Sunday, March 24, 2019

Famous philosophers described European Christianity

A NY Times op-ed writes:
Popkin wrote that Voltaire challenged the biblical account of human history by asserting that only the Jews were descendants of Adam, and “everybody else pre-Adamites, though the non-European ones were degenerate or inferior to the European ones. Voltaire saw the Adamites as a major menace to European civilization, since they kept infecting it with what he considered the horrible immorality of the Bible. Voltaire therefore insisted that Europe should separate itself from the Adamites, and seek its roots and heritage and ideals in the best of the pre-Adamite world — for him, the Hellenic world.”

Polygenetic racists, such as Hume and Voltaire, regarded the differences between European Christians and others as immutable, because they derived from separate ancestry rather than contingent environmental factors.

Kant, too, thought that Jews had immutable traits that made them inferior to Christians. According to the scholar Michael Mack, “Though Kant emphasized the common origin of all men, to avoid attacking the biblical account of creation. … He set out to substantiate his notion of a ‘Jewish essence’ with recourse to the image of an inseparable tie that bound the Jews immutably to Jehovah.”

For Kant, this tie rendered Jews “heteronomous” or incapable of transcending material forces, which a moral order required. In this way, Jews are the opposite of autonomous, rational Christians, and are therefore incapable of being incorporated into an ethical Christian society. Mack, in his 2003 book “German Idealism and the Jew,” wrote that Kant “attempted to remove Christianity’s Judaic foundations” by recasting Christian history as a revolutionary or radical parting from Judaism. Mack noted that Kant, in his “Anthropology,” called the Jews “a nation of cheaters” and depicted them as “a group that has followed not the path of transcendental freedom but that of enslavement to the material world.” ...

The Harvard philosopher William Hocking is alleged to have said that “the Jewish mind could not properly interpret and teach the philosophy and history of Western Christian civilization.”
The author does not rebut any of these points, but implies that they make the subject hopelessly political.

If the differences were mutable, then I would expect that the centuries-old opinions to be comically irrelevant today. Probably some of them are.

I am sure these philosophers are overrated, and they were wrong on a lot of things. But if they were wrong, then prove them wrong. Instead it appears that they will just be banned because Jews don't like what they said about Jews.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

NY Times confirms White Genocide

NY Times columnist and white-hater Farhad Manjoo writes:
“The Great Replacement” is a racist and misogynistic conspiracy theory that holds that white people face existential decline, even extinction, because of rising immigration in the West and falling birthrates among white women (caused, of course, by feminism). ...

“White genocide” was one branding possibility, but that label has failed to take off — perhaps because a claim of “genocide” requires unmistakable mass death, and what we’re talking about here is gradual, peaceful demographic change.
Actually the commonly accepted definitions of genocide do not require mass death:
Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
Manjoo goes on to make these points: (1) white numbers will not decline so much if mixed race people identify as white; (2) whites are still doing much better than blacks; and (3) whites will still have a majority in the 2036 election.

Okay, I accept these points, but they do not rebut the argument that there is a systematic set of policies to destroy white people in part, and replace them with non-whites.

Friday, March 22, 2019

We need a new Black Death

Philip Greenspun writes:
Let’s consider the political goals of righteous Americans today:
  • higher wages for the average person
  • an improved environment with less human impact on the land
  • less concentration of wealth in the hands of real property owners
  • more affordable housing for the working class
While listening to An Economic History of the World since 1400 by Professor Donald J. Harreld, I learned that all of the above goals were achieved in the 14th century via the Black Death, which reduced the European population by approximately one third.
  • wages for workers, including unskilled agricultural workers, increased as much as 40-50 percent
  • food prices fell
  • land and housing prices fell
  • the least productive farmland was allowed to return to natural forest (contrast to conditions before, from the course notes: “By about 1300, Europeans had just about all arable land under cultivation, including marginal and poorly producing lands, to sustain the growing population”)
Is it fair to think of immigration as the reverse of the Black Death? We’re dramatically growing our population via immigrants and children of immigrants (see “Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065” (Pew)).

What seems surprising, then, is that the people who say that they want to see all of the economic results of the Black Death simultaneously say that they want to adjust U.S. demographics in precisely the opposite direction of the Black Death. Slowing or stopping immigration will not do the trick. We need something with the economic effect of the medieval Black Death.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Humans and chimps are not really so similar

From an Interview with a Geneticist:
My motivation started when I arrived here and was given the task of researching the human-chimpanzee similarity issue because people ask about this in churches. They hear the claim that humans and chimps are 98 to 99% similar. People want to know if that’s true. ...

It’s very important to theoretical evolutionists. ... Their statistical models need that 98 to 99% similarity. ...

Based on my work, I’m seeing not more than an 85% DNA similarity of chimpanzee to human, and that’s a maximum. It’s probably less than that. ...

There’ve been some recent biomedical researchers showing that any two human genomes could be 4.5% different from each other. We used to think that human genomes were only 99.9% similar to each other. But if we take the structural differences into account, there’s a 4.5% difference between humans. How then can we be 99% similar to a chimp? It’s totally nonsense.
You often hear that the human genome has been completely sequenced, but it has really been only 95% sequenced.

I got this from a creationist site, so you might want to confirm it with evolutionists.

I have cited that 98%+ similarity on this blog myself. I did not realize that the figure might be bogus. I was duped. I am happy to correct myself.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Yang goes for Neo-Nazi vote

Now that the White Supremacists have abandoned President Trump, many are switching to a Chinese-American:
Andrew Yang: White people will be shooting up Asian churches within a generation ...

Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang is finding a growing surge of online grassroots support for his longshot campaign in the form of memes.

The 44-year-old serial entrepreneur’s online supporters, known as the Yang Gang, have started meme pages on Reddit, Twitter, and 4chan, placing Yang’s image on popular meme templates. The profile of Yang memes exploded last month after his appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast, which is a favorite show within the meme community.

Yang’s popularity is attributable in part to his universal basic income proposal, the centerpiece of his campaign, which entails giving every adult in the country $1,000 a month. The policy proposal is popular among a mostly white and male meme and gamer culture which shares Yang’s concern for jobs being lost to automation.
Yang is obviously trolling us by saying White people will be shooting up Asian churches. It is so obviously ridiculous that he must be appealing to the moral superiority of White people.

Here is another tell:
Outsider presidential hopeful Andrew Yang’s latest idea is both literally and figuratively his most unorthodox yet: He’s taking a strong public stance against circumcision.

The Democratic candidate revealed in a little-noticed tweet last week that he was against the ritualized practice of cutting a newborn’s foreskin.
Yang does not dare criticize the Jews, so he says this instead. Being against circumcision is just another way of saying that the Jews are a barbaric and emasculating tribe. David Duke now supports Yang.

Monday, March 18, 2019

Islam is not like any other faith

I quoted the NY Times attacking Australian Senator Fraser Anning, but it is only fair to quote what he said:
"I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman"

"However whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified what it highlights in the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing muslim presence."

"As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today's shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense."

"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim Fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place"

"Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale."

"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates."

"The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless"

"As we read in Matthew 26:52, 'all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword' and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind,.."
A copy is also here.

There is a war going on between Islam and Western Civilization, and for the most part, West Civ is not shooting back.

The killer's manifesto is not aimed at conservatives. He hates conservatives and has a low opinion of President Trump. His purpose is to trigger liberals in the news media, and they appear to be triggered exactly as he intended. They are following his wishes.

There are plenty of articles denouncing him, of course. The Wash. Post attacks him:
Sturtevant counted 18 references to the Middle Ages in the markings and writing on the arsenal that belonged to Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the 28-year-old Australian charged in Friday’s New Zealand rampage.

There is, of course, the sun wheel, or black sun, symbols seen in photos Tarrant allegedly posted to the Internet before the shooting. The symbol became associated with the Third Reich after Heinrich Himmler decorated a castle with it. ...

There were also numerous references on the suspected shooter’s weapons to medieval battles and figures, including four names of medieval Serbs who fought against the Muslim Ottomans, two Hungarian military leaders who fought the Ottomans, and numerous references to the Crusades, when Christian armies from Europe tried to seize the Holy Land from Muslims during the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. ...

One name in particular stood out to Sturtevant: Charles Martel. Martel was a real person in history, credited with defeating the last organized army headed by a Muslim ruler to attempt to invade what is now France at the Battle of Tours in 732.
I kept reading to see if Tarrant or anyone else were misrepresenting these symbols. Instead it says:
“White supremacists imagine the Middle Ages as a time when Europe was all white, separated from its neighbors and in constant conflict with those that it deemed to be outsiders,” Sturtevant said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

In medieval Sicily, Christians, Muslims and Jews were “living and working together side by side,” Sturtevant said. In 7th-century England, the well-respected archbishop of Canterbury was from Turkey, ... Pilgrimage books listed travelers as hailing from “India” — though this was probably just a fill-in for anywhere in the Middle East.
Turkey was part of the Roman Empire. Travelers came from distant lands. What is the point?

So maybe Europe was only 98% White. Maybe some Muslims lived on a island somewhere. I guess that would disprove someone saying that Europe was 100% White or 100% Christian, but who said that?

I would think that when the Wash. Post tries to discredit white supremacists, it could do a better job than this. White supremacists are likely to just see this as confirmation of their beliefs.

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Jews want to eliminate Amalek's modern heirs

One of the chief Jewish columnists at the NY Times tweeted:
This shabbat is called the sabbath of remembrance, in which Jews are asked to remember – and to blot out – the nation of Amalek, infamous for murdering the weakest, most defenseless Israelites. Among Amalek's modern heirs: The terrorists who gunned down innocents in New Zealand.

  — Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) March 15, 2019
What? Jews apparently have a belief that they should exterminate their enemy tribes. I never heard of Amaleks, but Jews have a myth that they did some harm to Jews 1000s of years ago, and now Jews must kill them all.

If the Amaleks have any modern heirs, then they have to be killed also. Weiss says they do -- the New Zealand shooter.

Okay, fine, Jews have always sought revenge killings, but the shooter was White and the targets were Moslem. What did Jews have to do with it?

It appears to me that she is saying that the Jews at the NY Times want to exterminate the White race. And it is all for some perceived grievance from 1000s of years ago.

Bishop convicted, 23 years later

The NY Times reports:
George Pell, an Australian cardinal who was the Vatican’s chief financial officer and an adviser to Pope Francis, was sentenced to six years in prison on Wednesday, for molesting two boys after Sunday Mass in 1996.

The cardinal was convicted on five counts in December, making him the most senior Catholic official — and the first bishop — to be found guilty in a criminal court for sexually abusing minors, according to BishopAccountability.org, which tracks cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.
There is a lot of talk about allegations like this, but convictions are extremely rare.

Here is a very high profile case. But the conviction is based on the testimony of one anonymous kid who suddenly remembers it and files a claim 23 years later. There is no physical or objective evidence.

I don't know if he did it or not. But I don't see how anyone else can know either.

Saturday, March 16, 2019

NY Times uses shooting to demonize whites

The NY Times hired a Moslem to complain about the New Zealand shooting:
In his manifesto, the gunman, who referred to himself as a “regular white man,” wrote that he was carrying out the attack to “directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the invaders themselves.”

The manifesto reveals an obsession with white supremacy, discussing the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which is glorified by white nationalists and Mr. Breivik as the critical moment when Europe staved off the Ottoman Empire’s advance and protected itself from Islam.
Not just white nationalists. If the Moslems had succeeded in invading Europe, then modern civilization as we know it today would not exist.
In 2015, a movement called Reclaim Australia organized protests against the “enforcing of Shariah law in Australia” and “the teaching of Islam in government schools.” The Conversation reported that placards displayed by the group at a rally read “Islam is an enemy of the West.” A key policy goal of the far-right political party Australian Liberty Alliance is to “stop the Islamization of Australia.” Its website warns, “Islam is not merely a religion, it is a totalitarian ideology with global aspirations.”

While Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, described the suspect as “an extremist, right-wing, violent terrorist,” an Australian senator, Fraser Anning, responded to the Christchurch attack by blaming “the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”
If you are an Australian, you can be either for or against the Islamization of your nation. Being for it, means favoring the subjugation of your grandchildren. Being against it gets you labeled a far right extremist.

It is true that Islam is not merely a religion. Any follower of Islam will tell you that.
Among white nationalists’ major motivators is “the great replacement” conspiracy theory. They fear that Jews, blacks and Muslims will replace white people and eventually subordinate them. Jews are often viewed as the diabolical head of the cabal, the nerve center, who use their infinite wealth and power to reduce and weaken the white man.
Just read the NY Times, or any other Jewish news source. They advocate the replacement of white people every day.
Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican, recently asked, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? He once tweeted, “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies,”
Yes, the Jews and Moslems plainly do want to replace our civilization with somebody else's babies.
These entities have worked together to reinforce the message that Muslims Americans are inherently radical and represent a “demographic time bomb” that will overtake the white population.
I am not so worried about the Moslem-Americans who are radicals. I am worried about the ones who believe the same things that Moslems have believed for a millennium.

Friday, March 15, 2019

New Zealand shooter's manifesto

The biggest news story is the New Zealand mosque attack, and everyone wants to know the reasons. Here is a shooter's manifesto:
Why did you carry out the attack?

To most of all show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our people.

To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history.

To take revenge for the enslavement of millions of Europeans taken from their lands by the Islamic slavers.

To take revenge for the thousands of European lives lost to terror attacks throughout European lands.

To take revenge for Ebba Akerlund.

To directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the invaders themselves.

To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.

To incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the invaders currently occupying European soil.

To avenge those European men and women lost in the constant and never ending wars of European history who died for their lands, died for their people only to have their lands given away to any foreign scum that bother to show up.

To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to over extend their own hand and experience the eventual backlash.

To show the effect of direct action, lighting a path forward for those that wish to follow.A path for those that wish to free their ancestors lands from the invaders grasp and to be a beacon for those that wish to create a lasting culture, to tell them they are not alone.

To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic,powerful and revolutionary action can occur.

To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought.

To drive a wedge between the nations of NATO that are European and the Turks that also make a part of the NATO forces, thereby turning NATO once more into a united European army and pushing the Turkey once more back to the true position of a foreign, enemy force.

Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states.This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent, but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream.

Furthermore this balkanization will also reduce the USA’s ability to project power globally, and thereby ensure that never again can such a situation as the US involvement in Kosovo ever occur again (where US/NATO forces fought beside muslims and slaughtered Christian Europeans attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe).
Ebba Akerlund was an 11-year-old Swede, murdered by Islamic terrorists.

I certainly do not agree with a terrorist attack like this, and it is hard to see how he is helping the cause that he claims to promote. I am just posting this because the news articles I saw did not explain the motives.

Update: It is also here.

Update: This is now banned in New Zealand:
New Zealand’s chief censor has banned a document shared by the man allegedly responsible for killing 50 people in two Christchurch mosques. Meanwhile, more than 1,000 people so far have opted to hand in their weapons following a ban on assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs).

David Shanks, the chief censor, officially classed the so-called manifesto as “objectionable” and told anyone in possession of it to destroy it.

“There is an important distinction to be made between ‘hate speech,’ which may be rejected by many right-thinking people, but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism,” Shanks said in making his decision.

He said the document “crosses the line” by promoting, encouraging and justifying acts of murder and terrorist violence against identified groups of people.

“New Zealanders can all play a part in denying those who exhort hatred, killing and terror,” Shanks said. “Do not support the murderous objectives of its author by republishing or distributing it.”
I did not know that NZ had a "chief censor".

It appears to me that the NZ authorities are doing just what the killer wanted them to do. He said he wanted to create conflict over gun rights, and they are complying. Perhaps they don't want the public to know that.

Closet Neo-Nazi Public Intellectuals

Jerry Coyne wonders why Steve Pinker is hated so much, while he sees only admirable qualities.

I think I know. Suppose you are a neo-nazi. Neo-nazis exist only in the imagination of left-wingers, but pretend anyway. Who are you idols going be, with no public figures being neo-nazis?

You are going to admire the ones who emit neo-nazi dog whistles. The leaders are Steve Pinker, Presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and (pseudonymous) psychiatrist blogger Scott Alexander.

Yes, all three are leftists, but the original Nazis were left-wing socialists also.

I mentioned the possibility that Pinker could be a White supremacist. He denies it, of course, and so do Yang and Pinker. But they would have to, or their careers would be terminated.

Again, I don't believe these guys are neo-nazis. But they do demonstrate a willingness to deviate from leftist groupthink.

Apparently these guys already get a lot of heat from the Ctrl-Left for being neo-nazi sympathizers, or even just right-wing sympathizers, and I don't want to add to it. I commend them for being leftists who are willing to think for themselves.

Alexander, aka SlateStarCodex, writes:
This post is called “RIP Culture War Thread”, so you may have already guessed things went south. What happened? The short version is: a bunch of people harassed and threatened me for my role in hosting it, I had a nervous breakdown, and I asked the moderators to get rid of it.

I’ll get to the long version eventually, but first I want to stress that this isn’t just my story. It’s the story of everyone who’s tried to host a space for political discussion on the Internet. Take the New York Times, in particular their article Why No Comments? It’s A Matter Of Resources. Translated from corporate-speak, it basically says that unmoderated comment sections had too many “trolls”, so they decided to switch to moderated comment sections only, but they don’t have enough resources to moderate any controversial articles, so commenting on controversial articles is banned.

And it’s not just the New York Times. In the past five years, CNN, NPR, The Atlantic, Vice, Bloomberg, Motherboard, and almost every other major news source has closed their comments – usually accompanied by weird corporate-speak about how “because we really value conversations, we are closing our comment section forever effective immediately”.
He says this, even tho his commenters were overwhelmingly leftist, and comments were easy to moderate. The problem is that there will be some opinions that the Ctrl-Left cannot tolerate.

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Amazon bans scholarly books

As noted here, Amazon used to sell all books in print, but now censors certain right-wing views. Now it has even banned a respected scholarly work.

Evolutionary psychology professor Kevin B. MacDonald writes:
Twenty-one years after a respected academic publisher, Praeger, published Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents, they have been banned on Amazon. A People that Shall Dwell Alone is still available. This comes only around two weeks after they banned books books by Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. This is an extension of the de-platforming from financial sites and PayPal, Patreon, Coinbase, and credit card companies that has hit pretty much all sites on the dissident right, including TOO and TOQ. Clearly the establishment is terrified that these ideas are gaining traction, and it illustrates once again, that the culturally dominant left cares nothing for free speech as a pillar of American civilization. I am now deeply worried that if the left obtains power in the next election, what has happened thus far will pale in comparison to what lies ahead. Private companies like Amazon cannot impose criminal penalties, but if the left manages to redefine the First Amendment, as they would certainly love to do, there will be a very real prospect of imprisonment and heavy fines — even for well-argued, well-supported statements and writings.  This has already happened in several parts of the EU, and the left has already developed sophisticated legal theories aimed at getting around the First Amendment.
These books are about a history of the Jews, and only Jews object to them.

Books get banned for telling uncomfortable truths.

The books have received some criticism, as you can see on Wikipedia. One criticism was that MacDonald said that Jews were authoritarian, while some researchers said that Jews score low on right-wing authoritarianism. The explanation is that Jews are left-wing authoritarians, not right-wing authoritarians.

And left-wing authoritarians are now blocking political opinions with Amazon, Paypal, Facebook, Twitter, and MasterCard.

These books are still available from other sources, and I think many of the chapters can be downloaded for free.

There is no other ethnic group with the power to censor criticism. Europe has laws against denying or diminishing the Jewish Holocaust. The USA has no such laws, because of the First Amendment, but soon it will be impractical for non-Jews to say anything about Jews.

Update: The NY Times story on Amazon censorship omits the above ban, but misdirects us to this:
Amazon has removed the online listings for two books that claim to contain cures for autism, a move that follows recent efforts by several social media sites to limit the availability of anti-vaccination and other pseudoscientific material.

The books, “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” and “Fight Autism and Win,” which had previously been listed for sale in Amazon’s marketplace, were not available on Wednesday. The company did not respond to questions about why the books were removed or whether similar books would be taken down in the future. ...

There is no cure for autism spectrum disorder, but there are medications that can help address associated symptoms like high energy levels and depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The DSM-5 lists 100s of disorders for which there is no known cure, and yet there is a giant industry of shrinks, books, medicines, and therapies for them. Why are the censors picking on autism?

I can see why the censors do not want non-Jews writing about the history of Jews. Jews want control of their own myths.

I can also see why leftist authoritarians do not unapproved books on vaccines. Mandatory vaccination is their ideal program for demonstrating the merits of their ideology, and they don't want anyone to have any individual rights in the matter.

But autism? I suspect that they have some evil ulterior motive, such as using autism to stigmatize normal male behavior. Research shows that autism can be described:
The theory of the "extreme male brain" was first mentioned more than 60 years ago, write Simon Baron-Cohen, PhD, and colleagues in Science. ...

The "extreme male brain" is an exaggeration of the typical male brain, which is stronger at analyzing systems than showing empathy, or so the theory goes.

The researchers write that "leaving political correctness aside, there is compelling evidence" of differences in the brains, mental function, and behavior of men and women.

They cite psychological studies -- some of which were done decades ago -- that girls tend to play with dolls, boys favor mechanical toys, girls score better on tests of social sensitivity and verbal fluency, and boys score better on engineering and physics problems and spatial navigation.
The research was done decades ago, because no one is allowed to say that girls tend to play with dolls anymore. Those books will soon be banned on Amazon.

Monday, March 11, 2019

Pope grovels to appease Jews

While Nancy Pelosi argues with some Somali Moslems about whether Jews have hypnotized the world, the Wash. Post reports:
Pope Francis denounced the “depraved hatred” behind a wave of anti-Semitic attacks in parts of the world and said interfaith dialogue can help counter it.

Francis met Friday with a delegation of the American Jewish Committee and praised their longstanding good relations.

He lamented that their meeting was taking place amid the spread of a “climate of wickedness and fury, in which an excessive and depraved hatred is taking root.”

And he warned that for Christians, any form of anti-Semitism is “a rejection of one’s own origins, a complete contradiction.”

The audience occurred days after Francis responded to longstanding requests from Jewish groups to open the Vatican archives of its World War II-era pope, Pius XII, who has faced accusations of having failed to speak out enough against the Holocaust.
I think that the Pope is signaling that he is being held hostage by heretics.

There is no "wave of anti-Semitic attacks". Most of what Jews complain about have turned out to be hoaxes, like the Jussie Smollett hoax.

Moslems hate the Jews, but that has been going on for a millennium. It is largely because of Jews that Moslems have been invited into Christian countries. If hatred is taking root, it is because Jews have invited Moslems to take root in Christian countries.

Saying that anti-Semitism is a rejection of one’s own origins is like saying anti-monarchy is a rejection of one’s own origins. The American constitutional govt grew out of a rejection of British monarchy, and Christianity grew out of a rejection of Judaism.

Why would one religion ever worry about offending another religion? Catholicism is supposed to the universal religion, and if you believe that, then Judaism certainly is not.

An anonymous Trump-supporting Jew writes:
That’s a big difference between Muslims and Jews. Jews take care of other Jews. Any Jew anywhere in the world is welcome to move to Israel. But Islamic nations want nothing to do with taking in Muslim refugees. And nearly all of those Muslim refugees exist because of Muslims fighting wars with other Muslims. Christian nations have to take in Muslims refuges because Muslim nations won’t step up to the plate for their own people.

And this is one of the major reasons why Jews have traditionally supported Israel.
I pointed out that the Democrat House resolution essentially says that it is anti-Semitic for non-Jews to express opinions like this. He deleted my comment, and posted:
If you hate Jews so much, go read another blog

Or is my Jew mind control making you read this?
This is bizarre, but reflects common Jewish opinions. Almost anything non-Jews say about Jews will be branded Jew-hatred by Jews. Even if you agree with Jewish conventional wisdom, you will be called anti-Semitic.

If you say that AIPAC is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the US govt, then Jews will call you a Jew-hating anti-Semite.

This is their way of asserting Jewish supremacy over other groups.

You would think that everyone would ignore this sort of nuttiness, but apparently Jews have forced this sort of thinking on both the US House of Representatives and the Pope in Rome! Now they all grovel to appease their Jewish masters.

For an example of Jewish supremacy, see this Iraeli newspaper article from last year:
A lawmaker from the ruling Likud party said Wednesday that the “Jewish race” is the smartest in the world and possessing of the “highest human capital,” which is why, he said, the Israeli public did not buy into the allegations of wrongdoing by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu….

His assertions led to a Twitter spat with Joint (Arab) List party MK Ahmad Tibi, who noted Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews as a race during the Holocaust.

“I can tell you something very basic,” Zohar said during the Radio 103FM debate. “You can’t fool the Jews, no matter what is the media writes. The public in Israel is a public that belongs to the Jewish race, and the entire Jewish race is the highest human capital, the smartest, the most comprehending. The public knows what the prime minister is doing for the country and how excellent he is at his job.” …

“What can you do? We were blessed by God… and I will continue to say that at every opportunity,” he said. “I don’t have to be ashamed about the Jewish people being the Chosen People; the smartest, most special people in the world.”

Zohar cited the many innovations and discoveries made by Jews, and said that Israel had achieved more in its 70-year span than some peoples had in thousands of years.

“You can understand why we usually win a lot of Nobel Prizes,” he said.
And now they have achieved domination over the Pope and the US Congress.

Sunday, March 10, 2019

David Brooks demands reparations

Several Democrat presidential candidates have endorsed the idea of white people paying reparations to non-whites, and now the Jews at the NY Times are joining in.

I am not sure what the Jewish angle is. Maybe the Nazi Jewish holocaust was all the fault of FDR and Churchill, so Jews will get paid reparations also.

I have been saying for years that the Democrat Party is mainly held together by hatred of Whites, Christians, and men. This is becoming more obvious every day. Just look at what they say about reparations. Look at the House anti-Semitism resolution.

The Republican party is now much more pro-Israel than the Democrat. And yet the Democrat party is entirely dependent on Jewish fund-raising. Will the Jews continue to finance and support the Democrats? Of course they will. Just ask yourself why.

Friday, March 08, 2019

Dual citizens do have divided loyalty

The House Resolution says:
Whereas accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to the Jewish community than to the United States constitutes anti-Semitism because it suggests that Jewish citizens cannot be patriotic Americans and trusted neighbors, when Jews have loyally served our Nation every day since its founding, whether in public or community life or military service;
A 2018 post says that:
89 of our Senators and Congress hold dual citizenship citizenship with Israel
There are also politicians who claim to be dual citizens with other countries. I believe Senator Ted Cruz claimed to be a citizen of Canada, until he ran for President.

By contrast, Israel requires all its legislators to renounce any foreign citizenships.

The whole investigation of Donald Trump is based on the premise that he might have some loyalties to Russia as a result of some attempted business deals or political favors. None of that has been substantiated. But it is plainly obvious that Jews have loyalties to Israel.

I am not saying it is necessarily bad for Jews to be favorable to Israel. Trump is favorable to Israel, and he is not Jewish. Others are favorable towards other nations for other reasons.

I am just saying that if it is anti-Semitic to point this out, then every truth-telling person is an anti-Semite.

Wednesday, March 06, 2019

House to condemn Moslem remark about Jews

The NY Times reports:
A formal condemnation of anti-Semitism that is up for a vote in the House this week has touched off a furious debate between older House Democrats and their young liberal colleagues over whether Representative Ilhan Omar is being singled out for unfair treatment over her statements on Israel.

The resolution, likely to be voted on Thursday, grew out of Ms. Omar’s suggestion last week that pro-Israel activists were pushing “for allegiance to a foreign country” — a remark that infuriated leading Jewish members of the House, who say it played into the anti-Semitic trope of “dual loyalty.” ...

An early draft of the anti-Semitism resolution that was circulated on Capitol Hill Tuesday — before the language about Muslims was added — does not name Ms. Omar. But there is little question it is aimed at her.
Muslims are the only ones who hate the Jews for who they are. The Koran says that Allah cursed Jews by turning them into apes and pigs.

Yes, pro-Israel activists are pushing for allegiance to a foreign country. That is an obvious fact, regardless of what you think about Jews.

The draft resolution is amazing, as it even defends the notorious Jewish pervert and murderer Leo Frank. It recites other Jewish myths and hoaxes. Instead of blaming Muslims who hate Jews, it blames White Christians. It doesn't really deny that Jews are anti-American, but instead complains that perpetuating stereotypes could have dangerous consequences.

Yes, truth can have dangerous consequences also.

I am surprised that Jews believe that they are advancing their cause with this resolution. Presumably they want to show off how they can exercise political power to denounce White Christians.

In case you doubt the correctness of what Omar said about US support for Israel, consider:
Back in 2018, at the Israeli-American Council (IAC) national conference, Pelosi declared that even if the US Capitol “crumbled to the ground,” the one thing that would remain is US aid to and cooperation with Israel, declaring, “That’s fundamental to who we are.”
Update: The Federalist rants:
The first, harkening back to her claims that Israel is “hypnotizing the world,” is that Jews are using their money to buy off the American government’s support of Israel. ...

The second claim is that American Jews who support Israel are engaged in dual loyalty. That their real allegiance is not to the United States but to Israel and Judaism. This is also an ancient and disquieting claim, ...

After all, as Ocasio-Cortez recently said, Jews are basically just white people complicit in white supremacy, a bizarre claim ...
He doesn't really dispute these claims. He is just mad that someone is saying them.

I think he prefers that Jews are complicit in Jewish supremacy, as the Jewish supremacists disassociate themselves from whites.
But frankly, as bad as the anti-Semitism itself is, arguably worse is that they are telling Jews that it isn’t. They are arrogantly claiming to understand what anti-Semitism is better than Jews do themselves.

Who gets to decide what is anti-Semitic? ...

As someone of Jewish descent, I want to make one thing perfectly clear to both Omar and Ocasio-Cortez: You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t anti-Semitic. Claiming that Jews are buying influence and are not loyal Americans is anti-Semitic. It’s not a trope, it’s a slur.
Now we get to his real issue. As a Jew, his position is that Jews should get to dictate what non-Jews say.

It does not matter if it is factually correct that there is a Jewish lobby that supports Israel. Jews say that acknowledging the fact is anti-Semitic, so the Jewish supremacists like him and their allies like Nancy Pelosi are going to condemn any non-Jew is fails to obey Jewish orders on what to say.

Update: House Democrats have decided to scrap the resolution. Apparently anti-Semitism is okay with them after all, since they could not figure out a good way to blame it all on White Christian men.

Update: The House did pass a revised resolution. It dropped the language about Leo Frank, and added a bunch of clauses blaming White Christian men, even tho it was triggered by non-white Moslem women criticizing Jews. Jews will blame white Christian men no matter what.

It refers to the "myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance". That is not a myth, as can be seen by opposition to Trump's Wall. Almost all of the opposition to the Wall is by those with loyalties outside the USA.

Tuesday, March 05, 2019

Some say America is an idea

Examples:
Many political speeches, such as the 2011 State of the Union Address given by President Barack Obama, have claimed that the United States is “the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea.” Obama defined this as “the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.”

The origin of the phrase is unknown. The Civic Reader for New Americans (1908) had this: “We said the United States was founded on an idea. What is that idea? It is the idea of freedom.” Alistair Cooke in 1941 defined the idea as “republican democracy.” Margaret Thatcher is often credited for coining the phrase in 1991, when she said, “No other nation has been built upon an idea—the idea of liberty.” Several months later in 1991, President George H. W. Bush said, “America is the first nation in history founded on an idea, on that unshakeable certainty all men are created equal.”
And here:
It is a bipartisan commonplace to talk about America as a nation of ideas. House Speaker Paul Ryan declared in 2016 that the United States is “the only nation founded on an idea, not an identity.” President Barack Obama said pretty much the same thing when he won reelection in 2012. ...

But the image of the United States as a country of ideas suffered a severe setback in November, and it has been reeling ever since.
If America is an idea, what is that idea? There is no agreement.

What if it turns out that historical research shows that the idea is White Supremacy?

If it is an idea, does that mean that anyone who agrees with the idea is welcome to come here? If so, then presumably others are not welcome. How would anyone make the determination?

Sunday, March 03, 2019

Tranny Culture, like it or not

The Federalistreports:
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that a 14-year-old girl receive testosterone injections without parental consent. The court also declared that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or addressed her by her birth name, they would be considered guilty of family violence.

As previously reported, Maxine* was encouraged by her school counselor in BC’s Delta School District to identify as a boy while in seventh grade. When Maxine was 13 years old, Dr. Brenden Hursh and his colleagues at BC Children’s Hospital decided that Maxine should begin taking testosterone injections in order to develop a more masculine appearance.
This is really sick. There is no scientific consensus that any such hormone treatments have ever done any child any good. On the contrary, many believe that it makes suicide more likely.

Breitbart reports:
Actress Meghan Markle has reportedly told friends she and her husband Prince Harry have plans to raise their child with a “fluid approach to gender” that refrains from “imposing any stereotypes,” according to sources who spoke with Vanity Fair.

Meghan Markle, now formally referred to as the Duchess of Sussex, is expecting her first child in the coming weeks and has even planned a “gender-neutral” nursery for its enjoyment.
Prince Harry must have decided to destroy the monarchy.

Julian Baggini writes:
Admiring the great thinkers of the past has become morally hazardous. Praise Immanuel Kant, and you might be reminded that he believed that 'Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites,' and 'the yellow Indians do have a meagre talent'. Laud Aristotle, and you'll have to explain how a genuine sage could have thought that 'the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject'. ...

Given Aristotle's openness to evidence and experience, there is no question that today he would need no persuading that women are men's equals. Hume likewise always deferred to experience, and so would not today be apt to suspect anything derogatory about dark-skinned peoples.
The truth is more nearly the opposite. There is far more reason to believe in the inferiority of females now, than in Aristotle's time. And there is now much more grounds to suspect anything derogatory about dark-skinned peoples.

Saturday, March 02, 2019

Amazon no longer sells all books from A to Z

Amazon used to carry all the books in print, without censorship. Not anymore. Here is a disgruntled author, and other examples.

Some Libertarians will argue that this is not censorship, because I am free to start my own online bookstore and sell the banned books. Yes, I can still do that, but some web sites with unpopular content are now being banned by the financial system, including MasterCard, Visa, and Paypal.

Yes, I can start my own payment system, but that is a lot more difficult.

There are lots of books still on Amazon that are a lot more offensive and legally questionable, as the above articles note. So the banning is not based on offensiveness.

The books are being banned because certain authorities are desperately worried that certain fringe ideas might reach a broader audience.

They must surely wish that they could have shut off Donald Trump's access to the news media when they had the chance.

Statistician A. Gelman writes:
In his classic essay, “Politics and the English Language,” the political journalist George Orwell drew a connection between cloudy writing and cloudy content.

The basic idea was: if you don’t know what you’re saying, or if you’re trying to say something you don’t really want to say, then one strategy is to write unclearly. Conversely, consistently cloudy writing can be an indication that the writer ultimately doesn’t want to be understood.

In Orwell’s words:
[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
If no one is allowed to speak bluntly anymore, then I expect to see more cloudy writing.

There is a lot of cloudy writing attacking Donald Trump. In much of it, it is really hard to tell why the author hates him so much.

For example, Michael Cohen seems to hate Trump, but why? I listened to his testimony, and here is how the Wash. Post reported it:
Cohen has testified that while Trump never directed him to lie to Congress about a potential Trump Tower Moscow during the 2016, he made his desires known through hints.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) asked Cohen to elaborate more on these hints that Trump would give, seeking to shed light on how Trump gives orders without saying the words specifically.

Cohen said Trump likes to give orders by making a sweeping claim — then asking a question that’s not really a question, per se. Cohen likened it to a powerful individual pointing to his tie and claiming it’s “the nicest looking tie!” — then asking a subordinate if he or she agrees.

It would have made more sense for Cohen to say, "I have orders from the secret Jewish cabal to backstab Trump, so that is what I am doing."

Apparently someone promised Cohen that Trump will be impeached, and Cohen has a chance to be the John Dean of the Trump administration. Dean went to prison for his crimes, but in the end he profited enormously by becoming a hero to Nixon-haters for his backstabbing.

Friday, March 01, 2019

How Costco makes money

The London Daily Mail reports:
Americans use more toilet paper than anyone else in the world, with manufacturing practices by US companies that destroy the habitats of native people who live where it is sourced and contribute to global warming, a new research study has showed.

US consumers use roughly three rolls of toilet paper each week, accounting for one-fifth of the world’s tissue consumption, according to the report titled ‘The Issue With Tissue: How Americans are Flushing Forests Down the Toilet’ by environmental groups Stand.earth and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
How can anyone use that much toliet paper? The thought of this is making me an environmentalist.

The biggest selling item at Costco is their toliet paper. It is excellent toliet paper, but it is only sold in 36-roll bags.

I thought that this would be a three-year supply for the average person, so I could never figure out how Costco could stay in business with such an infrequently needed product.

Now it all makes sense. If you have a family of six with average American toliet paper consumption, that Costco jumbo bag of 36 rolls will only last you two weeks. You would have to go back to Costco every two weeks just to restock toliet paper. While you are there, you can also stock up on chicken, wine, potato chips, and motor oil.

The average person would probably be embarrassed to buy 36 rolls of toliet paper at the local grocery store. If I needed that much toliet paper every two weeks, I would join Costco just to avoid the embarrassment.

I have always had trouble understanding the Costco business model, as it is very different from every other store chain, and is very successful. It all makes sense now.

Update: This article claims that American toilet paper consumption is exaggerated.