NYT apologizes for leaking info about its beliefs

The NY Times often publishes corrections to factual errors, such as getting a name wrong. But it does not correct errors in its opinion columns, whether factual or otherwise. So it was very unusual that the NY Times corrected an opinion column about Jewish intelligence.

Bret Stephens is a Jewish Trump-hater NY Times columnist. Don't be fooled by his name; his family changed it to disguise their Jewish origins. He used to be editor of the Jerusalem Post.

Here is the original essay, and revised version, unpaywalled. The original said:

* Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than everyone else, with what appears to be genes for higher IQ.
* Ashkenazi Jews also have intelligence with "bracing originality and high-minded purpose."
* Outside Israel, Jews are "intimately familiar with the customs of the country while maintaining a critical distance from them."
* Jews believe in knowledge, because everything else about America is perishable.
* The US and the West (but not Israel) should "honor the principle of racial, religious and ethnic pluralism".
* There are moral beliefs “incarnate in the Jewish people”.
* Complaints about anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and white nationalists.

Can you guess what offended the NY Times editors? It was the one claim that was actually backed up by a scientific publication, namely The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending. They also wrote a quite well respected book on human evolutionary trends of the last 10,000 years.

A comment says:

Saying Jews are successful due to genes and IQ is much more acceptable than saying they are a tight knit tribe that covertly cooperates to out compete less organized opponents.

I would agree, but the NY Times editors have other ideas. I am not sure what the reasoning is. Maybe saying the Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ offends the Sephardic Jews.

It is more likely that citing Jewish IQ conflicts with other Jewish narratives.

For one, the NYT is always trying to convince us that Jews are a persecuted minority. That is not plausible, if Jews are smarter, richer, more powerful, and more influential that everyone else.

For another, the NYT is always trying to replace American non-Jewish Whites with lower-IQ non-whites. Stephens does this in the above article by arguing for Zionism (keeping Israel Jewish) and ethnic pluralism in White countries (by importing low-IQ non-whites).

If the NYT were to openly say all these things, then there would be one inescapable conclusion: that Jews seek to maintain their genetic, economic, and cultural superiority by debasing the non-Jewish gene pool.

If these motives were to become apparent, then all the NYT and Jewish Left arguments about their morally superior egalitarianism would be seen to be completely phony. Jews are just promoting Jewish racial superiority by sabotaging their competing races.

Am I reading this wrong? If so, why did the NYT issue this correction? The explanation given is:

After publication Mr. Stephens and his editors learned that one of the paper’s authors, who died in 2016, promoted racist views.

Really? That is the excuse for removing the statement: “During the 20th century, they made up about 3 percent of the U.S. population but won 27 percent of the U.S. Nobel science prizes and 25 percent of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.”

The editors can easily fact-check that statement, and it doesn't matter that one of the co-authors once expressed a racist views. Everyone who writes on the subject of IQ and ethnic groups has expressed racist views.

I would have thought that the NYT would be more eager to remove the text about Jews not being loyal Americans, or believing that America is perishable, or having an Israeli double standard, or having superior morals.

No, the NYT obviously believes that they are smarter than everyone else, so they can bluff with claims of persecution and high-minded morals, and we non-Jews will be dumb enough to believe it.

Whites are now a minority

Pew Research reports :

Nonwhites now account for the majority of the nation’s newborns, as well as the majority of K-12 students in public schools. More than half of newborn babies in the U.S. are racial or ethnic minorities, a threshold first crossed in 2013. Nonwhite students also account for the majority of the nation’s K-12 public school students. As of fall 2018, children from racial and ethnic minority groups were projected to make up 52.9% of public K-12 students.

I am getting tired of people using the term "minority" to refer to non-whites and women. Non-whites are a majority of America today, in the ways that matter the most. Women have always been a majority.

Whites are down to about 30% in California.

This was a result of several anti-white policies. Did you vote for those policies? I didn't.

Mohammad is now the tenth most common name for newborn boys.

The NY Times regularly prints articles bragging about how White America is being destroyed. It was only a fluke that Donald Trump was elected in 2016, and the paper is doing everything in its power to undo the election. About once a week it finds a way to credit Jews with replacing Whites with non-whites. It assures us that Jews are high IQ and high-minded.

Michael Bloomberg has already spent about $150 million in anti-Trump ads.

Jewish Trump-hater Bret Stephens, who was previously an editor at the Jerusalem Post and WSJ, has gotten some blowback for his column on Jewish superiority:

That prompted furious accusations that Stephens was using the same genetics arguments that informed Nazism and white supremacist thinking.

“It’s hard to read this column as expressing anything other than a belief in the genetic and cultural inferiority of non-Ashkenazi Jews; it’s hard to tell if that’s intentional or due to appalling sloppiness, but either way it’s not the sort of thing the Times should be running,” tweeted Tim Marchman, editorial director of Vice.

New York Times contributor Jody Rosen offered on Twitter: “Speaking as both an Ashkenazi Jew and a NYT contributor, I don’t think eugenicists should be op-ed columnists.”

“A Jew endorsing the idea that certain races are inherently superior to other, lesser races, what could possibly go wrong?” asked the journalist Ashley Feinberg on Twitter.

The writer Carrie Courogen posted the phone number to cancel a Times subscription, “citing ‘too many awful Bret Stephens pieces, today’s eugenics propaganda being the final straw’ as why you can ‘no longer in good conscience subscribe’. It was easy & painless & I just did it; you can too.”

Stephens’ latest column is far from his first brush with controversy.

Bedbugs are tiny torturers that ruin lives – no wonder Bret Stephens was upset - Brigid Delaney

In August, he became embroiled in a dispute with a professor who had called him a “bedbug” on Twitter, after it emerged the New York Times had become infested with the insect pest. The spat ended with Stephens cancelling his Twitter account.

It is funny how the Jewish leftists do not say Stephens is wrong. They complain that he is saying something that should not be said publicly.

The racial superiority theory is not the most offensive thing in the Stephens column. We are used to hearing about what great geniuses Freud and Einstein were supposed to be. But Stephens goes on to argue that Israel must be the nation of the Jewish master race, while the United States and the rest of the West ought to systematically replace its White Christian population with non-whites and non-Christians.

There is nothing new about claims of Jewish superiority. Jews have always claimed to be the Chosen People. Judaism has a doctrine called Tikkun olam, which means Jews repairing the world to better suit the Jews. Every claim of anti-Semitism is really just a claim of disrespect for Jewish superiority. The whole effort to impeach Pres. Trump is based on claiming that he is not sufficiently subservient to his Jewish superiors.

Bedbug is a good term for the vermin at the NY Times.

Update: The NY Times has partially retracted the Stephens essay, because it relied on data with politically incorrect origins. That is, the data are correct, but the implications of the data are upsetting to Jewish Leftists.

Science writer befuddled by racial issues

Philip Ball is a science writer, and writes:

It has been common for several years now to assert that science shows the concept of race has no biological basis, and that we must see it instead as a social construct. That case was argued, for example, by Kenan Malik in his 2008 book Strange Fruit, and it is presented, too, in Angela Saini’s Superior (which I reviewed for the Guardian in July), a popular choice on many “books of the year” lists.

I used to be sceptical about this claim. I have all the liberal lefty’s revulsion at racism, but I couldn’t help thinking: “If we insist that race is not biologically determined, won’t that just confuse people, given that it is so blindingly obvious that characteristic markers of race are inherited?” ...

Our concept of race is not really about skin colour or eye shape, and never has been. ...

Saini shows that what we have understood by race encodes the belief that literally superficial aspects of our appearance act as markers for innate differences we can’t see. ...

For example, people from Asia are much more likely to be lactose-intolerant than people of European heritage. But what our brains find so hard to process is that no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese.

Wow, Ball is hinting that he is a White Supremacist.

If you want to be a science writer who publishes in mainstream sites like Ball, you have to present as a liberal lefty. And you have to buy into the prevailing fictions on identity politics, such as race not existing.

But, it is blindingly obvious that there are races of humans, and that race is not really about skin color or eye shape. It is about the broad set of traits that get inherited together.

The tell is to say "no one is lactose-intolerant because they are Chinese." The reason for saying something so silly is that his editors expect race denial gobbledygook.

Of course Chinese people are lactose-intolerant because they are descended from other lactose-intolerant Chinese people.

When yesterday's NY Times article described characteristics of Jews, it made a point of restricting to Ashkenazi Jews. In other words, it was a genetic theory of what it considered the Ashkenazi Jewish race.

What is a White science journalist to do? Praise some racist book by a non-white Indian woman with some caste resentments, and hope no one outs you as a White supremacist.

NYT argues for Jewish moral superiority

One of the annoying things about Jews is how they act as if they are better than non-Jews. This was a striking feature of the impeachment hearings. While some of the non-Jewish congressmen and witness wanted to discuss the evidence, the Jews would give an argument like: "I am an important person. My colleagues and I have an opinion about what policies and procedures are for the general good. Trump is not up to our standards, and should be removed."

They showed a style of thinking that is peculiar to Jews. A Jewish commentator now elaborates on that style.

Israeli-American NY Times columnist Bret Stephens writes:

how is it that a people who never amounted even to one-third of 1 percent of the world’s population contributed so seminally to so many of its most pathbreaking ideas and innovations?

The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be, smart. When it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, it’s true. “Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average I.Q. of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data,” noted one 2005 paper. “During the 20th century, they made up about 3 percent of the U.S. population but won 27 percent of the U.S. Nobel science prizes and 25 percent of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.”

But the “Jews are smart” explanation obscures more than it illuminates. Aside from the perennial nature-or-nurture question of why so many Ashkenazi Jews have higher I.Q.s, there is the more difficult question of why that intelligence was so often matched by such bracing originality and high-minded purpose.

Wow, claiming "bracing originality and high-minded purpose" is even more offensive that claiming high IQ.

Some of the most famous Jews of the past several years have been Bernie Madoff, Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein. Where is he finding the high-minded purpose?

Jewish genius operates differently. It is prone to question the premise and rethink the concept; to ask why (or why not?) as often as how; to see the absurd in the mundane and the sublime in the absurd. Ashkenazi Jews might have a marginal advantage over their gentile peers when it comes to thinking better. Where their advantage more often lies is in thinking different.

Where do these habits of mind come from?

There is a religious tradition that, unlike some others, asks the believer not only to observe and obey but also to discuss and disagree. There is the never-quite-comfortable status of Jews in places where they are the minority — intimately familiar with the customs of the country while maintaining a critical distance from them. There is a moral belief, “incarnate in the Jewish people” according to Einstein, that “the life of the individual only has value [insofar] as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful.”

And there is the understanding, born of repeated exile, that everything that seems solid and valuable is ultimately perishable, while everything that is intangible — knowledge most of all — is potentially everlasting.

Stephens is a Trump-hater, and most of his columns are anti-Trump. He seems to be giving a rationale here for Jews opposing efforts to Make America Great, as follows.

Jewish Americans are not really Americans, no matter how many generations they live here. They are aliens who have familiarized themselves with the customs here, while refusing to assimilate. They don't even believe in the American nation, as they believe non-Jewish nations are perishable.

They have one set of moral beliefs for the Jewish people, and another for everyone else. They are offended by Trump's loyalty to the American people. Jews just want policies good for the Jewish people, or policies that equate non-Jewish Americans with the rest of the non-Jewish world. They refuse to accept policies good for Americans.

Isn't this what Stephens is saying? He claims to be a conservative, but he hates Trump so much that he will do anything to oust him from the White House. He favors unlimited Third World immigration into the USA, but wants Israel only for the Jews.

I am getting this from the most respectable Jewish publication in the world. If a non-Jew said this stuff, the Jews would say that it is anti-Semitic.

Update: The NY Times has partially retracted the Stephens essay, because it relied on data with politically incorrect origins. That is, the data are correct, but the implications of the data are upsetting to Jewish Leftists.

Israel has matriarchal rules

A Voice For Men reports:

A prime example of this is a Rabbinical law that automatically assigns the children the wife has from her extramarital affairs to the husband. This Rabbinical exponent is called in Hebrew “Rov Beilut Acharei Habaal“. And on top of that, both the Rabbinical as well as the secular feminist family courts deny DNA testing to the husband when there is fear that the child is the result of the wife’s extramarital affair. However, if a woman claims child support the man will be subjected to a DNA test. Why? Because in both cases it’s about extracting money from the husband and transferring resources from him to the wife.

In other words, a DNA test can be evidence against the man, but not the woman.

The essay goes on to cite some statistics, but I am not quoting them because they cannot be right.

But assuming the above is correct, it shows how Israel is matriarchal. Of course its Law of Return offer citizenship to anyone born of a Jewish mother, so that law is matriarchal, but I didn't know about the one-sided DNA tests.

NY Times op-ed:

The idea that platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram should remove hate speech is relatively uncontroversial. But doing this isn’t easy. Hate speech is fluid, dependent on cultural context and social meaning.

Really? The NY Times used to stand for free speech. Now it stands for censorship.

It has been shown again and again, that removing "hate speech" ends up being mostly just removing opinions from the opposing political party. Facebook and Twitter should just let their users read what they want to read.

Few examples illustrate this need better than the long, strange journey of Pepe the Frog, the crudely drawn comic-book amphibian that originated as a mascot for slackers; was repeatedly altered by white supremacists for racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic memes; was classified by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate symbol in 2016; and was repurposed this summer and fall by protesters in Hong Kong to promote a pro-democracy message that had nothing to do with white supremacy or terrorism. ... Local activists in Hong Kong transformed Pepe into an emoji on encrypted platforms, dressed as a protester or a journalist.

So when Jews want to remove hate symbols, they remove green frogs!

I am filing this under "stupid stuff that Jews complain about".

Another NY Times article:

Using the analytical tools that other technologists deployed to uncover Russian influence during the 2016 election, Mr. Bay found that “bots, trolls/sock puppets or political activists” were using the “Star Wars” debate “to propagate political messages supporting extreme right-wing causes and the discrimination of gender, race or sexuality” and that “a number of these users appear to be Russian trolls.” So it seems that it was political operatives, not fans, who were denigrating the movie and fomenting some of the virulent racism and misogyny against its cast.

Using “Star Wars” as the vehicle was a canny move by the trolls. Fans, like the American electorate, are polarized and angry. Online and in real life, they scream at one another about how Luke Skywalker would really behave decades after finding out that his dad was Darth Vader.

I had already filed the Russian 2016 election interference conspiracy in my file of stupid Jewish complaints, but I had no idea that the conspiracy involved Star Wars and Darth Vader. These gripes are just too stupid.

I would ignore this sort of nuttiness, except that it has brought an effort to impeach Pres. Trump. Everyone involved ought to be denounced as traitors.

Just to be fair, I ought to note that Catholics complain about stupid stuff also. The Pope's Christmas message said:

n his annual Christmas Day address, Pope Francis offered a message of hope and a call for kindness to migrants around the world.

"May the Son of God, come down to earth from heaven, protect and sustain all those who, due to these and other injustices, are forced to emigrate in the hope of a secure life," the pontiff said from the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica.

"It is injustice that makes them cross deserts and seas that become cemeteries," he said. "It is injustice that turns them away from places where they might have hope for a dignified life, but instead find themselves before walls of indifference."

Really, it is an injustice for a nation to turn away migrants? Since when? Is this a religious teaching, or just his personal political opinion? I think that this Pope is an impostor.

The NY Times has another article on the electoral consequences of the Great Replacement of American Whites by non-whites. It cites an expert saying “the country is in an uncomfortably similar position today” to the Civil War. The Democrat Party is increasingly driven by identity politics, and the White Christian married normal citizens form the backbone of the Republican party. But "The number of religious white Americans is plummeting. In the long term, that spells disaster for Republicans." It really means that the percentage is plummeting, as we are importing millions of non-white non-Christians. The Democrat Party no longer stands for workers, and is only unified in preaching hatred for White Christians.

Giuliani attacks Soros puppets

I am not sure about this:

Jewish groups intensified criticism on Tuesday of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor turned president’s lawyer and freelancing Ukrainian envoy, after he attacked Jewish financier, philanthropist and Holocaust survivor George Soros for being “hardly a Jew” and failing to attend synagogue.

Giuliani also asserted he was “more of a Jew than Soros” and repeated a claim that the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, was controlled by the financier.

The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, furiously rebuked Giuliani, who is of Italian descent and was raised Roman Catholic, describing his comments as “baffling and offensive” and a “dog whistle to hardcore antisemites and white supremacists who believe this garbage”.

If Greenblatt is hearing dog whistles, then he is the dog.

The paper calls Soros a Jew because of his Jewish nationality and identity beliefs, not because he follows synagogue teachings.

I am not sure what the thread is that connects the Trump impeachment players. Not all of them are Jewish. They certainly don't attend the same synagogue. Maybe none of them attend synagogue, as orthodox Jews seem to like Trump.

Canadian Jew Dan Rosenberg writes for the Canadian Jewish News:

The one tradition that really irks many of us is the dubious claim that there’s a “War on Christmas,” an idea that is both anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

So I’d like to add the War on Christmas to the list of other bigoted buzzwords that shouldn’t be applied to Jews, or anyone else. Then, if people continue to use them, there will be little doubt of their intentions. Here’s a primer:

“New York lawyers (and bankers)”: those are Jews; “Hollywood Culture”: that means Jewish; “secularists” and “internationalists” who are behind conspiracies like the War on Christmas: those are Jews, too. ...

In modern times, Fox News has been airing segments such as Bill O’Reilly’s 2016 “Naughty or Nice” list, which praised businesses that use “Merry Christmas” and condemned others that say “Happy Holidays.”

He then goes on to argue that people argue that people should say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas". In other words, he is a Jew participating in the war on Christmas.

Why is the idea that some people don’t celebrate Christmas offensive to some? If we look at the white supremacist rally [in] Charlottesville, Va., or the perpetrators of the massacres at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, or the Walmart in El Paso, Texas, we can see that they were all motivated by a fear of immigrants and the anti-Semitic “Great Replacement” theory, which claims that there’s a plot to make whites into a minority.

So some White people don't want Jews to systematically replace Whites with non-white immigrants, so those White people want to say Merry Christmas, and hence Christmas cheers are anti-Semitic?

He is obviously in favor of the Great Replacement. This is some really twisted Jewish thinking. It is so stupid that I don't know how to respond to it. Either he is dishonest, or he suffers from some weird Jewish mental illness.

This Canadian Jew is effectively saying that he and other Jews want to silence and exterminate White Christians, and that anyone who wants to say Merry Christmas is anti-Semitic.

Kevin MacDonald explains that the Jewish war on Christmas is very well documented.

Bad advice to leave a wife

Newspaper advice columns are often so bad that I wonder if they are serious.

Here is Ask Amy advice:

Dear Love Story: This is not a mess that will be easily "tidied." Your wife and children will likely be bewildered, and you'll be spreading a lot of hurt around. NONE of this is their fault. Your choice to leave your family, and to sell the family home and relocate them to another one -- all of this -- is on you.

You must tell the truth. I mean, come on -- don't you think your family will figure this out when you and your ex quickly head off into the sunset? ...

Telling your wife of over two decades that you have (basically) never loved her should be off the table.

In other words, you must tell the truth, but don't even consider telling the truth.

Saying "NONE of this is their fault" is probably another lie. If a man has an unhappy marriage, the wife probably has something to do with it.

Merry Christmas.

I quote from the Peanuts meaning of Christmas:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

This was a daring broadcast in the 1960s, because the network executives told Charles Schultz that it was illegal to quote the Bible on network TV.

The best geologists are white

Here is yesterday's NY Times attack on White people:

Earth Science Has a Whiteness Problem

Barely 10 percent of doctoral degrees in the geosciences go to recipients of color. The lack of diversity limits the quality of research, many scientists say. ...

The messages, sent to affiliates of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia by a person outside the community, said that black people were genetically inferior and did not belong in academia. It was “hurtful and invalidating” to be told that she didn’t belong in the world that had drawn her in since childhood, Ms. Varuolo-Clarke said. “It was an isolated incident. But it brought to the surface what still needs to be done in the field.”

A random email from the outside caused that much fuss? Really?

It is funny that Columbia refused to address whether black people were really genetically inferior.

If they cannot cope with an opinion in an outside email, then it is true that they don't belong in academia.

The geosciences — which include the study of planet Earth, its oceans, its atmosphere and its interactions with human society — are among the least diverse across all fields of science. Nearly 90 percent of doctoral-degree recipients are white. ...

The field’s lack of diversity begins with a pipeline problem, geoscientists say. National surveys have shown that black people are less likely than white people to participate in outdoor activities. One survey, conducted in 2009, queried 4,103 respondents and found that African-Americans accounted for just 7 percent of national park visitors, ...

Compounding the pipeline problem is one of stereotypes. The typical earth scientist is often seen as a rugged white male.

“You think of a bearded guy on top of a mountain wearing flannel and hiking boots,” said Jonathan Nichols, an associate research professor at Lamont-Doherty. “We just had our big fall conference and there were 20,000-plus geologists, and you look around and it’s all old bearded guys.”

So what do they plan to do about it? Make African-Americans visit national parks? Climb mountains?

For some proof that leftist wackos have taken over, see the Harry Potter author get roasted for saying an obvious truth that was universally held a few years ago.

How America Ends

We have more examples of Jews bragging about replacing American Whites with non-whites.

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:

I’ve always given Sidneys to individual essays, but this year it seems right to give one to an entire issue of a magazine, the December issue of The Atlantic, titled “How to Stop a Civil War.” That issue felt like a civic act. I’d particularly recommend Yoni Appelbaum’s essay, “How America Ends,” which captures the political moment we are in. America is undergoing a demographic revolution, with the dominant white majority becoming a minority. We’re also at a moment when hyperpartisans fear that losing an election will be more catastrophic than losing our democracy. Such people are willing to destroy democratic norms to stay in power (look around you).

The essay says:

Within the living memory of most Americans, a majority of the country’s residents were white Christians. That is no longer the case, and voters are not insensate to the change—nearly a third of conservatives say they face “a lot” of discrimination for their beliefs, as do more than half of white evangelicals. But more epochal than the change that has already happened is the change that is yet to come: Sometime in the next quarter century or so, depending on immigration rates and the vagaries of ethnic and racial identification, nonwhites will become a majority in the U.S. For some Americans, that change will be cause for celebration; for others, it may pass unnoticed. ...

In 2002, the political scientist Ruy Teixeira and the journalist John Judis published a book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which argued that demographic changes—the browning of America, along with the movement of more women, professionals, and young people into the Democratic fold — would soon usher in a “new progressive era” that would relegate Republicans to permanent minority political status. The book argued, somewhat triumphally, that the new emerging majority was inexorable and inevitable. After Barack Obama’s reelection, in 2012, Teixeira doubled down on the argument in The Atlantic, writing, “The Democratic majority could be here to stay.” ...

We should be careful about overstating the dangers. It is not 1860 again in the United States — it is not even 1850.

I think America today is like 1850, when attempts to reconcile pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces were failing. There are forces dividing this country, and no reasonable and acceptable compromise is in sight.

Look at the impeachment debacle. Apparently it was all just a show of Jewish power and influence. Consider (1) all of the arguments for impeachment came from Jews; (2) no actual crimes were charged; (3) the Dems are not even permitting a trial.

Speaker Pelosi has effectively vetoed the articles of impeachment.

There is nothing like this in history. It is clear that the Dems would do anything in their power to reverse the 2016, from bogus FISA warrants, to unrelenting Jewish propaganda, to phony impeachment articles. They do not quite have the power.

Their main comfort is that they can flood America with non-white refugees, and destroy America that way. I think that the political divide is going to get a whole lot uglier.

Meanwhile the NY Times published a remarkable critical letter:

We write as historians to express our strong reservations about important aspects of The 1619 Project. The project is intended to offer a new version of American history in which slavery and white supremacy become the dominant organizing themes. The Times has announced ambitious plans to make the project available to schools in the form of curriculums and related instructional material. ...

On the American Revolution, pivotal to any account of our history, the project asserts that the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain “in order to ensure slavery would continue.” This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding — yet every statement offered by the project to validate it is false.

You would think that it would be the White supremacists who tell lies about America being founded on White supremacy. Nope. It's the NY Times. The NY Times will say anything to promote racial animosity, and a new Civil War.

Update: Here is more criticism of the NY Times project, from the Left.

Pakistan has death penalty for blasphemy

Al Jazeera reports:

Islamabad, Pakistan - A court in Pakistan has convicted a university lecturer of blasphemy and sentenced him to death in a case rights groups have long cited as emblematic of fair trial concerns in such prosecutions in the country.

Junaid Hafeez, a lecturer at the Bahauddin Zakariya University in the central Pakistani city of Multan, was accused of having insulted Islam's Prophet Muhammad and its holy book, the Quran, verbally and on Facebook in 2013.

A court in Multan found him guilty and sentenced him to death on Saturday after a lengthy trial that saw frequent delays and transfers of judges.

Hafeez has been held in solitary confinement due to security concerns since 2014 when his lawyer, prominent rights activist Rashid Rehman, was murdered. ...

At least 75 people have been killed in connection with blasphemy accusations in Pakistan since 1990, according to an Al Jazeera tally. The murdered include those accused of the crime, people acquitted by the courts, their lawyers, family members and judges connected to their cases.

Apparently some people read stories like this, and say that we should import 1000s of Pakistani refugees!

India has stopped taking Pakistani refugees. China sends its Moslems to re-education camps. I don't know whether China's approach will work. I hope that there are observers who will give an independent assessment.

It appears that China also discourages Christianity, but Christianity is not an existential threat the way Islam is.

This NY Times op-ed sounds like a joke:

On Thursday, J.K. Rowling caused an uproar when she tweeted ...

The beliefs that trans women are not really women and trans men are not really men are the core argument of a movement of so-called feminists who deny the reality of the transgender experience. (They are sometimes referred to as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, though they tend to prefer the term “gender critical.”) ...

As a devoted Harry Potter fan who also happens to be transgender, it was like a punch in the gut. ...

Fans have organized in Harry’s name to donate over 400,000 books around the world, campaign in support of marriage equality and even convince Warner Bros. to switch to ethical sourcing for its Harry Potter-branded chocolates.

So belief in magic is common among transgenders? I believe that.

America was based on WEIRDness and WEMP

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes:

Northwest Europeans are WEIRD ... as in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. These traits are in turn associated with certain behavioral and psychological characteristics: "People from these societies tend to be more individualistic, independent, and impersonally prosocial (e.g., trusting of strangers) while revealing less conformity and in-group loyalty" (Schulz et al. 2019).

In a recent study, Schulz et al. (2019) argue that WEIRDness is a heritage of Western Christianity: the branch of the Christian faith that gradually evolved into Roman Catholicism and, later, Protestantism: "we propose that the Western Church's transformation of European kinship, by promoting small, nuclear households, weak family ties, and residential mobility, fostered greater individualism, less conformity, and more impersonal prosociality."

Social relations are indeed different north and west of a line running approximately from Trieste to St. Petersburg, Everyone is single for at least part of adulthood, and many stay single their entire lives. In addition, households often have non-kin members, and children usually leave the nuclear family to form new households (Hajnal, 1965; ICA, 2013; Laslett, 1977). This is the Western European Marriage Pattern (WEMP), and there is an extensive literature on it going back to work by John Hajnal.

Frost agrees that this is a heritage of Western Christianity, but cites some evidence that the Church adapted it from earlier Roman law and other European customs.

There are many other cultures, particularly in Asia, that appear to have much stronger marriage and family ties. It is commonly said that they are pro-family and naturally conservative, and should easily assimilate into America. That opinion is wrong.

America used to be dominated by WEMP families, and such families were essential to Americanism. Importing people with different family structures is turning America into something else.

WEIRDness and WEMP took over a millennium to develop in Europe. It will not happen in immigrant communities anytime soon.

On the other hand, here is from the Democrat debate:

MODERATOR: Senator Klobuchar, here in California, people who identify as Hispanic, black, Asian or multiracial represent a majority of the population, outnumbering white residents. The United States is expected to be majority nonwhite within a generation. What do you say to white Americans who are uncomfortable with the idea of becoming a racial minority, even if you don’t share their concerns?

AMY KLOBUCHAR: I say this is America. You’re looking at it. And we are not going to be able to succeed in the world if we do not invite everyone to be part of our economy. Our Constitution says that we strive for a more perfect union. Well, that’s what we are doing right now.

. In other words, she says that our economy and our Constitution require that we replace Whites with non-whites. She doesn't finish the quote about a "more perfect union", because the rest of the sentence suggests a more perfect union of White people.

Michelle Goldberg, NY Times Opinion Columnist, writes:

We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule. Trump, with his braying entitlement, his boastful ignorance, his sneering contempt for pluralism, is an avatar of a Republican Party desperate to return to the 1980s, or the 1950s, or maybe the 1910s. He can’t betray America if, to those who fetishize the 63 million, he embodies it. ...

Women and people of color, of course, were originally outside the protection of those founding documents. But on Wednesday, the most diverse Congress in history declared that even the most powerful white man in the world should be bound by them.

In other words, White men made America great, but Jews are replacing them with women and people of color. Trump's popularity rests on an America that Jews are in the process of destroying.

This is just another example of Jews celebrating White Genocide. They believe that Donald Trump is the last President to embody an earlier era, and they are doing everything in their power to get rid of him.

Richard Nixon was innocent

Geoff Shepard worked for President Nixon when he faced impeachment, and his opinion has changed now that all the documents have been released, as he details:

If the public had known of the totally erroneous accusations made in secret against President Nixon and the judicial and prosecutorial wrongdoing that characterized the Watergate investigations, it is doubtful the Democrats could have mustered the necessary two-thirds vote to convict and remove Nixon from office. And, if he had survived, then the due-process travesty of the cover-up trial might not have unfolded as it did.

In particular, he says that the so-called "smoking gun" tape was thought to be about covering up the Watergate break-in, but actually was about some campaign finance issue unrelated to Watergate.

The so-called independent prosecutor was actually an army of Democrat loyalists who were out to get Nixon. They lied to the grand jury and House Judiciary Committee about having evidence linking Nixon to hush payments, and Nixon never even learned of the lies.

The court system had been corrupted, with Judge Sirica and the appeals court secretly working with the Democrats.

Nixon's chief accuser was John Dean, but the public did not know (1) Dean had committed many crimes, and faced a long prison sentence; (2) Dean was offered a sweet plea bargain deal; (3) Dean changed his story to implicate Nixon only as part of the deal; and (4) Dean never had to serve a day in a real prison.

The article does not even mention how the assistant FBI director was leaking as "Deep Throat" as a personal vendetta against Nixon for not getting a promotion.

Would this have all come out in a Senate trial? Would it have mattered if the public had already turned anti-Nixon? I don't know, but it is too bad we didn't learn the truth at the time.

It is tempting to have a full Senate trial for Pres. Trump, with testimony from all the relevant parties. But it will be a waste of time, as there is no underlying crime, and no firm accusations to investigate. Trump has released the transcript, and explained his defense in a letter. There are no significant facts in dispute.

Trump was exonerated for bribery

A bunch of lawyers have posted a list of crimes for which Pres. Trump should be impeached, in their opinions. It is notable because it is led by the Jew who wrote much of the Mueller report. I did not try to check how many of them are Jews, but it is all Jewish leftist thinking.

The charges are Campaign Finance Law, Bribery, Honest Services Fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Hatch Act, Contempt of Congress, Impoundment Act (non-criminal law).

Some of these are just laughable. But the fact remains that the House Dems considered all of these, and exonerated Trump on them. The more these articles get written, the more obvious it is that Trump has enemies that will say and do anything to remove him from office.

Update: Listening to the impeachment debate, the Dems' case depends on these premises:

Russia is an enemy of the USA.
America vitally needs to send guns to Ukraine to kill Russians.
Exposing Bidens' corruption is solely beneficial to Trump personally.
Trump's intentions can be deduced from third-hand testimony.
The President ought to be subservient to Deep State policy objectives.

I reject all of these. I don't want to revive the Cold War, or to admit Ukraine into NATO. We all need to know about Biden corruption. It can never be a crime to ask for information.

This is a Jew coup, and it has clarified the partisan divide in this nation. The Republicans are united behind Trump as never before. The Democrat Party has become the hate-Trump party.

And why do the Dems hate Trump? It is hard to believe that any of them really care about the timetable for delivery of weapons to Ukraine, or about defending what the Bidens have done.

No, it is because they seek to destroy traditional White Christian America, and Trump stands in their way.

India belongs to Hindus

CBS News reports:

“Now women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you’re better than us,” Mr. Obama said during a speech at a private event in Singapore, according to BBC News.

The former president, who left office in January 2017, added that if women ran every nation in the world, there would be “significant improvements across the board on just about everything.”

“If you look at the world and look at the problems, it’s usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way,” Mr. Obama said.

So why isn't Michelle running for President? There were several female candidates, but Warren is dropping in the polls, and Harris is out.

Hillary Clinton obviously still wants to be President, and would run again if she could figure out how to get into the race.

Barack and Michelle were always an odd couple, because she seems more masculine than he is. There are amusing YouTube videos with theories that she is really a man, and he is really a woman.

I don't know what Obama is doing here, except to give excuses for not endorsing Joe Biden. Nobody could seriously think women running nations would improve anything.

The NY Times reports:

The new citizenship legislation, called the Citizenship Amendment Act, expedites Indian citizenship for migrants from some of India’s neighboring countries if they are Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Parsee or Jain. Only one major religion in South Asia was left off: Islam.

Indian officials have denied any anti-Muslim bias and said the measure was intended purely to help persecuted minorities migrating from India’s predominantly Muslim neighbors — Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Israel was created by dividing the Jewish and Islamic populations in 1948, and today accepts only Jewish immigrants. India was created about the same time by dividing the Hindu and Islamic populations. It is only natural for India to restrict immigration to Hindus or other non-Moslems.

There are about 50 Islamic countries in the world, and none of them tolerate religious minorities in any reasonable way. Islam is inconsistent with religious pluralism. Why would any country accept Moslem migrants, when it can just direct them to those 50 Islamic countries?

You are now considered an anti-Semitic bigot if you deny that Israel belongs to Jews, and so you should also be an anti-Hindu bigot if you deny that India belongs to Hindus, or an anti-American bigot if you deny that America belongs to Christians.

Unitary executive theory

From Morrison v. Olson (1988):

JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.

It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have "a government of laws, and not of men." Many Americans are familiar with that phrase; not many know its derivation. It comes from Part the First, Article XXX, of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which reads in full as follows:

"In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men."

The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just government. ...

"The President's need to control the exercise of the [subject officer's] discretion is so central to the functioning of the Executive Branch as to require complete control."

Scalia's position is sometimes called Unitary executive theory.

The American Constitution is based on three branches of government, with the President responsible for the executive. The President sets policy, and does not have to obey the policy opinions of Deep State diplomats or harassing Congressional subpoenas.

The whole impeachment is an attack on our constitutional form of government.

A bunch of Jews are trying to undo my vote

Sensible Jewish blogger Phil Greenspun writes:

I.e., if you were a Trump voter watching the above on TV and someone called from the kitchen to ask what was going on, you would be literally correct in saying that “a bunch of Jews are trying to undo my vote”.

A comment adds:

The average white person is slowly beginning to realize that a) the entire system of schooling, media, finance, and government has been set up to destroy them – and that it is working quite well, as Whites have shrunk from 28% of the world’s population in 1950 to 12% today – and b) this system of destruction is disproportionately filled with Jews.

So while one can debate whether Jews are behind the destruction of traditional White Christian America (my belief is no) it’s simply impossible to argue that many have not enthusiastically participated in it. This pattern has repeated itself many times, which is why Jews keep getting kicked out of Western nations. Despite his pro-American/white nationalist reputation Trump is actually incredibly pro-minority, pro-gay, and pro-Jewish in practice,

Many Jews are happy to join White Christian America, but nearly all the visible ones are openly seeking its destruction.

The impeachment leaders and witnesses hate Trump, hate White Christians, and hate American constitutional law. They give stupid arguments that don't even make any sense.

By limiting the articles of impeachment to the two counts, they have effectively exonerated Trump of all the other previous accusations. Before, they charged treason, bribery, tax evasion, campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, collusion with Russians, etc. The remaining counts are not even crimes, and not things that anyone previously thought were wrong.

This is essentially their argument:

We are Jews. We have the power and influence to destroy White Christian America. Donald Trump stands in our way, and his election was not according to our plan. Earlier plans to oust him have failed. This is our last chance to get rid of him, so that voters never again have a chance to vote on him. So we have taken some policy differences, and called them high crimes, even tho no one ever said they were crimes before.

The NY Times editorial in favor of impeachment complains largely that he has stood up against Jewish demands. It admits that the Dems have no shown any violation of an actual crime, and that they have tried to impeach him "since the moment he entered the Oval Office", but argues he can be impeached for "severe violations of the public trust by a high-ranking official, not literal crimes." And it relies heavily on this Jewish opinion:

As the constitutional scholar Noah Feldman testified before the Judiciary Committee last week, “Without impeachment, the president would have been an elected monarch. With impeachment, the president was bound to the rule of law.”

This is just Jewish code-speak for saying we cannot have a popularly elected leader, unless he follows Jewish orders. Because "rule of law" does not refer to any laws passed by Congress or the people, but rather to what Jewish Leftists think that the law ought to be.

It also argues:

President Donald Trump abused the power of his office by strong-arming Ukraine, a vulnerable ally, holding up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid until it agreed to help him influence the 2020 election by digging up dirt on a political rival.

This is just crazy. Ukraine is not an ally, and has never done anything for us. It just happens to be the recipient of American weapons because the Deep State wants them used to kill Russians and revive the Cold War. Trump was absolutely right to hold up such aid, as many other Presidents have done in similar situations.

It is also pretty crazy to say "help him influence the 2020 election". The phone call transcript was made public. Trump just asks for some investigation on what appears to be some obvious corruption. There is nothing ever wrong with asking for info. If it exposes Biden as a crook unfit for the White House, then we are all better off with that knowledge.

IG Report is devastating to Dem Trump-haters

The most amazing thing about all these Donald Trump investigations is not that Trump has turned out to be innocent. It is that the Democrats are guilty of far worse abuses of power than even what they accuse Trump of.

See this essay:

The FBI did not conduct an investigation of Donald Trump and his associates that ultimately proved to be based on false information and continue that investigation long past the time it should have been shut down simply because some people made some errors in judgment or some procedures need to be changed. That investigation was simply the most visible piece of a deliberate, covert attempt to overthrow the democratic process. The perpetrators of that crime have yet to be brought to justice and identified. Let’s hope that happens soon.

In particular, it appears that they knew Carter Page was a CIA agent, and concealed that from the FISA court in order to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

They were investigating Manafort for being a Russian agent at the time Trump hired him to run the campaign, but they never told Trump. (I don't think it was ever shown he was a Russian agent, but Ukraine hated him and released info that sent him to prison for tax evasion.)

I haven't followed this closely, but everything I see shows that the Deep State tried to frame Donald Trump, but only exposed themselves as a bunch of partisan crooks.

The Gateway Pundit reports:

In January 2017, before Barack Obama left office, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent the Democrat president a letter requesting a pardon for Ethel Rosenberg.

A copy of the letter is shown.

Again, it is baffling to me that Dems would want to reopen an issue like this. Warren was already planning to run for President, so presumably she thought that this would get her some campaign donations, or something like that. Rosenberg and her husband were famous spies who gave the Soviet our atomic bomb secrets.

Trump orders federal protection for Jews

The Wash. Post reports:

In doing so, the department said it would rely on a definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. That definition includes “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” applying a double standard to Israel by requiring of it “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and comparing “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” ...

Left-leaning Jewish organizations were quick to criticize Trump’s move, while the Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization int he country, hailed the executive order as a measure “that will provide new and stronger protections for Jewish students on college campuses against anti-Semitic attacks and harassment.” ...

Bend the Arc, a social-justice-focused Jewish advocacy group, called Trump a “hypocrite” in a statement that referenced Trump’s speech Saturday to the Israeli American Council. “This president continues to endanger Jews through his embrace of white nationalism, his antisemitic comments, and his spreading of conspiracy theories that incite violence,” Bend the Arc’s CEO Stosh Cotler said.

The left-wing activist group IfNotNow, which focuses on ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank but has also protested the Trump administration, launched a petition for Jews to express opposition to the executive order. “The order’s move to define Judaism as a ‘nationality’ promotes the classically bigoted idea that American Jews are not American,” the group’s political director, Emily Mayer, said in a statement. ...

Diament said he didn’t view the executive order as redefining – or defining – Judaism but simply saying it should be dealt with under federal law the same way other acts of discrimination are when based on race and ethnicity. Regardless, he said, many Jews do see Judaism as a peoplehood, or nation, as well as a religion and thus don’t feel offended by the concept.

This article recites some obvious facts.

Judaism is both a nationality and a religion.

Orthodox Jews love Pres. Trump, while leftist Jews hate him.

All Jews have a persecution complex.

Crying anti-Semitism is a device for suppressing free speech.

Leftist Jews will use any opportunity to blame Whites.

Jews are actually the most privileged group in America.

Update: Law professor David Bernstein writes:

The [NY] Times has a piece today suggesting the order has "divided" the Jewish community, even though all mainstream groups, including liberal groups like the ADL, support it. ...

The real story here is that there is a segment of the Jewish community inclined to freak out over anything the Trump administration does that has anything to do with Jews and that the Times, through its dishonest and misleading reporting, has been intentionally encouraging it. (Note: There is a segment of the Jewish community, generally on the urban and Reform side of things, that treats the Times and its reporting as Torah, i.e., "gospel.")

Black Hebrew Israelites attacked

Most allegations of anti-semitism have turned out to be Jewish hoaxes, but this story has an odd twist.

NBC News reports:

The two people who stormed a kosher grocery store in Jersey City with rifles, killing three people inside and also murdering a veteran detective, have been identified as David Anderson and Francine Graham, four law enforcement sources familiar with the case tell News 4.

A senior law enforcement official says the attack is now being investigated as a possible hate crime.
Who Are Jersey City Shootout Suspects?

Three sources say Anderson was a one-time follower of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, a group whose members believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites and may adhere to both Christian and Judaic beliefs.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Hebrew Israelites a black supremacist group. Some sects within the movement are known for their fierce condemnations of white and Jewish people.

I never heard of this group. The media will have a hard time blaming this on White supremacists.


In other black news:

'Black girl magic': Miss Universe, Miss America, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA titles are ALL won by black women in the same year for the first time ever

Zozibini Tunzi of South Africa, 26, was crowned Miss Universe 2019
She joins Miss America Nia Franklin, Miss USA Cheslie Kryst, and Miss Teen USA Kaliegh Garris, all of whom are black women
It is the first time all four pageants have had black women as their title holders at the same time
People online praised the moment, expressing how they 'look like' the winners

I guess it means that black women online praised the moment. White people are too busy praising Greta Thunberg for being TIME Man of the Year.

Today's NY Times editorial tries to blame white nationalists for anti-semitism:

Charlottesville, Va., rang out with cries of “Jews will not replace us!” one year before. ...

On Tuesday, two gunmen, including one said to have published anti-Semitic posts and to have been a follower of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement, which is hostile to Jews, killed four people in a rampage in Jersey City that appears to have targeted a kosher market. ...

Whatever its intent, B.D.S. has helped to create a hostile environment for Jewish students, most of whom support Israel. ...

The threads tying much of the anti-Semitic violence to white nationalist ideology are impossible to ignore. Those seams grew ever clearer in Charlottesville, at “Unite the Right,” ... When white nationalist Richard Spencer was interviewed about the role of anti-Semitism at the rally days later, he said Jews are overrepresented on the left

This is deranged Jewish thinking. The Black Hebrew Israelites are not white nationalists. Neither are the BDS proponents, as they are all extreme leftists.

I guess Spencer is a white nationalist, but he is just a guy expressing opinions, and it is an objective fact that "Jews are overrepresented on the left".

Note that the NY Times complains again about the slogan “Jews will not replace us!”. I am guessing that about 200 NY Times articles have complained about this slogan. Its complaint is that Jews should have the authority to replace Whites with non-whites. The paper publishes about ten articles a week that promote, in one way or another, replacing Whites with non-whites.

The Great Replacement is happening

Chris Roberts writes:

As Jared Taylor noted in a recent video, when any anyone who objects to the Great Replacement, the Left insists that it’s not even happening; it’s a conspiracy theory. Yet, the mainstream media and plenty on the Left openly discuss the very same demographic changes and crow about the enormous cultural and political change they are bringing. Here are 13 books written by people outside of the Right (Leftists, demographers, academics, etc.) about the “rising tide of color:”

He also lists right-wing books.

I have linked to many NY Times articles acknowledging the Great Replacement, and detailing how Whites in America, Canada, and Europe are being systematically replaced with non-whites.

For example, NY Times Jewish economist Trump-hater columnist Paul Krugman writes:

Donald Trump Is Bad for the Jews ...

Given these realities, you might expect American Jews, who are in fact considerably more affluent than the average, to lean right. But they don’t. In fact, only 17 percent of them voted Republican last year.

In other words, American Jews aren’t the uniquely greedy, self-interested characters anti-Semites imagine them to be. ...

Back to the question of what makes U.S. Jews politically different. Much of the answer is historical memory. ...

The Trump administration is, beyond any reasonable doubt, an anti-democratic, white nationalist regime. And while it is not (yet) explicitly anti-Semitic, many of its allies are: “Jews will not replace us” chanted the “very fine people” carrying torches in Charlottesville, Va.

His point is that Jews may be usually greedy self-interested characters, but there is one thing that is more important than money to Jews. And that is the plan to replace White people with non-whites.

The main reason that Krugman hates Trump is that Trump is not on board with the Jewish plan to replace Whites with non-whites. For that ideological sin, Trump must be removed from the White House by any means necessary.

Defining the Alt-Right

Thomas Dalton writes:

Enter the alt-right, otherwise known as the dissident right. In one sense, it is the natural outgrowth of paleo-conservatism: a kind of return to classical ideas of nationalism and political self-sufficiency. But it adds new angles as well: an emphasis on biological realism, in which evolution and genetics are seen as strongly influential in determining human characteristics; an explicit defense of White interests and White European civilization; and an explicit and active critique of Jews and Judeocentric policies. And indeed, these can be seen as the three main pillars of the alt-right:

(1) Biology is destiny,
(2) Whites and White culture deserve to be protected and defended, and
(3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests.

(Jews, incidentally, like all Latinos, are not White — not in any relevant sense given genetic differences and, more importantly, their lack of identifying with White European civilization.) Among the wide-ranging dissident right, we see additional points of concern and variations on these themes, but in general, we can roughly define the alt-right movement as centered on these three concepts. The first, on biology, is proven more and more true by the day; new studies repeatedly show that, to a very large degree, biology and genetics determine what we loosely call ‘human nature,’ and that these phenomena have a corresponding effect on society and culture. The second is straightforward and obvious: if Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, and so on each have a right to their cultures and ethnic integrity, so do Whites. The third becomes clear whenever one takes a look at the objective data regarding Jewish presence and Jewish influence in academia, government, media, Hollywood, and high tech. Jews are massively over-represented in all these fields, and constitute a force in themselves; with their highly-effective ingroup strategy, they manage to reinforce their own wealth and power. In fact, this becomes their overriding priority: an increase in Jewish wealth and power.

I don't think that the alt-right has any particular animosity towards Jews, except when they do things like try to impeach President Trump.

Trump is very pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. So are most right-wingers. But this impeachment may change some opinions. This is the closest thing to a coup that the USA has ever had.

Tyler O'Neil writes:

The Amazon show The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel attacked the late Phyllis Schlafly, a pivotal conservative leader and the founder of Eagle Forum, echoing a decades-old accusation of anti-Semitism based on the notion of "code words."

Really? I haven't seen that episode yet.* This is just Jews using Hollywood shows to smear Christians and right-wingers.

See also here:

As Mark Steyn wrote in 2012, “On the matter of those racist dog whistles all these middle-age white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto put it very well: ‘The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it’s intended for somebody else,’ he wrote. ‘The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you’re the dog.’”

and here:

Mrs. Maisel, however, is a potty-mouthed obnoxious comedienne who traipses through Manhattan life dressed to the nines. The daughter of a Columbia University professor who’s always been an academic and a trust fund heiress of a rich oil family, Midge’s life was turned upside down by her husband’s infidelity, and she turned to stand-up comedy as a career.

Of course her father’s a communist. ...

Enter Saul Alinsky.

To make a long story short, the characters repeatedly describe Mrs. Schlafly as a MONSTER, in righteousness and outrage. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. And drive the point home. I doubt most viewers had heard about Phyllis before this, but now they know her as a MONSTER.

You can’t even watch a miniseries without your medicine.

It’s ironic, however, that a series about a woman finding her voice stoops to demonizing a woman who had a voice.

The Jews are the ones using code words to launch personal attacks and advance a political agenda. Charging anti-Semitism is just a dishonest tool.

Phyllis Schlafly was of course an anti-feminist, and "feminist" is considered a code word or a dog whistle for a Jewish woman, as the American feminist movement was almost entirely led by Jews. But her concerns about feminism had almost entirely to do with the 98% of the population that is not Jewish. (Her organization also had many Jewish members.)

Ronan Farrow, alienated son of Woody Allen, writes in his new book:

Harvey Weinstein was inescapable in that conversation, too: he had essentially invented the modern Oscar campaign. Weinstein ran his campaigns like guerrilla wars. ... Weinstein orchestrated an elaborate smear campaign against rival film A Beautiful Mind, planting press items claiming the protagonist, mathematician John Nash, was gay (and, when that didn’t work, that he was anti-Semitic).

So the Jews who control the Hollywood Oscars would blackball a movie if a Jewish producer spread a rumor that a schizophrenic character in the movie was adapted from a real-life schizophrenic mathematician who once interpreted an Old Testament Bible story contrary to common Jewish beliefs? The whole thing is bizarre. Is this really how Oscars get decided?

The whole Trump impeachment seems like just a Weinstein-like guerrilla war. The leaders are all Jewish, the promoters in the news media are all Jewish or Jewish stooges, the witnesses, lawyers, and other players are mostly Jewish, and the arguments sound like the nonsensical and authoritarian stuff that Jewish rabbis say. 95% of the testimony is just opinions about how things ought to be, or what someone could be presumed to be thinking. The impeachment vote will be like an Oscar vote. This is a raw display of Jewish power and influence. Those who point this out get blocked from Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter.

* Wow, I just watched this episode. It portrays Jews as crazy, neurotic, and willing to do anything for money. Except that the Jewish woman is willing to give up a check to support some Jewish anti-Christian ideological attack. That is from the show, not my opinion.

NSF funds science propaganda experiment

The NY Times has a funny science article (unpaywalled and mocked here) on how biology professors have been trying to teach ‘Race is a social construct’ with no scientific merit, but students do not accept that, so they are experimenting with different strategies for manipulating student opinion:

In the pilot study that helped Dr. Donovan secure a research grant from the National Science Foundation, students in eight classrooms exposed to a rudimentary version of the curriculum were less likely than others to endorse statements suggesting that racial groups have defining qualities that are determined by genes. The new study will measure the curriculum’s effect on such attitudes by asking students to fill out surveys before and after the unit.

Wait, it is fact that "racial groups have defining qualities that are determined by genes". If you don't believe it, get a DNA test at Ancestry.com or 32AndMe, and it will uses your genes to define your racial group.

This study is an indoctrination experiment. Instead of just teaching what is true, they are experimenting with curricula to find the one that best induces the students to believe leftist falsehoods about race.

Blaming Christians for Islamic crimes

NY Times Jewish columnist Bari Weiss has another column about her weirdo Jewish persecution complex, and a Jewish atheist professor responds:

I don’t think we’re on the way to another Holocaust, but I am concerned at how readily the Left, traditionally champions of the underdog, now demonizes and dismisses Jews.

And that concerns Bari Weiss as well, as she explains in her New York Times editorial today (click on screenshot below). Weiss, of course, has alienated many of her colleagues at the paper not only by her attacks on anti-Semitism (the NYT is full of young woke reporters), but also by her criticisms of the Left in general. Yet she’s still a liberal, and I feel a kinship with her even though I think she may actually believe in God.

This is just lunacy to describe Jews as underdogs. Jews are the most privileged ethnic group on Earth.

The NY Times also has a full-page ad asking Jews for donations to fight the Christian theocracy of the Trump administration.

A comment:

If there was ever an administration that supports the aspirations and concerns of the Israeli government, it would be the “far right” Trump Administration.

As far as “conservative Christians”, Christians United for Israel is a large and influential Evangelical Christian organization that lobbies for policies that benefit Israel.

I don’t see any evidence that any mainstream member of the GOP or the American Conservative Establishment supports anything remotely like “Anti-Semitism”. Any person who remotely promoted anything approaching such an attitude was immediately purged (like Joe Sobran’s departure from the National Review in 1993). Right-wing “Anti-Semitism” is the exclusive domain of the internet Nazis basement dwellers.

To the extent that there is institutional Anti-Semitism, it is on the Left entirely. Sharpton has national voice despite his involvement in Crown Heights (and other venues). Farrakhan is alive and well on Twitter, and is even pictured in a close meeting with a former Democratic President.

On the other hand, the emergence and influence of a group like J Street suggests that the traditional Israel Lobby (groups like APAIC) are out of step with the concerns of many American Jews, not to mention non-Jews. I’m not sure why there can’t be a political discussion around American foreign policy and Israel without name-calling. Granted, there are plenty of extremists on both sides which would have a voice in that discussion, but when isn’t that the case.

Last, the article talks about “American” Anti-Semitism and then refers to events in France, Italy and the UK, which last time I checked were not in America.

Weiss complains that a Paris murder of a Jew should have been prosecuted more vigorously as a hate crime, because the killer shouted “Allahu akbar”.

Okay, Moslems hate Jews. That is not news. But of course these Jews are all in favor of Moslem immigration.

Weiss says "perhaps you haven’t being paying much attention to what by now can be described as a moral calamity sweeping the West". No, she does not mean Moslem immigration is a moral calamity. Just the opposite.

Yet Jews blame Christians, and Christians foolishly accept it:

Even today, Daniel Rossing, a former advisor on Christian affairs to Israel’s religious Affairs Ministry, has commented on anti-Christian violence in Israel, which peaks during Purim. “I know Christians who lock themselves indoors during the entire Purim holiday,” he says. And yet, while Christians are spat upon and assaulted in Israel, and mocked and obscenely treated in the Diaspora, the majority of Christians remain among the most guilt-ridden and philosemitic of Europeans, applauding Zionist wars that kill their sons, and lauding a people that has done more than any other to overturn traditional Christian moral values. It is one of the most glaring contradictions in this age of contradictions.

The latest chapter in this sorry state of affairs is that the Church of England has, in its latest official treatise, decided to announce formal repentance to the Jews for centuries of putative injustices, as well as the Church’s unconditional adoption of Zionism.

The article goes on the explain how Jews have pressure the Church of England into subservience.

How is it that one religion gets to dictates the beliefs of another religion?

It is amazing to see Jews complain about being underdogs, when they have the power and influence to impeach an American President, and to dictate the doctrinal teachings of a rival religion.

American families are separated every day

Reason reports:

A mother from Michigan lost custody of her children after a pediatrician decided that red splotches on her 6-week-old's skin were signs of deliberate physical abuse.

Another mother, from Washington state, was separated from her children for more than a year because a child abuse specialist said she was exaggerating her 5-year-old's health problems.

A Florida mother took her 4-month-old son to the hospital after he suffered a seizure. A doctor contacted child services, claiming the child must have been shaken or beaten. The boy's father was charged with the crime. Charges were eventually dropped after other medical experts disputed the initial claims.

These are all examples from a terrific NBC/Houston Chronicle report on mistakes made by child protective services (CPS) agencies around the country: "Hundreds of parents say kids wrongly taken from them after doctors misdiagnosed abuse."

Lenore Skenazy and I have covered many of these cases of wrongful family separation for Reason. They are heartbreaking. They generally follow a pattern: Parents behave in a manner that is completely normal, some authority figure becomes suspicious anyway, the cops are called, and CPS takes the kids away on some slim suspicion that they are being abused. The enraged, confused, often traumatized parents must then scrape together a strong enough case to regain custody of their children from foster care. They often go weeks without even knowing what has become of their kids.

This is why it is annoying to hear some leftist open-borders freak throw a tantrum about family separation at the border. Our government separates kids from families every day in family courts and CPS courts. You can visit your local courthouse to see it for yourself. And the families are not even illegal aliens.

Muhammad is now a popular name in USA

The San Fran paper announces:

Revealing a rise in Arabic names, Muhammad and Aaliyah made the top 10 for the first time, replacing Mason and Layla.

Someday historians will try to figure out how Islam conquered the West. They will be puzzled.

Why did America decide to import millions of Mohammedans? Why did America fight numerous wars in support of Islamic causes?

The four impeachment experts

The four testifying impeachment experts were unbearable:

Here’s a look at all four:
Noah Feldman

Feldman is Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he’s also the director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law.

Really? Couldn't they find some non-Jew who studies American law?

All four were Trump-hater Democrats.

Then there was Pamela S. Karlan. She is an obnoxious Jewish lesbian.

They had nothing, except hatred for Trump, and a smug know-it-all attitude. The Nadler hearings are even worse than the Schiff hearings.

Update: The Jewish Daily Forward confirms that all three anti-Trump witnesses are Jewish. So is chairman Nadler, and most of the other key players.

YouTube has banned a video calling it a Jew coup.

Danish immigrant wants multi-ethnic Denmark

From a NY Times op-ed:

I would be contacted shortly by the Danish police; the university had just learned I was facing criminal charges for violating my work and residence permit. ...

A month before, I’d been on top of the world and ready to apply for permanent residence in Denmark, the country that had been my home for nearly eight years.

It is amazing how this guy can think that he can move to Denmark and violate its laws.

Long before the Trump administration, the populist Danish People’s Party formed a bloc in Parliament in the early 2000s and influenced a shift in the laws of a country formerly known for its warm welcome to outsiders. The party didn’t want to just eliminate immigration; it sought to return Denmark to an imaginary past of racial and ethnic “purity.” As the party platform states: “Denmark is not an immigrant country and never has been. Thus we will not accept transformation to a multiethnic society.”

This is more or less what Mr. Trump’s immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, wants for the United States, which is why it is important for Americans to understand where such policies lead.

It makes sense to me that Denmark would not want to be transformed into something else.

The kind of xenophobia that afflicted Denmark appeared last month, during impeachment hearings, in commentary questioning the loyalty of public servants like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill because they are immigrants. Their contributions — including a willingness to risk death in the name of duty — don’t matter to their critics, who saw and heard only one thing: not one of us.

Yes, I thought "not one of us", and that was because of they disloyality. They wanted to carry our their own foreign policy, based on what they thought was good for Ukraine, instead of following their elected superiors.

On top of the staggering moral failure this represents — alongside the Muslim travel ban and the horrors of caged Central American children — this is just unfathomably self-defeating. Immigrants helped Americans win World War II and put Americans on the moon; ...

So becaue Werner von Braun helped us design rockets, we need to take Muslim terrorists and Honduran child traffickers? This is crazy.

This is nutty. Maybe Denmark should have jailed him for teaching stupidity to his students.

The Left is destructive

Dennis Prager writes:

Yet, leftists -- most especially LGBTQ groups, which spread a remarkable amount of hate in the name of "love" -- seek to crush The Salvation Army. They threaten and pressure whoever supports The Salvation Army. ...

One of the great puzzles in contemporary American life is whether there is anything the left could do to make Americans understand how destructive it is. If suppressing free speech at colleges and on the internet, fomenting interracial anger, supporting those who wish to annihilate Israel, allowing (and even encouraging) teenage girls to have their healthy breasts surgically removed if they think they are a boy and trying to crush The Salvation Army don't do it, probably nothing will.

Prager is an Orthodox Jew, and not a leftist. The Salvation Army is Christian. Prager doesn't want to say it, but his enemies are really the secular Jews.

Subjective motivations should be irrelevant

A law professor attacks this Bill Barr opinion:

The Supreme Court has traditionally refused, across a wide variety of contexts, to inquire into the subjective motivation behind governmental action. To take the classic example, if a police officer has probable cause to initiate a traffic stop, his subjective motivations are irrelevant. And just last term, the Supreme Court appropriately shut the door to claims that otherwise-lawful redistricting can violate the Constitution if the legislators who drew the lines were actually motivated by political partisanship.

What is true of police officers and gerrymanderers is equally true of the President and senior Executive officials. With very few exceptions, neither the Constitution, nor the Administrative Procedure Act or any other relevant statute, calls for judicial review of executive motive. They apply only to executive action. Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an Executive official's "real motive" — often after ordering invasive discovery into the Executive Branch's privileged decision-making process — have no more foundation in the law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge's real motive for issuing its decision. And courts' indulgence of such claims, even if they are ultimately rejected, represents a serious intrusion on the President's constitutional prerogatives.

Reframing history as slavery and DNA

The World Socialist Web Site posts this essay:

“The 1619 Project,” published by the New York Times as a special 100-page edition of its Sunday magazine on August 19, presents and interprets American history entirely through the prism of race and racial conflict. The occasion for this publication is the 400th anniversary of the initial arrival of 20 African slaves at Port Comfort in Virginia, a British colony in North America. On the very next day, the slaves were traded for food.

The Project, according to the Times, intends to “reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

Despite the pretense of establishing the United States’ “true” foundation, the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history. Its aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal “identities” — i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race.

The Times is promoting the Project with an unprecedented and lavishly financed publicity blitz. It is working with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, which has developed a proposed teaching curriculum that will be sent to schools for teachers to use in their classes. Hundreds of thousands of extra copies of the magazine and a special supplement have been printed for free distribution at schools, libraries and museums across the country. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the staff writer and New America Foundation fellow who first pitched the idea for the Project, oversaw its production and authored the introduction, will be sent on a national lecture tour of schools.

The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of American history is rooted in race hatred — specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of “black people” by “white people.” Hannah-Jones writes in the series’ introduction: “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”

Glad to see that even some leftists see what absurd propaganda the NY Times is peddling. The NY Times will do anything to promote racial antagonisms.

In yet another article, published in the current edition of Foreign Affairs, the neurologist Robert Sapolsky argues that the antagonism between human groups is rooted in biology. Extrapolating from bloody territorial conflicts between chimpanzees, with whom humans “share more than 98 percent of their DNA,” Sapolsky asserts that understanding “the dynamics of human group identity, including the resurgence of nationalism — that potentially most destructive form of in-group bias — requires grasping the biological and cognitive underpinnings that shape them.”

Sapolsky’s simplistic dissolution of history into biology recalls not only the reactionary invocation of “Social Darwinism” to legitimize imperialist conquest by the late nineteen and early twentieth century imperialists, but also the efforts of German geneticists to provide a pseudo-scientific justification for Nazi anti-Semitism and racism.

Dangerous and reactionary ideas are wafting about in bourgeois academic and political circles. No doubt, the authors of the Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided arguments.

I guess that he is trying to say that if racial groups have an innate hatred of each other, then we would be led to policies that separate those groups.

The essay goes on to give some interesting historical info, from a leftist perspective.

Transcendent moral order antecedent

The NY Times has an article attacking this Barr quote:

in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people — a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles. ...

This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

It is a strange article. The writer does a lot of research to get expert opinion against this, but the comments hardly have anything to do with the Barr quote.

AP reports:

PHOENIX (AP) — Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that the United States needs “an awful lot more immigrants rather than less.” …

“We need immigrants to take all the different kinds of jobs that the country needs — improve our culture, our cuisine, our religion, our dialogue and certainly improve our economy,” the billionaire told reporters at a Mexican restaurant in Phoenix.

So a Jewish billionaire is running for President so he can flood America with millions of immigrants to improve our religion!

If I said this myself, I would have readers accusing me of anti-semitism. This is Bloomberg, saying it himself, and confirming the worst suspicions about Jews. He hates Christians, and wants to replace them with non-Christians from Third World countries. And he is supposed to be the moderate Democrat candidate.