France is 20% Muslim and climbing

Birth news:

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

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

ADL defends killing white Christians

The NY Times reports:

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

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

The President tweeted:

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

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

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

The Jewish ADL writes in the NY Times:

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

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

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

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

Anti-Semitism is being normalized in public life.

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

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

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

This must end.

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

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

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

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

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

Vox Day slams Jordan Peterson

Vox Day writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Johnny can't read

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

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

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

A NY Times essay summarizes:

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

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

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

Trump is a nationalist, not a globalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN is run by Jews, and reports:

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

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

USA was once a united people

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

Consider The Federalist No. 2:

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

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

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

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

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

We need more identity politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CH writes:

Your Daily Ugly Truth: The Purpose Of Nationhood

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

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

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

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

Scientists stay quiet about population differences

Amy Harmon writes in the NY Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, the NY Times argues:

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

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

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

Actually, this is easy for current AI technology.

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

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

Defining white nationalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not take obvious fiction seriously

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's liberals are NPCs

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

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

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

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

Kevin Roose reports in the NY Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afraid of discussing Cultural Marxism

Libertarian Brian Doherty writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wives who lie about paternity

You think women never lie about something personal or important?

The Atlantic mag reports:

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

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

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

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

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

Max Boot hates white Christians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIght-wingers now allowed in Germany

The far-left NY Times reports:

The entire affair is only one in a series of events that have marked a change in the public perception of the far right in Germany. Only two years ago, many right-wing politicians were still reluctant to officially endorse nationalist, anti-immigrant street movements such as Pegida. Now it is normal for not only Alternative for Germany politicians to back them officially, but even members of the putative political center to make shows of sympathy. Wolfgang Kubicki, vice chairman of the liberal Free Democratic Party, was quick to attribute “the roots of the riots” in Chemnitz to Ms. Merkel’s policy of admitting refugees and asylum seekers in 2015.

For decades, the right-wing elements in the German state never had the opportunity to cooperate with a major party that shares its views. Now they do.

This is great. To these leftists, "far right" means critical of importing millions of Moslem immigrants and refugees. Germany will never have a sensible policy until it at least allows public discussion of the issue.

Men do take more risks

The Atlantic mag reports:

Why Men Sexually Harass Women

Men vastly outnumber women among sexual harassers. The reason has more to do with culture than with intrinsic maleness.

OLGA KHAZAN

SCIENCE

… I can’t help but feel like the difference between teen me and how teen Kavanaugh allegedly behaved, and indeed between me and the other accused #MeToo perpetrators, comes down to how our different genders are conditioned to approach anything of a sexual nature.

… For one, women seem just as keen to take certain kinds of risks, like disagreeing with their friends on an issue or attempting to sell a screenplay. It’s just that when surveys measure risk taking in terms of things like unprotected sex and motorcycles, women tend to demur, since those types of activities are either more dangerous for women (the unprotected sex) or less familiar to them (riding motorcycles).

In fact, when researchers measured risk using more stereotypically feminine risky behavior, such as “cooking an impressive but difficult meal for a dinner party,” women turned out to be just as, if not more, likely to take risks as men. “Maybe there isn’t anything so special about male risk taking, after all,” wrote the University of Melbourne professor Cordelia Fine in Nautilus.

Several prominent psychologists believe there are actually few psychological differences between men and women.

If this were true, then we might expect to find societies where women are the aggressors, and women go around sexually assaulting men. But we don't.

This article is an example of blank slate disease, and leftists who refuse to accept human nature.

Simple evolutionary thinking should convince you that men will take more risks. If a man takes great risks to inseminate women, then he will have more grandchildren. Women have no such payoff for risk-taking.

White-hater cannot hear thru her rage headache

The white Christian haters at the NY Times publish this op-ed, complaining about the confirmation of a white male Supreme Court justice:

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. White women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, ...

Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.

That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. ...

This blood pact between white men and white women is at issue in the November midterms. ...

Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

The Democrat Party is now all about identity politics, and voting against white Christian men.

If there is one common theme to Jewish publications like the NY Times, it is to organize hatred for white Christian men.

This woman admits that her rage against whites and the patriarchy is such that she cannot even listen to what a white woman has to say. She simply urges everyone to act to the detriment of whites, men, and Christians.

The vote on Brett Kavanaugh will be remembered for a long time. Nearly every Democrat took the position that no matter how good a man and a judge he is, they would use phony personal attacks to advance their evil identity politics.