Senate to exonerate Trump

The Senate impeachment trial is nearly over. The whole thing was profoundly unAmerican, because:

* secret House hearings
* anonymous accusers
* contrary to rule of law
* trying to make the President subservient to the Deep State
* Jews ran the show, based on Jewish values
* protection of Biden corruption

Rule of Law is embodied in several parts of the Constitution, such as "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". This means that Congress cannot just invent new crimes on the fly, and retroactively prosecute violators. While Schiff wanted to charge Trump with bribery and other crimes, he ultimately concluded that there was no evidence of any criminal violation.

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." There are no witnesses to any overt bad act by Trump.

"in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." No, Trump never got the chance to cross-examine the witnesses.

By the House refusing to subpoena relevant witnesses, and then stalling for a month, it became that the whole thing was just a Democrat publicity stunt.

Update: The Senate voted 51-49 not to call additional witnesses. This seems correct to me, as Schiff argued that no relevant facts were in dispute.

The coup attempt continues

Kevin MacDonald

Is the Trump impeachment a Jewish coup? It’s a dangerous question even to ask.

Because the Christian TruNews said so, and got banned from PayPal.

But undeniably, Jews have taken very prominent, very public roles in impeachment. Most prominent are the two congressmen who conducted the House hearings: Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Jerry Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Both Schiff and Nadler were named as prosecutors in the Senate trial, with Schiff designated as lead prosecutor.

Both of the Democrats’ counsels at the House hearings were Jews: Norm Eisen for the Judiciary Committee and Daniel Goldman for the Intelligence Committee. Several of the most prominent witnesses called by the Democrats were also Jews, including Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland.

Strikingly, all three of the legal scholars called by Nadler’s committee—Noah Feldman of Harvard, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford University—were Jews, with a strong Jewish identity. [The Tell: Three of the impeachment witness lawyers were Jewish, and it matters, by Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 6, 2019] Gerhardt is a Fellow at the Katz Center for Advanced Jewish Studies, University of Pennsylvania and has given several lectures on Judaism and the law (e.g., “Jewish Lives and the American Constitution: Selected Stories,” Bar Ilan University Law School). Karlan is a self-described example of "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women," and Feldman is Director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard.

In effect, impeachment is a project of the numerically dominant Jewish Democrat-voting Left, with the Jewish counsels for the Democrats questioning Jewish witnesses in House committees headed by Jewish representatives, and covered with breathless enthusiasm by Jewish-owned media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times.

The only surprise: that the Jewish role has been so public. ...

But yes, it is a Jewish coup. Indeed, the entire post-1965 regime should be regarded as a Jewish coup motivated by fear and loathing of the people and culture of pre-1965 white America.

Yes, that's right. The striking thing is that they are not even hiding the Jewish roles, as they did with the Muller investigation. It is a Jew coup.

MacDonald doesn't even mention the Jewish nature of the arguments against Trump. They are not even based on any American laws or values. Schiff seems to automatically assume that any Presidential action must be for corrupt purposes, because that is what someone like Schiff and his kind would do.

Warren wants to criminalize misinformation

CNBC News reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday released a plan to fight disinformation and to hold tech companies accountable for their actions in light of the 2016 election.

"Disinformation and online foreign interference erode our democracy, and Donald Trump has invited both," Warren said in a Tweet Wednesday. "Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election must be fully prepared to take this on – and I've got a plan to do it."

Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google responsible for spreading misinformation designed to suppress voters from turning out.

"I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote," Warren said in a release.

The most notorious such story in the 2016 campaign was a hoax that the Pope had endorsed Trump. It was widely forwarded on Facebook.

It is likely that most of those forwarding the story knew that it was a joke.

So Warren really wants criminal penalties for passing a hoax story about the Pope endorsing Trump? This woman is desperate. She stole some voters from Bernie Sanders, but it appears that Sanders is getting them back.

The Left has figured out that they can only win if they control the media. They control about 90% of it, but that is not enough.

No Epidemic of Antisemitism

Jewish law professor David Bernstein writes:

Over the last several years, concern about a purported dramatic increase in antisemitism in the United States has gripped the American Jewish community. There was a particular spike in such concern when Donald Trump got elected, manifested in particular in near-hysteria over a series of bomb threats in 2017 to Jewish institutions that turned out to the product of a disturbed Israeli-American teenager. ...

Nevertheless, I have consistently noted the absence of evidence that, despite the rhetoric of an "epidemic" of antisemitism, that there has been any actual increase in antisemitic attitudes among the general public. ...

The ADL just released a new study on antisemitic attitudes among Americans. While belief in stereotypes about Jews remains widespread, the ADL found that only 11 percent of American adults believed in six or more of the 11 stereotypes tested, which is tied for the lowest percentage ever. By contrast, the first year the ADL undertook this study, the figure was 29 percent.

This is correct. It is amazing how well accepted Jews are. Criticism or animosity towards Jews, what little there is, is almost entirely from the far Left and Moslem immigrants.

Amusingly, the same blog re-posted this 2009 quote:

"Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass, because it has compassion…. We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." So says studio co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, as quoted by the L.A. Times.

If there were really any antisemitism in this nation, we would never tolerate all our movies having a Jewish moral compass.

Principle of no crime without law

From a Harvard Law Review article, cited by Alan Dershowitz:

The principle of no crime without law has been described as one of the most “widely held value-judgments in the entire history of human thought.” It is embedded throughout the Constitution — particularly in its prohibitions against ex post facto laws that criminalize behavior retroactively; against bills of attainder that tailor a crime to fit an accused; and against deprivations of liberty without prior notice of what was illegal.

Quoting these prohibitions alongside the Constitution’s discussion of impeachment, Curtis found it “impossible not to come to the conclusion” that a person should be impeached only for “high criminal offenses against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done.” Otherwise, he told the senators, “when each one of you ... called God to witness that he would administer impartial justice in this case according to the Constitution and the laws, he meant such laws as he might make as he went along.” Curtis repeated: “There must be some law; otherwise there is no crime.”

Isn't this obviously what is meant by "Rule of Law"?

There is an argument that common law crimes could be prosecuted. But those are also defined in advance. Trump is not even accused of anything that anyone thought was wrong before 2016.

The family court is the place where Rule of Law is ignored. A parent can lose child custody for supposed offenses that are not written anywhere. The judge is allowed to use his own judgment, with broad discretion to use whatever crieria he please. The system does not work, and a lot of states are moving towards a presumption of joint custody.

Before Trump, no one ever said it was a crime for the executive branch to delay delivery of foreign aid, or to foreign information or an investigation. The only thing that makes Trump's actions impeachable is that he supposedly did it "corruptly", but that is never defined. Not even Schiff and the other Dems give any definition of what they now claim are crimes. And they do not argue that Trump violated anything with a pre-Trump definition.

The NY Times is doing everything it can to make it look as if John Bolton has incriminated Trump, but it says:

In his book, Mr. Bolton writes that Mr. Trump told him in August that he wanted to continue freezing congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine until its government helped with investigations into Democrats including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden — exactly what Mr. Trump is on trial for.

This is just some second-hand opinion about what Trump wanted to do. Even if it is true that Trump wanted to continue freezing aid, and it might well be, nobody has ever said that it was a crime to want to continue freezing aid.

100 seconds to midnight

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announces:

To: Leaders and citizens of the world
Re: Closer than ever: It is 100 seconds to midnight
Date: January 23, 2020

Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers — nuclear war and climate change — that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode. ...

Faced with this daunting threat landscape and a new willingness of political leaders to reject the negotiations and institutions that can protect civilization over the long term, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today moves the Doomsday Clock 20 seconds closer to midnight — closer to apocalypse than ever. In so doing, board members are explicitly warning leaders and citizens around the world that the international security situation is now more dangerous than it has ever been, even at the height of the Cold War.

Our experts have gone mad.

There have always been religious cults that warn about the impending end of the world. Anyone who really believes one of these stories is likely to take drastic steps. Most people obviously don't believe that the apocalypse is closer than ever.

Donald Trump may have been the only sane man at Davos. Most of our world leaders recite crazy stuff.

Here is more political nonsense, being passed off as science:

“England for the English” warbled Morrissey ... the sentiment is an old racist refrain. ... The only true indigenous Brits were not even our own species. So, when racists say “England for the English”, or when they talk about indigenous people, I do not know who they mean, or more specifically, when they mean.

Really, he doesn't know what they mean? Israel is for Jews, and they now use DNA tests to prove Judaism.

The most delicious irony about him is that the field he effectively established – human genetics – is the branch of science that has demonstrated unequivocally that race is not biologically meaningful.

Really? So why do consumer DNA tests tell you your race, based on objective biological data?

The weak and dishonest case against Trump

Here is Adam Schiff's speech summarizing the case against the President:

Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of his presidency in that using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election. President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 election. That has been proved.

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence 2020 US presidential election to his advantage. That has been proved. ...

President Trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States government corruptly solicited the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into, A, a political opponent, Former Vice President, Joseph R. Biden Jr. That has been proved. ...

In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. That has been proved. He also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections. That has been proved. Wherefore, President Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self governments and the rule of law. That has been proved. ...

Those facts are not contested. We have met our burden.

If all that is true, then there is no need to have any witnesses.

Apparently the Dems are damaging Biden by calling attention to his family's corruption, and trying to make up for it by holding Sanders and Warren hostage in the Senate.

In the 2016 election, Ukraine openly supported Hillary Clinton. Trump has not asked them to take any position in the 2020 election. He only asked for some information.

The idea that there is something corrupt about asking for info on Biden corruption is just weirdo-Jew-think.

If anyone is corrupting American elections it is the Jewish news media, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, and their collaborators. They are only going thru this exercise because they are scared that they cannot beat Trump in the Nov. 2020 election.

The US State Dept is filled with warmongers who are eager to fight Mideast wars and revive the Cold War. Trump was elected President to put a stop to that. The gist of the complaints against Trump are that the Deep State does not agree with his foreign policy.

All this talk of "constitution" and "rule of law" is obscures the fact that Trump did nothing contrary to the constitution, rule of law, or historical precedent. It is amazing that Schiff's team spent 3 years trying to frame Trump for a crime, and this is all they have. This will all end with Trump being exonerated of everything.

Jews control news media and entertainment

If you want to see this documented with names of the Jews in management of all the top companies, see this article.

Just listen to the impeachment hearings to see how a Jewish style of thinking has come to dominate the news media. Sen. Schiff in particular makes dopey arguments that have almost nothing to do with American law and values. It is hard to even make any sense of what he is saying, unless you are used to listening to Jewish arguments.

Languages spoken in America

Source

This map is amazing. What is going on?

Leftist gender nonsense invades hockey

Quillette reports:

I can’t help on the ice—Even just to help on the ice, you need this training,” he explains. After having assisted on his son’s hockey team for three years, the father has been removed from all positions because he questioned the necessity of a mandatory gender identity training course imposed by Hockey Eastern Ontario (formerly the Ottawa District Hockey Association) following a 2017 legal settlement involving a transgender hockey player. ...

The underlying Human Rights Tribunal case that had led to the new training requirements was brought by Jesse Thompson, a trans-identified biologically female child who complained that he’d been prevented from using a boys locker room due to his female anatomy. ...

On another slide, amid a parade of variously configured pink and blue male/female stick-people, the concept of “polygender” is introduced to define “people who identify as multiple genders simultaneously and can be several genders all at once. Or they may alternate between their varying gender identities depending on the day or the week.”

Politically motivated falsification of history

A left-wing site argues:

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

The NY Times 1619 Project argues that America was founded as a White supremacist nation, that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery, that American wealth is largely the result of slave labor, and that hatred of non-whites is essential to White American DNA.

A professor adds:

The 1619 project has been constructed to be convertible to a school curriculum, and in fact it’s been adopted by public schools in several cities, including Buffalo, New York. This is the first case I’ve heard about of a newspaper attempting to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a particular ideological view. I consider this a dangerous precedent.

This is now what the Democrat Party stands for, above all else. It will say or do anything to promote divisive identity politics. Mainly, it means blaming straight White cis-gendered normal Americans.

This had long been a strategy of Commie propaganda. Maybe that is why it is so recognizable to a socialist web site. Supposedly the Russians are still doing it. But now it is mainly a strategy of the NY Times, Democrat Party, CNN, etc.

This is pretty crazy stuff, but what if the Left succeeds in brainwashing the public that it is true?

If so, it is an invitation for non-whites to rebel, and enslave the Whites. We could be headed for a race war.

What made America great?

People cite various factors for what made America great, such as:

abundant natural resources and unsettled land
history of slave labor, and other such exploitation
republican political system
population with high social trust, individualism, and IQ, and low violence
Christianity
egalitarianism
cosmopolitan acceptance of all groups and cultures
political-legal ideologies like natural rights and patents
freedom of speech, religion, guns, etc.
singular achievements of great Americans, such as Lincoln, Edison, etc.
stable monetary system
natural ocean boundaries from enemies

The easy answer is that it was some combination, but what was the biggest factor?

I say the biggest factor is the one that no American History class would dare to say.

Climate alleged to be biggest threat

News:

LONDON, Jan 15 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Climate-change-related threats such as extreme weather, large-scale biodiversity losses and a failure of political leaders to slow planetary heating are now the top long-term risks facing the globe, business and other leaders said on Wednesday.

An annual risk survey published ahead of the World Economic Forum next week put climate threats ahead of risks ranging from cyberattacks and pandemics to geopolitical conflict and weapons of mass destruction for the first time.

"That's new. Last year we didn't have it," said Mirek Dusek, deputy head of the Centre for Geopolitical and Regional Affairs and an executive committee member of the World Economic Forum, of the rise of environmental issues up the list.

Really? The history of humans on Earth has been progressively more violent and destructive wars. Another world war would surely be a lot bigger threat that the ocean level rising a few inches.

There are also possibilities of plagues, famines, meteor strikes, etc.

Islam is on a collision course with Christianity. Islam cannot coexist with other religions. Every country that allows Islam to flourish is eventually taken over by Mohammedans. Unless some corrective action is taken, we are headed for war. Or more wars, I should say, as we have already fought Islamic wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and probably some other countries that I have forgotten.

It also seems likely that Third World population growth will lead to more wars. Already it is leading to most of the above-mentioned climate change threat.

Update: A computer complexity professor heading to Davos writes:

Much as Greta has been doing for the other essential truth here, that civilization’s current m.o. is producing an unfolding catastrophe on a scale where, to find its approximate parallel, you’d have to go back past WWII, past the Black Death, past the extinctions of the Ice Ages, all the way to something like the Chicxulub asteroid? ...

I’m mostly worried about so-called “tail risk,” of runaway warming basically ending both the natural world and agriculture as human beings have known them. And I’m worried mostly because of an additional thing I believe, which is that one generation’s “tail risks” become the next generation’s “tailbone risks” become the rump risks of the generation after that, which indeed is how we got to where we are now. And the world has shown no ability to coordinate on anything as big as decarbonization, to get out of defect-equilibria, and it’s not obvious to me that that will change, even if I imagine the plausibly desperate situations 50 or 100 years from now.

This is way beyond anything predicted by the IPCC.

Pelosi may have sabotaged Sanders and Warren

The NY Times reports:

The first version of the conspiracy theory was hatched on Twitter last Friday, Jan. 10.

“Don’t rule out that the reason Pelosi hasn’t sent impeachment to the Senate is to hurt Warren and Sanders, and to help Biden,” Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush, tapped out on his iPad. “By timing the trial so it takes place during the Iowa lead-up, she has leverage over the liberals.”

Somebody needs to tell the NY Times what a conspiracy is. Nobody is alleging any secret agreement.

“This benefits Joe Biden. This harms Senator Sanders, who is in first place and could become their nominee.”

In fact, Mr. Sanders is not the national front-runner for the nomination and never has been, although he had a narrow lead in a recent poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers.

Notice how the paper takes a completely correct quote, and pretends that a fact-check contradicts it.

The term "conspiracy theory" has become a leftist buzz phrase for an inconvenient fact. For example, consider:

The beginning of the 20th century may be taken as the approximate high point of Western world domination, if not necessarily of European civilization itself. Whites made up some 30 percent of the earth’s population and directly or indirectly controlled most of its territory; white economic and technological dominance were even more complete. ...

But in 1905, a surprising turn of events shocked white and non-white alike. Japan gained a decisive military victory over a sprawling European empire with a population more than three times its own: Russia. No one expected such an outcome, yet it was to prove a sign of much to come.

I didn't realize 1905 was a turning point. Interesting. At any rate, any of such a civilization peak is often called a conspiracy theory.

Liberals used to be anti-immigration

Jerry Kammer writes a NY Times op-ed:

I’m a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted

Immigration can invigorate the country. But when it is poorly managed, it can cause social division — just as it’s doing right now.

He makes these points:

Until recently, liberals favored immigration restrictions.
The Democrat Party is an open borders party now.
Republican allies, such as the Chamber of Commerce, have sold us out on this issue.
Ronald Reagan sought a reasonable compromise, but it was sabotaged.
Only the Klu Klux Klan was saying ‘America for Americans’.

He is right, but does not go far enough. We are headed for disaster, and Pres. Trump is just slowing it down. Trump is seeking reasonable compromises, but the Democrat Party and a lot of the Republicans have become seriously anti-American.

Irrational fear of being identified

NY Times op-ed:

Growing up, my brothers and I often teased my mom for having what we thought was an irrational fear of being identified as a Jew.

Jews are funny about that. They have whole organizations that go around complaining about Jews being identified as Jews.
National Revies essay:

“Many in the community look at the Hasidim as locusts, who go from community to community ... just stripping all the resources out of it,” said a Jewish, but not ultra-Orthodox, resident of upstate New York. The resident, who vociferously objects to ultra-Orthodox development and asked not to be named for fear of retribution by the ultra-Orthodox community, added that “nobody here doesn’t like them because they’re Jews. People don’t like them because of what they do. Rural, hardworking people also want to live our lives too.”

I guess it is okay for secular Jews to call ultra-orthodox Jews locusts.

The House appointed seven impeachment prosecutors, and they are not all Jews. Okay, maybe I shouldn't call it a Jew coup. There were a couple of blacks, a couple of women, and a Hispanic. It will be interesting to see who runs the show.

Update: For those who somehow think that Jews are a persecuted minority, see this chart.

Hungary abolishes gender studies

A Voice for Men reports:

Enter Hungary. In an effort to restore curricular and administrative sanity to university education, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party have passed legislation to abolish Gender Studies as an area of official study. Hungary’s Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen has stated that such programs “ha[ve] no business in universities” as they represent “an ideology, not a science,” with a market profile “close to zero.” Similarly, Orban’s Chief of staff Gergely Gulyas said, “The Hungarian government is of the clear view that people are born either men or women. They lead their lives the way they think best [and] the Hungarian state does not wish to spend public funds on education in this area.”

According to reports, Fidesz spokesman Istvan Hollik, echoing Semjen, brought in the economic argument, pointing to the obvious fact that “You don’t have to be an expert to see there’s not much demand in the labour market for gender studies.” But the core of the issue goes deeper. “It is also no secret that our goal is to make Hungary a truly Christian-democratic country, which defends its normality and life and values…And now there’s this situation with gender studies, which is not a science but an ideology and one which is closely linked to liberal ideology, and I don’t think it fits in here.”

They are born baby boys or girls, not men or women. It appears that he was influenced by another leftist ideology to refer to girls as women.

If gender studies were a legitimate academic field, there would be research on the benefits of patriarchy. It has existed for millennia, so there must be some reasons in its favor.

Christian channel gets de-monetized

I have watched some TruNews videos on YouTube. They are a mixture of news, preaching, and commentary, with a Christian perspective. They are only offensive if you think the Christian religion is offensive.

TruNews reports:

The founder of TruNews accused PayPal of conducting a “financial pogrom” hours after the Florida-based Christian broadcaster published a hard-hitting news report that linked the Jeffrey Epstein child sex scandal to Israel’s Mossad spy agency.

PayPal abruptly terminated the account of TruNews without warning or explanation. The conservative Christian news program has received donations in its PayPal account for more than 16 years without any problems. TruNews is funded by donations from viewers. The weekday Christian news and commentary program started in 1999.

TruNews’ founder and host Rick Wiles accused PayPal CEO Daniel Schulman, a progressive leftwing Jewish business executive, of punishing the Christian broadcaster for its hard-hitting reports on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell:

“PayPal abruptly closed our account on the morning of January 3, 2020. TruNews’ report on January 2 was titled ‘Ghislaine Maxwell: Which spy agency is hiding her?’ Our newscast focused on her father’s longtime service to Israel’s intelligence agencies, how she was Jeffrey Epstein’s handler for Mossad, and how Epstein’s team video-recorded influential American men having sex with underage girls who had been recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell.”

Wiles said the swiftness of PayPal’s action hours after the release of TruNews’ report on the Epstein-Maxwell-Mossad child sex blackmail operation was not a coincidence:

“Any American citizen or entity that questions Israeli actions and its influence in America are now marked targets. Israel’s blackmail operation in America for over 30 years was so successful that it is now dangerous for any law-abiding American citizen to demand a real investigation into the biggest scandal in American history which resulted in much of America’s ruling class being caught in a child-sex blackmail trap.” ...

TruNews also believes that Epstein was not a billionaire, but an imposter recruited by Mossad to act like a billionaire:

“You cannot convince me that Jeffrey Epstein was a self-made billionaire with only one client who owned mansions throughout America and London and Paris. His mansions were owned by wealthy Jews through trusts.”

I guess that these video were considered anti-Judaism because Epstein and Maxwell are Jewish.

I don't know whether TruNews is correct about Epstein and Maxwell, but I do know that the official stories are very fishy. We need independent reporters to tell us what might have happened.

Jews like to whine about being persecuted, but there are no examples of Christians blackballing Jewish views like this. We are becoming a society where Christian messages are subject to Jewish censors.

Breitbart reports:

The once prestigious Lancet medical journal has published a bizarre book review asserting that “white Americans continue to mobilise to maintain or extend the exclusive advantages whiteness offers those who can become white.”

The Lancet selected Rhea W. Boyd, a Minority Health Policy Fellow at Harvard’s School of Public Health, to review a 2019 book called Dying of Whiteness by Jonathan Metzl, whose thesis is that “right-wing backlash policies have mortal consequences — even for the white voters they promise to help.” ...

In reality, Boyd concludes, the only real solution “is to eliminate whiteness all together.”

The fact that some people think this way is frightening enough. That the Lancet, which once represented serious medical journalism, would decide to publish it points to a devastating deterioration of the institutional academy as reasoned discourse gives way to incoherent ranting.

The Lancet artice is free if you register with an email address. The article argues for the "elimination" of the White race.

Metzl is Jewish, and Boyd is Black.

This is crazy stuff. I realize that not all Jews want to exterminate White Christians. Probably most don't. But our most prestigious universities and medical journals promote Jewish ideas about the elimination of Whites.

NY Times libels those who want to limit immigration

Politico reports:

Peter Brimelow, an anti-immigration activist who hosts a website that has published the writings of white supremacists, is suing The New York Times for $5 million for labeling him an “open white nationalist” in an article last year.

The characterization of Brimelow that triggered the libel lawsuit appeared in a Jan. 15, 2019 article by Times political reporter Trip Gabriel that offered a chronology of racist and inflammatory comments by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). ...

The suit says that after Brimelow complained about the description of him, the Times performed a “stealth edit” on the online version of the story, removing the word “open” but still branding him as a white nationalist.

Brimelow rejects that label, preferring to be called a “civic nationalist.”

The Times never printed a correction or clarification in the online or print version of the paper, and refused to publish his letters challenging the original description, according to the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“We stand by the story and will vigorously defend,” Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said.

Brimelow’s court complaint also contends that the Times aggravated the impact of its initial statement by adding a link to what he calls a “smear piece” in which the Southern Poverty Law Center described him as a “white nationalist” and suggested he harbors white supremacist views. ...

Brimelow, a British-born naturalized U.S. citizen who lives in Connecticut, runs the anti-immigration website VDare.com and formerly worked as an editor for Forbes magazine and a columnist for National Review. He acknowledged in his letter to the Times that his VDare website published articles written by “those who aim to defend the interests of whites,” but he said the site has carried a wide range of authors who favor immigration restrictions.

Brimelow’s 1995 book about the dangers of unchecked immigration, “Alien Nation,” served as rallying cry for those who support a crackdown on immigration and prompted reviews in such outlets as the Times.

Libel cases are very difficult to win, so I am guessing that Brimelow will lose. But this illustrate how the leftist mainstream media will smear its enemies.

The NY Times could have used a more neutral term, like anti-immmigration, although that appears to be also inaccurate, as he is an immigrant himself.

The people who control that newspaper want to flood America with non-whites and non-Christians. Anyone who resists is called a Nazi, white supremacist, anti-semite, white nationalist, extreme right-winger, or whatever other term they can find to ostracize him.

That same article tried to smear Steve King as a white supremacist largely because he said that we cannot rebuild our civilization with someone else's babies. King is correct.

Note also that when these organizations like the NY Times want to justify some name-calling, they just link to their fellow leftist name-callers. The SPLC has lost at least one lawsuit over its name-calling.

I think we are getting to the point where the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are used synonomously with "against open borders".

The Crisis of the 2020s

Anthropologist Peter Frost explains:

Two years ago I wrote about "The Crisis of the 2020s." I argued that this decade would see a worsening confrontation between two world views ...

The evolution of social complexity is far from easy. One of the main challenges has been the creation of large societies in which economic transactions take place mostly between unrelated individuals. Such societies are impossible in most of the world because of the high level of mistrust between unrelated individuals. Each transaction has to be checked and double-checked for lying, cheating, and outright theft. Many transactions never take place because they just aren't cost-effective.

This obstacle has been overcome in northwest Europe and East Asia. In both areas, the solution is behavioral and psychological. Northwest Europeans are more individualistic, less loyal to kin, and more trusting of strangers. Because they attach less importance to kinship, they have been able to build large, functioning societies on the basis of “impersonal prosociality,” i.e., willingness to obey universal social rules, affective empathy toward nonkin, and feelings of guilt for unwitnessed rule breaking (Frost 2017b; Frost 2019b; Schulz et al. 2019). East Asians are less individualistic but just as willing to obey universal rules, which are enforced more by shame than by guilt. ...

Let's be frank. The high productivity of North America, Western Europe, and East Asia has profound behavioral and psychological causes. It is not due to political ideals, universal education, or a particular legal system. It is due to a higher level of social trust, as well as a higher level of cognitive ability and a lower level of personal violence. When immigrants enter that kind of environment, their productivity dramatically rises. They are now working in a society where laws are observed, where information is reliable, and where disputes are not normally settled through violence. We all benefit from that kind of society — simply by virtue of living in it.

That’s the "unearned privilege" that antiracists and right-wing economists love to denounce. Their argument is deceptively simple: “By what right do we deny this privilege to others? It’s a mere accident of birth! Just think, they’re less productive because we’re keeping them out. So let them in! We’ll all be better off!”

Well, no. Do I have to explain why?

I guess this stuff must be obvious to an anthropologist. People are different in obvious and important ways. You can debate nature-nuture all you want, but people do not change easily. Some changes have taken a millennium or more to affect the whole population. We are in the midst of a vast and dangerous demographic experiment.

Brooks is only good at name-calling

David Brooks writes in the NY Times:

Donald Trump is impulse-driven, ignorant, narcissistic and intellectually dishonest. So you’d think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show we’re not like him — that we are judicious, informed, mature and reasonable.

Yes, he and his Jewish associates would love to show that they are superior to Trump.

He tries to find fault with Trump, but only has name-calling. He cannot bring himself to admit that Trump is the best President we have had in a long time. His hatred for Trump appears to be some weirdo Jewish thing.

We fight viciously about Trump, but underneath, a populist left-right curtain is descending around America,

Another op-ed says that It’s 1856 All Over Again.

If that is true, then the battle lines are being drawn. The Left has chosen to align itself with identity politics all the way, and secondarily with socialist nuts like Bernie Sanders.

There are lots of conservatives who would love to have Brooks on their side, as he claims to have conservative views. But he has made it clear that he will forgo all of his principles to align himself with Trump-hating Jews.

GOP leader silenced for saying who is behind impeachment

The Times of Israel reports:

Delaware GOP leader faces calls for resignation over Facebook posts about Jews
Sussex County Republican Party Vice Chair Nelly Jordan singles out Jews as being responsible for the impeachment of Trump

JTA — A Republican Party leader in Delaware is under fire for Facebook comments about Jews.

Sussex County Republican Party Vice Chair Nelly Jordan in her post singled out Jews as mainly responsible for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Her Facebook page appears to have been deleted.

“What amazes me the most in these theatrical Congress hearings, is to see how many Jews ‘In Name Only’ lend themselves to be in the hoaks (sic) of the pure made up story of Impeachment that the Democrats have woven as spiders catching flies and bugs,” the post said, according to a report Friday in the Delaware State News.

“These jews (sic) have been enrolled to come and testify, to come and interrogate and to be involved in anything that the Democrats enlist them to do to try to look credible to the people of this country,” the post also said.

Jordan also wrote Jews were going against the Lord’s will “as it was in the times of the Old Testament.”

“The remarks made by Nelly Jordan, who was elected to her post by the Sussex County GOP Executive Committee, were offensive, hurtful and anti-Semitic,” state GOP Chairwoman Jane Brady said in a statement issued Thursday.

The statement said since Jordan was elected she can not be immediately removed from her post. “Nelly will have to make a choice of either resigning or going through a process to seek her removal,” Brady said.

It is an objective fact that the impeachment is being led by Jews. It has been called a Jew coup.

But Jordan is an elected official who faced removal from office for pointing out the obvious. The criticism of her is only that it offends the Jews to point out what they are doing, and not that she said anything false.

How is it that the Jews have so much power that they can impeach the President, and then destroy anyone who points it out?

I try reading Jewish publications for explanations, but they just brag about their power and influence. No other ethnic group is so powerful, or so opposed to the American political system.

Debating racism with a woke author

I listened to this conversation: Sam Harris debates racism with woke author.

Harris has a knack for exposing how leftists think. In this case, his guest says that he has written a 500-page book arguing that the Left needs to talk about racial social justice all the time, and when right-wingers don't talk about race, the leftists need to expose their dog whistles.

His best example of a White Supremacist dog whistle was Tucker Carlson saying that foreign-born voters have changed the demographics and politics of Virginia.

Harris made the obvious point that Carlson was just making an objective observation about elections, without any reference to opinions about White people.

Harris and his guest did agree on two things: that we must all do whatever we can to defeat Pres. Trump, and that people do not have free will.

To justify the attacks on Carlson and other right-wingers, the guest kept talking about Charlottesville where some chanted "Jews will not replace us." Since then, he says that it has been clear that the world is divided between those who accept Jewish plans to demographically replace Whites with non-whites, and those who don't. Carlson's comment, he says, indicates resistance to the demographic replacement of Whites, and therefore the Left must use all tools at its disposal to shame him as a racist.

The leftist guest obviously thinks that the public is too stupid to understand demographic replacement. He says we have no free will, and if the media controls the language used, then we will be powerless to do anything about it.

Harris points out that his whole plan is built on lies. The leftist media lies about Trump, Charlottesville, and everything else. Harris thinks it is a very dangerous plan because White may see the lies, wake up to what is going on, and become White supremacists.

A few years ago, I would have dismissed these guys as nuts or trolls. But arguments like this appear regularly in the NY Times and other Jewish-influenced newspaper. Many articles acknowledge that demographic changes are leading political changes, but if you express any resistance, or if you even comment on adverse effects on White people, the papers denounce you in the strongest terms.

The Death of the West

Pat Buchanan writes:

For many First World countries, there are more compelling concerns. High among them is population decline, and, if birth rates do not rise, the near-extinction of many Western peoples by this century’s end. ...

But it is Eastern Europe where the population crisis is most advanced.

At the end of the Cold War, Bulgaria had 9 million people. By 2017, that had fallen to 7.1 million. In 2050, Bulgaria’s population is estimated at 5.4 million — a loss of 40% to death and migration since Bulgaria won its freedom from the Soviet Empire. ...

The tribes of Europe, the peoples of almost every country of the Old Continent, are visibly aging, shrinking and dying. The population crisis of Europe is “existential,” says Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic.

Since this writer published “The Death of the West,” nothing has happened to alter my conclusion as to where the West was destined: ...

We are talking here about what historians, a century hence, will call the Lost Tribes of Europe.

Matthew Yglesias has a new book arguing:

A bold case for massive population growth in the name of national greatness—from Vox co-founder and host of “The Weeds” podcast Matt Yglesias.

America is in decline. Fewer children are born each year due to financial pressure. Thousands flee our iconic cities with their housing shortages and broken infrastructure. ... We need to get bigger, much bigger. We need one billion Americans.

In this timely and provocative book, Matthew Yglesias makes the case for massive population growth through humane family and immigration policy.

Sounds like they agree, right?

No. They are looking at the same data, but not coming to the same conclusions.

Wikipedia says about Matthew Yglesias

His paternal grandfather was of Spanish-Cuban background, and his three other grandparents were of Eastern European Jewish descent.

Yglesias went to high school at The Dalton School in New York City and later attended Harvard University, where he studied philosophy.

Yglesias started blogging in early 2002, while still in college, focusing mainly on American politics and public policy issues, often approached from an abstract, philosophical perspective. Yglesias was a strong supporter of invading Iraq, Iran and North Korea,

Okay, it is starting to make sense now. Steve Sailer calls this the "Invade the world, Invite the world" foreign policy.

If Japan and Bulgaria really desperately need population increases, they could import Third World migrants. But that would not solve the problem Buchanan is discussing.

Demise of White Christian America

I pointed out that White became a minority of American births in 2013, and NBC News reports that White Christian adults have also become a minority:

Of all the changes to identity and belonging, the century’s second decade has been particularly marked by a religious sea change. After more than two centuries of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance, the United States has moved from being a majority-white Christian nation to one with no single racial and religious majority. ...

I noted that the percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points. ...

In addition to white American Christianity crossing the majority-minority threshold, the last decade also saw a particularly significant decline within one subgroup: white evangelicals. While the ranks of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics have been shrinking for decades, white evangelical Protestants had seemed immune to the forces eroding membership among other white Christian groups.

But since 2010, the number of white evangelical Protestants has dropped from 21 percent of the population to 15 percent. ....

In 2017, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that, for the first time, there was an absolute decline in the country’s white, non-Hispanic population. In other words, whites not only lost ground as a proportion of the population, but in actual numbers; there were more deaths than births. The U.S. Census Bureau now predicts that the U.S. will no longer be majority-white by 2045, and among children at every age below 10, whites are already a minority. ...

One PRRI survey question right before the 2016 election made the power of this nostalgia especially clear: “Since the 1950s, do you think American culture and way of life has changed for the better, or has it mostly changed for the worse?” Americans are divided nearly equally on this question, with 48 percent saying things have changed for the better and 51 percent for the worse. But solid majorities of white Christian groups — 57 percent of white Catholics, 59 percent of white mainline Protestants and fully 74 percent of white evangelical Protestants — believe things have changed for the worse. Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, nearly two thirds (66 percent) say things have changed for the better.

This demographic shift has been the result of policies that a majority of White Christians oppose.

BTW, here is yet another example of a supposedly anti-Semitic crime that turned out to be a Jewish hoax. It seems to me that most of these crimes have turned out to be Jewish hoaxes. When the Jewish ADL complains about anti-Semitism, it includes these hoaxes to trick you into thinking that there is a real problem.

Not OK to be White in Wisconsin

The NY Times reports on a U. Wisconsin-Madison kerfuffle:

To students of color, the homecoming video was a glimpse of what they experienced every day as they walked through campus. ...

The homecoming committee, a group of several dozen students, has a simple mission: celebrating the university during Homecoming Week with a string of events including a 5K run, blood drive and parade. ...

Unfortunately, not all the video images produced were included in the final product, including those of students from under represented populations. ...

Emilie Cochran, a reporter for The Badger Herald student newspaper who covered the story: It made people uncomfortable, seeing a lot of people who look alike representing the university. And it woke people up, saying, this is actually what our university looks like.

So the video was accurate, but not sufficiently inclusive.

The campus woke up to a message, scrawled in black.

Someone had taken a copy of The Daily Cardinal, a student newspaper, and written a message on it in large block letters: “UW 4 WHITES ONLY!”

The newspaper was taped outside Science Hall, a stately red brick building on campus, and it stunned the first people who saw it. The response from the university was swift.

At 6:46 a.m., the @UWMadison Twitter account wrote:

UW stands against hate and racism. We’re aware that, last night, a racist message was posted on a building sign outside Science Hall. We are removing this message and any others and @UWMadisonPolice is investigating.

That morning, more signs were discovered around campus. One read, “UW DON’T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE.” Another read, “I’M TIRED OF HAVING TO TEACH MY TEACHERS.”

Soon, the university released a new statement, which read, in part:

These posters appear now to be part of a coordinated campaign calling attention to experiences of underrepresented students.

The Student Inclusion Coalition said it had not orchestrated the campaign. University officials have declined to identify the people involved.

So University initially mistakenly blamed Whites, and in a panic, tried to prosecute a hate crime. But when the University learned that non-whites were responsible, the messages suddenly became free speech.

Fat feminists hate exercise bikes

Business news:

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As a public relations professor, I know a few of my fellow professionals can be counted on to do things that keep my students’ jaws dropping in class each week — and, like 2018, this year was no exception. Here are the five decisions that beat out stiff competition to rank as the worst corporate PR moves of 2019: ...

2. The Peloton ad depicting a svelte woman making a video to thank her male partner for buying her an exercise bike for Christmas. The ad was widely interpreted as disturbing because the woman appeared to many to be frightened. Some pointed out that the woman was already trim and hardly needed to lose weight; others said the ad reinforced stereotypes of women needing to stay in shape in order to keep their affluent significant others (the bike costs over $2,000, before monthly subscription fees). These reactions were of course eminently predictable. ... The ad could have been an easy win just by, say, showing a woman giving the gift to a man instead.

This is sick.

First, did Peloton sales go up or down? The fat feminist complainers were not from the target market anyway. If sales went up, then it was a successful ad.

Second, the woman is excited and happy, not frightened.

Third, what kind of fool believes that skinny women don't excersize? Just visit your local gym, and you will find lots of skinny men and women exercising.

Apparently some people see an exercise bike, and can only imagine it as a tool of misogynistic oppression. Maybe they misheard the audio, and thought that it was an exercise dyke.

Alternate theory of Jewish intelligence

Since I posted NY Times opinions on Jewish intelligence and political attitudes, I post a contrary view from a Quillette article:

Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending argue that high Ashkenazi IQ evolved during the Middle Ages in Europe due to gene-culture co-evolution. Prohibited from entering many blue-collar occupations like farming, Jews turned to finance, particularly money lending, to survive. Records from around the year 1270, for example, report that almost 80 percent of adult male Jews in Roussillon (what is today southern France) made their living as money lenders. ...

There is some evidence in political psychology for a correlation between high IQ and liberal political beliefs. So we might suspect that Ashkenazi Jews, with the highest average IQ in the world, would lean liberal. Interestingly, though, IQ correlates positively with classical liberalism, which emphasizes both social and economic liberty. This seems to be because those with higher intelligence tend to exhibit personality traits like openness to experience and tolerance for different ways of living. But those with higher IQ are more likely to support free-market economic policies (“liberalism” in the old sense of the word). Intelligence is required to understand how trade can be a positive sum game, and how order can emerge from individuals freely interacting with one another.

So Ashkenazi Jews got smart by being money lenders centuries ago, and that is why they are classical liberals like others with high IQ?

The trouble with this theory is that most Jews are not classical liberals. Republicans are more likely to support free-market economic policies, free speech, rules of law, rational discussion, etc. American secular Jews have mostly signed onto the Democrat platform, and that is all identity politics all the times.

I guess I am supposed to believe that Jews were persecuted in 1270 by being forced to be money-lenders instead of farmers. How is that even possible? Have there ever been any Jews who prefer to be farmers, rather than money-lenders?

But MacDonald seems to be right that Jews were disproportionately involved in radical leftist political movements in the twentieth century, and in the US Jews tend to vote Democrat. We think this can be explained by the high average IQ of Jews in combination with their being a persecuted minority, which has tended to push them toward political views that emphasize social toleration and the free movement of people. In other words, MacDonald reverses the correct order of causation: rather than Jews inviting persecution by advocating cosmopolitan policies that thwart the interests of Europeans, Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution.

Persecution of Jews began for religious reasons in the Middle Ages and morphed into political persecution as Jews began to climb the social ladder, and political leaders saw them as a useful out-group to use as a scapegoat for people’s economic and social woes. For example, when Italian traders inadvertently brought the Black Plague from Asia to Europe, thousands of Jews were murdered in retaliation when Christian peasants decided that the Jews had deliberately infected them.

I don't see how these persecution stories could have anything to do with Jewish political attitudes today. Jews are the most privileged ethnic group, and nobody can give any examples of Jews being persecuted. You have to go back to the Middle Ages to dig up examples.

Even in the above example, the Jews were not being persecuted for being Jews. They were being killed to stop them from spreading Black Plague.

The articles do raise a nature-nurture issue. How much of these Jewish traits are attributable to genes, and how much to cultural factors, such as telling persecution myths?

I do not know. It is possible that twin studies could give some quantitative evidence. I am just posting this to balance the NY Times views.

Anti-Semitism is in the news, along with Jewish efforts to blame it on White supremacists. But nearly all the stories are either Jewish hoaxes or perpetrated by blacks or Moslems.

The Jewish ADL head was on all the TV channels arguing that social media should ban negative messages about Zionism, dual loyalty, Soros, and Adelson. They would have to censor the Jewish papers for this to be effective. On CNN, they were lamenting that some marchers in Charlottesville several years ago argued against Jewish policies to replace White Americans with non-whites. It is amazing how Jewish complaints of anti-Semitism are so often coupled with Jewish arguments to exterminate White Christians.

If Jewish leftism really had something to do with persecution, then we would expect to see a correlation. Jewish would be more leftist in countries where they are more persecuted. But the orthodox Jews are the only ones the ADL is claiming are persecuted, and they are right-wingers compared to the secular Jews.

Evidence of sex differences

A leftist-evolutionst professor concedes sex differences:

The two sex differences I find most evolutionarily convincing involve human sexual behavior — in particular the observation that males tend to be relatively indiscriminate in choosing someone to mate with, while females are pickier—and the fact that males are more aggressive than females. I feel that these behavioral differences are likely, at least in part, to be the result of sexual selection in our ancestors. ...

1.) The behavior is consistent across different cultures, when one would expect different degrees and kinds of socialization. ...

2.) We don’t find, as expected under the socialization theory, larger amounts male aggression in societies that have stricter gender roles and less gender equality. ...

3.) Males are more aggressive than females from the very beginning of childhood, presumably before they’ve had a chance to be socialized. ...

4.) The pattern of male aggression conforms to what we expect if it evolved to promote competition for females. ...

5.) In many species of animals, including our closest relatives, males are more aggressive than females.

All this should be pretty obvious.

There is also a lot of evidence for Sex Differences in Cognition.

The professor struggled with this comment:

Be careful. The same arguments you use could be used for the differences in aggression among races.

What are you on about? We are talking about predictions from evolutionary theory as well as experimental results, none of which exist for racial differences in aggression (and I know of none). Which races are you talking about and what are the differences.

Wow, he knows of no evidence? Some races commit violent crimes at ten times the rate of other races. And aggression and a lot of other behavioral traits have been shown to be heritable. Some primate species are more aggressive than others.