Trump knew that Pence was safe

The Senate impeachment trial was a big Jewish show, with most of the arguments for and against being led by Jews. It is all over now, but here is an example of Jewish thinking.

The Wash. Post reported a week ago:

Mounting evidence emerging as former president Donald Trump’s impeachment trial unfolds in the Senate this week indicates Trump may have been personally informed that Vice President Mike Pence was in physical danger during the Jan. 6 Capitol siege, just moments before denigrating him on Twitter. ...

Trump’s tweet came at 2:24 p.m. that day — only 11 minutes after live television coverage showed Pence being hustled from the Senate floor because rioters were streaming into the building one floor below. The Senate then abruptly went into recess. ...

The White House was typically immediately informed by Pence’s Secret Service detail about any significant movements involving the vice president, according to another person with knowledge of the security protocols.

So let's get this straight. Here are the facts.

1. Pence was never in any danger.

2. Trump saw on TV that Pence was not in any danger.

3. Trump was probably directly informed by Secret Service that Pence was not in any danger.

4. Wash. Post and Democrat impeachment managers describe this as evidence that Trump knew that Pence was in physical danger.

Of course there were many other lies. The Democrats argued on the Senate floor that three law enforcement officers were killed by the riots. The true number is zero.

How to explain these brazen lies? Do they think that we are really that stupid?

Biden announces new discriminatory policies

Warren Farrell writes in a Newsweek op-ed:

Every new president vows to heal the very divide his party and opponents have spent the last year and billions of dollars magnifying. Invariably, the plea translates into "unify by agreeing with me." One of President Joe Biden's first policies appeared to bridge the gender divide by creating a White House Gender Policy Council. ... The Gender Policy Council's mission is to help only women and girls. Boys are left out. Fathers are left out. Men are left out. Even transgender people and gays are left out—if they are male. ... Part of the Gender Council's stated mission is racial injustice. For females only. Yet it is Black males who are 24 times more likely than Black females to be shot by police. ... The solution? Since the Moynihan Report in 1965, we have known that inner city crime emanated predominantly from the 25 percent of Black males growing up in dad-deprived homes. That percentage is now in excess of 70 percent.

The mission is also to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, to ban govt discrimination on account of sex.

THe NY Times raves about how it will focus on women.

So Biden says equality and equity, but the policies will only be favoring discriminating against men.

On the positive side, I am happy to see that CNN is starting to fact-check Biden's lies. They are numerous.

Whitewashing a commie past

NY Times obituary:

Walter Bernstein, a proudly "secular" Jewish screenwriter best known for his 1960s and '70s dramas and for being blacklisted during the McCarthy era, has died at 101….

Bernstein, born to a Jewish family in Brooklyn, called himself a "secular, self-loving Jew of a leftist persuasion," according to the Times.

That persuasion got him labeled as a communist sympathizer in the 1950s, when the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee cracked down on leftist attitudes in Hollywood.

No, as the law professor explains at the above link.

The Jewish press is always complaining that McCarthyism was some sort of anti-semitic harassment of naturally leftist Jews.

The HUAC was nothing like the cancel culture of today. Bernstein was not just a "sympathizer". He was a hard-core Stalinist Communist. Those people were evil, and traitors to America.

Still, he was not targeted for just being a Communist. The concern that Hollywood was putting out Commie propaganda, and following orders from the Kremlin.

Math Schooling is White Supremacist

Schools are starting to endorse Equitable Math, including Oregon:

The Oregon Department of Education is promoting a so-called micro-course in “math equity” which begins later this month and will offer “key tools for engagement [and] strategies to improve equitable outcomes for Black, Latinx, and multilingual students.”

As noted in the Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction‘s “Stride 1” toolkit, one of the ways to do this is by “visibilizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture with respect to math.”

The main point of this is that mathematical proficiency is a White supremacist concept.

The London Daily Mail reports:

The Bachelor host Chris Harrison has announced he will no longer appear in the TV special and said he is 'deeply remorseful' for 'excusing historical racism' after he defended a contestant who attended a plantation-themed ball.

Harrison, who has hosted the ABC reality television dating show since 2002, issued a statement on his Instagram Saturday saying he is 'ashamed' of the 'pain' he has caused to people of color and that he is committed to 'evolve and be a better man.' ...

Harrison said in a controversial interview with former Bachelorette star Rachel Lindsay that people should show 'compassion' toward Kirkconnell, despite photos surfacing of her at a plantation-themed party and her liking photos on social media of the Confederate flag.

No, he is not going to evolve to be a better, after being fired from a job he held for 20 years. He was a better man for urging compassion, but now he will have to join the cancel culture, and ostracize someone for attending a harmless party.

In short, he has been canceled for being against cancel culture.  

There were many attempts to cancel Rush Limbaugh. Not so much in the last year, as he was terminally ill and it was easier to let him die. I expect to see renewed efforts to cancel Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and few other remaining broadcasters who have not been taken over by lizard people.

Pres. Biden notices:

“Did you ever five years ago think every second or third ad out of five or six should turn out to be biracial couples?” Biden said. “No, no I’m not, I’m not be facetious..”

It is not just the ads. The feature movies on Netflix are mostly interracial now. The latest is Behind Her Eyes, where a black divorced woman with a kid seduces her husband, frames him for a crime, and destroys his marriage. Then she kills his wife and marries him. But they are not who they appear to be, because of astral projection. I suggest reading the spoilers before watching this garbage.

Americans are consuming more foreign content than ever, such as Netflix. I suspect that a lot of it is that you can watch a Russian movie on Netflix, dubbed in English, and it won't be filled with Blacks and LGBTQIAs aggressively debasing common values.

Sex, gender, and gender identity

The Christian Post reports that sex-changes are now big business:

A Planned Parenthood employee is speaking out against the organization's practices of dispensing cross-sex hormones to trans-identifying teenagers, particularly distressed girls. ...

The Planned Parenthood employee, who said she's fully supportive of abortion rights, noted that abortions were the “bread and butter" for clinics. But now, she said, “trans-identifying kids are cash cows, and they are kept on the hook for the foreseeable future in terms of follow-up appointments, bloodwork, meetings, etc., whereas abortions are (hopefully) a one-and-done situation.”

Here is what Planned Parenthood says:

What are the differences between sex, gender, and gender identity?

It’s common for people to confuse sex, gender, and gender identity. But they’re actually all different things.

Sex is a label — male or female — that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate.

Gender is much more complex: It’s a social and legal status, and set of expectations from society, about behaviors, characteristics, and thoughts. Each culture has standards about the way that people should behave based on their gender. This is also generally male or female. But instead of being about body parts, it’s more about how you’re expected to act, because of your sex.

Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It’s a feeling that begins very early in life.

So if someone is born male and transitions to being a transgendered woman, his sex is still male. His gender becomes female if society expects him to act like a woman. His gender identity might be female if those feelings started at an early age.

So Bruce (aka Caitlyn) Jenner is still belonging to the male sex. His gender identity is still male also, because he only transitioned late in life, after 3 marriages and 6 kids. I don't know what his gender is, as I don't know whether society expects him to be male or female.

I am just trying to recite the politically correct terminology here. I am assuming that if Planned Parenthood is making millions of dollars on this, then it is using the terminology that will become acceptable.

Why the NY Times fired its best reporter

I mentioned that the NY Times fired a good reporter for using the N-word, saying "We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent." But now it turns out that was not the real reason, as the newspaper itself occasionally prints the word in the newspaper.

No, it appears that the real reason is that some White leftists were offended that he said that there is no systemic discrimination against Blacks. The Chief complainer was a rich high school girl attending Andover School, one of the most elite schools in the world.

Even more revealing, the girl complained that he recommended the 1997 book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, book by Jared Diamond. The book won many prizes, and was favorably reviewed in all the mainstream media.

Diamond argues that Eurasian civilization is not so much a product of ingenuity, but of opportunity and necessity. That is, civilization is not created out of superior intelligence, but is the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions.

Most of those developments were quirks of geography.

Liberals loved this book because it gave an academic basis for Jews saying Whites were not superior.

I have criticized Diamond on this blog, such as here. His work is crap. The preppy girl disliked the book for other reasons.

My biggest issue with Diamond is that he draws grand sweeping conclusions about people who died out centuries ago and left no written records of what happened. While I don't know what happened either, he also tells stories about XX century America, and he gets those badly wrong.

I am also suspicious of him because all of his conclusions appear to be carefully calculated to please the prejudices of his audience.

For more insight into ideological malice at the NY Times, see Prof. Scott Aaronson's criticism of the outing of Scott Alexander. There are more Jewish leftists, with mainstream leftist political views. They have blogs with mostly leftist readers and commenters. You would think that the NY Times would like them. But no. Their biggest sin seems to be that they facilitate discussion of issues that should not be discussed. That is how it seems to me, anyway. Read it yourself to form your own opinion.

Aaronson says that he cooperated with the reporter because:

The NYT is still the main vessel of consensus reality in human civilization.

I guess that is why I read the newspaper, but it is getting increasingly extreme and dishonest, and I am not sure that I would consent to an interview. They are evil. He goes on:

Last night, it occurred to me that despite how disjointed it feels, the New York Times piece does have a central thesis: namely, that rationalism is a “gateway drug” to dangerous beliefs. And that thesis is 100% correct — insofar as once you teach people that they can think for themselves about issues of consequence, some of them might think bad things. It’s just that many of us judge the benefit worth the risk!

This is why gatekeepers must control the dissemination of facts. If people think for themselves, they will not come to the conclusions that the lizard people want.

Stanford and MIT have been suckered into supporting some math student who was arrested in Russia for participating in a political protest. I don't know the merits of this, but it is an internal Russian matter and the guy only got 10 days in jail, and was released.

Compare that to the 200 protesters who have been jailed for participating in a Jan. 6 Capitol demonstration. They were pro-democracy, and there is no proof that they hurt anyone. The Democrats keep calling it a "deadly insurrection", but the only thing deadly about it was that a non-white cop shot an unarmed woman in an area where citizens should have been welcome. And there was no insurrection. They are being held with nasty charges, and may not get out for a long time. They are political prisoners, right here in America.

Update: Aaronson has changed his mind, and regrets cooperating with the NY Times. He adds:

As far as I’m concerned, the ongoing collapse of Enlightenment norms of discussion and debate across the Western world, and its replacement by dueling self-certain authoritarianisms, really is a huge problem, commensurate with any of the worst problems that the world has ever faced.

The Republicans almost won everything

I explained that the 2020 election count was closer that most people admit, but it was even closer than I admitted.

The Democrats won the White House, Senate, and House. The Republicans could have taken all three, with only 90,000 more votes on election day.

The Wash. Post reports:

Biden won the three decisive states — Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin — by 0.6 percentage points or less, which was similar to Trump’s 2016 victory. If you flip fewer than 43,000 votes across those three states, the electoral college is tied 269 to 269. In that case, Trump would probably have won, given that the race would be decided by one vote for each House delegation, of which Republicans control more. ...

The number of votes to flip the result was similar in the House. As the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman noted in light of Tenney’s win, fewer than 32,000 votes could have flipped the five seats that Republicans would have needed to win the House majority — Illinois’s 17th District, Iowa’s 3rd, New Jersey’s 7th, Texas’s 15th and Virginia’s 7th. ...

On Election Day, he [David Perdue (R-Ga.)] took 49.7 percent of the vote — fewer than 14,000 votes from winning the race outright. That would have foreclosed any chance Democrats had at winning the Senate.

So, 43,000 votes for president, 32,000 votes for the House and 14,000 votes for the Senate.

Thus the Republicans almost won everything, even tho the Democrats controlled the press, social media, universities, Deep State, super-rich, Hollywood, and all the other levers of power.

Considering how much power hinged on how few votes, this may have been the closest election in American political history. And in terms of the large number of election procedures that got changed, it may have also been the most crooked.

According to polls, the impeachment attempt and trial did nothing to convince anyone that the election was legitimate. Even tho the main Democrat claim was that Trump falsely argued that the election was stolen, a majority of Republicans still agree that it was stolen. Indeed, the Democrats did not really present any evidence to rebut what Trump said.

(I say "impeachment attempt", because the House did not deliver impeachment papers while Trump was President, so many scholars say that the process was unconstitutional.)

Trump is exonerated

The Senate voted to acquit Donald Trump, and it is pretty clear that the only votes against him were out of political spite.

There was no serious attempt to show that he committed a crime. Usually a crime is defined by some statute, and certain elements need to be proved in order to convict. And there is case law further defining what proof is needed.

There was none of that.

To the extent that there was case law, it all said that Trump had a free speech right to say what he did, and no one could explain why his speech was any more improper than similar statements from all the leading Democrats.

There was talk of elected officials being in danger for their lives, but that was all hearsay. There were no witnesses. No one testified that he was in any danger whatsoever. Indeed, the vast majority of the protesters had no intent to harm anyone.

One argument was that no crime was needed, and impeachment is a political act for removing a President who needed to be removed.

On Jan. 19, the Senate was in session, and Trump was still President. The Senate would have been obligated to hold a trial that day, if the House had delivered impeachment papers. Chief Justice John Roberts would have had to preside over the trial. The House leaders decided not to do that. Perhaps they thought that they would get some procedural advantage by waiting, I don't know.

Regardless, it means that the House chose not to impeach Pres. Trump. Impeachment occurs when the House delivers to the Senate papers to remove a federal official. That never happened. Instead, the House delivered some nonbinding opinion papers about a former official who is now a private citizen. the Senate could have ignored the papers, and 45 Senators voted to do exactly that. Chief Justice Roberts also decided to boycott the proceedings.

Left unresolved is whether the election was stolen. The Democrats main argument was the election was fair and legitimate, but they offered no evidence for that either.

The NY Times tried to put their spin on it, and ran the headline "Most Bipartisan Support for Conviction in History". That is because 14% of the Senate Republicans voted for conviction, 86% for acquittal. Another one complains:

But the way the House chose to frame the article of impeachment made the prospect less likely. If the purpose of the proceeding was to produce a conviction and disqualification from future office, as opposed to mere political theater, the House should have crafted a broader and less legalistic set of charges. ...

The first impeachment of Mr. Trump was criticized (wrongly, in my view) for failing to allege a crime. But it is not necessary for an impeachment to be based on criminal conduct. ...

By charging Mr. Trump with incitement, the House unnecessarily shouldered the burden of proving the elements of that crime.

So by this analysis, Trump was acquitted the first time because he was not accused of a crime, and acquitted the second time because he was accused of a crime that he did not commit.

Congress Democrats caught faking evidence

The Trump lawyers showed that the Democrat evidence consisted largely of faked and out-of-context quotes. When the full context was shown, there was nothing wrong with what Trump said.

I expect Democrats to lie, but I was surprised that they used the Charlottesville very people lie again. Biden and others said this many times, but saying it in the impeachment trial is bizarre, as they had to know that the Trump lawyers would show the whole quote.

While video showed Trump using the word "fight", the same word was used by a great many Democrats in a much more belligerent manner.

I was also surprised to see lead prosecutor Jamie Raskin mention his Jewish father in connection to an argument that Trump has no free speech rights. His father transmitted the stolen Pentagon Papers to the NY Times, and would have been criminally prosecuted, but for an expansive reading of the First Amendment.

The impeachment doesn't make much sense. If they thought that Trump committed, they could just prosecute him for it, now that he is out of office. But they know that the precedents say that he was clearly within his free speech rights. If they thought that he non-criminal bad behavior that justified kicking him out of office, then they could have delivered impeachment papers to the Senate while he was still in office. They chose not to do that. If they wanted to invent a crime and then accuse Trump of committing it, they could have described the crime in the article of impeachment. They didn't do that either. What they did was just to make a big complaint that Trump said that the election was stolen.

And now it turns out that the Lincoln Project was run by corrupt and immoral characters. They raised a lot of money to help defeat Trump, and we still don't know who financed them.

And now we know that Dem NY Gov Andrew Cuomo covered up the deaths of 1000s of nursing home residents, in order to cover up incompetence and blame Trump. Much of Biden's campaign was based on Cuomo handling the coronavirus better than Trump, and now we know it was all a lie.

Women talk too much

Time magazine reports:

The head of the Tokyo Olympics organizing committee is stepping down from his job after more than a week of backlash for his sexist remarks ...

On Feb. 3, Mori, 83, said at an Olympics committee meeting that women talk too much in meetings. “If we increase the number of female board members, we have to make sure their speaking time is restricted somewhat, they have difficulty finishing, which is annoying,” he reportedly said.

Mori, who served as prime minister from 2000-2001, apologized the next day, but said that he was not considering resigning.

The article goes on to quote women saying the alleged quote was inappropriate, but of course no one gives any evidence that it is false.

Women do talk too much.

Activists recognize the importance of structural change. Fukuda’s petition calls for the Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee to adopt a zero tolerance policy on gender discrimination and for women to comprise 40% of all executive board committees (the Olympic committee board has 24 members, just five of whom are women).

If they abolish gender discrimination, then they would have to kill all women's events and medals.

Maybe they will kill women's sports anyway, by allowing transexuals.

The list of people getting canceled for trivialities is too long. Just this week, there is a respected NY Times reporter, and a Stars Wars movie star. And Donald Trump.

In other craziness:

"Midwives have been told to refer to 'chestfeeding' rather than 'breastfeeding' and replace the term 'mother' with 'birthing parent,'" ...

Other language changes include replacing "woman" with "woman or person" and "father" with "parent," "co-parent," or "second biological parent," depending on the circumstances, the Times reported.

Democrat complaint is about FBI fronts

Much of the impeachment case against Donald Trump is based on the Jan. 6 riot being an organized and pre-planned event, with the leaders being the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Who are they? I don't know much about them, except that they are run by FBI informants.

NY Post:

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio previously worked as a “prolific” undercover informant for local and federal law enforcement — leading to the prosecution of more than a dozen people, according to a new report.

Time magazine:

A man who authorities say is a leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group and helped to organize a ring of other extremists and led them in the attack last month at the U.S. Capitol has held a top-secret security clearance for decades and previously worked for the FBI, his attorney said Monday.

I am not sure what is going on here, but it is strange that whenever some right-wing plot is uncovered, the FBI is at the heart of it.

So I am having a little trouble connecting the dots. The FBI works for the DoJ, and the DoJ works for the White House. Did Trump order the FBI to spearhead this conspiracy?

No, that has not been alleged. The Democrats showed video of the protesters marching into the Capitol, but they never got into the House chamber, and they never hurt anyone. Some politicians took some evasive actions, but they never appeared to be under any serious threat. The only protester with a visible weapon had a baseball bat that he probably used to help break a window. Supposedly another had a stun gun in his belt, but he never drew it or threatened anyone with it.

What was notably missing was any allegation of a specific crime. The Democrats complained over and over that Trump had not accepted the legitimacy of the election reports. But they did not say that it was a crime to complain about an election. Instead it was all personalized over how they hate Trump, and want to punish Trump.

At first I thought that the "Bill of Attainder" defense was silly, but not anymore. This whole impeachment can be summarized by Democrats saying "we don't like Trump's attitude, and we are going to punish him for it." There is nothing resembling a legitimate prosecution based on the laws and procedures from before Trump.

The Democrats effectively admitted that there was no crime, because of a long argument that, if it were unconstitutional to impeach him, then there would be no way to punish him for what he did! If Trump has committed an actual crime, and is no longer in office, then he can be prosecuted like anyone else.

They keep saying things like "deadly armed insurrection", but the videos plainly show that it was not armed, and not deadly. They say five people died, but the five were all Trump supporters. One was an unarmed woman who was shot at point-blank range by an unnamed policeman. The rest appear to have all died from nonviolent medical causes. None of these has been called a homicide, nor has anyone been charged. Saying that rioters killed a Capitol police officer appears to be all a hoax.

The Democrats alternated between arguing that the Jan. 6 protest was a pre-planned event by citizen groups, and arguing that it was a spontaneous riot provoked by Trump. It cannot be both.

China wants men to be men

The UK BBC reports:

A notice from China's education ministry has caused a stir after it suggested young Chinese men had become too "feminine". The message has been criticised as sexist by many online users - but some say China's male celebrities are partly to blame.

For a while China's government has signalled concern that the country's most popular male role models are no longer strong, athletic figures like "army heroes". Even President Xi Jinping, a well-known football enthusiast, has long been seeking to cultivate better sports stars.

So last week, the education ministry issued a notice with a title that left no doubt about its ultimate goal.

The Proposal to Prevent the Feminisation of Male Adolescents called on schools to fully reform their offerings on physical education and strengthen their recruitment of teachers.

The text advised recruiting retired athletes and people from sporting backgrounds - and "vigorously developing" particular sports like football with a view to "cultivating students' masculinity". ...

There was a trend among young Chinese males towards "feminisation", he claimed, which "would inevitably endanger the survival and development of the Chinese nation" unless it was "effectively managed".

It is funny that it is news that anyone wants men to be masculine. Didn't everyone, until a few years ago?

Tipping is a White Privilege

I mentioned yesterday that a NY Times attacked tipping as a symptom of White privilege. Upon reflection, I think that the paper is onto something.

The advantage of living in a White society is that you can meet strangers, and expect them to follow social norms. Tipping is an example of this. The practice is entirely voluntary. You can tip as much or as little as you wish, based on how satisfied you are with the service, or how happy you happen to be that day, or whatever. It sounds crazy, but this works fairly well in White America.

It does not work very well in non-white countries. It doesn't even work so well in Europe. They just don't have as much trust in strangers as White Americans do.

Immigration will cause the end of American tipping, as we migrate to a low-trust society. The whole concept does not make sense to people in most countries.

Speaking of White privilege, a USA Today essay explains:

Opinion: Tom Brady has gotten an undeserved pass for his past support of Donald Trump ...

Brady’s ability to enter and exit the debate at his choosing, to shield himself from accountability, is the height of white privilege. As this country grapples with the far reaches of systemic racism, look no further than Brady, for whom the expectations, and allowances granted, will always be different.

“Whiteness is the benefit of the doubt,” said David Leonard, author of "Playing While White: Privilege and Power on and off the Field." ... “LeBron James can never say, a prominent Black athlete can never say, 'Minister Farrakhan is just my friend.’

I don't think that is correct. Wikipedia says:

Throughout his career, James has taken stances on controversial issues.

James has said many more politically controversial things than Brady has ever said.

Yet no one has asked Brady about the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, even though almost all of those who attempted the violent overthrow of our government were white, just as he is, and were incited by the man Brady has described as his friend. “Tom Brady is speaking up as Tom Brady. He’s not asked to speak for white America,” said Leonard, who is also a professor of comparative ethnic studies and American studies and culture at Washington State.

Right, Brady is not asked to speak for White America.

It might seem petty to bring up Brady's moral cowardice now, when the 43-year-old is accomplishing things unlikely to ever be seen again in the NFL.

He just won his seventh Super Bowl Ring, but he is a moral coward for not trying to speak for White America, and not apologizing for the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump. Weird.

Fox News reports:

Exactly one month since rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, fallen Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick’s official cause of death has not been released and no one has been charged with his death.

So maybe that "deadly insurrection" never harmed anyone. Yes, two police officers ended up dead, but it is possible that neither death had anything to do with the riot. If a rioter had murdered Sicknick, then we would be likely to have pathologist and video evidence, and someone would be charged. None of that has happened.

NYT claims libel, fires good reporter

NY Times reports:

In just a few weeks, lawsuits and legal threats from a pair of obscure election technology companies have achieved what years of advertising boycotts, public pressure campaigns and liberal outrage could not: curbing the flow of misinformation in right-wing media.

Fox Business canceled its highest rated show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” on Friday after its host was sued as part of a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit.

This refers to the lawsuit that starts:

The Earth is round. Two plus two equals four. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for President and Vice President of the United States. The election was not stolen, rigged, or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable.

Defendants have always known these facts. They knew Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 U.S. election. They knew the election was not stolen. They knew the election was not rigged or fixed. They knew these truths just as they knew the Earth is round and two plus two equals four.

The NY Times motto is "All the news fit to print", but it is relying on a stupid lawsuit for demonstrable and irrefutable facts? This makes no sense. The NY Times would publish a demonstrable refutation of the pro-Trump claims, if it could.

Time mag explains: "They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it." That is a fine distinction. Apparently the NY Times believes that the libel was saying "rigged" instead of "fortified".

I don't believe these voting machine and software companies will be able to prove much in court. They have always had crappy security, and not good ways of showing that they are operating correctly. Just recently, federal election regulators have relaxed standards, so that the machines can have hardwire to wirelessly connect to the internet while election day voting takes place. There is no necessity for this, and it only creates suspicion that someone is remotely rigging the count.

Reason mag reports:

The New York Times on Friday forced out its lead pandemic reporter, 47-year newsroom veteran Donald McNeil Jr., because the Grey Lady's management, under public pressure from more than 150 employees, decided that when it comes to speaking certain radioactive words, not only does intent not matter, any utterance is potentially a one-strike offense.

"We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent," Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joe Kahn explained bluntly in a memo Friday.

Do not let anyone tell you that the NY Times believes in tolerance. This is as intolerant as anyone ever gets.

The newspaper used to be against using libel suits to shut down legitimate news agencies.

This week, the newsroom revolted via a remarkable group letter in which more than 150 staffers at one of the country's leading newspapers argued that word-choice intentions are "irrelevant," because "what matters is how an act makes the victims feel." Signees, declaring themselves "outraged and in pain" and "disrespected," demanded a reinvestigation of the 2019 incident, an apology to the newsroom, and an organizational study into how racial biases affect editorial decisions.

No, no one was outraged and in pain. There are no victims. Blacks are not bothered by the N-word. Many of them use the word themselves, and listen to rap music with the word.

No sane person is ever bothered by a single word anyway. The NY Times seems to be saying that Black people have the mental stability of three-year-old children.

The NY Times also has an article on Tipping Is a Legacy of Slavery. Apparently Blacks are the worst tippers on Earth. Waiters hate getting Black customers because they don't tip. Even Black waiters hate Black customers. Apparently tipping is just one of those artifacts of a civilized White society that doesn't work with other ethnic groups.

Update: Here is a summary of the reporter firing. The reporter was in S. America responding to a question about offensive words, and only used the N-word as an example. The investigation produced an allegation that he “did not believe in the concept of white privilege”! See also the absurd apology that he was forced to recite.

TIME details how election was stolen

Time magazine has a long expose of widespread coordinated efforts to manipulate the election to favor Democrats:

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election ...

To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”

In a way, Trump was right.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. ... The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort ...

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, ...

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. ...

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream – a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

The article is archived here.

The magazine very much favors all the manipulation, as having been necessary to remove Trump from office. I have edited out many comments that awkwardly try to justify changing the election procedures against Trump.

If you believe Trump is Hitler, then you will condone any means necessary to destroy him and his political movement.

Yes, Trump was sold out of many of his fellow Republicans. The big-business Republicans were never happy with many of his pro-middle-class-American policies.

It is not enough to destroy Trump. They must also destroy Marjorie Taylor Greene, to symbolically show that Trumpism will not be allowed to continue. CNN's Jake Tapper tweets:

In 2018, Rep Greene approvingly shared a white supremacist video claiming that “an unholy alliance of leftists, capitalists and Zionist supremacists has schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation, with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of existence in our own homelands”

The video has been removed from YouTube, but it appears to be this one on BitChute. It does not say anything about Jewish space lasers. It mainly talks about how immigration is causing big changes in Europe.

Here is a detailed complaint that a Trump video is fascist. I don't see it myself, but go ahead and view it. Eg, it refers to Hollywood, and that is supposed to be a fascist code word for Jews.

A new lawsuit begins:

The Earth is round. Two plus two equals four. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for President and Vice President of the United States. The election was not stolen, rigged, or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable.

No, and it is pretty crazy for a voting machine software company to take such a partisan view of the election. Everyone agrees that the election was rigged, at least to the extent documented in the Time mag article.

Update: Here is an example of a dopey Jewish Congressman reciting nonsense:

As a Jewish person, what am I supposed to say about a person who says that the wildfires in California were the result of Jewish space lasers? I mean the Republicans stripped committee assignments from one of their members before who did far less than Marjorie Taylor Greene.

He is referring to Steve King, who was also blackballed for misquotes that Jews took offense to.

Update: Tweets about the Time mag article are being restricted, with the excuse that they could lead to violence.

Protesters nominated for Nobel

The London Guardian reports:

US lawmakers have nominated Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement for the Nobel peace prize, calling the campaigners a global inspiration in the face of a crackdown by Beijing.

In a letter to the Nobel committee released on Wednesday, nine lawmakers across party lines cited the estimate that more than two million people took to the streets on 16 June 2019.

Given Hong Kong has a population of 7.5 million, it amounts to “one of the largest mass protests in history”, said the letter, led by Republican senator Marco Rubio and Democratic representative Jim McGovern, co-chairs of the congressional-executive commission on China which assesses human rights.

“This prize would honour their bravery and determination that have inspired the world,” they wrote.

Okay, but they should also nominate the Jan. 6 Washington Capitol protesters. They were also fighting for democracy, in the face of a leftist crackdown.

A. Cortez claims that she was in fear for her life, but it turns that she was not even at the Capitol and did not see any of the protesters.

Or they could give the prize to Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is standing up for democracy by demanding the Congressional seat that she was rightfully elected to. She should represent her constituency, and the Democrats are wrong to try to block her. She never actually said anything about Jewish Space Lasers, but even if she did, she is entitled to her opinions. The voters can voter her out in 2022 if they don't like her.

I don't think that they will give the prize to pro-democracy forces in Burma, as those want to drive out the Moslem minority. That is what democracy means, right? The majority taking power over the minority.

Maybe the prize will go to Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and/or George Floyd protesters. They got overwhelmingly good press in the mainstream news media, even when they burned down a Target store. The movement appears to be responsible for about 3000 US murders in the last year, so I would not call it worthy of a peace prize.

BlackLivesMatter, defending brutal criminal

A Black Northwestern U. sociology professor starts a scholarly paper in Scientific American:

One evening nine years ago 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was walking through a Florida neighborhood with candy and iced tea when a vigilante pursued him and ultimately shot him dead. The killing shocked me back to the summer of 1955, when as a six-year-old boy I heard that a teenager named Emmett Till had been lynched at Money, Miss., less than 30 miles from where I lived with my grandparents.

The similarities in the two assaults, almost six decades apart, were uncanny. ... And in July 2013, on learning about the acquittal of Martin’s killer, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi invented the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, a rallying cry for numerous local struggles for racial justice that sprang up across the U.S.

No, this is delusional. Martin had a watermelon drink, not iced tea. A neighborhood watch man called 911, and reported Martin's suspicious behavior. Vigilantes do not call 911. Martin was only shot after he brutally attacked and beat the innocent watch man.

I post this because here is a Black scholar trying to find examples of racism to promote his Black Lives Matter agenda. His pathetic attempts only show that there are no examples.

To defend Martin is to say that Blacks have a right to smash your skull against the pavement repeatedly, and you may do nothing about it. To say Black Lives Matter is to say that we must tolerate Black thugs like Martin wander around your neighborhood committing violent crimes.

As I studied collective behavior theory, however, I became outraged by its denigration of participants in social movements as fickle and unstable, bereft of legitimate grievances and under the spell of agitators. ...

GEORGE FLOYD’S murder by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minn., on May 25, 2020, triggered the largest protests in U.S. history, including this one in New York City the following June. ...

But the killings of Black adults and children continued unabated—and with each atrocity the movement swelled. The last straw was the murder of George Floyd in May 2020 in Minneapolis, Minn., which provoked mass demonstrations in every U.S. state and in scores of countries.

His stupid essay is also bereft of legitimate grievances.

NY Times reports on another Black (Dominican) scholar:

Dan-el Padilla Peralta thinks classicists should knock ancient Greece and Rome off their pedestal — even if that means destroying their discipline. ...

Padilla, a leading historian of Rome who teaches at Princeton and was born in the Dominican Republic, was one of the panelists that day. For several years, he has been speaking openly about the harm caused by practitioners of classics in the two millenniums since antiquity: the classical justifications of slavery, race science, colonialism, Nazism and other 20th-century fascisms. Classics was a discipline around which the modern Western university grew, and Padilla believes that it has sown racism through the entirety of higher education. ...

They have shown that the concept of Western civilization emerged as a euphemism for “white civilization” in the writing of men like Lothrop Stoddard, a Klansman and eugenicist. Some classicists have come around to the idea that their discipline forms part of the scaffold of white supremacy — a traumatic process one described to me as “reverse red-pilling” — but they are also starting to see an opportunity in their position. Because classics played a role in constructing whiteness, they believed, perhaps the field also had a role to play in its dismantling. ...

“He’s on record as saying that he’s not sure the discipline deserves a future,” Denis Feeney, a Latinist at Princeton, told me. Padilla believes that classics is so entangled with white supremacy as to be inseparable from it. “Far from being extrinsic to the study of Greco-Roman antiquity,” he has written, “the production of whiteness turns on closer examination to reside in the very marrows of classics.”

So he is saying that destroying the White society will require destroying the historical understanding of how Western Civilization became great.

Update: A new paper in a high-status biology journal:

Our nationwide network of BME women faculty collectively argue that racial funding disparity by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains the most insidious barrier to success of Black faculty in our profession. We thus refocus attention on this critical barrier and suggest solutions on how it can be dismantled.

Main text
We are at a historic moment in time: a mainstream awakening to the pain that stems from racial injustice, with our scientific communities openly acknowledging that our practices promote racial inequity and disparity (Barber et al., 2020; Cell Editorial Team, 2020). ...

NIH must break its cycle of denial, which in the words of leading antiracism scholar Ibram X. Kendi, is “the heartbeat of racism.” NIH must acknowledge that racism exists in order to build the foundation of understanding needed to overcome it.

We ask NIH: are race and ethnicity not considered diversity? In the words of our colleague Dr. Manu Platt:
“Be careful with responding, because one answer is racist and the other is not” (Platt, 2020 ).
NIH must institute an “equity” policy or program for Black investigators ...

We ask: why is “diversity of the investigator team” not a scorable criterion in NIH grant review and priority for funding?
Be careful with responding, because one answer is racist and the other is not (Platt, 2020 ).
To foster innovative strategies, diversity must be woven into the fabric of everything that NIH does.

Yes, the published paper actually repeated the stupid text about "because one answer is racist". It also uses the obscure acronym BME in the first sentence, for biomedical engineering.

It would indeed be racist for NIH to score race and ethnicity in its funding decisions. The authors advocate that, and say it would be "racist" not to.

Of course there is no actual example of a Black scientist getting mistreated, or getting less funding than he deserves. All of the evidence indicates that Blacks are already getting preferential treatment, and extra funding.

Social Justice and Toxic Femininity

Social justice warriors are overrunning our society, and this can be seen partially as a result of society being femininized, and absorbing toxic female traits.

Areo magazine has an essay on toxic femininity:

This is generally a female approach to antisocial behaviour. Rather than violent confrontation, women tend to engage in reputation destruction and social exclusion, seeking to destroy the status of their rivals rather than physically defeat them. ...

Females score disproportionately higher than males in the personality trait neuroticism, a characteristic correlated with negative emotionality. In a meta-analysis of 25 studies, women ranked consistently higher in rates of anxiety (d = -0.27) than men. These findings are especially robust, having been replicated across multiple countries and found using both self-report studies and implicitly-tested measurement modalities.

This isn’t a symptom of patriarchy. Sex differences in neuroticism are actually larger in cultures with greater socio-political gender equity, not smaller as would be expected if sex differences were purely the result of socialisation into traditional gender roles. ...

Women as a whole tend to be higher in neuroticism, tend to be more fearful of pain, more fearful of crime and generally more risk averse than men. These fears aren’t just correlated with a higher risk of being victimised, as women tend to be more fearful of all kinds of events involving risk of physical injury. ...

Political correctness is best predicted by the trait agreeableness. In an influential 2001 study, in which over 23,000 men and women from 26 cultures completed personality questionnaires, women scored consistently higher in traits agreeableness and openness to feelings, whereas men scored higher in assertiveness and openness to ideas.

Perhaps these rising cultural phenomena — extreme political correctness and aversion to physical threats — are symptoms of what Jordan Peterson terms “the rise of a form of female totalitarianism.” Simply put, as women gain more influence in the political sphere for the first time in history, it’s expected that typically female psychopathologies will also be projected onto the political landscape.

And that is what we are seeing today.

Here is a female hoax:

In 1997, a Massachusetts woman named Misha Defonseca published a harrowing memoir recalling her superhuman journey to survive the Holocaust. It was, to say the least, unbelievable.

After her Jewish parents were deported by the Nazis from Belgium to Germany, her story goes, the 7-year-old Defonseca hiked for years through the forest to find them. Most extraordinarily, the lonely kid met up with a pack of wolves that accepted her as one of their own.

Being so young when she left home, the then-60-year-old author claimed she had no memory of her real surname, and never discovered what became of her mother, Gerusha, and father, Robert.

The book, called “Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years,” was eventually translated into 20 languages and sold millions of copies. It inspired the 2007 French film “Survivre Avec les Loups” and attracted the attention of Disney and Oprah Winfrey. Defonseca had tears in her eyes on talk shows and gave inspiring speeches to stunned students across Europe.

Every word of her story was a lie.

Update: For another female hoax, see Democrat Alexandria Cortez complaining that she thought that she was about to die on Jan. 6, when it turns out that she was not even at the Capitol, and never under any threat.

Jews against Christian Values

A Jewish professor writes this USA Today op-ed:

After a portion of the mob entered the Senate chamber on Jan. 6, a handful of men mounted the podium. One of them lifted his hands and cried out, “Jesus Christ, we invoke your name. Amen.” Then Jacob Chansley, sometimes called the "QAnon Shaman," took his bullhorn and announced gratitude to God for being able to “send a message to all the tyrants, the communists, and the globalists that this is our nation, not theirs.” ...

Within the chorus of critics, however, are a substantial number of Christians who plan to take the country for Jesus another way. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, a leader of the misinformation campaign that led people to believe (falsely) that the presidential election was stolen, is among them.

Speaking in his official capacity as attorney general of Missouri in 2017, he proclaimed at a “Pastors and Pews” meeting that their charge is to “take the lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm and to seek the obedience of the nations — of our nation… to influence our society, and even more than that, to transform our society to reflect the gospel truth and lordship of Jesus Christ.”

Hawley is aware that not everyone will become Christian, but believes we should all live by his interpretation of Christian values. ...

While Cruz is too politically savvy to endorse dominion theology outright, he uses code words like “religious liberty” to sustain Christian privilege and cultural authority.

Rachel S. Mikva is the Herman Schaalman Professor in Jewish Studies and Senior Faculty Fellow of the InterReligious Institute at Chicago Theological Seminary.

Not just Hawley and the QAnon Shaman. Most Christians believe in living by Christian truths and values. And they want religious liberty.

I post this as an example of major news media promoting Jewish hatred of Christianity.

Cost of the Wuhan Coronavirus

Everyone is saying that is cost trillions of dollars, but it depends on who is measuring.

Business Insider:

Worldwide, billionaires saw their wealth increase by $3.9 trillion between March 18 and December 31, 2020.

London Guardian:

The economic blow from Covid-19 has cost workers around the world $3.7tn (£2.7tn) in lost earnings, after the pandemic wiped out four times the number of working hours lost in the 2008 financial crisis, according to the UN’s labour body.

So there was a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-rich.

But what was the economic impact on the elderly?

I haven't seen it estimated, because I think that no one wants to say the obvious. COVID-19 primarily killed people who were elderly, retired, obese, and had multiple other comorbidities. These people were contributing nothing to our economy, and costing a lot in terms of medical care and other benefits. From the point of view of the lizard people who value the population only for how wealth can be extracted, COVID-19 may have been a net benefit by killing off the least productive residents.