Tuesday, August 14, 2018

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.

Monday, August 13, 2018

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.

Saturday, August 04, 2018

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.

Friday, August 03, 2018

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.

Thursday, August 02, 2018

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.

Monday, July 30, 2018

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.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

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.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

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.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

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.

Monday, July 23, 2018

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.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

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.

Saturday, July 21, 2018

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.

Friday, July 20, 2018

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.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

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.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

The plot to destroy Papa John's Pizza

The NY Times reports on the plot to destroy Papa Johns:
Last fall, he complained that the National Football League had hurt Papa John’s sales by failing to handle football players who protested racism and police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem.

The comments were praised by white supremacists but denounced by many consumers and investors. Mr. Schnatter stepped down as chief executive. Papa John’s gave up a longtime sponsorship deal with the N.F.L. and was promptly replaced by Pizza Hut.
No, the NFL players started by protesting Ferguson Mo, which means they sided with a black thug who tried to kill a white cop.
The latest furor stems from a May 22 conference call with Laundry Service, a marketing agency, that was intended to prepare him for future questions about diversity.

During the call, he was confronted about the N.F.L. uproar and asked whether he was racist, Mr. Schnatter wrote in a letter to the Papa John’s board that was reviewed by The New York Times. He denied the assertion and then, Mr. Schnatter wrote, he said Col. Harland Sanders, who founded the Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food chain and was its longtime spokesman, used the racial slur to describe black people. Colonel Sanders died in 1980.

But Mr. Schnatter said he would never use that word.

“Let me be very clear: I never used the ‘N’ word in that meeting as a racial epithet, nor would I ever,” he wrote.

The day after the call, Papa John’s decided to fire Laundry Service, Mr. Schnatter wrote. The pizza company owed $1.3 million for the marketing firm’s services, but Laundry Service said that some of its employees had been offended by Mr. Schnatter’s comments on the call and demanded $6 million, with one of its lawyers threatening to conduct “a smear campaign,” Mr. Schnatter wrote. Papa John’s offered to pay $2.5 million, he wrote.
So Schnatter just quoted someone a private call with his marketing firm?!

This appears to be simple extortion by the marketing firm. Even if Schnatter had made a racist comment, and it appears that he did not, the marketing firm had a confidential duty to suggest what should be said publicly. Instead, it decided to leak a distorted version of the conversation in order to force Papa John's to pay more money.

If the marketing firm's employees are really so offended, they could suggest that the firm quit working for Papa John's. But to demand that they get more money to compensate them for being offended?

I doubt that anyone will want to hire that marketing firm again.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Roosh is banned from England

Roosh V. writes:
For my June trip to Washington D.C., I chose Icelandic discount air carrier Wow Air to save $400 compared to the airline I normally use. There was only one catch: on my return, I would have a connecting flight in London’s Stansfeld airport. I know I’m banned from England, but it should be safe to have a layover where I don’t have to go through customs, right? Four-hundred dollars was enough motivation to find out.
Iceland recalled the airplane, at the request of the UK.

It is pretty crazy that he is banned from England. He runs a web site that expresses opinions on a variety. Some people think that he is part of the Men's Rights Movement, but actually he hardly every writes about men's rights. He does write about issues of interest to men, and some of it is not politically correct to leftists. You might disagree with some of it, but it is all well within legally acceptable opinion in the USA. He does not advocate any violence or illegal acts. I have enjoyed many articles on his site.

Saturday, July 07, 2018

Why Mohammedans make war against infidels

From WSJ:
From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:
We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
This is what Moslems believed in 1786. It is also what they believed a millennium ago, and what they believe today.

Not all Moslems, of course. But it is hard to find any Moslem leaders who disavow these beliefs, or any majority Moslem country that gives full civil rights to infidels.

Books today are not allowed to tell the truth:
Random House is reportedly spiking the planned publication of a book from a controversial German author over worries it could drum up anti-Islam sentiment.

According to German outlet Bild Daily (via Agence-France Presse), the publishing giant is pulling the plug on a book titled Hostile Takeover — How Islam Hampers Progress and Threatens Society, by controversial German writer Thilo Sarrazin.
They keep calling him "controversial" to indicate that he is telling truths that are not supposed to be said. They cannot censor 1200 years of history.

Thursday, July 05, 2018

Who are the American people?

From a NY Times op-ed:
I have devoted a substantial part of my intellectual life to defining and defending conservatism, as a social philosophy and a political program. ...

Americans are conscious of their constitutional rights and freedoms. These assets are not guaranteed by human nature and exist only because Americans have fought for them. And they have fought for them as a nation, facing the future together. National identity is the origin of the trust on which political order depends. Such trust does not exist in Libya or Syria. But it exists in America, and the country has no more precious asset than the mutual loyalty that enables the words “we, the people” to resonate with every American, regardless of whether it is a liberal or a conservative who utters them.

Those first words of the United States Constitution do not refer to all people everywhere. They refer to the people who reside here, in this place and under this rule of law, and who are the guardians and beneficiaries of a shared political inheritance. Grasping that point is the first principle of conservatism.

Our political inheritance is not the property of humanity in general but of our country in particular.
It goes on to denounce President Trump, of course. The NY Times only prints something labeled "conservative" if it is from a Trump-hater.

But who are the "people" of the Constitution?

The US Supreme Court's most famous decision explains it this way:
This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language.

The brief preamble sets forth by whom it was formed, for what purposes, and for whose benefit and protection. It declares that it is formed by the people of the United States -- that is to say, by those who were members of the different political communities in the several States -- and its great object is declared to be to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. ...

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
It says that no one would dispute this, but in fact the dissent argues that some states did give rights to free negroes:
The fourth of the fundamental articles of the Confederation was as follows:

"The free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."

The fact that free persons of color were citizens of some of the several States, and the consequence that this fourth article of the Confederation would have the effect to confer on such persons the privileges and immunities of general citizenship, were not only known to those who framed and adopted those articles, but the evidence is decisive that the fourth article was intended to have that effect, and that more restricted language, which would have excluded such persons, was deliberately and purposely rejected.

On the 25th of June, 1778, the Articles of Confederation being under consideration by the Congress, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white," so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would be secured only to white persons. Two States voted for the amendment, eight States against it, and the vote of one State was divided. The language of the article stood unchanged, and both by its terms of inclusion, "free inhabitants," and the strong implication from its terms of exclusion, "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice," who alone were excepted, it is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and, by reason of their citizenship in certain States, were, entitled to the privileges and immunities of general citizenship of the United States.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016, we would have a 6-vote leftist majority on the Supreme Court to vote against the very idea of an American people.

America stands for the American people. While there may be some disagreement about who precisely those people are, it does not include gang members from Honduras.

Tuesday, July 03, 2018

Labor Decision is big blow to the Left

Philip Greenspun writes:
“Supreme Court Labor Decision Wasn’t Just a Loss for Unions” (nytimes):
The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates.

Some of these groups work for immigrants…
If the purpose of a labor union is primarily to increase wages for its members, why would they try to increase competition at the lower end of the labor market? (see “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” by a Harvard economist for a summary of the literature).
These govt worker associations are not really labor unions. They are leftist political groups, and the Left is determined to destroy America as we know it.

Greenspun gives some theories, but none of them fully explain why these so-called unions would be pro-immigrant.

My theory is that these groups are dominated by those who hate white Christian American men, so they seek whatever policies are most anti-white.

How else to explain the marches last weekend in favor of open borders and abolishing ICE? Supposedly it was provoked by kids being separated from their parents, but that happens to Americans all the time:
Even if President Trump's new order keeps immigrant families at the border from being torn asunder, we will still live in a country where the government can seize children from perfectly loving, competent parents. It happens all the time, and not just to immigrant families — American citizens deal with these injustices as well, thanks to the actions of child protective services.
It also happens all the time in family court. But somehow all those marchers are supposedly excited about criminals from Honduras not having rights that Americans don't have either.

No, of course they don't. They are just Leftists who are out to destroy America as we know.

This is a sensitive topic, as Ron Paul had to retract this:
Their original argument of workers being *exploited* by capitalists, didn't sell. It's obviously not the case.

So Marxists just shifted their "exploitation" schtick to culture:
--- women exploited by men
--- gays exploited by heterosexuals
--- The old exploited by the young -- and vice-versa
--- This list goes on and on.

Anything that is true is to be twisted like a pretzel -- to the point where people can't tell what is true anymore.

How do you think they're doing?

Had enough yet?

Then don't be afraid to stand up for truth, and speak it!

Otherwise, history can most definitely repeat itself.

And the history of Socialism is as nasty and brutish as it gets. Nothing compares to it in terms of human suffering.
Here is the New Republic criticism:
Cultural Marxism, as used by right-wingers like Ron Paul, is the conspiracy theory that modern identity politics is based on the teachings of the Frankfurt School. This theory is in itself anti-Semitic and rests on an absurd fabrication of intellectual history (anti-racism movements have a history that long precedes Marxism and the Frankfurt school theorists were quiescent social critics obsessed with European high culture). The point of the “Cultural Marxism” meme is to blame all the things the right hates on a handful of mostly Jewish thinkers.
Yes, cultural marxists would tell us that we should not use a perfectly descriptive term like cultural marxism. Wikipedia refuses to have a separate article on the subject, and calls it Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Here is the urban dictionary definition.

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Trump-haters say nonviolence is not enough

From a NY Times op-ed:
This misunderstanding is widespread. Democratic leaders have lashed out at an epidemic of uncivil behavior in their own ranks. ...

The theme: We need a little more love, a little more Martin Luther King, a dollop of Gandhi. Be polite, be civil, present arguments thoughtfully and reasonably. Appeal to people’s better angels. Take the moral high ground above Trump and his supporters’ low road. Above all, don’t disrupt.

This sugarcoating of protest has a long history. ...

But, in fact, civil rights leaders, while they did believe in the power of nonviolence, knew that their success depended on disruption and coercion as much — sometimes more — than on dialogue and persuasion. They knew that the vast majority of whites who were indifferent or openly hostile to the demands of civil rights would not be moved by appeals to the American creed or to bromides about liberty and justice for all. Polite words would not change their behavior.
I believe that much of the Left wants to start a civil war.

Every Democrat appointment to the Supreme Court since FDR has been a hard-core leftist ideologue. The NY Times top story today is that one of them (a Jewish woman) complains that conservatives have "weaponized" the constitutional right to free speech.

95% of the news media endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last election, and newspapers like the NY Times print extreme nasty attacks on President Trump on a daily basis. And now it complains that Trump supporters might have free speech rights also!

For the Left, polite debate is not working. They want more name-calling, Hitler comparisons, and uncivil confrontations. Soon they will be actively encouraging non-whites to violently attack whites. I think that this is going to get ugly.

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Evolutionary biologist is latest MeToo victim

Here is the latest MeToo victim:
Francisco J. Ayala, one of the world’s most eminent evolutionary biologists and a major benefactor of the University of California, Irvine, has resigned his position there after a monthslong investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. ...

At issue, she said, were “inappropriate comments and other kinds of behavior,” including unwanted touching.

“This was a widely known problem,” Ms. Liberty added. “There were conversations people had, like stay away from him, don’t be alone with him, don’t be in an elevator with him.”
The man was a very distinguished professor. He donated $10 million to the university. He is 84 years old. His friends say that he did nothing wrong. There are no public charges against him.

These stories are increasingly bizarre. What possible harm could an 84yo professor emeritus do? What did the fantasize that he might do in an elevator?

The university should give him his $10M back.

Another evolutionary biologist hates him because he was not sufficiently atheistic, and complains:
At Davis Ayala had the reputation of being a letcher, or at least of having a “keen eye for the ladies.” I remember well one of his graduate students, an attractive woman, telling me that when she met with Ayala and wanted to ask him for something, she’d always wear a very short skirt to curry his favor. I don’t recall any direct accusations of sexual harassment, ...
If she was wearing the short skirt to manipulate him, then she was the one doing the sexual harassing.

I don't have the facts here, but I do not see how any "inappropriate comments" could possibly justify this action. Universities have been taken over by creeps.

Friday, June 29, 2018

Who won the gay marriage war?

With Justice Kennedy's retirement, same-sex marriage is back in the news. It was a hot issue 10 years ago. Who won?

Gays certainly won in the sense that they got Justice Kennedy to write an opinion that rich gays and lesbians could be considered married for the purpose of taking advantage of an inheritance tax exemption.

But was that what the dispute was really about? No. More than anything else, gays wants the public acceptance that goes with marriage.

California is the USA's most liberal state, but its constitution still says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The US Supreme Court heard arguments on the federal constitutionality of this sentence, but it refused to rule.

Only a couple of states adopted same-sex marriage thru some legislative process.

Lot's of people consider marriage to be primarily a religious ceremony and commitment. The major religions have rejected same-sex marriage.

So apparently our society has reached a sort of compromise, where same-sex couples can call themselves married, and get certain financial advantages from doing so, but attempts to get acceptance from political institutions, legislatures, religions, and popular votes have largely failed.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Charlottesville kid charged with hate crime

CNN reports:
A federal grand jury indicted the suspect behind last summer's deadly vehicle incident in Charlottesville, Virginia, on federal hate crime charges Wednesday.
James Alex Fields, Jr., who was arrested in Charlottesville last August, was indicted on 30 counts, including a hate crime resulting in death and bodily injury, and racially motivated violent interference with "federally protected activity" of using public streets.

The indictment adds a new federal civil rights dimension to the case that captured the nation's attention when supremacist groups descended on the Virginia city and violent clashes erupted.

Prosecutors say Fields killed Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old Charlottesville paralegal, and injured others when he plowed into a crowd demonstrating against the "Unite the Right" rally. The event drew self-described "white nationalists" and other organizations who opposed the city's decision to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park.
How is this a crime?

Fields and Heyer both appear white. The indictment alleges some other injuries, but non of the victims are alleged to be non-white.

Fields is separately charged with murder, and I certainly agree with stiff punishment if he intended to hit Heyer. I don't know if he did or not. From the video I saw, it seems possible that he was just trying to evade thugs who were battering his car.

I just do not see how there is a separate federal crime.

The indictment says: "FIELDS expressed and promoted his belief that white people are superior to other races and peoples". Okay, he is entitled to his opinion.

It also says: "The rally ... was scheduled to feature a lineup of well-known white supremacist speakers." The city canceled the rally because it was unable or unwilling to control rioting counter-protesters. The rally organizers had lefts, and had nothing to do with the violent clash.

This indictment is political, and appears to have been done to appease the white-haters who were protesting the confederate monuments.

Update: The US Supreme Court has just agreed to hear another such double jeopardy case. At least two justices agree that these double prosecutions are unconstitutional.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Travel ban upheld

From the decision upholding the Trump travel ban:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26-28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President - the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.

The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and - to be clear - "has no place in law under the Constitution." 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
The WWII relocation was not "solely and explicitly on the basis of race". It relocated Japanese, German, and Italian nationals until the end of the war. They were mostly non-citizens and anchor babies.

Many of those Japanese were probably more loyal to Japan than to the USA. FDR and Earl Warren presumably figured that they would be a problem if the war reached California.

What if there were a WWIII with the Islamic world against Christendom? What if England and France were crippled by domestic Moslem terrorists?

My guess is that we would see civil wars, with many countries having no choice but to round up the Moslems and put them in concentration camps. If we got to that point, I don't think that anyone would care about Supreme Court opinions. They would do what has to be done.

The Supreme Court dissent concludes:
Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. Because the Court's decision today has failed in that respect, with profound regret, I dissent.
It is a disgrace that we have four justices with this opinion. Really, our most sacred legal commitment is to let Moslem terrorists and sympathizers into the USA? I doubt that any of the Constitution authors or ratifiers would have such an opinion. It is almost impossible to take more than 20 people from those Moslem countries without taking terrorist sympathizers.

The four dissenters are all Democrat appointments. Three are Jewish and one is Puerto Rican. Three are women. They are selling out the USA in order to undermine white Christian males. There is no benefit to travel from the Islamic countries, unless you are scheming to transform the USA by marginalizing white males. White males need to call this for what it is.

This is not a case about religious beliefs. Nobody cares about the theological beliefs of the Moslems. We care about their anti-American and pro-terrorist beliefs that come coupled with those religious beliefs.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Sacred order that conservatives hold dear

David Brooks writes in the NY Times:
In 2018, the primary threat to the sacred order is no longer the state. It is a radical individualism that leads to vicious tribalism. The threat comes from those two main currents of the national Republican Party. At his essence Trump is an assault on the sacred order that conservatives hold dear ...
No, tribalism does not come from individualism. Jews like Brooks and the other NY Times writes have been tribalists for centuries, with or without individualism. They are vastly more tribalist than the Republicans he attacks.

Brooks has cause and effect backwards.

Trump is the response to the assault on the sacred order, not the cause. The Jews at the NY Times have been leading the assault for decades. Trump only gained a political following in 2015 when all other Republicans failed to stand up to the assault.

Brooks pretends to be a conservative, but that is only because he seems more conservative than the other Jewish columnists at the NY Times. He was a big supporter of Barack Obama. He does not even know what a conservative is. He exhibits a visceral hatred for Trump that is primarily seen in Jews. He is just another Christian-hater, with a slightly different pitch from his fellow Christian-haters.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Netflix bans whites saying the N-word

Here is advice on what you cannot say:
In lengthy internal memo, CEO Reed Hastings addressed letting go top communications executive Jonathan Friedland: "His descriptive use of the N-word on at least two occasions at work showed unacceptably low racial awareness and sensitivity."

Netflix is letting go of its top communications spokesman.
He did not say "nigger" in reference to black people, but in connection with listing inappropriate words.

The firing memo said the second occasion was when he met with black employees months later, and did not bring up his earlier offense to apologize for it. The memo said that non-blacks should not use the word under any circumstances. Even when asked about the word, I guess.

It is funny to see the Netflix CEO be so overtly racist as to say that only members of one race are allowed to use a particular word.

If I were black, I would be annoyed that Netflix and others are making the word "nigger" a much greater insult than it ever was before.

The ACLU used to defend free speech, even if it is controversial speech. However it just adopted a new policy of not defending speech if it advances goals contrary to their values. Free speech is not one of their values anymore, I guess.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

More fools comparing Trump to Hitler

Ron Unz writes:
I’m very pleased to announce that our selection of HTML Books now contains works by renowned World War II historian David Irving, including his magisterial Hitler’s War, named by famed military historian Sir John Keegan as one of the most crucial volumes for properly understanding that conflict.
There was some kind of Jewish campaign against him, seeking to censor his book. They tried to censor the books, ruin him financially, and put him in jail.

I have tried to understand the attacks on him, but they essentially say that he deviated in some obscure way from Holocaust orthodoxy, and must be punished for it.

Here is a detailed argument that Irving was wrong about some key facts. I don't know. Read it yourself. Jews call him a Holocaust denier, but he documents everything he says.

If you want a real Holocaust denier, just look at the Trump-haters in the news media. Even the author of Godwin's law goes around saying that Trump is Hitler.

Here is a Jewish magazine saying Trump is just like Hitler:
Hitler also did things by degrees, nipping away at freedoms and piling one small indignity on top of another. That has been the strategy of the Trump administration: first racial insults, then stepped-up enforcement, then the wall, then the cage.
Really? Trump wants to build a wall to keep out criminal invaders, just as Israel did. I guess these Jewish Trump-haters are arguing that Hitler never did anything worse than that.

We are seeing millions of people with Trump derangement syndrome. Charles Krauthammer just died, and everyone is saying nice things about, but he had Trump derangement syndrome also.

Comparing President Trump to Hitler or the Nazi is essentially the same as denying the Holocaust.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Restoring libido to female rats with pink pills

When college professors talk about humans and sex, they are always saying that human nature is social constructed, and biological differences are from discrimination or the evils of the patriarchy, or some such nonsense.

When big pharmaceutical companies research humans with an eye towards marketing new products, we are all just overgrown lab rats.

Bloomberg Business Week reports:
Studies showed that flibanserin had a positive effect on restoring sex drive in laboratory rats. James Pfaus, a professor of psychology at Concordia University in Montreal, found that after 21 days on the drug, female rats whose sex drive had been diminished through hormone alteration started soliciting male rats for sex six to eight times in 30-minute tests, or about normal levels of desire for rats. (A “full solicitation,” in rat terms, is when a female rat kicks a male in the face and runs away.) Flibanserin seemed to work in humans, too: The drug didn’t increase a woman’s sex drive exponentially, but rather restored it to a more normal state for her.
This drug is on the market under the name Addyi. It costs about $400 per month.

If your wife has lost her libido, you can get her this pill. If it works according to the rat studies, she will solicit you for sex 15 times an hour. And she will do it by kicking you in the face, and running away!

Isn't technological progress wonderful?

So far, Addyi sales have been far below expectations.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Jewish Russian-American goes full Nazi

The Russian-born Jewish warmonger Max Boot calls himself a conservative, but he is pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ, pro-war, anti-Trump, and always in favor of policies to exterminate white Christians.

He writes in WashPost:
Up until now, Trumpism has been a largely victimless crime. Or, to be exact, one whose victims were largely speculative and unnamed.

President Trump has been doing great damage to the fabric of our democracy with his venomous attacks on the free press (“Our Country’s biggest enemy”), the FBI (a “den of thieves and lowlifes”), people of color (who hail from “shithole countries” and “maybe shouldn’t be in the country” if they don’t stand for the national anthem), the political opposition (traitors who don’t “seem to love our country very much”) and other favorite targets. He has been doing just as much damage to America’s international standing by attacking our allies (e.g., calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “very dishonest & weak”) and praising our enemies (e.g., calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “tough,” “smart,” “talented,” “funny”) while launching trade wars and tearing up international agreements.

Many have warned that this country will pay a heavy cost in the long run for Trump’s destructive acts. ...

The almost 2,000 kids taken from their families over a six-week period and warehoused in detention facilities that some compare to Nazi concentration camps are not speculative, theoretical victims. ...

His GOP enablers are so craven, so soulless, so abject in their dishonor that they will allow any amount of human suffering rather than risk suffering the wrath of Trump. The president may finally decide to end the family-separation policy simply to stem the deluge of calamitous publicity, but he won’t be forced to act by Congress. If only we could keep the hard-working Latin American newcomers and deport the contemptible Republican cowards — that would truly enhance America’s greatness.
In other words, he wants a policy that will let in Latino illegals, as long as they kidnap a child on their way to the border.

I am actually a little surprised that he goes Nazi with his argument. I thought that it was anti-Semitic to compare anything to the Holocaust. At any rate, Boot is the one here who suggests deporting American-born citizen white Christians as undesirables.

It seems clear that Boot has no allegiance to the USA, and that he seeks to undermine non-Jewish whites at every opportunity. Apparently it is completely respectable for mainstream newspapers to print this garbage.

Yes, newspapers like the Wash. Post are enemies of this country. Yes, the FBI has been exposed as corrupt. The term "shithole countries" refers to conditions on the countries, and not the skin color. But of course Jews like Boot generate racial animosity at every opportunity. Yes, Trump has had to deal with traitors. Boot probably wants war with N. Korea and Russia, as he often advocates war elsewhere. I am glad we have a President who tries to avoid war.

The vast majority of high-profile Jews in the USA are liberal Democrats, who openly attack white Christian conservatives at every opportunity. Boot is one of those rare Jews who calls himself a conservative, but he also attacks white Christian conservatives at every opportunity.

Speaking of Nazis, RT reports:
A scale model of a fictional Nazi flying saucer has been removed from sale after the controversial product faced harsh criticism from German historians and child protection groups.

The scale plastic model, entitled ‘Flying Saucer Haunebu II,’ has been sold on Amazon for €49.99 since May. But the model’s producer, Revell, announced on Tuesday that it has removed the model from its stock due to “criticism in recent days.”
This is weird. I guess I knew that swastikas were illegal in Germany, but banning a Nazi flying saucer?! The Nazis did not really have flying saucers. What could the Germans possibly be worried about?

Monday, June 18, 2018

How sociologists define racism

An NPR Radio program interviewed a couple of sociologists with some weirdo anti-white racial theories:
Why use the phrasing "racial resentment" in the survey? Why not "racism"?

That's an interesting question. There are two parts to this answer. The first is that sociologists, political scientists and other scholars distinguish between older, more explicit forms of racial prejudice — founded on assertions of biologically-based differences between racial groups — and more "modern" forms of prejudice.

Since the civil rights movement, white Americans increasingly reject old-fashioned or "Jim Crow-style" racism (statements like "white people are more intelligent than black people"). However, they continue to hold a number of negative attitudes toward African-Americans, including a tendency to attribute racial inequality to individual failings of black Americans and the belief that black people are responsible for the racial tension in this country.

So, the use of "racial resentment" distinguishes that it's the latter type of attitude that is triggered by threats to whites' standing.

The second is that Americans generally tend to think of "racism" as a stable characteristic of individuals, not something that can be prompted or change in response to changing circumstances or social trends. Since we're highlighting the way that changing perceptions of the social world influence whites' racial attitudes, we wanted to use a term that emphasized that these attitudes can change over time, which feelings of resentment more clearly communicates.
No. Jim Crow racism means separating races at restaurant lunch counters.

Statements about average intelligence of groups are simply statements of fact, and have nothing to do with anyone's politics or opinions.

Nobody thinks that attitudes about lunch counters cannot be changed. They have changed. Nobody thinks that knowledge of facts is unchangeable. Everyone can learn new facts.

Having negative attitudes towards blacks does not necessarily have anything to do with "threats to whites' standing."

The NPR program has anti-white messages all the time.

Women do not yet run Austria, and it is doing something about its invaders:
Austria is closing seven mosques and could expel dozens of imams from the country, the government has announced.

At a press conference on Friday, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said the government is shutting down a Turkish mosque and dissolving a group called the Arab Religious Community, which runs six mosques.

The Austrian government's actions stem from a 2015 law, which bans foreign funding of religious groups and required Muslim societies to have "a positive fundamental view towards [Austria's] state and society".

"Parallel societies, political Islam and tendencies toward radicalisation have no place in our country," Kurz said.

Austria is home to an estimated 600,000 Muslims, mostly of Turkish origin.
Turkey expelled its Christians long ago.

Here is a chart of a Jewish newspaper using the word racism.

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Make the lie big, and they will believe it

I collect things we cannot say anymore, and here is a new one to me. The NY Times reports:
A Massachusetts high school student captioned his senior photo in the school’s yearbook with a quote generally attributed to the Nazi leaders Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, the school’s principal said in an apologetic letter to parents this week. ...

The quote, which reads “Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it,” is widely associated with Hitler and Goebbels’s use of propaganda to build the Nazi empire.
So how is this offensive? It is just a well-known statement of how propaganda works.
Nationally, reported anti-Semitic incidents surged 57 percent in 2017, up to 1,986 from 1,267 in the previous year, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which believes the increase is linked to the divisive state of American politics, the emboldening of extremists, and the effects of social media. ...

Robert Trestan, regional director of the A.D.L. in Boston, which is helping the school respond to the episode, ...

Mr. Trestan said he hoped the school would hold sessions in the future to teach students about anti-Semitism.
Wait a minute -- do the Jewish organizations really consider this an anti-Semitic incident?!

Most of those anti-Semitic incidents have turned out to be hoaxes by Jews and other minorities. Some turned out to be natural causes, like the weather. But this is neither. It is just an innocent quote that has no obvious connection to the Jews.

There is a Wikipedia article on Big lie, but it says Goebbels was talking about English leaders. It also says Hitler used a related phrase in his famous book in connection with blaming Jewish Marxists. I would not call it anti-Semitic to accuse the Communists of lying about something, as that was what Hitler was doing. The Communists really do have a long history of big lies.

Anyway, when you hear some Jewish group complain about anti-Semitic incidents, remember that it might have just been someone using the phrase "big lie."

Friday, June 15, 2018

Not enough white kids to go around

An Arizona legislator is being asked to resign for saying this:
60 percent of public school children in the state of Arizona today are minorities. That complicates racial integration because there aren’t enough white kids to go around. ...

Immigration today represents an existential threat to the United States. If we don’t do something about immigration very, very soon, the demographics of our country will be irrevocably changed and we will be a very different country. It will not be the country you were born into.
The reasoning behind the school integration cases like Brown v Board of Education was that schools need enough white kids to go around.

It is an obvious fact that immigration is turning the USA into a very different country. I don't know of any great country that has survived this sort of demographic change.

The liberal news media was complaining all day yesterday that illegal kids from Honduras sometimes get separated from their parents. I have never heard any of those creeps express concern about American kids get separated from their parents, as happens every day in family courts and in CPS actions. I am disgusted by any suggestion that foreigners should have more rights than Americans.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Einstein had funny opinions about Chinese

The London Guardian reports:
Einstein's travel diaries reveal 'shocking' xenophobia

Private journals kept by the scientist and humanitarian icon show prejudiced attitudes towards the people he met while travelling in Asia ...

The publication of Albert Einstein’s private diaries detailing his tour of Asia in the 1920s reveals the theoretical physicist and humanitarian icon’s racist attitudes to the people he met on his travels, particularly the Chinese.

Written between October 1922 and March 1923, the diaries see the scientist musing on his travels, science, philosophy and art. In China, the man who famously once described racism as “a disease of white people” describes the “industrious, filthy, obtuse people” he observes. He notes how the “Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse.” After earlier writing of the “abundance of offspring” and the “fecundity” of the Chinese, he goes on to say: “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

... “even those reduced to working like horses never give the impression of conscious suffering. A peculiar herd-like nation [ … ] often more like automatons than people.” ... “I noticed how little difference there is between men and women; I don’t understand what kind of fatal attraction Chinese women possess which enthrals the corresponding men to such an extent that they are incapable of defending themselves against the formidable blessing of offspring”.
Einstein identified as Jewish, not white. He was not religious in the usual sense of believing in God, praying, and attending religious services and customs, but he was very much Jewish in the sense of supporting Zionism, identifying with those of Jewish ancestry, promoting Communist causes, and politically attacking white people. His quote about racism being a disease of whites was in connection with Jewish Communist efforts to create racial animosity among white folks.
“Einstein’s diary entries on the biological origin of the alleged intellectual inferiority of the Japanese, Chinese, and Indians are definitely not understated and can be viewed as racist – in these instances, other peoples are portrayed as being biologically inferior, a clear hallmark of racism. The disquieting comment that the Chinese may ‘supplant all other races’ is also most revealing in this regard,” writes Rosenkranz.

“Here, Einstein perceives a foreign ‘race’ as a threat, which … is one of the characteristics of a racist ideology. Yet the remark that must strike the modern reader as most offensive is his feigning not to understand how Chinese men can find their women sufficiently attractive to have offspring with them. In light of these instances, we must conclude that Einstein did make quite a few racist and dehumanising comments in the diary, some of which were extremely unpleasant.”
Consider the idea that "Chinese supplant all other races." Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Obviously it would be extremely racist and offensive to advocate Chinese people eradicating all other races. But then it should be less offensive to disagree with the idea.

Apparently you cannot have any opinion on demographic trends, without being called a racist.

Jews consider non-Jews to be biologically inferior. No news there. It would be surprising if he did consider Chinese people to be like himself.

Update: The London Guardian ran a followup with Chinese opinions:
Many were in strong support of the scientist: “This is called insulting China? That’s ridiculous. Did the Chinese in that era look dirty? When I see the photos from then, they look dirty, Einstein depicted the true state of that era.”

Others compared the scientists’s observations to that of Lu Xun, considered the father of modern Chinese literature, who was best known for his scathing satire of Chinese society in the early 20th century. “We praise Lu Xun because he pointed out our disadvantages. Why should we blame Einstein for this?”

Historical narratives promoted by the Chinese government often paint the days before China’s communist party took power in 1949 as chaotic.
And here is a Jewish opinion:
The ‘Jewish race’ is the smartest in the world and possesses the highest human capital, so Israelis ought to be skeptical about the current corruption probes into Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, a Likud party lawmaker has claimed.

“I can tell you something very basic,” MK Miki Zohar said, during a debate on Radio 103FM on Wednesday, as cited by the Times of Israel: “You can’t fool the Jews, no matter what the media writes. The public in Israel is a public that belongs to the Jewish race, and the entire Jewish race is the highest human capital, the smartest, the most comprehending.”

Monday, June 11, 2018

It is now acceptable to hate men

The WashPost published this lesbian rant against men:
Why can’t we hate men?

by Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.

... it seems logical to hate men. ...

So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? ...

maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise ...

So men, .... Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this.
Of course today's college campuses only allow hating white Christian heterosexual men in this way.

There is no factual basis to anything she says. She complains about "women have lower rates of property ownership". Women have higher rates in much of the world, and her only source for the statement is a claim that women have a lower rate in the country of Jordan. She complains that "women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels", but colleges today are about 55% women.

Here is a man who seems to follow her logic:
I challenge myself and fellow male Princetonians to be co-agents with our newly vocal “sisters.” We see from history that slaves acting alone could not un-enslave themselves; they required a dedicated abolitionist movement of the enslavers, namely whites. Women now require a dedicated abolitionist-like movement of men who are dedicated to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with activist women, awakening our country to the imperative of no-longer-delayed respectful treatment of women.
The man must be mentally ill.

For a contrasting view, Dalrock explains how we have already turned into a matriarchy. He is particularly disgusted by Christians, who should know better, but nevertheless badmouth men and fathers at every opportunity. He writes:
Father’s Day is a difficult day for modern Christians. While modern Christians have contempt for fathers 365 days a year, this is the day that makes the contempt for fatherhood most difficult to contain. For while the feeling of contempt for fathers (especially married fathers) is all but universal, it is also something which modern Christians still feel the need to deny.
Dalrock is right. If Christian preachers will not honor fathers, what hope is there for anyone else?

Saturday, June 09, 2018

Just one male for every 17 females

Some archaeologists announce:
Live Science reports that population geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University has proposed a new explanation for the population bottleneck between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago detected in the genes of modern men, which suggest that during this stretch, there was just one male for every 17 females. Feldman and his team conducted 18 simulations that took into account factors such as Y chromosome mutations, competition between groups, and death. The study suggests that warfare among people living in clans made up of males from the same line of descent could have wiped out entire male lineages and decreased the diversity of the Y chromosome. In this scenario, there are not dramatically fewer males, but there was significantly less diversity in their genes. “In that same group, the women could have come from anywhere,” Feldman said. The study found no bottleneck in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to child. “[The women] would’ve been brought into the group from either the victories that they had over other groups, or they could’ve been females who were residing in that area before,” he said, since the victorious male warriors may have killed all the men they conquered, but kept the women alive and assimilated them. To read about genetic adaptation to life at high elevations, go to “The Heights We Go To.”
Wow, this would be wild. Are there modern evolutionary psychology consequences to this?

It suggests that women have an instinctual desire to be raped by foreign invaders. After all, those were the only ones who reproduced 6k years ago. There were better off being in the harem of a conquering warrior, in terms of reproduction.

Even today, we see women much more in favor of immigration than men. We see a feminist utopia like Sweden taking in so many Moslem immigrants that it now has one of the highest rape rates in the world. And the feminists who run Sweden do not seem to object.

Wednesday, June 06, 2018

Trying to find motives for pursuing racial conflict

Steve Sailer posts:
Here’s an interview with a Jewish professor of history, Marc Dollinger, who points out some fairly obvious truths that have gotten lost in all the retconning. ...

So there are basically three areas advanced for why Jews would involve themselves in the struggle for racial equality. All three turn out to be false. But the first would be the history argument, that says blacks and Jews share a common history, and therefore Jews empathize with the historical experience of blacks, and therefore they’re willing to help. ...

The second argument is a sociological one, which is to say Jews experience social marginalization; blacks experience social marginalization. Since Jews understand what it is to be on the margins, they help blacks. ...

The third one, the one we get today, is Judaism: that the religion of the Jews argues for social justice, tikkun olam. Prophetic Judaism, the Reform movement, is involved with all of that.
It turns out to be simple identity politics.

The simpler explanation is that Jews see it in their interests to promote racial animosity among non-Jews. As the above article points out, the other explanations don't make any sense.

As a comment says:
Jews, like any group, have group interests. And those interests often are not in alignment with White American interests.
Yes, that's true, but Jews are the only ones who so actively go around creating animosity in other groups against white Christians.

Just to take one example from the day's news:
Starbucks (SBUX) announced Monday that Schultz will step down later this month as executive chairman, the end of a 36-year run at the company.

In an interview with The New York Times, he acknowledged that he may consider a bid for the White House.

"I want to be truthful with you without creating more speculative headlines," he said. "For some time now, I have been deeply concerned about our country — the growing division at home and our standing in the world." ...

Schultz has spoken frequently about race, and Starbucks has taken progressive stances on social issues — including gay marriage, immigration and Trump's travel ban. Last year, the company said it plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years. ...

The company drew protests in April after two black men were arrested while they were waiting inside a Philadelphia store. Starbucks closed 8,000 stores for an afternoon last week to teach employees about racial bias.
He is supposed to be a great business genius for figuring out that he could bilk caffeine addicts into paying $5 for a cup of caffeine-boosted coffee. The coffee is essentially the same as the $1 coffee from McDonalds, except that Starbucks has higher caffeine levels.

Besides selling coffee, he is primarily known for policies of creating racial animosity among non-Jews. And he is proud of it! Among his Jewish interviews at the NY Times, he is probably a great hero who should run for President. What could be better than squeezing money out of non-Jewish addicts, and baiting them into racial conflicts?

Monday, June 04, 2018

President Trump’s Amused Mastery

From a CH post:
Decent people view an apology as a positive gesture and usually reciprocate with the same level of generosity and good faith.

Leftists however view any apology as (1) an admission of Guilt and (2) a sign of Weakness that needs to be exploited.

Never apologize to Leftists.

This is one of the big reasons Donald Trump drives the Left into such a frothing rage. He never apologizes, never admits guilt and appears to have no sense of shame whatsoever — and he keeps getting away with it no matter how loudly they scream and stomp their feet. Their entire schtick revolves around shame and guilt: when the Commander in Chief refuses to go along with their show trial, it shows just how impotent they really are.

In Game terminology, what Trump displays is the attitude known as Amused Mastery. It’s the demeanor of a man who brushes away impertinence from his lessers, shit tests from women, and screeching indignation from the media. He answers shaming tactics with shamelessness, phony opprobrium with ridicule, and smarmy moralism with Chad-crafted nicknames.

What he doesn’t do is get defensive, apologize, or supplicate to his would-be inquisitors to gain their favor (or a brief reprieve from their hate). Trump’s attitude is all alpha, with the tiniest of beta morsels occasionally thrown in to utterly disorient his detractors and, more crucially, to peel away more fence-sitters to his side, the kind of disengaged normies who can’t understand why the media is crying hitlerwolf for the millionth time because Ivanka posted a touching photo of herself cuddling with her little boy.
This is correct.

It is true that there are decent people who appreciate and accept an apology without animosity. But they are in the minority.

The really good people do not require apologies. One of the most famous movie quotes ever is Love means never having to say you're sorry.

The bad people, especially the leftists, just use an apology as a weapon, just as police and prosecutors use a confession against a criminal defendant. They do whatever they can to extract the confession, and then use it to put the confessor in prison.

Much of the leftist media coverage of President Trump consists of leftists trying to badger him into an apology that they can use against him. They even want him to apologize for what Roseanne Barr says!

Trump is the President. He should not be apologizing.