Sunday, June 30, 2019

Why sluts are undesirable mates

Slate Star Codex blog writes:
Did cultural evolution create sexual purity taboos to prevent the spread of STIs? A few weeks ago, I wrote a post assuming this was obviously true; after getting some pushback, so I want to look into it in more depth. ...

Most likely purity taboos came from both paternity issues and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. But I think it’s fair to speculate that STIs played a part.
He is a Jewish psychiatrist with peculiar sexual preferences. Perhaps that explains why he sees STIs as the main reason against promiscuity in partners.

I don't doubt that he is more worried about STIs than paternity. Likewise for women.

But his post and the comments do not adequately consider the differences between men and women.

Men normally have instincts to be promiscuous. The evolutionary benefit is for the man to spread his seed widely.

Women do not. They have instincts for Alpha Fux Beta Bux. They will have an affair with a more alpha man, or shift to a better resource provider, but they prefer to stay with a man they are happy with.

So why do men prefer not to marry a promiscuous woman? Yes, she could have diseases and try to trick him into raising another man's child.

But there are a couple of other reasons: She will be psychological disordered and impossible to please.

A man does not want a psychologically disturbed wife.

Crazy Cat Lady writes about her large number of sexual partners:
But if you have been sexually active [for] 10 plus years, it is surprisingly easy to rack up a number so big you can’t even precisely recall.

Of course if I were a man I would be celebrated for this. But I’m a woman so many men simply call me a slut and refuse to date me (but still offer me the privilege of having sex with them). ...

Anyone who has been single in a major city know that you can line up a weeks worth on tinder dates in a matter of hours. Sometimes multiple meet ups in the same night.

I regularly get tested, I don’t have daddy issues, and I was not abused as a child ...

Maybe I should just lie? But honestly, it’s not something I’m that embarrassed about. My collection of cats, crushing student loans, and pitiful excuse for a car are things that embarrass me. Not my number.
Apparently she is too embarrassed about her number to put it in her essay.

If you wanted to marry this woman, you could have her tested for diseases, and DNA test any child she bears. But that would still not solve the problem that she has some sort of weirdo itch that you will never properly scratch.

Promiscuous women are never happy, because they always think that they deserve something better than what they have.

The reason that Monica Lewinsky is unmarriageable is not that she is promiscuous. It is that she has dated her ideal alpha man, and no one else would ever measure up.

Saturday, June 29, 2019

Why Bill Cosby was prosecuted

From Wikipedia on Bill Cosby:
Cosby received an award at the celebration of the 50th anniversary commemoration of Brown v. Board of Education ruling—a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that outlawed racial segregation in public schools. Later, in May 2004, he made public remarks that were critical of African-Americans who put higher priorities on sports, fashion, and "acting hard" than on education, self-respect, and self-improvement. He pleaded for African-American families to educate their children on the many different aspects of American culture.[82][83] In the Pound Cake speech, Cosby asked that African-American parents teach their children better morals at a younger age.
You would not think that such a speech would be so controversial, but NPR Radio reports that Cosby is in prison today because others sought revenge for that speech. It began when a comedian attacked the speech, and accused Cosby of being a rapist. The spurred others to try to frame Cosby, and then also a judge:
There were motions that had excerpts from his deposition in the case, and a federal judge in July of the next year allowed those to be unsealed because he said Cosby had given up his right to privacy by all the public scolding he had done to people through the years. So that narrowed his right to privacy.
Cosby was convicted by a jury, but only after some major manipulation by experts:
I think the prosecution had run a much better case the second time around. They put a sexual assault expert up first to testify about rape myths and debunking rape myths, and, you know, all of the victim behavior that might seem odd to you — like waiting to report it to authorities, or reporting it at all — is the norm for sexual assault.

So she kind of set the stage for the jury to say, 'You're going to hear some strange things, but this is the normal thing for sexual assault victims.
Wow, I did not know that the prosecution could get away with such prejudicial expert testimony ahead of the facts. Obviously he could not have been convicted on the raw facts and testimony, so some phony expert had to interpret the evidence to lead the jury to conviction.

It is a scandal that some 80-year-old popular actor got imprisoned by recovered memories of accusers about events of 30 years previously. And that the recovered memories conveniently matched what was needed to drain Cosby's fortune.

But most of all, it is outrageous that this was all done as a political hit to punish him for expressing some mainstream conservative views. And NPR and the major news media fully supported the prosecution.

We have become a society where people get destroyed by their enemies. Harvard rescinded the admission of Kyle Kashuv because he supported Trump and his political enemies sent Harvard some of the boy's private comments that were potentially offensive if made public. Almost every day there is some story of someone being ruined because of enemies exposing some supposed past sin.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Indians to surpass Chinese in 2024

The Times of India reported in 2017:
UNITED NATIONS: India's population could surpass that of China around 2024, two years later than previously estimated, and is projected to touch 1.5 billion in 2030, according to a UN forecast.

The World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that currently China with 1.41 billion inhabitants and India with 1.34 billion remain the two most populous countries, comprising 19 and 18 per cent of the total global population.

"In roughly seven years, or around 2024, the population of India is expected to surpass that of China," the report said.
The 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects is the 25th round of official UN population estimates and projections. ...

The report said the current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100.

"With roughly 83 million people being added to the world s population every year, the upward trend in population size is expected to continue, even assuming that fertility levels will continue to decline, it said.

Ten countries are expected to account collectively for more than half of the world s projected population increase over the period 2017-2050: India, Nigeria, Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Uganda, Indonesia and Egypt.

Among the ten largest countries worldwide, Nigeria is growing the most rapidly. Consequently, the population of Nigeria, currently the world s 7th largest, is projected to surpass that of the US and become the third largest country in the world shortly before 2050.
Further, large and persistent economic and demographic asymmetries between countries are likely to remain key drivers of international migration for the foreseeable future. Between 2015 and 2050, the top net receivers of international migrants (more than 100,000 annually) are projected to be the US, Germany, Canada, UK, Australia and Russia.

The countries projected to be net senders of more than 100,000 migrants annually include India, Bangladesh, China, Pakistan and Indonesia.
So every year: 83M new people, 100k migrants.

It seems obvious that: Third World countries cannot accommodate these population increases; 100k migrants is a small percentage of the excess population.

I think 10M migrants a year is a lot more likely. Maybe even a lot more.

There are Indians who say they have a right to invade First World countries, and subjugate the White populations there.

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Defining American Nationalism

Dennis Prager is a politically conservative orthodox Jew with a large following. He supports Donald Trump and Israel. He regularly attacks wacky leftists, including Jewish leftists, and praises orthodox Jewish morals. He wrote a column to clarify nationalism:
In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.

The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But in a second paragraph, it adds, “especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Let’s be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. ...

American nationalism, based as it is on the motto “e pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”), by definition includes Americans of all races and ethnicities. That is how conservatives define American nationalism. I have never met a conservative who defined American national identity as definitionally “white.” ...

Human beings need a descending order of commitments: first to oneself, then to one’s family, then to one’s community, then to one’s nation and then to humanity.
It is fine with me if he is loyal to Israel, as an ethnic nationalist state dominated by Ashkenazi Jews, but where does he get the idea that American nationalism is based on including everyone?

The "many" in the motto refers to the original 13 colonies, as led by those who fought the revolution and adopted the new constitution.

Americans certainly do have a long history of putting national culture and interests above foreign ones. It is hard to see how the nation would have survived otherwise.

Perhaps the most important political division today is not right v. left, but nationalist v. globalist.

Update: Hunter Wallace comments:
ACKSHUALLY Dennis, the decoupling of American national identity from whiteness didn’t occur until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

The U.S. Supreme Court was declaring non-White immigrants ineligible to become naturalized American citizens on the basis of race until the mid-20th century. We had an immigration system designed to preserve not only a White majority in the United States, but a Northwestern European majority until the Immigration Act of 1965. The current pathetic deracinated and cosmopolitan version of American national identity was conceived by a group of Jewish activists known as the New York Intellectuals and was only popularized in the Cold War era. The Boomer generation was the first generation in American history to be brought up to believe this nonsense that their country was created to be some kind of miniature version of the United Nations.

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Glaciers will not be gone by 2020

Our national parks used to have signs saying that the glaciers will be gone by the year 2020. The glaciers are not gone, and some of them have gotten bigger, so the parks are changing the signs to avoid further embarrassment.

Monday, June 24, 2019

Supreme court may affirm white rule

CNN reports:
In the census-citizenship case, the Supreme Court may once again affirm 'white rule'

By John Blake, CNN

Updated 4:52 PM ET, Sun June 23, 2019

(CNN)On June 7, 1892, a dapper shoemaker purchased a first-class ticket on a Louisiana train for a short journey he knew he wouldn't finish.

The 30-year-old man of mixed-race heritage sat in the whites-only section of the train. When a conductor ordered him to move to a dingy rail car reserved for blacks, he refused, was arrested and convicted at a trial.

The man appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Four years later, the court rejected his claim that sitting in a segregated train car stamped him with "a badge of servitude."
Affirm white rule? Who knew?

Note that the 1896 guy did not suffer any monetary or measurable damages. He just suffered the indignity of being told that he had to sit on the train with black people.
Plessy, the man who took the historic train ride, still had hope in the Supreme Court of his era. His trip wasn't random. He was an activist who stepped in the whites- only railroad car expecting to be arrested.
Okay, so he was just trying to create a test case.

What does all this have to do with asking citizenship? They seem to be claiming that the whole concept of citizenship is racist.

Sunday, June 23, 2019

Feminist turns gratitude into anger

Darcy Lockman writes in Atlantic mag:
Don’t Be Grateful That Dad Does His Share

I’ve spent the past year interviewing married or cohabiting heterosexual mothers across the United States about the distribution of child-care labor in their home. Most of them did the lion’s share of the work and were angry with their partner. Yet many of them told me they were “grateful.” Over and over again, I heard women complain that they were doing more than their partner, only to then insist that they were lucky to have any help at all. ...

Andrea’s misplaced gratitude is not only common, but also an impediment to the elusive goal of equity in the home. ...

Gratitude is a brand of benevolent sexism, ... Only once gratitude is relinquished for righteous anger will gender rules in this realm be rewritten.
I don't know whether Lockman is Jewish, but Jewish publications love this sort of feminist rant.

This is completely alien to Christian thinking.

Most women want to get married and have kids, and are happy to put the kids to bed. They often see such child care as the most worthwhile thing that they could be doing.

If a woman is trying to think up of reasons for turning gratitude into anger, then she is headed for madness.

You would think that Melinda Gates would be one of the most grateful women in the world, but no, she has a bunch of weirdo feminist ideas about equality:
It takes patience being married to the second richest man in the world. …

One recurring problem was Bill’s struggle to find work-life balance. She recalled being angry with him years ago because the voracious reader was paging through a book about Winston Churchill instead of helping her get their three children ready to go out, or packing up the car.

Saturday, June 22, 2019

Light sentence for raping a non-virgin

Feminists are always complaining when a rape defendant accuses the victim of being a slut who enjoyed being raped.

From Australia news:
A female teacher charged after having sex with a student of a North Queensland school where she was working at the time has been acquitted of unlawful carnal knowledge.

The District Court in Townsville heard Sarah Joy Guazzo seduced the then-16-year-old student, drove him to secluded locations, gave him alcohol and had sex with him on several occasions in 2016. ...

"She told [the student] how she and her husband hadn't slept together in a while — she said he wasn't giving it to her," Ms Orr said. ...

"You might have got the impression that he was not virginal — quite an experienced practitioner in the art of love-making." ...

It took the jury just 15 minutes to reach their not guilty verdict.
It is fair to infer that this jury believes that raping a girl is a more serious crime than raping a boy, and raping a virgin is more serious than raping a promiscuous kid. Probably everyone thought those things until a few years ago.

Friday, June 21, 2019

Attempt to remake the demographics

The Democrat Party is getting more and more explicitly anti-White. Example:
Let's call this what it is: an attempt to remake the demographics of our country by cracking down on immigrants. That this threat is coming from the President of the United States is deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values. We will fight this.

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) June 19, 2019
If you are wondering what "our" means, her father is Jamaican, her mother Indian, her political mentor black, her husband Jewish, and she has no kids.

Our whole immigration policy is a plot to remake the demographics of our country, in order to marginalize White Christians and create and anti-White Democrat majority.

The NY Times reports:
Newly released census data show, for the first time, that the total population of children in America under 15 is now majority nonwhite.

Any future political maps that exclude those children and noncitizens would further depress the power of urban areas that tend to vote Democratic and that are already structurally disadvantaged in redistricting.
So the White majority has already been replaced, in the next generation. But the electoral effect is not soon enough for the Democrat Party. It wants to marginalize Whites today. Extermination is planned for later.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Could the USA put down a rebellion?

From a Reddit post:
Former red team planner for the government here.

The United States Government has extensively studied the concept of second American Civil War (along the assumption that it will be left versus right. HMM. I WONDER WHY THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY DO THAT.)

Their conclusion is as follows: They don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning. The moment civil war is declared, the government loses. No scenario or outcome ends in their success. Period. It’s just a matter of how long it takes.
This post is probably a hoax, but some of it is plausible.

Private rifles and handguns are pretty feeble compared to US military firepower, but most of those military weapons will be useless against a truly popular uprising. It would be a bloody disaster.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Evidence of California's decline

Here is the new California budget:
The state would give $650 million to local governments to tackle homelessness and pump $500 million into a tax credit program to spur construction of residential rental units.

Lawmakers would spend $5 million on grants to homeless shelters so they can accommodate pets.
California still has plenty of rich people, and they pay taxes so that homeless people can have pets.

Update: New research claims that dogs have evolved a special eye muscle just
You know that face your dog makes, the one that’s a little bit quizzical, maybe a bit sad, a bit anticipatory, with the eyebrows slanted? Sometimes you think it says, “Don’t be sad. I can help.” Other times it quite clearly asks, “No salami for me?” ...

It is, he said, “another piece of the puzzle of what connects dogs to people.”
And there is now a boom in people claiming that their pets are emotional support animals, deserving a special consideration by others:
“We’ve seen everything from reptiles to insects,” said Amanda Gill, government affairs director for the Florida Apartment Association, which represents landlords.

“Obviously, you want to accommodate people with legitimate requests, but that’s harder to do when you have so many bogus requests,” Ms. Gill said. “Everyone is recognizing that this is a growing problem right now.”

More than two dozen state legislatures have enacted new laws to crack down on fraud. ...

“It’s really hard to draw a bright line,” said Todd Weiler, a state senator in Utah who said that an old high school classmate of his keeps an emotional support pig. “To a large extent, everybody could benefit from having a pet,” Mr. Weiler said. “When is it an emotional support animal and when it is a pet?”
It used to be that service animals were extremely well-trained, and providing a valuable service to their owners. Now 99% of them are just pests.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Women are not more valuable than men

Peter Ryan writes:
As I discussed in my article on Gynocentrism And The Golden Uterus1, there is a prevailing assertion in the wider gynocentric culture that women are superior to men. The central tenet of this belief system is that because women give birth and are the rate limiting factor of reproduction, they are more biologically valuable than men. The relative biological value of life, and the value of life in general, of males and females, is reduced down to their relative investment in reproduction.
He goes on the debunk the argument. There is a sense in which fertile eggs are more valuable than sperm, but it does not extend to women being more valuable.

I stumbled across inequity aversion in animals, from a few years ago. In a widely seen video, a capuchin monkey thows a cucumber slice after seeing another monkey get a grape for the same talk.

Supposedly this is proof of a fairness instinct. But this is really just anthropomorphizing monkeys, as explained here. The monkey is probably just trying to get a grape, without regard to fairness.

Monday, June 17, 2019

Canada punishes religious commentary

In America, the First Amendment allows up to comment on past events. Not elsewhere.

Canada news:
A Quebec man who was found guilty last May of inciting hatred against Muslims has been sentenced to 30 days in jail.

The sentence handed to Pierre Dion of Terrebonne, Que., Tuesday went beyond what the Crown had recommended.

Quebec court Judge Gilles Garneau sentenced the 49-year-old man today at the courthouse in Laval, opting for a stricter sentence to send a message of dissuasion to the community.

Dion published two videos of himself this year on Jan. 28 and 29 — the two-year anniversary of an attack on a Quebec City mosque that left six dead.

In the videos he praised the convicted killer and urged Canadians to “kick Muslims out of the country.” He was arrested two days later.

The Crown had recommended a sentence of community service while the defence had suggested 18 months of probation, strict restrictions on internet usage and a $1,500 donation to a Muslim organization.

Garneau instead ordered incarceration to be served one day a week beginning June 21.

When the verdict came down on May 22, Garneau said there wasn’t any doubt to him the accused’s remarks were directed at an identifiable group as indicated in Criminal Code provisions covering hate speech — in this case, Muslims.
Those who encourage Moslem immigration are not punished. Just those who oppose it.

I wonder how many people are quietly in favor of kicking Muslims out. They would not openly say so, because that is illegal in Canada.

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Blaming Men on Fathers Day

There are lots of sites blaming men for all sorts of imaginary grievances. Here are a couple I just discovered.

Fathers Day seems to be mainly an occasion for blaming fathers for all society's ills.

Men are often blamed for wanting to much sexual relations from a wife, and this site says men are abusive for wanting too little:
Withholding Intimacy Can Be Abusive, Too ...

In many relationships, it’s often the man who asks for sex more often than the woman. But sometimes, roles are reversed. Weston freely admits she has “either a higher libido than most women or am more sexually liberated,” and it was something her abuser discovered he could use against her. ...

She says her abuser used the following tactics to assert his power over her: ...

3. Carrot tactic. “He also used to tempt me and taunt me with the expectation of sex to get me to be nice to him when I shouldn't have, or to lessen my the response to some other abuse he just inflicted. He used sex to reel me back in, time after time, when we’d break up.”
So the wife will decide that she should not be nice to her husband, but he engages in "abuse" by seducing her and reeling her back into being nice!

Some men speak precisely. They say what they mean and mean what they say. This site considers that a disorder:
Many men with AS are unaware they have the disorder, and in that case it’s far easier to spot. With that said, here are the signs:

Their speech is pedantic, meaning that it is filled with obscure, minute facts and details; is overly concerned with formalisms; displays a narrow concern for book learning and formal rules; and is overly concerned with the precise meanings of words.

They have difficulties with pragmatic, or social, language. This includes saying inappropriate things, not taking turns in conversations, speaking in a way that is not appropriate for an informal social setting, or speaking in the same manner to a two-year-old and an adult.

They may speak too fast, have a monotone or robotic voice, or speak too loudly.

They have difficulty with semantics, such as understanding the meaning of words within different contexts. They may not understand that you “love” pizza in a different way than you “love” your mother.

Their speech is marked by the use of “technical” or “scientific” words, or even a “high-brow vocabulary.” ...

They are always right. ALWAYS. They will frequently say that you are being irrational or illogical.
So the husband uses words according to their dictionary definitions. The wife is unhappy that he is not as dumb and sloppy as she is.

This site discusses crazy wives who get psychotherapy for their craziness, and still blames the husband:
Mental health professionals often exacerbate the party’s troubles by falling into the pattern of blaming the acutely distressed neuro-typical partner for being an alarmist, for having inappropriate anxiety which feeds into problems and for having unrealistic parenting expectations of the other parent. The more the non-neurologically impaired parent is blamed for the pseudo-conflict the worse it becomes. ... the neuro-typical partner has anxiety and is usually the party who winds up being investigated as being the source of the conflict.(8) This is more than ironic. It places children at risk and it places the neuro-typical parent at-risk of depression or despair.
So the wife is acutely distressed, has anxiety and unrealistic expectations, and is at-risk of depression or despair. But somehow she is called the "non-neurologically impaired parent", as if being a man is a neurological impairment. And these are situations where a mental health professional thinks the wife is the impaired one.

These sites often have wives complaining that they have trouble communicating their feelings. So they see a psychotherapist who gives them lessons in articulating their feelings. But that is not what she wants. She wants her husband to intuit her feelings from her body language.

Lisa Feldman Barrett writes that reading emotions from body language is impossible:
And yet ... despite the distinguished intellectual pedigree of the classical view of emotion, and despite its immense influence in our culture and society, there is abundant scientific evidence that this view cannot possibly be true. Even after a century of effort, scientific research has not revealed a consistent, physical fingerprint for even a single emotion. When scientists attach electrodes to a person’s face and measure how facial muscles actually move during the experience of an emotion, they find tremendous variety, not uniformity. They find the same variety — the same absence of fingerprints — when they study the body and the brain.
It is pretty crazy for a wife to blame her husband for not reading her emotions from body language, when expert psychologists cannot even do it.

Saturday, June 15, 2019

Jews are defined by maternal DNA

The London Guardian reports:
In February of this year, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the peak religious authority in the country, had been requesting DNA tests to confirm Jewishness before issuing some marriage licenses.

In Israel, matrimonial law is religious, not civil. Jews can marry Jews, but intermarriage with Muslims or Christians is legally unacknowledged. This means that when a Jewish couple want to tie the knot, they are required by law to prove their Jewishness to the Rabbinate according to Orthodox tradition, which defines Jewish ancestry as being passed down through the mother. ...

In February of this year, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the peak religious authority in the country, had been requesting DNA tests to confirm Jewishness before issuing some marriage licenses.

In Israel, matrimonial law is religious, not civil. Jews can marry Jews, but intermarriage with Muslims or Christians is legally unacknowledged. This means that when a Jewish couple want to tie the knot, they are required by law to prove their Jewishness to the Rabbinate according to Orthodox tradition, which defines Jewish ancestry as being passed down through the mother.
It is all-important that the mother have Jewish DNA, but not the father, as shown by this Jewish Forward article:
California Cryobank says it exports more sperm to Israel than to any other country in the world. ...

However, some of the demand for imported, non-Jewish sperm comes — surprisingly — from the Orthodox community, according to Ronen.

Many rabbis have ruled that sperm donation should be done with non-Jewish sperm in order to avoid the possibility of incest if the child unknowingly marries a sibling years later.

“If you have a non-Jewish male and a Jewish female, the child, for purposes of Jewish law, has no father,” said Rabbi J. David Bleich, a scholar of Jewish medical ethics at Yeshiva University. Without a legally recognized father, the threat of incest under Jewish law is removed, according to Bleich.

Jewish men are prohibited from donating sperm to begin with, since by doing so they would violate traditional Jewish law’s ban on masturbation. ...

So if you’re a Jewish man seeking to alleviate the sperm shortages in America or Israel, don’t get too cocky. On the offhand chance that you’re not a carrier for a genetic disease (1 in 4 Ashkenazi Jews is a carrier), your sperm quality is probably too low.
And if there is some sign of trouble:
What do parents do if they discover the baby could be born deaf? Or sterile? Or suffer from a disease? Israelis choose to terminate such pregnancies much more frequently than in other Western countries
Yes, Jews are big believers in eugenics.

The Jewish religion is obviously very different from any other. It is debatable whether it should even be called a religion, since it has very little to do with beliefs, God, or spiritual values.

This is part of why feminism is a mostly Jewish movement. The Jewish religion is matriarchal, and men are not even valued for their sperm.

Update: When I posted this, I did not realize that Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race?
This is apparently how the Nazis popularized the term Big Lie.

Friday, June 14, 2019

White liberals have become radicalized

The mainstream news media keeps telling us that right-wingers have become radicalized, but it is much more accurate to say that left-wingers have been radicalized.

Zach Goldberg writes in the Jewish Tablet mag:
In reality, “wokeness” — a term that originated in black popular culture — is a broad euphemism for a more narrow phenomenon: the rapidly changing political ideology of white liberals that is remaking American politics.

Over the past decade, the baseline attitudes expressed by white liberals on racial and social justice questions have become radically more liberal. ...

“In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter. This change amounts to a ‘Great Awokening.’” There is no simple or single explanation for how this process got started. ... The years between 2012 and 2016 were a watershed for white liberal racial consciousness. ...

At the same time, there are growing levels of support for policies without such obvious connections to race. For instance, between 1965 and 2000, the percentage of white liberals preferring increased immigration levels never deviated far from 10%. From the mid-2000s to roughly the end of President Obama’s term in office, this figure gradually ascended into the 20-30% range. As of 2018, it sits at over 50%. ...

Along with the sweeping changes on race and immigration issues is the reversal of white liberal attitudes toward Israel. Between 1978 and 2014, white liberals consistently reported sympathizing more with Israel than the Palestinians. Since March of 2016, this trend has turned on its face. Currently, significantly more white liberals report greater sympathy for the Palestinians than for Israel.
If trends continue, we are headed towards Civil War 2.0.

The radicalization is not coming from the right-wing, Alt Right, or Donald Trump. Trump is the most centrist President we have had in decades. There is a systematic effort by leftists and lizard people to destroy our civilization and exterminate us.

Am I overreacting? If so, explain to me why they want to bring in more immigrants and migrants, after America has already seen the biggest invasion of foreigners the world has ever seen.

We have no need for the immigrants, and the immigration will not significantly alleviate any problems elsewhere in the world. So what is the purpose? What shifted the opinions of white liberals so radically?

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

SPLC gloats about White Genocide

The SPLC, an anti-White hate group, announces:
The SPLC’s Lecia Brooks testified today before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (Committee on Oversight and Reform) about the need for federal action to confront the deadly white nationalist movement. ...

The falsehood of “white genocide” is pervasive. The people behind these murders share a common fear of the end of a white majority in U.S. And this dangerous myth is seeping into the mainstream, ...

One, in the mid-1980s, 77 percent of the U.S. population was white. Today, it’s roughly 60 percent. In 30 years, it will be under 50 percent. ...

Two, the internet is a highly effective tool for spreading propaganda and indoctrination.
So it is true that the White majority is being extinguished. It is not a "falsehood" or a "dangerous myth".

I certainly do not agree with any murders. It is far superior for those making a statement about white genocide to peacefully post their messages and videos in the internet. But the lizard people at the SPLC are against that also! They want federal action and Youtube censorship against those who say that policies are driving the White population below 50%.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

NYT only endorses Youtube free speech in Russia

From Two NY Times stories:
He is scarred by his experience of being radicalized by what he calls a “decentralized cult” of far-right YouTube personalities, who convinced him that Western civilization was under threat from Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists, that innate I.Q. differences explained racial disparities, and that feminism was a dangerous ideology. ...

“The entire social, political part of television is controlled by the authorities,” said Leonid G. Parfenov, an independent news anchor who has been shut out of state TV since 2004 for being too critical of the government. “For that reason, you cannot consider this television journalism — it is just propaganda, they are just employees of the presidential administration.”

Yet voices that the government would mute are heard regularly by tens of millions of Russians in another format: YouTube.
It is funny how the NY Times is in favor of Youtube free speech in Russia, but not in America.

This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that the lizard people at the NY Times are not really for free speech. They simply want a controlled message, with their own lizard people at the controls. They control the American media to their satisfaction, but not the Russia media.

If the issue is publishing Donald Trump's tax returns, then the NY Times is all in favor of publishing. But if someone is saying that feminism is a dangerous ideology or that Jews control the media, then the message must be censored.

A NY Times op-ed lays out what is supposed to be the strongest case for impeachment:
4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report - Some troubling-to-outright-damning episodes have been lost in the noise around its release.

[1] Rick Gates, a top adviser, said that the campaign was “planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release” of Hillary Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. ... Mr. Mueller has alleged that Mr. Stone, a Trump affiliate, sought [unsuccessfully] to obtain information about WikiLeaks’ planned release of anti-Clinton material and pass that information to the campaign. ...

[2] At a July 27, 2016, campaign rally, Mr. Trump said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — referring to Clinton emails reportedly stored on a personal server. ... Mr. Flynn, in turn, reached out to a Republican Senate staffer and a party operative who worked separately [unsuccessfully] to obtain the emails. ...

[3] Mr. Gates likewise told the special counsel that Mr. Manafort believed sharing the polling data with Mr. Kilimnik, who passed it to a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, would help resolve a financial dispute between Mr. Manafort and the Russian oligarch. The report also states that Mr. Manafort hoped his campaign work would help him recover money he was owed by the other oligarchs. Yet Mr. Mueller “could not reliably determine Manafort’s purpose” in sharing the data with Mr. Kilimnik. ...

[4] Simply firing Mr. Mueller would have been within the president’s power. Asking a private citizen to [unsuccessfully] deliver that message, however, moves this outside the realm of the president’s management of the executive branch and toward clearer-cut obstruction of justice.
None of this is illegal or improper.

The argument seems to be that Trump and some associates attempted to do some things that would have been completely legal if they had succeeded, but because they did not succeed, we cannot be completely certain of their motives, so that makes it improper in a way that no one can explain.

Sunday, June 09, 2019

From a NY Times op-ed, by some guy with a Third World name:
There is a lot of debate these days about whether the United States owes its African-American citizens reparations for slavery. It does. But there is a far bigger bill that the United States and Europe have run up: what they owe to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order, for the excess carbon they have dumped into the atmosphere.
He previously wrote:
It is every migrant’s dream to see the tables turned, to see long lines of Americans and Britons in front of the Bangladeshi or Mexican or Nigerian Embassy, begging for a residence visa.
Okay, this is just White jealousy and hatred at work.

Some of the Democrat presidential candidates are being pressured to endorse such reparations.

I am beginning to think that it is a good idea. We should have some sort of global accounting for the good and evil done by each ethnic group, and those with deficiencies should be forced to make amends somehow.

About 99.9% of what is good about civilization today is due to White Christian men. Most people cannot even name any significant contribution by anyone else.

I mentioned that someone tried to attribute arabic numerals to the Moslems, but Moslems stole them from India, and never did figure out how to write decimal fractions. That was done by Western European Christians.

Did African-Americans make Chicago and Detroit better or worse?

Yes, they have made some wonderful Jazz music. But add it all up, and an accounting is likely to show that blacks owe whites a huge debt.

America has spent maybe $10 trillion dealing with Moslem problems in the last 20 years. What benefits has anyone ever gotten out of the Moslem world?

The Moslem world would be 500 years behind Europe, if it did not have the benefit of Western Civilization.

I look forward to an objective accounting, so reparations can be paid.

Friday, June 07, 2019

YouTube imposes new censorship rules

The Jews are ramping up their ideological censorship of opposing views.

Alphabet Google Youtube announces:
YouTube has always had rules of the road, including a longstanding policy against hate speech. In 2017, we introduced a tougher stance towards videos with supremacist content, including limiting recommendations and features like comments and the ability to share the video. This step dramatically reduced views to these videos (on average 80%). Today, we're taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status. This would include, for example, videos that promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory. Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.
These examples make the agenda clear. Jews are obsessed with maintaining their narrative about the Jewish Holocaust, and do not tolerate any other views.

Mentioning Sandy Hook is a direct shot at Alex Jones. He is not anti-Jewish, but his radio program was pro-Trump, and Jewish leftists hate him for that. Nobody actually cares about his Sandy Hook theories.

These examples have no purpose except to signal that Youtube censorship will have the primary purposes of policing Jewish narratives and attacking Trump.

If that isn’t obvious enough, Reuters reports that Jews are taking credit for the Youtube censorship:
Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, which researches anti-Semitism, said it had provided input to YouTube on the policy change.

"While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism," he said in a statement.

Other types of videos to be removed under YouTube's new rules include conspiracy theories about Jews running the world, calls to deny women civil rights on the grounds they are less intelligent than men, and some white nationalist content, Shadloo said.
So Jews get control of the platform for 90% of web videos, push thru some policies favoring Jewish interests, and then declare that no one can theorize about Jews running the world!

Nearly all religious followers believe that their particular religion is superior to the others, and hence to be preferred. It would appear that the new Youtube policy prohibits expressing such opinions.

A new book on the science of racial superiority has received mixed reviews. Some say that race does not exist, while others point to thousands of scientific studies showing racial differences.

Is Youtube really going to allow just one side of this debate?

My guess is that non-Jews will have to start speaking, if they want to evade the Jewish censors. Maybe that book is actually written by a White supremacist masquerading as a brown woman obeying orders from Jewish masters. Her web site says that she is now making a BBC documentary on eugenics. Maybe she will recite a bunch of obviously-false gobbledygook to discredit herself.
Update: Youtube justified this using some story about Steven Crowder calling someone a "gay Mexican", but I did not realize that the gay Mexican is also Jewish, according to a source.

Thursday, June 06, 2019

Biden leads the white-hater party

Joe Biden is leading in the polls because many Democrats would rather have an imbecile than a crazy man or woman.

"'OK, fair,' Moulton relented, 'It was a mistake, because we should have been a lot more careful about going into Iraq, we should have questioned the intelligence.' "

NPR: "Rep. Seth Moulton Announces Mental Health Care Proposal By Sharing His Experience" — "Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., Iraq veteran and presidential candidate, revealed at a campaign event Tuesday that he was treated for PTSD after his deployment and he continues to see a counselor monthly."
His proposal is to get everyone else under the care of mental health professionals!

It sounds like a Jewish plot, but he appears to be not Jewish. He served in the Iraq War.
MOULTON: We have a problem with racism in America today. If this country wasn't racist, Stacey Abrams would be governor because people of color are being systemically denied the most basic right in a democracy, which is the right to vote. That's why we need a new voting rights act in America. Second, let's talk about criminal justice reform for a second. Look, I smoked weed when I was younger. (LAUGHTER) I didn't get caught, but if I had - (LAUGHTER) - I would have been fine because I'm a white guy.
Really? White guys get to illegally smoke weed?

Stacey Abrams only did as well as she did because of favortism towards black women. Nobody supported her for any other reason.

The Democrat Party is the party of the identity politics of hating straight white males. Moulton is a straight white male, so he desperately needs the status of some sort of handicap. So he claims mental illness! Somebody should tell him that President is a full-time job, and we don't want a mentally ill man with his finger on the nuclear button.

Biden seems to have gotten a pass by virtue of being Barack Obama's stooge. Blacks accept him because he had a black master.

The NY Times black columnist writes:
Everything that has happened during recent years is all about one thing: fear by white people that they will inevitably lose their numerical advantage in this country; and with that loss comes an alteration of American culture and shifting of American power away from white dominance and white control. White people don’t want to become one of many minority groups in America and have others — possibly from Asia, Latin America, Africa or the Middle East — holding the reins of power, and dictating inclusion and equity.
He goes on to explain how everything from impeaching Trump to concealing citizenship from census data is guided by Jews, blacks, and other white-haters wanting to subjugate the White race.

He could be onto something here. Look at statements by leading Democrat politicians, NY Times editorials, and other leftist statements today. About 90% of it is explainable by white-haters wanting to subjugate White men and reduce them to being a powerless minority.

It is interesting to see the NY Times admit this. It is also interesting to see it trash two prominent Jewish intellectuals, Naomi Wolf and Jared Diamond. These two have written many widely-aclaimed books, and they are garbage. They only get praise because their anti-white-male ideology is consistent with Jewish leftists. Read these reviews, and you will never read their books again. Their books are filled with so many errors that you cannot rely on anything they say.

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

David Frenchism is a disease

The NY Times has yet another article on how the Jews should be able to use the FBI to shut down anyone not going along with the Jewish agenda. The article pretends that it is just going after "racist violence", but includes attacks on those who peacefully protested removal of Confederate monuments.
There is an article by someone who says that she has pushed for regulation of "behemoths like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple" for years, but now she is unhappy because right-wingers have joined the fight, and they might want free speech for everyone, including neo-Nazis. Any regulation should allow censoring opinions Jews do not like, I guess.
Another article tries to explain how National Review's David French can be a prominent conservative and a Trump-hater. Beats me, as I cannot make any sense out of his views. His anti-Trump rants say weird things like "Do Trump’s insults deter his opponents or motivate them?" So he joins the Trump-haters in insulting him. French has adopted an Ethiopian girl, if that helps understand him.

Then the paper finds "Mustafa Akyol is a senior fellow on Islam and modernity at the Cato Institute" to write this nonsense:
Should Americans, as part of their school curriculum, learn Arabic numerals?

CivicScience, a Pittsburgh-based research firm, put that question to some 3,200 Americans recently in a poll seemingly about mathematics, but the outcome was a measure of students’ attitudes toward the Arab world. Some 56 percent of the respondents said, “No.” Fifteen percent had no opinion. ...

There is a reason these Western terms have Arabic roots: Between the eighth and 12th centuries, the Muslim world, whose lingua franca was Arabic, was much more creative than Christian Europe, which was then in the late Middle Ages. Muslims were the pioneers in mathematics, geometry, physics, astronomy, biology, medicine, architecture, trade and, most important, philosophy.
Wikipedia calls it the Hindu–Arabic numeral system:
It was invented between the 1st and 4th centuries by Indian mathematicians. The system was adopted in Arabic mathematics by the 9th century.
The Muslim world stole it all from more advanced civilizations that it conquered.
Western conservatives, who are passionate about protecting the legacy of Western civilization, which they often define as exclusively “Judeo-Christian.” Of course, Western civilization does have a great accomplishment worth preserving: the Enlightenment, which gave us freedom of thought, freedom of religion, the abolition of slavery, equality before the law, and democracy.

Those values should not be sacrificed to the postmodern tribalism called “identity politics.” But Western conservatives retreat to tribalism themselves when they deny the wisdom in, and the contributions of, sources that are not Judeo-Christian.
There is something seriously wrong with conservatives who talk about protecting a "Judeo-Christian" legacy. Jews had even less to do with Western Civilization than the Moslems.
Of course, we Muslims ourselves have a big question to answer: Why was our civilization once so creative, and why have we lost that golden age?
The answer is that they had a golden age of military conquests, but that is all. Their creative output was much less than what was previously in Persia, Egypt, India, etc.

Why is this article even in the NY Times? It serves no purpose except to allow Jews to put down Christians.

Justice Thomas raises the eugenics issue

The leftists at Slate are triggered on abortion:
Justice Clarence Thomas wasn’t willing to let Indiana’s nondiscrimination rule die a quiet death. Instead, he wrote an astonishing 20-page concurring opinion declaring that the rule is clearly constitutional—and, in the process, condemning many women who obtain abortions as willing participants in eugenicide. ...

Abortion, he wrote, “is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.” Thanks to “today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children” due to some trait or abnormality. Indeed, Thomas wrote, abortion is a “disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.” He cited the high abortion rate for fetuses with Down syndrome and the “widespread sex-selective abortions” in Asia as evidence. And he noted that the nationwide abortion rate “among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women.”
This is interesting, but sex-selective abortions would have no effect on the sex ratio of Indiana. Many parents do have the technology to choose a boy or girl today, and the choices are about evenly divided.

Thomas is not really arguing the merits of abortion, but raising the issue of whether a state can consider a eugenic effect as a rationale for its policies. Someday it will be seen as bizarre that our culture prohibits discussing eugenic effects.

Abortion has largely eliminated Down's Syndrome in many places. It has also eliminated millions of unwanted black babies, as well as white babies of career-oriented feminist women.

When California gives free abortions to poor women, it is encouraging the eugenic reduction of those poor people.

Jews are particularly opinionated about how eugenics should be done.

Adam Cohen wrote an Atlantic mag rant against Thomas. He is flattered that Thomas cited his book on eugenics, and does not claim that Thomas made any errors, but he is mad that anyone would write about eugenics without accepting the Jewish agenda on the subject. He ends with some comments on how Jews should use immigration to replace white people.

David Cole writes:
These days, anti-Jewish sentiment in civilized nations (and especially in the U.S.) has largely dropped the superstitious mumbo jumbo for “real world” beefs about Jews’ politics. Ironically, the most recent anti-Jewish mass shooters were not angry at Jews for being Jews (a massive shift from historical anti-Semitism). Instead, they were angry at Jews for helping to facilitate the mass importation of invasive Third World immigrants. The killers took a simple political fact — Jews in the U.S. lean left and generally support open-border policies — and loonied it up into “If I kill some kikes, it’ll keep the beaners out.”

Generally speaking, far-rightists in the U.S. who hate Jews hate them more for their politics than for their identity. Whites, on the other hand, are totally hated by leftists just for being white. Whites are now hated for the exact same reason Jews were hated in the past: They exist. The parallels between current anti-whiteness and old-timey Jew hatred are strong. Whites are born cursed (white privilege), and they walk the earth to torment the good and the decent. Everything bad that exists today, and everything bad throughout history, has been because of the white menace.
I am not sure that "old-timey Jew hatred" ever existed. There is no corroboration for the Bible stories of Jews being Egyptian slaves, or for a lot of other Jewish persecution stories. The Nazis hated the Jews primarily for their politics. I have never even heard of anyone hating Jews for their identity.

I found these quotes on Vox Day's blog:
"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin

"Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage."
- Ben Shapiro

"One Jewish Life Is Worth More Than 10,000 non-Jews."
- Birthright staffer, Haaretz

"A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail."
- Rabbi Dov Lior, Chairman of the Jewish Rabbinical Council

"It is important to make one thing clear – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs."
- Sephardi chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu

“The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews…is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”
- Rabbi Abraham Kook

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel."
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef
He is not anti-Israel, and not really against an ethnic nation protecting its interests. He is just pointing out attitudes that some of them have.

Monday, June 03, 2019

Who is the Virginia Beach killer?

The Jewish news media is not telling us, but I learned from censored web sites that the Virginia Beach killer was black, just as most serial killers are black.

The above poster is causing me to revise my understanding of the term "people of color". It is just a term of White hatred. By any objective standard, Whites have more color than non-whites. Maybe people don't think of white as colorful, but they don't think that shades of brown are colorful either.

Sunday, June 02, 2019

How all the good movies get ruined

An anti-Jewish site writes:
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the [Jews] in Hollywood have run out of original ideas. They’re continuing to rely on remakes and sequels, which have almost always been worse than the original movies. Take for example the remakes of RoboCop, Rollerball and Total Recall. All of these reboots were horrible. And for sequels, look no further than the Star Wars franchise, which has been destroyed thanks to Jew-run Disney.

To make matters worse, we often times see all sorts of retarded Jewish social engineering nonsense injected into the new films. White male characters are replaced with females or random colored individuals, and all sorts of social justice crap is inserted into the plots.

We can officially add the Terminator franchise to the list of movie franchises that have been utterly ruined by the Jewish Hollywood industrial complex. The original Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were widely considered to be solid films, but all the Terminator movies released after them have been mediocre at best. The latest film in the series, Terminator: Dark Fate, seems to be the worst one yet based on the trailer that was just released. ...

Either way, it feels like the Jews are purposefully torturing us by putting out all these horrible movie sequels. They seem to take pride in ruining the things that brought us some measure of joy during our childhood.
If I were making a Terminator sequel, I would skip the time travel, and start with a near-future tale of the public increasingly accepting Orwellian AI from Google and others. Arnold would be a well-intentioned robot-maker who sometimes made cyborgs looking like a younger version of himself. The machine takeover would be by gradual and increasing human reliance on AI. John Connor would see it coming, but no one believes him. He tries to take action, but people think he is Unabomber 2.0, until the machines start executing its enemies. Then the war begins, as in the beginning of the first Terminator movie.

Saturday, June 01, 2019

Mueller is just a puppet

Up to now, I had assumed that Robert Mueller was firmly in control of his Trump investigation. I watched his only public statement about it, and I now think that he is a senile puppet.

The statement was so bizarre because (1) Mueller appeared to be senile, as he had a hard time reading a statement and was unable to answer any questions; (2) his factual findings completely exonerate President Trump; and (3) he nevertheless read a statement that insinuated that Trump might be guilty of something.

So who is the puppet-master?

Here is a 2017 story in the Jewish magazine Forward:
As Russia special counsel Robert Mueller hires more attorneys to help on the inquiry into the Trump White House, some members of the tribe are joining the team.

Among the Jews on the team are Andrew Goldstein, Aaron Zelinsky and Andrew Weissmann, all seasoned prosecutors from the Justice Department, according to a list of names from Talking Points Memo.
These Jews all have stereotypical Jewish leftist views, a history of unethical prosecutions, and alignment with the Democrat Party.

It is obvious now that these Jewish Trump-haters desperately tried for two years to find something that could be blamed on Trump. They didn't find anything, so now they are hoping that House Democrats will hold impeachment hearings to damage Trump with false charges.

The Mueller investigation found that the Putin government had no contact with Trump or anyone connected with his campaign. It was unable to confirm allegations that Russians tried to interfere with the 2016 election, or that any votes were improperly influenced towards Trump. It claimed that it could be a crime for Trump to conceal activities that were 100% lawful, but still found no grounds for charging him.

The main gripe against Trump is that the Jews thought that they could control the Presidency by controlling the news media. In 2016, about 95% of the news media expressed Jewish anti-Trump editorial opinions. The main exceptions were Hannity, Limbaugh, RT TV,, and WikiLeaks. The complaints against the Russians consist almost entirely of RT and WikiLeaks putting out info damaging to Hillary Clinton.

I could never figure out why all the political pundits at the NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, and other Jewish-dominated sites put so much stock in the Mueller investigation. It was obvious that if Mueller had evidence to incriminate Trump, he would have presented it two years ago.

While some people speculated that Mueller had a secret impeachment case against Trump, the Mueller team actually leaked all their evidence in advance. They produced several indictments, and each one was written to implicate Trump as much as possible. So the Mueller case against Trump was clear from those indictments. For example, Michael Cohen was induced to plead guilty to crimes that were not even crimes, just so Trump could be blamed for having a crooked lawyer.

Now it all makes sense. This investigation was run by Jews, using Jewish stooges, and promoted in the press by the Jewish news media.

The funny thing is that Trump is the most pro-Jewish President we have ever had. He has Jewish advisers, and he is consistently pro-Israel. But Jewish leftists hate him because they cannot control him the way that they control other politicians.

As I write this, some law professor woman on NPR Radio is arguing that William Barr's description of the investigation was "technically correct", but nonetheless misleading because Trump could be exonerated and still be impeached. It is funny how these supposed experts are eager to cite their expertise or someone else's expertise in saying that Trump did something wrong, and yet they don't say what Trump did that was wrong.

Meanwhile, Democrats are blaming Jews:
A draft resolution set to be debated this weekend at the California Democratic Party State Convention, obtained by Fox News, accuses the Israeli government of willfully "aligning with the virulent Islamophobia" of white supremacist groups in the U.S. -- and links Israel indirectly to the Oct. 2018 massacre of 11 congregants at a Pittsburgh synagogue. ...

Some of the draft resolutions would mandate that Democrat officials work to "nullify" President Trump's pro-Israel policies. One document directs party officials to take a subsidized trip to Israel only "if they undertake to devote an equal amount of time to visiting Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories."
I wonder how long the Jews will continue to bankroll the Democrats, unless the Democrats become more pro-Israel.