Science journal denies sex has scientific basis

Nature, the leading British science journal, editorializes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also this:

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

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

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

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

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

Crazy opinions from bioethicists

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another bioethicist, writing in the NY Times:

Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews want to censor Bible and Koran

The London Daily Mail reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparing immigration to nuclear power

Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan compares immigration to nuclear power:

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

Because government strangles immigration with regulation.

Why do governments strangle it?

Because immigration is unpopular.

Why is it so unpopular?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, raising housing costs is not a benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left celebrates the subjugation of whites

The NY Times reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trashing Jordan Peterson

Milo Yiannopoulos trashes Peterson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left is inverting the natural order

Roosh V. writes:

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

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

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

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

New journal for controversial papers

Haixin Dang and Joshua Habgood-Coote attack anonymous publications:

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

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

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

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

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

Really? Wakefield is their best example?

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

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

Woman wants laws to regulate online hookups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigation shows Facebook Leftism

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

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

Mr. Trump’s post remained up.

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

It also complains:

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

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

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

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

This was manufactured outrage.

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

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

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

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

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

Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat again

Jewish news:

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

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

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

A lot of orthodox Jews vote Republican.

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

Jews enable felons to vote Democrat

A Jewish mag brags:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything to help destroy white Christian civilization, I guess.

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

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

Companies like attractive applicants

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

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

Maybe not. Here are other explanations.

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

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

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

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

Other research shows:

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

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

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

Atlantic mag endorses Nazi opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Stormer writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is essential to conservatism?

CH writes:

Isn’t [Ben] Shapiro a NeverTrumper?

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

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

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

I do not think that this is true.

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

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

White men have had a long run

TheHill.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breitbart:

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

The races include:

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

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

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

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

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

Telling the truth is called hate speech

The American Spectator reports:

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

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

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

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

Trump challenges birthright citizenship

A Jewish mag writes:

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

Citizenship is a profoundly Jewish issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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