Trump haters:
Since Tao was criticized for not explicitly listing his reasons why Trump is unqualified, let me now give my own top ten — any one of which, in a sane world, I think would immediately disqualify Trump from presidential consideration. To maximize the list’s appeal, I’ll restrict myself entirely to reasons that are about global security and the future of democratic norms,
Global security? Hillary Clinton is a warmonger who has done more to undermine the security of the Mideast than any living person.

I won't go thru his list of reasons, as they are too silly. His first reason has to do with free speech. But the Left is all about shaming people who say something that is not politically correct, and Trump has surely opened up political discussion of the hot issues of the day. So I see Trump as very much helping free speech.

He has reason to hate to hate the social justice warriors (SJWs):
Meanwhile, many of the social-justice types who are Trump’s ideological opposites did try to destroy my life — and not because I hurt anyone, tried to hurt anyone, or said anything false, but just because I went slightly outside their Overton Window while trying to foster empathy and dialogue and articulate something true. And having spent a year and a half reading their shaming attacks, on Twitter, Tumblr, Metafilter, etc., I’m well-aware that many of them will try again to destroy me if they ever see an opportunity.

So on the purely personal level, you might say, I have a hundred times more reason to fear Amanda Marcotte than to fear Donald Trump, even though Trump might become the next Commander-in-Chief (!?), while Marcotte will never become more than a clickbait writer.
So what makes him endorse Clinton? He is very much in favor of the changing demographics that are eliminating the white Christian majority in the USA. (He looks white, but he is Jewish and his wife is Israeli. Many Jews do not identify as white.)

Apple, Google, and Facebook are also working for the Clinton campaign.

I can accept that these guys are smarter than I am, but that does not mean that I have to agree with them about exterminating white people. They are clever enuf that they do not explicitly say that they are working towards genocide, but they can be judged by their actions. How would they be acting differently if they were trying to destroy white America?

It is apparently in the interests of the super-rich, elites, white-haters, Christian-haters, and others to flood the USA with Third World immigrants, to destroy the middle class, and to mire us in pro-Moslem foreign wars. That is what you get when you vote for Clinton.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

We are better than this

I listened to Hillary Clinton victory speech. Her biggest point was all about having a woman nominee is a feminist milestone.

Okay, fine, but is there any reason to vote for her?

She started to credit those who influenced her, but there was no credit for her husband Bill or for any man. It was all women, all the way. She gave sort of a backhanded compliment to Sanders, but only to the extent that she wants to pick up his voters.

There was no mention of her foreign policy or any other of her disastrous policy ideas.

She launched personal attacks on Donald Trump. She accused him of using code words, and said that she wanted to build bridges not walls.

Trump does not use code words. He is the best straight talker in politics today. The wall is not a code word. He wants to build a wall.

It is safe to assume that Clinton is using code words. She is not going to build bridges, as that is just a code word. It is code for importing Third World migrants to kill your sons and rape your daughters.

All of the news media commentators I heard were praising Clinton. The authoritarian left controls most of the news media, I guess.

That woman disgusts me.

I am also disgusted by all the Republican and cuckerservatives who rushed to the defense of the judge in the Trump U. case, just because he is a Mexican-American. None of them have any defense for the rulings that Trump was criticizing.

Judge Curiel belongs to the Mexican equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. It promotes the Mexican race over whites and others.

Look at the judges that Democrats appoint. I cannot remember the last time a Democrat appointed a white male Christian to the US Supreme Court. Maybe 50 years ago? I will have to look it up. Clinton, Obama, and all the others insist on appointing non-whites for ideological reasons. If the non-whites really judge the same, then why make such an effort to appoint them?

So I would not be surprised at all if this Judge Curiel were appointed for his hatred of white people, and if he is unfairly biased against Trump.

Paul Ryan is related by marriage to a black woman federal judge. So maybe he thinks that non-white affirmative action judges should not be criticized. So for that he tries to sabotage the Republican nominee? Ryan is a creep. Even if Trump loses the election, he will have done a public service by exposing traitors like Ryan.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

More on Tao's endorsement

I mentioned mathematician Terry Tao's claim that it is common knowledge that Donald Trump is unfit, but that everyone is afraid to say it. A comment points out that the truth is more nearly the opposite:
Trump routinely gets about 40 percent in nationwide polls. It’s probably not a solid majority that privately thinks the way you are conjecturing. And if you restrict to white voters, Trump does seem to get over 50 percent support as of now. ...

If there are any secret opinions not being expressed, it’s the people who vote for Trump but keep quiet about it. In public he is routinely trashed. In academic circles you could conceivably lose your job for expressing his kind of views. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no need to hold back if you are a Clinton supporter.
This election reminds of the one in 1984, when academics claimed that it was common knowledge that Ronald Reagan was unfit. Many, including a famous New Yorker writer (I believe), said that never met anyone who liked Reagan or voted for him. Reagan went on to win a landslide, taking 49 states.

How can these folks live in such a bubble, and be so oblivious to it?

Tao is a brilliant mathematician, and one of the smartest men on the planet. And yet his political comments are pathetic.

By any objective measure, Trump is vastly more fit and competent than Hillary Clinton. She cannot give an unscripted speech, has not been able to do a press conference in a year, and cannot name an accomplishment to brag about. She has lived off the fame of her husband, failed at everything she has done, is a terrible manager, and no one likes her. She is also riddled with scandals.

Trump has successful businesses, wrote a widely praised book, starred in a successful TV show, deals with the press daily, and is brilliant. Most of all, he has successfully articulated the important issues of the day, and transformed the Republican party.

I have tried quizzing Clinton supporters for why they like her. Like Tao, they don't really say that they like her. All I ever get out of talking to them is that to complete the leftist agenda, they need to eliminate the white Christian American majority. Clinton will help flood the country with Third World migrants who will supply cheap labor, destroy the middle class, and eventually vote Democrat.

It is a little curious that Tao's post links to a puzzle where the solution is to kill all the blue-eyed people! Maybe that is the biggest clue to his reasoning.

How did Neanderthals survive so long?

Anthropologist and Neanderthal-defender John Hawks write about how little is known about Neanderthals, and adds:
Across the entire timespan of existence of Neandertals and the branch that gave rise to them, probably fewer than 50,000 of them existed at any time. I would not be much surprised if the true number was much smaller. If the average lifespan of a Neandertal was 20 years, maintaining a population of 50,000 individuals would require around 7 births per day. For the more than half million years this population and its ancestors existed, back past Sima de los Huesos to their common ancestors with Denisovans and African peoples, we can say there were as many as 1.3 billion Neandertals.
Anthropologists speculate endlessly about why the Neanderthals went extinct, with the leading theory being that they were raped and murdered by African migrant hominids who were invading Europe. The only survivors were Neanderthal-African hybrids.

The previous theory was the Out of Africa theory, but that has been disproved by DNA evidence.

I think the bigger mystery is how the Neanderthals lasted so long. The lived for 0.5M years with small populations in Europe where regular ice ages made it nearly uninhabitable.

A Wash. Post article says that polar bears could be wiped out in a manner analogous to Neanderthals:
Many humans carry traces of DNA from Neanderthals, which means we’re all hybrids. ...

Amstrup has studied bears in the Arctic since the 1970s and was instrumental in helping list the polar bear as a threatened species in 2008. He, like other experts, characterizes this “new” bear relationship as more beneficial to grizzlies than polar bears. That’s because there are more grizzlies than polar bears and because grizzly territory is expanding while polar bear territory is contracting. What that adds up to is a good chance grizzlies could essentially dilute the polar bear population until it doesn’t exist at all, they say.

Polar bears are getting the short end of the stick in this relationship, not “gaining any genetic diversity,” said Geoff York, who led research on polar bears at the World Wildlife Fund for almost a decade before joining Amstrup at PBI. ...

All hybrids that have been analyzed had grizzly fathers, because grizzly males roam to establish territory and come in contact with receptive female polar bears. Female grizzlies tend not to stray far from their home ranges, and male polar bears don’t usually creep into grizzly habitats.
The Neanderthals did not know what they were up against. Neither do the polar bears.

If this were happening to a modern human society today, what would it do?

Monday, June 06, 2016

Incredibly empty attacks against Trump

Famous Australian-Chinese UCLA mathematician Terry Tao writes:
Proposition 1. The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, is not even remotely qualified to carry out the duties of the presidency of the United States of America.

Proposition 1 is a statement which I think is approaching the level of mutual knowledge amongst the US population (and probably a large proportion of people following US politics overseas): even many of Trump’s nominal supporters secretly suspect that this proposition is true, even if they are hesitant to say it out loud.
Tao usually proves his propositions, but this time he shows no evidence that he knows much about Trump or has even met a Trump supporter. The only reasons given are that Trump was denounced by Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and a British comedian.

As a comment also pointed out, Clinton also said in 2008 that Barack Obama was unfit to be President. But Tao endorsed Obama anyway, with the only reason given being that some other black dude endorsed him. Otherwise, Tao stays out of politics.

Czech physicist Lubos Motl responds:
But what's amazing is that Tao isn't discussing – and maybe, he isn't even willing to discuss – any of the political issues at all. He doesn't want to care whether Trump is right or whether most people in the U.S. agree with Trump or not. Tao seems to think that a few cheap insults such as "unqualified" and "petty" combined with some would-be mathematical jargon are more important than the actual political and personality issues and values and dreams. Sorry but it is not more important.

Terry Tao is absolutely detached from the issues that matter to the American voters, he is detached from politics, he is largely detached from America's life. But he's still arrogant enough to think that with some would-be mathematical terminology, his cluelessness may be sold as a superior analysis of the U.S. politics. I think that the comment section at Tao's blog shows that it can't. Almost everyone sees how deeply flawed Tao's attempts to axiomatize politics are, how shallow his insults are, how he has nothing to do with and nothing to say about the values and political issues that matter.

I believe that many opponents of Trump must start to see how incredibly empty most of these attacks against Trump are.
Yes, Tao is clueless about politics, and just parroting propaganda from other white-hating America-hating leftists.

One comment says:
Here are a bunch of arguments that Trump is qualified:

1. He’s a billionaire. He had a reputation as a businessman for getting a lot of things done. His properties are run very smoothly. Conclusion: He’s good at getting things done.

2. He has many children and grandchildren. So he doesn’t want the world to go to hell. Conclusion: He has skin in the game.

3. His wife loves him. He sells many books. He’s very skilled at persuading people (e.g. in rallies). He’s a skilled talker in interviewers. Conclusion: He’s sharp and good with people.

4. His family members endorse him, including ex-wife. Contestants on the Apprentice who’ve worked for him like him. Golfers like Natalie Gulbis like him. Conclusion: He’s honest and has worked to keep a good reputation all his life.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton has a terrible track record, is widely hated by people who know her, and is lousy at persuasion. Trump talks to the press every day, and Clinton has not has a press conference in over a year.

Most of all, Trump has competently addressed the important issues of the day, and that got him the nomination. Clinton has not yet done that, even tho she just had token opposition.

Since Tao does not give any logical argument, and only relies on what he thinks is conventional wisdom, then what is his real reason for hating Trump?

Maybe he is foolish enuf to believe his fellow leftists. This is possible.

Maybe he has some underlying animus or agenda that he is unwilling to spell out. I think this is more likely.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Dilbert endorses Clinton out of fear

The Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has been writing how Donald Trump has been running a much wiser campaign than Hillary Clinton, and now announces:
This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.

That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. ...

The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. ...

If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. ...

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
Yes, Clinton's campaign is based on shrill name-calling and threatening a race war. She is just spewing fear and hatred to the low info voters.

I even have anonymous commenters on this blog who keep trying to compare Trump to Hitler. You know that the Trump-haters have no argument when Godwin's Law takes over before any substantive argument.

As Adams explains, Clinton does have one thing going for her. Republicans, Trump supporters, and white Christians are 10x more tolerant than Democrats and Clinton supporters. Clinton is the one threatening a race war. Trump supporters do not threaten violence against Clinton supporters, but Clinton supporters threaten violence against Trump supporters.

Political tolerance means tolerating people with political views different from yourself. Clinton and her supporters are all about exterminating views and cultures that deviate from her leftist agenda. They even want the President to dictate bathroom policy in every American school. Not even the Communists did that.

I live in a leftist Democrat area, and the ppl are far more intolerant than any Republican area I have been in.

The news media is dominated by cucks and leftist authoritarians who are betraying America, so Adams can endorse Clinton without threatening his life or livelihood.

Vote Trump for Rule of Law

The top NY Times story was:
Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.
Shapiro is a Russian Jew who advocates open borders, on the theory that American law should not favor Americans over foreigners in any way.
And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego, who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.

Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.

“They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?”
Curiel identifies as Mexican and Latino, and his parents are Mexican citizens. Trump told the truth.
When Mr. Trump recently released a list of his potential Supreme Court nominees, conservative and libertarian scholars were heartened, but only to a point.

“It was a tremendous list, a great list,” said Mr. Shapiro, from the Cato Institute. “Who knows how much you can trust the list?”
I think that the problem here is that the Trump-haters fear that he is against judicial supremacy. They have liberal goals that they will never achieve by persuading the public. They count on dictatorial judges to impose them. Trump may not go along with that.

The term "Rule of Law" does not mean accepting judges opinions. It means applying written laws. Clinton is openly opposing rule of law on many fronts, such as promising to use executive power to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Update: Alberto R. Gonzales explains why Curiel presents an “appearance of impropriety.”

Occidental Dissent adds:
The cucks want you to simultaneously believe two things:

1.) First, a person’s racial, ethnic, cultural and religious background – in this case, a Hispanic federal judge – tells you nothing of importance about that person. Instead, we are all “individuals,” and it is a heresy against TruConservatism to suggest that “individuals” in the real world are anything more than this role in which they have been cast, which is to say, “individuals” have tribal loyalties and affiliations.

2.) Second, Donald Trump is destroying the GOP because the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious affiliations of non-Whites, whether they are blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims, is of supreme importance because these groups all have a collectivist mindset and have been offended by Trump’s racist and bigoted comments. This is also true of women who have been offended as a group by Trump’s sexist remarks over the years.

A housebroken cuck expects you to know that “we are all individuals,” but at the same time we are not. If you go off that script, it makes you a racist. Meanwhile, the Left attacks Trump as a “racist” for his comments on the Mexican federal judge, but simultaneously demands that women and “people of color” be appointed to the courts precisely because their background gives them a different perspective than cisgendered White males. Trump’s list of Supreme Court picks was attacked because of its lack of “diversity.”

The Left wants you to know that Trump is the last stand of White America. They want you to know that Whites are dying out and that racial demographics determines political power in the United States. They want to talk about it on CNN and MSNBC, but if you take them at the word and start talking about it yourself that makes you a racist. From the point of view of a cuckservative, it makes you a literal Klansman.

Trump doesn’t grasp the nuance of Judge Curiel’s objectivity, people!
Yes, it is funny to see the cuckservatives manipulated by the Left.

Update: It is amazing how many cucks are saying that Trump criticized the judge solely for being Mexican. No, he criticized the judge for bad decisions and for anti-Trump political affiliations.

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Man is in a civilizational death dance

The NY Times has an article about how Silicon Valley billionaires support Hillary Clinton, as she is owned by super-rich globalist donors. But what do the voters think:
One employee at a software firm declined to speak on the record, saying it would be a bad career move for a Google search of his name to turn up any Republican connection, let alone one with Mr. Trump.
The Apple-Google-Facebook-Twitter leftists have intimidated a lot of Trump supporters to keep quiet, so most Silicon Valley voters probably do not even know why Trump is popular.

The CEO of Mozilla Firefox was fired for expressing an opinion in agreement with the vote of a majority of Californians.

The leftists of Silicon Valley are extremely intolerant of other views.

Here is an explanation I found:
If you occupied what was considered the ideological/moral centre ground in 1965, and went to sleep for 50 years and woke up in 2015, you’d find yourself occupying the ideological/moral ”far right”.

That whizzing sound you heard was the ideological/cultural centre ground zooming over to the Cultural Marxist hard Left.

Everything that was considered mainstream obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965, is now considered by our poltical, academic and media elite to be bigoted, ignorant, hateful, xenophobic, racist, extremist, and some form of mental abnormality.

In other words, within the space of 50 years, morality, right, wrong, evil, good, normal, obvious, extreme, sanity, truth, beneficial, dangerous and the instinct for group self preservation, has been inverted and stood upside down on its head.

Never before in the entire course of human history, has an entire culture, race and civilization decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and indenties to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies it and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy.

European man is in a civilizational death dance.
Trump stands for what was considered mainstream, obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965.