Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Why we fought the Iraq War

The USA won the Iraq War, but it was a disaster in many other ways. There is no consensus about the war.

Some say it was about oil, but read The Iraq War Was Not About Oil. Maybe some Senators voted for the war thinking that oil might make it worthwhile, but the war was never waged in a way to get an oil benefit, and we never did.

Some say it was about lies over WMD, but most of those people seem to be unaware that WMD were found in Iraq. See the Wikipedia article on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush and Tony Blair argued that Iraq was not complying fully with weapons inspections, and in fact it did turn out that Iraq had chemical and nuclear weapons materials that were not exposed until after we invaded.

These materials were not an imminent threat to America, but I don't think anyone said they were.

Nor does it make any sense to say we went to war to contain militant Islam. Other countries were bigger Islamic threats. Wikipedia reports on Christianity in Iraq:
The Christians of Iraq are considered to be one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world. ...

In Iraq, Christians numbered about 1,500,000 in 2003, representing just over 6% of the population of 26 million (down from 1.4 million or 8.5% of 16.5 million in 1987). Since then, it has been estimated that the number of Christians in Iraq have dropped to 500,000+.
So obviously the war was a disaster for Christianity in the region.

Christianity and oil are two of the pillars of Western Civilization. If we had to fight a war to defend those pillars, then that could make sense. But apparently our leaders who waged this war had no intention of defending either.

Newsweek reports:
The United States has spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 people since the 9/11 attacks of 2001. ...

In February, President Donald Trump estimated that "we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East," saying "what a mistake" it was.
Those 9/11 hijackers could not have realized that their big accomplishment was not bringing down the WTC, but suckering us into spending $6 trillion, and into advancing the Islamic cause in some ways.

I also wonder why we fought World War II. Many say it was a necessary war to prevent Hitler from taking over the world. But read The Lies About World War II. It says that England and France started WWII, and the war was unnecessary and stupid. I am not sure, as it is hard to get objective info on the subject.

Monday, May 20, 2019

Not OK to be an innocent Cubs fan

A NY Times op=ed, by a black former baseball player:
On May 7, during a television broadcast of a Chicago Cubs game at Wrigley Field, I was on camera doing in-game commentary for NBC Sports Chicago when, unbeknown to me, a fan behind me wearing a Cubs sweatshirt made an upside-down “O.K.” sign with his hand. ...

Because I am a person of color, the fan’s gesture suggested its sinister meaning. ...

Later that day, the Cubs completed their investigation and banned the fan from Wrigley Field indefinitely. ...

According to the [Jewish] Anti-Defamation League, users of the online message board 4chan originally introduced the idea that the “O.K.” sign was a white supremacist symbol as a prank to get the media to overreact to innocuous gestures — but the sign soon morphed into a genuine expression of white supremacy as well. ...

If the Cubs fan is innocent, he will be O.K. That would be the just outcome. But racism will remain. Being wrongfully accused, while unfair, is not the same as living a life where your skin color automatically makes you a target.
This is lunacy. He says that it is a "just outcome" to punish an innocent Cubs fans, because blacks will still be black and because some Jewish web site says that white supremacists are playing a prank on the media.

How did we get to the point where NY Times op-eds advocate punishing innocent white Cubs fans because of wacky Jewish conspiracy theories?

The Wash. Post and others are all excited about this trivial debate excerpt:
A Missouri House member said rape can be 'consensual.' A female colleague quickly corrected him. During the Missouri House debate on the abortion bill on May 17, state Rep. Barry Hovis (R) said the vast majority of rape cases he encountered as a law enforcement official had been situations of date rape and "consensual rape." Hovis later told reporters he misspoke.
When someone in law enforcement refers to "rape cases", he obviously means investigations of rape allegations. The police collect evidence, and do not determine guilt. So if he said 99% of the cases are date rape cases and consensual rape cases, he is making the point that they are not necessarily crimes, and not the stranger abduction rape cases that are such serious crimes.

The usual dopey feminists are complaining that there is no such thing as consensual rape, because rape is a crime requiring a lack of consent. Yes, but there certainly are a lot of rape cases that are shown to be about consensual acts.

The main complaint about the new Alabama abortion law is that there is no exception for rape, and of course they mean consensual rape. That is, women want to be able to get an abortion when they say the pregnancy was caused by a rape, even tho there was no contemporaneous police report.

Milo Yiannopoulos seems to have gone off the deep end, and predicted civil war. I do think that we are headed in that direction. However, I also think that civil war would be a disaster, and that reasonable steps will be taken to avoid such a disaster. Things would have been much worse of Donald Trump had not been elected. We desperately need more Trumps to stand up to the evils destroying this nation.

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Pope takes orders from Jewish cabal

Jews are the only ethnic group that regulates what everyone can say about them. Even if you say something true and self-evident about them, like "the Israel lobby spends money to support pro-Israel policies", then the Jews will blast you as anti-semitic, censor you, and de-platform you.

The Jews even try to regulate how the Pope quotes the Bible!

The Times of Israel reports:
Pope Francis is being urged by experts to take greater care when referring to “hypocritical” Pharisees, a stereotype that fueled centuries of bad blood between Catholics and Jews.

Catholic-Jewish relations blossomed after the Second Vatican Council — which in 1965 finally urged respect for Judaism — and Francis is a clear friend of the Jews, insisting the Church continue to apologize for anti-Semitism.

But for centuries, Jesus’s Jewish origins were obscured and the Jews were held collectively responsible for his death.

And the pontiff’s tendency to quote directly from New Testament passages where Jesus slams members of the small religious and political group as “hypocrites” has been troubling rabbis concerned about anti-Semitism.

Some 400 Jewish and Christian Bible scholars gathered in Rome last week to exchange research notes on the Pharisees, a group about which little is known historically but which came to represent all Jews in Catholic tradition. To Jews, the Pharisees include some of the earliest of the Sages whose collective legal and spiritual debates over some seven centuries, until the fifth century CE, are recorded in the vast compilation called the Talmud, Judaism’s central post-Biblical text.

But the image of the “treacherous” Pharisees appears down the centuries in dictionaries, academic articles, films and Protestant and Catholic preaching, with the word “Pharisee” becoming a synonym for hypocrite in the West.

“They lacked life. They were, so to speak, ‘starched.’ They were rigid… The people didn’t matter to them: The Law mattered to them,” Francis said of Pharisees in a homily in October.
This is so bizarre. I cannot imagine Catholic priests trying to tell rabbis how to quote the Talmud, even tho the Talmud has all sorts of derogatory text about non-Jews.

Of course the Pope should not be listening to anyone outside the Church. He appears to be a heretic or an impostor. But how did Jews get so much power that they can tell the Pope what to say?

This is not the first time, either. In 2015, the Pope said that the Church should not try to convert Jews. This was obviously done to please Jewish rabbis, even if it means the Jews will be going to Hell.

I don't want to blame all Jews for this. I will be on the lookout for Jews who disavow this, and say that it is okay for the Pope to quote the Bible, without being subject to Jewish censors.

Here is another example of Jewish thinking, from today's NY Times:
Many of Europe’s populists share the intentions of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to widen political divisions and weaken Western institutions. Those tactics have involved interfering in democratic campaigns including the United States 2016 elections. And a Russian woman, Maria Butina, was sentenced to 18 months in prison in April after admitting that she had been part of that effort.
No, this is just Jewish craziness.

Europe's populists want to keep out Moslem jibadists and invaders. The populists are trying to strengthen Western institutions. The Moslem invaders are being brought in by Jewish activists like George Soros. It is not that Jews like Moslems. Jews hate Moslems. Jews want to bring in Moslems in order to widen political divisions and weaken Western institutions.

And yet this Jewish newspapers blames it all on the Russians!

I don't know if the Pharisees were hypocrites of this sort, but the Jews at the NY Times are the biggest hypocrites in the world today. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus would denounce them, just like the Pharisees.

As evidence, the NY Times points to the Maria Butina plea bargain!

I tried to read her indictment to figure out what she did that was criminal, and I don't see. She came to the USA from Russia, met with some people, and expressed some opinions. That's all. She was charged on the hopes that she would provide evidence of others committing crimes, but she didn't know anything. She is a political prisoner, and I expect her to get pardoned.

Update: Al-Jazeera had to take down a video, to please the Jews. Apparently the video said that Hitler supported Zionism, in order to get rid of the Jews from Germany and maybe surrounding areas. Is there any TV that is not controlled by the Jews?

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Jewish Comedian goes nuts

Jewish Comedian Steve Hofstetter has posted this video rant that he excerpted from a comedy club performance. It is bizarre.

He starts by attacking non-Jews who resist Jewish-influenced demographic displacement. Then he mocks Hobby Lobby, and says that Jews would not want to work there. Then he asks the audience where Jews do want to work, and someone in the audience says "TV".

Hofstetter then goes into a tirade against the guy as being anti-semitic, and has the guy kicked out of the club. The guy had not said anything negative about Jews. WTF?

The guy said he worked in TV, and Hofstetter threatened to use his Jewish influence to get the guy fired!

Do Jews think that this sort of nonsense is funny? I did not see anything funny about anything Hofstetter said. All I get out of what he said is that he hates non-Jews, and he uses "anti-semitic" as a meaningless epithet to throw at any non-Jew he does not like.

The Daily Stormer responds:
Our big three:

NBC is run by Comcast, chaired by Jewish CEO Brian L. Roberts.
CBS has failed to name a new CEO since Jew Les Moonves was metooed, but the interim CEO is the Jew Strauss Zelnick.
ABC is owned by Jewish Disney and run by the Jew Robert Iger.

Fox was notable because it was not run by a Jew. However, Disney recently purchased Fox Entertainment, so now the network television station of Fox is run by a Jew, while only Fox News remains run by non-Jew Rupert Murdoch.

Of the other 24 hour news channels:

MSNBC is owned by Jewish Comcast.
CNN is run by the Jew Jeff Zucker.

Also of interest:

Turner Broadcasting, which controls an array of television stations, is headed by the Jew David Levy.
ESPN is a subsidiary of Jewish Disney.
USA Network is a subsidiary of Jewish NBC.
Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, Science Channel, TLC, HGTV, Travel Channel, Food Network, and DIY Network are subsidiaries of Discovery, Inc., whose CEO is Jew David Zaslav.
Univision, a Spanish-language channel, is run by the Israeli Jew Haim Saban.
The CW is a subsidiary of Jewish CBS.
HBO is run by Jewish CEO Richard Plepler.

And it goes on and on.

Ultimately, the truth is that if you exclude Fox Corporation – now only Fox News – you find that close to 100% of television stations are either run by a Jew or subsidiaries of a company run by a Jew.

Furthermore, virtually every single individual television show, whether entertainment or news, is produced by Jews.

Jews are 2% of the population. So even if we make the extremely conservative estimate that only 90% of power positions in the television industry are held by Jews, there is still a phenomenal 4,500% per capita overrepresentation of Jews controlling television media.

And when any group holds 90% of the power positions in an industry, I don’t think it is anything other than an objective fact to say that that group “controls” that industry.
So yes, it is an objective fact that Jews work in TV and control the major channels.

This Jewish humor is really sick.

Friday, May 17, 2019

College Board announces secret adversity score

The NY Times also has an article today complaining that Pres. Trump refuses to sign on to international Jewish attempts to re-engineer the internet to block certain points of view. In particular, they want to allow comments favoring the demographic displacement of Whites, while blocking criticisms of it.

The NY Times published an article on the new adversity score:
The SAT, the college entrance test taken by about two million students a year, is adding an “adversity score” to the test results that is intended to help admissions officers account for factors like educational or socioeconomic disadvantage that may depress students’ scores, the College Board, the company that administers the test, said Thursday. ...

The adversity score would be a number between 1 and 100, with an average student receiving a 50. It would be calculated using 15 factors, like the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood. The score would not be reported to the student, only to college officials.
That is what the article said last night. Today the official online version says:
The College Board, the company that administers the SAT exam taken by about two million students a year, will for the first time assess students not just on their math and verbal skills, but also on their educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, entering a fraught battle over the fairness of high-stakes testing. ...

The score will be calculated using 15 factors, including the relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate and poverty level of the student’s neighborhood.

The rating will not affect students’ test scores, and will be reported only to college admissions officials as part of a larger package of data on each test taker.
Notice the difference? It no longer explicitly says that the score is being withheld from the student. It does say that the colleges only get the score as part of other data, but it is cleverly ambiguous about whether the student gets the data.

Why would the NY Times make such a change to artfully conceal the most important point?

I am going out on a limb here, but I do not think this is an accident. The College Board is run by the same sort of lizard people who run the NY Times. Already they have changed the name of the Scholastic Aptitude Test to SAT because it no longer measures aptitude.

The College Board and the colleges are sitting on data that show that race and socioeconomic status are their best predictors of college success. But that clashes with their plans for demographic displacement.

The original article said:
“We’ve got to admit the truth, that wealth inequality has progressed to such a degree that it isn’t fair to look at test scores alone,” Mr. Coleman recently told The Associated Press. “You must look at them in context of the adversity students face.”
Not fair? Note that he is no longer talking about how scores predict later success. He thinks that the meritocracy is unfair to the lesser students. He wants to use test scores as a tool to remake society towards his leftist ideological goals.

Update: The NY Times published an op-ed by a black guy attacking the adversity score:
It cannot — and does not — attempt to assess the mental toll of being called a “monkey” on your walk home, ... Though the adversity index uses proxies, “The purpose is to get to race without using race,” ... pseudoscientific index of oppression.
Yes, one of the purposes of big data today is to use proxies for race.

Update: The NY Times has another article explaining that colleges need a proxy for race, so that they can legally practice racial discrimination.

Why Calhoun opposed the Conquest of Mexico

American politicians are fond of talking about "who we are", with some saying that we are all egalitarians and some saying we are all racists. Apparently there is a disagreement that can be informed by historical documents.

US Senator John C. Calhoun wrote in 1848 against the conquest of Mexico:
RESOLVED, That to conquer Mexico and to hold it, either as a province or to incorporate it into the Union, would be inconsistent with the avowed object for which the war has been prosecuted; a departure from the settled policy of the Government; in conflict with its character and genius; and in the end subversive of our free and popular institutions. ...

We have conquered many of the neighboring tribes of Indians, but we have never thought of holding them in subjection — never of incorporating them into our Union. They have either been left as an independent people amongst us, or been driven into the forests.

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race — the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. ...

Sir, it is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages — for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions.
It is debatable whether this view should be considered "white supremacist". He regarded whites as more civilized than other races, but he has no desire to rule over other races. As he just wants to stay separate from other races and nations, I would call this "white nationalist" or "white separatist", but some people call it "white supremacist".

I wonder what Calhoun would say today about the Mexican conquest of California.

The NY Times regularly has article about how only white supremacists support President Trump, and that whites are desperately hanging on to power in the face of their "inevitable ... demographic displacement" by non-white. There is another such article today.

The NY Times is as anti-white and Calhoun was pro-white.

The NY Times also has an article today complaining that Pres. Trump refuses to sign on to international Jewish attempts to re-engineer the internet to block certain points of view. In particular, they want to allow comments favoring the demographic displacement of Whites, while blocking criticisms of it.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

White men domesticated themselves

Discover mag reports:
The so-called self-domestication hypothesis, floated by Charles Darwin and formulated by 21st century scholars, is now popular among anthropologists. They see parallels between changes over the past 200,000 years of human evolution and those observed when wild animals became domesticates, creatures selectively bred to be docile and friendly.

According to proponents, as human societies grew in size and complexity, more cooperative, less combative individuals fared better. These behavioral traits are heritable to some extent and also linked with physical traits, such as stress hormone levels, testosterone during development and skull robustness. Tamer individuals more successfully passed on their genes, and so these traits prevailed in the human lineage. Over time, our species became domesticated. ...

Researchers now know that breeding animals solely for tameness ultimately leads to full domestication. ...

A 2014 Genetics paper offered an explanation for how such disparate traits — from heads to adrenal glands to tails — could have the same underlying cause. ...

So it’s thought that humans self-domesticated because aggressive individuals were gradually eliminated from society. A happy tale of “survival of the friendliest.”
The idea here is that during Roman and Medieval times, Europe systematically executed murderers and other antisocials. This left White people genetically more prosocial.

China did something similar, but it eliminated noncomformists.

Northwestern Europe was unique in encouraging individuality and cooperation. According to this theory, many centuries of eugenics resulted in a White population with genes suitable for creating a great civilization.

I am not sure if this theory can ever be proved in a convincing way. They would have to find genes for individuality, cooperation, and other such traits, and show how they vary across world populations. And they would have to figure out how important these traits were for building a civilization.

It is also not clear what this would mean for the future. It would seem to make Whites instinctively want to trust others as being like themselves, while that may not be true.

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

New Alabama abortion proclamation

(i) It is estimated that 6,000,000 Jewish people were murdered in German concentration camps during World War II; 3,000,000 people were executed by Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet gulags; 2,500,000 people were murdered during the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" in 1958; 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 people were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s; and approximately 1,000,000 people were murdered during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. All of these are widely acknowledged to have been crimes against humanity. By comparison, more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973, more than three times the number who were killed in German death camps, Chinese purges, Stalin's gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined. ...

Section 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion except as provided for by subsection (b).

(b) An abortion shall be permitted if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. Except in the case of a medical emergency as defined herein, the physician's determination shall be confirmed in writing by a second physician licensed in Alabama. The confirmation shall occur within 180 days after the abortion is completed and shall be prima facie evidence for a permitted abortion.

Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable. Furthermore, no physician confirming the serious health risk to the child's mother shall be criminally or civilly liable for those actions.

Section 6. (a) An abortion performed in violation of this act is a Class A felony.

(b) An attempted abortion performed in violation of this act is a Class C felony.

Section 7. This act shall not apply to a physician licensed in Alabama performing a termination of a pregnancy or assisting in performing a termination of a pregnancy due to a medical emergency as defined by this act.
This differs from existing law mainly in the definition of "serious health risk".

I do not expect this law to have any effect, because I do not think that there are five votes on the US Supreme Court to support.

This law is described as extreme, but note that it exonerates the expectant mother. If abortion were really murder, the the woman obtaining an abortion would be a murderer.

Suppose an Alabama woman is eight months pregnant, and the expectant father wants the baby. The woman takes a bus to a nearby state to have an abortion performed. The man may be of the opinion that the woman murdered his baby, and yet she has no liability or responsibility under this law whatsoever.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Science mag pushes for more immigration

From a SciAm blog:
I am a first-generation immigrant myself. When my family moved to the United States from India in the late 1980s, I was a rambunctious four-year-old girl. I presumably entered on a dependent visa tied to my parents, but in short order we received green cards, giving us permanent resident status in the United States. ...

My institution is built on immigrants. We have immigrants in every level of our medical center, including in many leadership positions. But very few people understand the process involved in living and succeeding in America. ...

Therefore, for many of my immigrant colleagues, their rights to pursue their “American dream” are significantly curtailed by immigration laws.
Yes, American immigration law has some hurdles, but they haven't stopped India and other countries from flooding us with immigrants.

As she points out, many American institutions are packed with immigrants, filling jobs that would otherwise go to Americans.

The USA population has increased by about 100 million over the last 50 years from immigrants. It is the biggest mass migration in history. It is crazy to say we need more.

The more people we take from India, the more stories there will be like this, and the more leftist magazines like SciAm will push for more immigration. The situation is unstable. India has a billion people.

Monday, May 13, 2019

NPR promotes Nazi book

NPR Radio Fresh Air reports on a new book:
Daniel Okrent, author of The Guarded Gate, draws a parallel between the eugenics movement, which helped shape U.S. immigration in the early 20th century, and President Trump's hard-line stance today. ...

The, quote, "science" was eugenics which theorized that traits like intelligence and morality were inherited and therefore, through selective breeding, you could improve the quality of the human race. Of course, the converse was also believed to be true; certain individuals or groups of people would pollute the bloodline. Those undesirables were the people the restrictive immigration law of 1924 was designed to keep out. ...

that really gave the lie to the notion that we were a nation of immigrants. ...

Francis Galton, who was actually a cousin of Darwin's, who was the man who named eugenics and was its first most vocal advocate - he suggested early on that the U.K. find the 5,000 best young men and the 5,000 best young women and pair them off in arranged marriages, which would take place in one huge ceremony in Westminster Abbey, presided over by Queen Victoria. And each of these families - these new couples - would be given a yearly stipend so instead of working, they could get down to the business of making better people, better babies for the U.K. ...

You find some very well-established scientists - Fairfield Osborn, the head of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years - he outright declared that it is not just intelligence. It is also morality that is inherited, and criminality is inherited. ...

And I do quote a young woman - well-educated, a very, very fine family - at the age of 33 writing a letter to her mother-in-law, saying that she had been at a party where she met an interesting man, but he was, quote, "very Jew." That man was Felix Frankfurter, later a Supreme Court justice, of course.

She also said that she'd rather be hung than attend another Jew party where she was, she said, appalled by all the talk of money, jewels and sables - really repugnant, repellant comments. That 33-year-old woman was Eleanor Roosevelt
He is right that the notion that we were a nation of immigrants is a big lie.

It is also true that there is solid scientific evidence showing that traits like intelligence and criminality are heritable.

And it is also true that if you attend a Jew party, you might meet people who are very Jewish and who talk about Jewish stuff.

He says the 1924 immigration law did not say anything about Jews or of any racial group. It merely required immigrant nationalities to be consistent with the previous population. A truly eugenic law would have tested for desirable and undesirable heritable traits.

The author obviously favors what he calls "non-discriminatory open immigration", or perhaps laws favoring Jews, but he doesn't really rebut a eugenic immigration policy except to say that Adolf Hitler would have liked it.

He suffers from a logical fallacy here. Hitler was reportedly a vegetarian, but that does not mean that vegetarianism is evil.

Sunday, May 12, 2019

Arguing about the heritage of Jesus

The NY Post reports:
A rabbi has called out US Rep. Ilhan Omar for retweeting a New York Times op-ed that suggested Jesus was a Palestinian.

The freshman Democrat from Minnesota shared an April 20 tweet from Omar Suleiman, an adjunct professor of Islamic studies at Southern Methodist University, who said a Palestinian relative told him about the “Christian right”: “Don’t they know we’re Christian too? Do they even consider us human? Don’t they know Jesus was a Palestinian?”

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate and director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told the Jewish Journal that it’s a “grotesque insult to Jesus born in the land of Israel and to Christianity” to say that Jesus was a Palestinian.

“Palestine was a name made up by Romans after they crucified thousands, destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the People of Israel from their homeland,” Cooper said in an email to the news outlet. ...

He added: “For people who have no theological or historical rooting, the idea that Jesus was a Palestinian creates a new narrative for Palestinian history, which otherwise does not date back very far. If one can say that Jesus was Palestinian 2,000 years ago, then that means the Jews are occupying Palestinian land.” ...

“The absurdity of it is breathtaking,” Cooper said. “Jesus was born in Bethlehem, think about who his parents were — his mother, Mary, was betrothed to Joseph, a carpenter. In the Gospels, there is no mention of Palestine, only Judea, which is where Jews lived.”
I thought that Jews who live in Palestine are Palestinians. And Arabs who are citizens of Israel are Israelis.

Since the Roman Empire occupied the area 2k years ago, it seems possible that Jesus was a Roman. A lot of people seem to think that he would have looked Jewish, but we don't know that.

Meanwhile, I see that one of my favorite blogs, Chateau Heartiste, has been shut down by Wordpress. No explanation has been given. I did not notice that it violated any law or terms of service. Most of all, it was a red pill site, that faced the realities of human nature. It also mercilessly mocked prominent leftists. There is a leftist war on free speech going on.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

There are no Judeo-Christian values

We often hear of our supposed Judeo-Christian values or heritage, but what does the term mean?

People seem to think that it means that Western Civilization was developed by Jews and Christians, using values common to Judaism and Christianity. But it does not mean that at all. Jews and Judaism had almost nothing to do with the creation of Western Civilization.

Essay:
“The attack on the Jew ... is an attack on Christianity itself and on the Judeo-Christian basis of our Western civilization.” San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 9, 1947)

The notion that Western civilization rests on a Judeo-Christian basis is very largely an invention of the 1940s, when Jews felt a sudden and unprecedented desire to join the Western club and lock arms with their Christian “brothers.” Although a palpable oxymoron, the phrase prospered in the years that followed, and is now well established as one of the hardier weeds in the unlovely garden of American political cant.

Obviously, there can be no such thing as Judeo-Christian values when Jews specifically reject the highest Christian value, which is Christ. ...

Before 1940, historians used the phrase Judeo-Christian to describe sects of Christianized Jews, such as the Ebionites and Nazarenes, which briefly flourished in the early days of the faith. In his History of the Origins of Christianity (1888), for instance, Ernest Renan used the adjective to denote Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but who continued to observe the Mosaic Law and held themselves aloof from the gentile Church (in other words, these Judeo-Christians were the people Paul was really talking about in Galatians 3:28).

These Judeo-Christians also dissented from the emerging Trinitarian doctrine of the orthodox Church, denied that Jesus was divine, and seem to have taught that he was a prophet, an angel, or some sort of ghostly apparition. Renan suggests that they esteemed Jesus in much the same way as he would later be esteemed in Islam, which Renan called “a sort of Arab prolongation of Judeo Christianity.”

The Judeo-Christian sects were persecuted and destroyed by orthodox Jews, who abominated Jesus as the grossest of blasphemers, and who likely harried from their synagogues anyone who said he was anything less than a very wicked man.
So "Judeo-Christian" refers to obscure Christianized Jews, or to modern Jews like Ben Shapiro who are not on the Christian-hating left.

A new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American, May 14, 2019, by Andrew L Seidel, argues:
Seidel, a constitutional attorney, provides a fervent takedown of Christian Nationalism in his furious debut. After support by far-right Christian nationalists helped Donald Trump win the U.S. presidency, Seidel worries that Evangelical political influence is increasing and dangerous. He argues that America was not founded as a Christian nation on Judeo-Christian principles, and thus Christian nationalists are inherently wrong. Judeo-Christian principles, he argues, are directly opposed to the Enlightenment principles on which the United States was founded: ‘to put it bluntly, Christianity is un-American.’
I agree that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. It makes more sense to say America was founded as a White supremacist nation.

Siedel says America was founded on "Enlightenment principles", but that is just another way of saying White Christian cultural values. The word Enlightenment just means the beliefs of White Christians about 250 years ago.

He particularly attacks "Christian Nationalism". Presumably his argument is based on Jefferson being a non-denominational Christian who did not want the state to establish any particular Christian denomination. And he was not what we would call today an evangelical. But he was still a Christian nationalist, and so were all the other founding fathers. What part of that can be doubted? He was certainly guided by Christian principles, he was certainly a nationalist, and he certainly lived in a nation of Christians.

Friday, May 10, 2019

Mother-in-law schemes with a Rabbi

Military news:
A Navy command master chief ... has resigned, the service announced Tuesday. ...

Carter told sailors assembled aboard the carrier April 30 to hear a speech from Vice President Mike Pence to "clap like we're at a strip club" when Pence arrived.
I hate to think what would happen if our military had to fight a real war.

Slate advice:
Dear Care and Feeding,

My fiancé was raised as a reform Jew; I am a casual Christian. We have mutually decided not to circumcise our forthcoming son. His family is, to put it lightly, up in arms about our not hosting a bris. (“Because it’s a Jewish rite of passage!”)

I’ve tried reasoning that I won’t be up for hosting 20-plus people seven days after giving birth; I’ve tried explaining that we just won’t be circumcising; I’ve tried making the argument that it’s not sterile for a random rabbi to cut our newborn on the dining room table. I’ve done everything short of saying “Because I don’t want to host a penis party to expose my son to the world.”

Through my fiancé’s sister, we were warned of my future mother-in-law’s plan to host a “surprise” bris at our house a week after the birth! I’m ready to fly off the handle. This isn’t completely out of character for her, but it seems like a new level of crazy and violation. My fiancé has intervened in the past, but never on something of this magnitude. I feel that as the baby’s mother, this is not a situation I should just leave to him.

How do I confront her about this and, God forbid, deal with a “surprise bris” if family and a rabbi show up at our door in a few months?

—We Do Not Want a Bris
They are not even married yet, and the Jewish mother-in-law is scheming to mutilate the baby's penis! Is that how things work in Jewish families? The Jewish women control their men by making sure that they lose their manhood at an early age.

The advice is to assure her that "you plan on keeping his Jewish heritage alive in his life." Better advice would be to inform the rabbi that any such attempt will result in him going to prison for mayhem. And read Portnoy's Complaint and put a cross and a swastika on the front door.

Aristotle rationalized slavery

Ferdinand Bardamu writes:
In the ancient world, slavery was hardly a moral dilemma. It raised no ethical issues worthy of examination, nor was it ever considered a source of embarrassment. That most of mankind could be forcibly enslaved without injustice was a truism that was seldom debated, even among philosophers. Nature had assigned some men the role of master and others the role of slave. This was so obvious it required no elaborate rational explanation; for centuries, the belief that the stronger had a right to dominate the weaker was always regarded as true, but trivially so. The great exception to this universal indifference was Aristotle, the only classical writer to develop a fully-fledged theory of natural slavery.

In Aristotle’s Politics, the “natural slave,” the man who could be enslaved without injustice, differed from the free man in certain fundamental respects. Nature had designed the slave for servile labor; he was brawny, but filled with humility because of the shabbiness of his appearance; in contrast, the free man, because of his “upright posture,” had a commanding presence or an air of dignity about him that made him ill-suited to working with his hands. Instead, Nature had designed him for the civic life of the polis. The slave shared “in reason to the extent of understanding it, but does not have it himself”; compared to the free man, he was deficient in reason. By this, Aristotle did not mean that the slave was necessarily deficient in technical rationality; rather, he lacked the autonomous practical rationality or deliberative choice needed to achieve eudaimonia or happiness.

Natural slavery had an ethnic component. Aristotle divided humanity into three main branches; northern Europeans, who were spirited or full of energy, but “deficient in intelligence and craft knowledge”; Asians, the Persians and other Near Eastern peoples, who were both intelligent and possessed craft knowledge, but lacked spiritedness, and; the Greeks, who possessed both intelligence and spiritedness because of their geographically intermediate position between Northern Europe and Asia; ergo, non-Greeks were barbarians who could be enslaved without injustice. Although the barbarians of Northern Europe were “comparatively free,” this didn’t mean they weren’t natural slaves; true freedom requires the capacity for autonomous practical rationality, which the barbarian clearly lacked.
Nobody in the West would defend slavery today.

We have a system today that is better than slavery for the elites. Companies can fire workers for almost any reason. Companies can also cut back hours, and require unusual working conditions. Companies don't have to train workers, or pay their health insurance, or contribute to their retirement.

Slaveowners had to do all of those things.

The trend is toward companies like Uber not employing anyone directly, but making them all independent contractors. Then employers have almost no responsibility for anything.

Most workers get saddled with enormous debt, from student loans, mortgages, and credit cards. They are enslaved by debt. But we have figured out a way to say that it is all voluntary, so it is all okay.

Thursday, May 09, 2019

Colonizing outer space is a euphemism

Glenn Harlan Reynolds reviews a book in USA Today:
Among the reasons why he thinks we need to spread out through the Solar System (and perhaps beyond): ...

For Our Freedom: Earth is crowded, and governments (and corporations like Facebook) are getting ever more intrusive as privacy grows every more scarce. The danger of a global tyranny backed by modern technology of surveillance and control is growing. Getting a sizable chunk of humanity off the planet and far enough away — the Moon, Mars, even the asteroid belt — makes it less likely that such a tyranny could become all-encompassing.

I find Zubrin’s arguments compelling, and I think you just might, too. I highly recommend his book, ...
He is trolling us. No one could seriously think that exploring outer space is a feasible response to the tyrannies brought by overcrowding and Facebook.

Drastic action on Earth will be necessary to combat those tyrannies. But if you point that out, then Facebook, Google, and others will de-platform you.

Almost all American problems are caused by Third World immigration and by elites who are selling us out. These problems range from homelessness, crime, drugs, overpriced housing, global warming, etc. If you point that out, you are called racist. So instead you have to speak in euphemisms like "need to spread out through the Solar System". That is just another way of saying that the elites are making America unlivable.

The elites have to censor the truth in order to keep control of the narrative.

The Washingtonian has a funny story about how a Washington DC Jewish mother got upset when her 13-year-old boy got redpilled.

He got kicked out of school when some leftist-feminist SJWs took offense to some trivial remark, and he searched some alt-right web sites to find out how our society got so anti-male.

His discovery was too late to save his foreskin. His mom thinks that he will return to being a good Jewish boy, and accept that SJWs can ruin him at any time if he displeases them.

It is amazing how the lizard people will tell brazen lies to protect their anti-American sellout. Google has a NY Times op-ed saying:
All while staying true to two unequivocal policies: that Google will never sell any personal information to third parties; and that you get to decide how your information is used. Here’s how it works:

First, data makes the products and services you use more helpful to you. ...

Second, products use anonymous data in aggregate to be more helpful to everyone. ...

Third, a small subset of data helps serve ads that are relevant and that provide the revenue that keeps Google products free and accessible.
Got that? Even if you are not a Google user, Google will sell info about you to advertisers for its own profit.

If an advertiser wants to market a product to 40-year-old Trump-supporting Christian men, then Google will sell an ad targeting that demographic. When you click on that ad, Google has effectively sold that info about you.

Google rationalizes this by saying that the info is not "personal", or that the info is only indirectly being sold, or that it improves its services, or that you might appreciate more relevant ads, or that outside companies profit from marketing their products, or that Google uses some of its revenue to offer "free" services (which are really data collection traps).

All that may be true, but Google and Facebook lie about what they are doing, and they use their monopolies to de-platform political views with which they disagree.

Apparently they are catering to Democrats who expect them to censor conservatives. Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris promises:
We will hold social media platforms responsible for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate—if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyberwarfare, if you don't police your platforms—we are going to hold you accountable as a community.
She is an ex-prosecutor, so she knows that she is threatening to criminalize non-leftist political opinions.

Wednesday, May 08, 2019

Futility of Moslem adopting our values

Dutch essay:
Most of the time I fully agree with Geert Wilders, but not all the time. In this case I think Wilders has very few options. In nearly every interview he points towards ‘bad’ mohammedans, and rightly so. He always says they have to adapt to our values and cultures. That’s where he goes wrong. It doesn’t happen. They don’t do it, and worse: they will not do it. I’m pretty sure Wilders knows that better than anyone else. But what can he say? Even though he is 100% correct, every judge in Holland or Europe would condemn him. For whatever reason they can think of.

Let’s start with the koran and Mr. Mo himself. All religions reason in circles; the worst offender by far is islam. The koran is the word of god, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. Who is also appointed to be the last prophet ever. How do we know that? Mo said so. What’s the proof for that? It is written in the koran. In other words, the koran is proof for the veracity of the koran. Mo’s appointment as last prophet is quite important. Because all subsequent prophets, for example Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or Ron Hubbard (Scientology) are automatically false prophets. It’s written in the koran that God himself didn’t want to work with prophets after Mohammed. Therefore anyone claiming to be a prophet must be false.

The entire religion is set up so it cannot be changed. Normal books are mostly written in chronological order. Not the koran. The surahs are ordered by length. Those verses were revealed to Mo over a period of 23 years. Very often in dreams, when Mo was in bad need of divine backup.
Sam Harris has made a lot of effort to distinguish the good Moslems from the bad Moslems, but see his re-issued podcast on what they really want. And why they hate infidels.

In short, they will always hate you until you are subjugated to Islam. And they will kill you if they think they need to.

Tuesday, May 07, 2019

San Francisco is poop city


The San Fran newspaper reports:
One of America's wealthiest cities has a huge problem with public poop.

Between 2011 and 2018, San Francisco experienced a massive increase in reported incidents of human feces found on public streets.

In 2011, just over 5,500 reports were logged by the San Francisco Department of Public Works; in 2018, the number increased to more than 28,000. ...

Notably, this is a chart of only documented reports — the actual amount of feces on San Francisco's streets is likely even higher than these statistics suggest.

"I will say there is more feces on the sidewalks than I've ever seen growing up here," San Francisco Mayor London Breed told NBC in a 2018 interview. "That is a huge problem, and we are not just talking about from dogs — we're talking about from humans."
SF is also one of the wealthiest and leftist cities in the USA. It is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. It is extremely anti-Trump.

Monday, May 06, 2019

Why wives do domestic work

A feminist psychologist writes a NY Times op-ed:
Sociologists attribute the discrepancy between mothers’ expectations and reality to “a largely successful male resistance.” This resistance is not being led by socially conservative men, whose like-minded wives often explicitly agree to take the lead in the home. It is happening, instead, with relatively progressive couples, and it takes many women — who thought their partners had made a prenatal commitment to equal parenting — by surprise. Why are their partners failing to pitch in more? ...

The couples offered three explanations for this labor imbalance. The first was that women take over activities like bedtime, homework and laundry because men perform these tasks inadequately. ... The second explanation involved forgetting or obliviousness. ... Finally, some men blamed their wives’ personalities. ...

Division of labor in the home is one of the most important gender-equity issues of our time. Yet at the current rate of change, MenCare, a group that promotes equal involvement in caregiving, estimates that it will be about 75 more years before men worldwide assume half of the unpaid work that domesticity requires.

If anything is going to change, men have to stop resisting.
The article gives examples of men who offer to help with housework, but the wives insist on doing it themselves so that they can do it their way.

What the wives really want, according to the article is for the men to do the parenting and housework, and to do it exactly as the wives want it to be done.

I think that will take more than 75 years.

The article does not directly attack white people, but another NY Times article does:
Since the 2016 presidential election, scholars have hotly debated the best way to counter the “weaponization” of the Middle Ages by a rising tide of far-right extremists, whether it’s white nationalist marchers in Charlottesville, Va., displaying medieval symbols or the white terrorist who murdered 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, using weapons inscribed with references to the Crusades.

And hanging over it all is an even more fraught question: Does medieval studies have a white supremacy problem of its own?

To some scholars, the answer is yes, and not just because the field is overwhelmingly white. Scholarship on the Middle Ages, they argue, helped create the idea of white European superiority, and still bolsters it today.
It is almost impossible to study European history without discussing what made the culture so great.

Update: The NY Times published several letters on housework inequities, in response to the above op-ed. None of them really say that is appropriate for women to do most of the housework.

Sunday, May 05, 2019

Facebook bans seven

Numerous news article say:
Facebook barred seven users from its services earlier this week, citing its policies against "dangerous individuals and organizations." ...

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Paul Nehlen, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson.
That is only 6. Who is no. 7?

Out of a couple of billion FB accounts, why just these? What does these have in common?

Each has a political following, and each is hated by the Ctrl-Left.

Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. are all squarely aligned with leftism now. Free speech will depend on breaking free of their monopolies.

Saturday, May 04, 2019

World War II was not a race war

Wash Post op-ed:
What he [Winston Churchill] did not do, however, was call for the destruction of the essence of Nazism: race supremacy. ...

Churchill’s friend President Franklin D. Roosevelt also either failed to comprehend the basic nature of German fascism or chose not to rally Americans to oppose Nazism as Nazism. In his prewar correspondence, he made no secret of his dislike of Hitler and his belligerent regime, but like Churchill, he never framed his opposition to Germany as a rejection of race hierarchy or race nationalism. ...

But it’s worth putting this plainly: The Allied leadership did not fight the war over fascist race-nationalism. That was the historical path not taken.
Of course we did not fight WWII as a race war.

Japan was much more race nationalist than Germany. That is not why we fought Japan.

Today China is regarded as a geo-political threat, and it is race nationalist. I don't hear anyone saying that we should fight China because it is race nationalist.

Most non-white countries are race-nationalist. That is how the world works.

What if that principle [eliminating the racial supremacy] had been, through the greatest global struggle of humankind, woven into our social DNA? And how can we make that principle central to our societies today?
I don't know whether racial attitudes are woven into DNA. Whites are least racist people in the world, and maybe it is in the genes. See this essay:
White people are the most individualistic people on earth — a topic central to my forthcoming book Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future. This means that we are less ethnocentric and less embedded in extended kinship networks that are so common in Africa and Asia. Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that punishes Whites for expressing ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric.
It says that Whites don't really identify with other Whites, until you show them the evidence that they are being exterminated. The NY Times just confirmed this.

I think that it is foolish to try to eliminate racism and identity politics, because it is part of human nature to identify with one's own kind. But if going to war to eliminate racist DNA is such a good thing, as the Wash. Post article seems to advocate, then the logical conclusion would be a world war to exterminate non-white people.

Reducing the population of White people, and importing non-whites, is making the world more racist, not less racist.

Just look at the USA. It is dramatically more racist than it was 30 years ago, as the non-white portion of the population has radically increased. Now a Democrat running for President has to apologize for being a White man.

Friday, May 03, 2019

Is Secular Humanism a Religion?

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne likes to say that science disproves religion, and he hates those who say that some religious beliefs are compatible with facts and science. For example:
In general I like the articles in Quillette: they’re generally left-wing but also critical of the Left’s excesses — a theme that has led some misguided ideologues to call the site “alt-right.” But this time the editors screwed up ...
1.) “The first is the belief in invisible or hidden beings, worlds and processes — like God, heaven, miracles, reincarnation, and the soul. All these are unverifiable, or unseen and unseeable, except by mystics under special and generally unrepeatable conditions. Since absence of evidence is not, logically, evidence of absence, these features of religion are neither true nor false, but simply unprovable. They have no implications for action, hence no bearing on legal matters.” ...

2.) “The second element are claims about the real world: every religion, especially in its primordial version, makes claims that are essentially scientific — assertions of fact that are potentially verifiable. ...

3.) “The third property of a religion are its rules for action — prohibitions and requirements — its morality. ... Secular humanism lacks any reference to the supernatural and defers matters of fact to science. But it is as rich in moral rules, in dogma, as any religion.
That reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould’s weaselly reconciliation between science and religion in his book Rocks of Ages. In that book, Gould’s NOMA Hypothesis was that science is about finding the facts of the universe, while religion’s bailiwick is meaning, morals, and values. ... Gould was wrong, and so is Staddon. Why did the editors of Quillette publish this odiferous serving of tripe?
Coyne accepts this definition of religion, but it is largely a Christian view, as it is based heavily on beliefs.

Beliefs are not so important in Judaism and Islam. People are born as Jews or Moslems, and that is what they are, regardless of their beliefs.

Moslems get killed if they leave the religion. Coyne is Jewish by heritage, and therefore identifies with Jews somewhat, but he does follow any of the Judaism theological beliefs.

Coyne does not even believe in free will. If he did, he would probably be a Trump supporter. But he has an innate visceral rejection of Trump.

Theologians are usually able to explain their beliefs, even if they rely partially or wholly on revelation. Today's leftist secular humanists are extremely dogmatic in their beliefs, and have no better explanations.

Quilette has published Coyne's rebuttal:
First, the diversity of morality among secular humanists is far wider than that of followers of a given religion: beyond adherence to the Golden Rule, secular humanists vary dramatically in what they consider moral. ...

Further, much of a religion’s morality, as Maarten Boudry and I argued, derives directly or indirectly from its supernatural claims. ...

Finally, unlike secular morality, religious morality largely comes from interpreting what is God’s will—sometimes in the problematic “divine command theory” stating that whatever God says is good is good. In contrast, the morality of secular humanists derives from rational consideration about how we ought to act—principles based largely on reason but ultimately grounded on a secular preference (i.e., “I prefer a society in which individuals do what maximizes well-being.”). Once consequentialist preferences like this one are established, empirical study, aka science, can then help us decide how to act.
I dispute these arguments. Christians are more or less evenly divided between right-wingers and left-wingers. But those who call themselves secular humanists are overwhelmingly leftist.

The secular humanists may say that they are maximizing well-being and following empiricial study, but I really doubt that there are any empirical studies showing that secular humanists maximize well-being any more than Christians.

Thursday, May 02, 2019

Dershowitz denounces the NY Times


Lawyers are experts at advocating a view. Here is an opinion from one of the best advocates for Jews.

Harvard law professor, and prominent Zionist, Alan M. Dershowitz writes:
What is it, then, about Jews that allowed such a degrading cartoon about one of their leaders? ...

The New York Times should be especially sensitive to this issue, because they were on the wrong side of history when it came to reporting the Holocaust. They deliberately buried the story because their Jewish owners wanted to distance themselves from Jewish concerns. Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel's enemies. ...

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism "news analysis," when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven't even bothered to offer any cover. ...

One traditional anti-Semitic trope is that "the Jews control the media." People who peddle this nonsense often point to the New York Times, which is, in fact, published by a prominent Jewish family, the Sulzbergers. Anyone who reads the New York Times will immediately see the lie in this bigoted claim: Yes, the New York Times has long been controlled by a Jewish family. But this Jewish family is far from being supportive of Jewish values, the nation-state of the Jewish people or Jewish sensibilities. If anything, it has used its Jewishness as an excuse to say about Jews and do to Jews what no mainstream newspaper, not owned by Jews, would ever do.
There is some truth to this. Jews do not permit non-Jews to criticize them.

The Daily Stormer, which blames the Jews for pretty everything and is severely censored for it, admits to its main sources:
If people would simply go read what the Jews write in their own publications, there would really be no need for the Daily Stormer. They really lay it all out there.
It is also true that there is a big difference between the orthodox and secular Jews. Orthodox Jews in the USA and Israel are often big Trump supporters, and believers in Biblical values.

The secular Jews who control the news media and entertainment are a different story. They have more in common with Communism than the Bible. They don't really believe in Judaism, but they sure hate Christendom and actively seek its destruction.

The above cartoon is from the NY Times, but is not the one that Dershowitz is complaining about.

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

The Never-Ending Threat of Civil War

E.M. Cadwaladr writes in American Thinker:
We and the Left are now two nations within one country. This is undeniable. We are now so different that we cannot even agree on what a country is, or on the merits of a country having a border. ...

The people who are eager for a civil war are fools. They don't understand the catastrophe they're begging for. But the people who believe that a civil war is now a real possibility are neither fools nor wild-eyed alarmists. Moreover, the people who believe that, grim though the prospect may be, war might be the lesser of two evils have a daily strengthening case. The Left has shown itself to be dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization itself. We have not been faced with such an existential threat since European armies threw the Turks back from Vienna in 1529. The fascists of the mid–2oth century, for all their loathsome policies, were not the kind of threat to the fabric of our society that we face now. Bad as they were, they did not seek the destruction of Europeans as a people, or of European culture as a living, breathing thing. Progressivism does. What could be more worthy of, if you will forgive the word, "resistance"?

We conservatives have let this ideological cancer metastasize for far too long for its excision to be simple or painless. For too long, we have been patient with outrages we should have fought to reverse. We have let our opponents secede incrementally from us for decades. We have been tolerant and patient.
I think that he is right that hoping for war is foolish, but so is standing by and watching the Left seek the destruction of Western Civilization.

For example, many on the Left now seek open borders. So do many Libertarians. These are attempts to destroy the USA as a sovereign nation. Some are even arguing before the US Supreme Court that it is illegal for the US Census to ask whether someone is a citizen.

Sam Harris re-broadcasts an episode on what Islamists want. They want to kill you for not being a Moslem. You can read the ISIS explanation yourself. And yet there are leftists who want to bring such people into the USA.

Importing Moslems serves no purpose except to advance leftist plans for the destruction of Western Civilization.