Does Kevin MacDonald Argue That Jews Are Genetically Programmed To Weaken White Societies?

Nathan Cofnas responds to me: “I wouldn’t say “genetically programmed,” since this is too strong an expression. (It’s a tendency that requires certain cultural inputs to be expressed. The group evolutionary strategy wouldn’t function properly without culturally transmitted social controls, ideologies, values, etc. I’ve used the looser phrase “genetically and culturally adapted.”) I don’t think KMac would say the group evolutionary strategy specifically targets *white* societies–just gentiles in general, although in practice that means whites because they are the main competitor of Jews (according to KMac). In the preface to CofC he describes Jewish intellectual movements as having “attempted to weaken the power of their perceived competitors–the European peoples who early in the 20th century had assumed a dominant position…” Also he says (CofC p. 8): “Viewed from this perspective, an important goal of Jewish intellectual effort may be understood as attempting to undermine cohesive gentile group strategies…” In many passages where he doesn’t specifically use a word like “undermine” or “weaken” I think the same idea is still there.”

“I think KMac has specifically rejected that expression in response to the WSJ article. KMac: “I never claim that Jews are ‘genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization.'”

Posted in Jews, Kevin MacDonald, Nathan Cofnas | Comments Off on Does Kevin MacDonald Argue That Jews Are Genetically Programmed To Weaken White Societies?

#258 6-13-19 Is It War With Iran?

00:00 JF Gariepy, Richard Spencer discuss new Michael Malice book on the new right
04:00 KMG arrives: Is It War With Iran [incorporates Gulf Of Tonkin: How America Was Suckered Into The Vietnam War]
20:00 Youtube’s crackdown
43:00 Siege: Trump Under Fire by Michael Wolff — a savage comedy
49:00 Nicholas Sparks, Another Victim Of Gay Rage [incorporates YouTube Bans Channel With 500K Subscribers For Criticizing Its Censorship]
1:09:00 Hunter Biden Gets A New Wife (In Record Time)
1:25:00 Evil Populists Threaten The Sanctity Of The Dual-Earner Family [NR essay by Michael Strain]
1:37:00 “I Really Want to Thank the President” Kim Kardashian Thanks President Trump at the White House for His Passion for Criminal Justice Reform
1:40:00 A New Swedish Custom: Apartment Bombings
1:49:00 Billionaire Jennifer Pritzker Stops Supporting Trump After Coming Out As Trans
2:01:00 Warning: Cheap, Illegal Immigrants Can Be Highly Hazardous To Your Health
2:07:00 Warning: The Dominican Republic Can Be Highly Hazardous To Your Health
2:11:00 Theater Thursday: Bill & Ted Double Feature

#236 5-13-19 Lurching Toward War With Iran

00:00 My ex-GF Christine Palma died (1970-2019), https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=126823
05:00 Vox Day’s view of the Alt Right
25:00 KMG arrives: Lurching Toward War With Iran
45:00 Trade War: Won’t Somebody Please Think Of China?
1:00:00 #SexStrike: Chastity Craze Convulses Feminists
1:07:00 Chips Ahoy: Now With Added Poz!
1:15:00 Joe Biden: HBD Champion
1:43:00 Christianity Disappears In Britain
1:56:00 A new puppy wrecked my health, home and happiness
2:05:00 Who are the best citizens?
2:23:00 Trump administration forces China to sell the Port of Long Beach
2:36:00 Sex Trafficking Mars the Mystique of Cannes Film Festival
2:43:00 Barry: Fuches’ Last Stand
2:55:00 Chrissy Teigen shows off her pregnant body in artsy nude photo for Mother’s Day
2:59:00 Inside Huawei’s manufacturing empire
3:04:00 Tesla Story Gets Even Weirder as $TSLA Completely Changes Its Business Strategy
3:10:00 NYT: Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans
3:15:00 Buttigieg responds to Trump insult: ‘I had to Google that’
3:25:00 Supreme Court rules iPhone users can sue Apple over App Store prices
2:27:00 Woman who claims she was raped by Julian Assange ‘hopes justice will win’
3:30:00 News: Sri Lanka blocks social media after anti-Muslim riots
3:33:00 News: Twitter tears into Delta for its tone-deaf anti-union, pro-video game poster

Posted in Iran | Comments Off on #258 6-13-19 Is It War With Iran?

Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

From Breitbart:

Facebook monitors the offline behavior of its users to determine if they should be categorized as a “Hate Agent,” according to a document provided exclusively to Breitbart News by a source within the social media giant.
The document, titled “Hate Agent Policy Review” outlines a series of “signals” that Facebook uses to determine if someone ought to be categorized as a “hate agent” and banned from the platform.

Those signals include a wide range of on- and off-platform behavior. If you praise the wrong individual, interview them, or appear at events alongside them, Facebook may categorize you as a “hate agent.”

Facebook may also categorize you as a hate agent if you self-identify with or advocate for a “Designated Hateful Ideology,” if you associate with a “Designated Hate Entity” (one of the examples cited by Facebook as a “hate entity” includes Islam critic Tommy Robinson), or if you have “tattoos of hate symbols or hate slogans.” (The document cites no examples of these, but the media and “anti-racism” advocacy groups increasingly label innocuous items as “hate symbols,” including a cartoon frog and the “OK” hand sign.)

Facebook will also categorize you as a hate agent for possession of “hate paraphernalia,” although the document provides no examples of what falls into this category.

The document also says Facebook will categorize you as a hate agent for “statements made in private but later made public.” Of course, Facebook holds vast amounts of information on what you say in public and in private — and as we saw with the Daily Beast doxing story, the platform will publicize private information on their users to assist the media in hitjobs on regular American citizens.

Breitbart News has already covered some of the individuals that Facebook placed on its list of potential “hate agents.” Paul Joseph Watson eventually was categorized as “hateful” and banned from the platform, in part, according to the document, because he praised Tommy Robinson and interviewed him on his YouTube channel. Star conservative pundit Candace Owens and conservative author and terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel were also on the list, as were British politicians Carl Benjamin and Anne Marie Waters.

The Benjamin addition reveals that Facebook may categorize you as a hate agent merely for speaking neutrally about individuals and organizations that the social network considers hateful. In the document, Facebook tags Benjamin with a “hate agent” signal for “neutral representation of John Kinsman, member of Proud Boys” on October 21 last year.

Facebook also accuses Benjamin, a classical liberal and critic of identity politics, as “representing the ideology of an ethnostate” for a post in which he calls out an actual advocate of an ethnostate.

In addition to the more unorthodox signals that Facebook uses to determine if its users are “hate agents,” there is also, predictably, “hate speech.” Facebook divides hate speech into three tiers depending on severity and considers attacks on a person’s “immigration status” to be hate speech.

Here’s how “hate speech” — both on and off Facebook — will be categorized by the platform, according to the document:

Individual has made public statements, or statements made in private and later made public, using Tier 1, 2, or 3 hate speech or slurs:

3 instances in one statement or appearance = signal
5 instances in multiple statements or appearances over one month = signal

Posted in Facebook | Comments Off on Facebook’s Process to Label You a ‘Hate Agent’ Revealed

Accepting Reality

Kyle Rowland writes: Reactionary thinkers often note the importance of differences. That is to say, they note that different races, different genders, different classes, different individuals have different traits, and to some extent must be treated differently. If someone is violently inclined, they must be treated differently from someone who is peaceful. If a community is violently inclined, they must be treated differently from a community that is distinctly well-behaved. A crime-ridden neighborhood needs different policing strategies than a calm neighborhood.

Reactionaries note that this is not only necessary, but inevitable. No matter how loudly one protests against this principle, reality inexorably forces you to act in accordance with it. White Northerners decried how Blacks in the South were treated — and when those Blacks came north en-masse, similar behavior emerged from Northern Whites. When liberal whites are faced with similar incentives and dangers from crime, their hand is forced, and they deploy de-facto segregation and mass incarceration to make their neighborhoods safe.

The attitude towards these measures can change radically and quickly through politics, but the fact of this disparate treatment and impact is hard if not impossible to eradicate. Reactionaries note that the refusal to face reality has bizarre and perverse downstream effects — liberal elites self-flagellate with ever more vigor, spiraling into despair and fury in the face of an ‘unacceptable’ reality.

But just as liberals writhe in agony before a reality they have declared unacceptable, the alt-right declares the same reality unacceptable from a different angle. They say – we cannot bear this conflict that arises from differences between races, it is unbearable, it is unsustainable, it has to collapse, it is an abomination!

So it is that erudite scholars who are investigating and quantifying racial differences have the mic seized from them by hyperventilating alt-right morons who append: “YES, ALL OF THIS IS TRUE, AND THIS IS WHY AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE, THIS IS WHY EVERYTHING IS FALLING APART! 1488! THE JOOOOOOOOS!”

The reality is that the problems that arise from racial differences are evidently bounded and bearable. They have been borne for the entire history of the United States. With the burden of racial conflict weighing it down, the US became the most powerful nation in the world by every major metric.

That means there is a limit to how heavy a burden racial conflict must be. Moreover, it points to one of the biggest sources of confusion and noise in politics – histrionic morons with no sense of perspective, acting like their pet issue is what the world revolves around, drawing the attention from rational people with realistic perspectives and solutions.

America has always been multiracial, but racial tensions hurt the country primarily through a second-order effect. When political factions declare an unsolvable problem “UNACCEPTABLE” and devote inordinate amounts of resources and attention towards it, this leads to a crescendo of conflict. When the nation was at its most peaceful and united, all of the first-order problems inherent to multiracial countries were still present, ineradicable. There were still vast asymmetries in violence and life outcomes, as there had been long before the nation was a twinkle in anyone’s eye. They did not threaten the nation, as they amounted to pinpricks on a giant.

What has threatened the nation multiple times is conflict over what these differences in outcome signify, and how they may or may not be solved. This is where brother turns against brother, where recriminations and resentment festers. HBD provides a way to defuse this powder keg — the differences are inherent and, at least for now, ineradicable. They are also evidently bearable, as they have been borne while the most powerful nation on earth blossomed from a forsaken scattering of colonies. The solution is to learn that you can choose whether to accept reality or not – not whether reality will continue to present itself to you.

Posted in HBD | Comments Off on Accepting Reality

Is Google Calling Trump’s Bluff?

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Alphabet is calling Trump’s bluff. They may have concluded, with justification, that Trump is too weak and ditzy to actually go after his enemies and press an anti-trust case. The risk here is that even if the Democratic Congress and the Republican cucks can slow or thwart anti-trust prosecutions, the financial robustness of these companies is regarded with a jaundiced eye by many investors. They are running a risk that simply initiating the actions, even if they don’t go anywhere, could trigger a bloodbath as the smart money cashes out its chips and heads for the exits. There is something of a gamble going on here that Trump won’t do anything that would trigger a 2008 style Wall Street collapse. Either way, the scorpion can’t resist stinging the frog, even knowing what will happen afterwards.

* If Google does not play its cards right they will run into issues down the road when they try to launch things like driver-less cars and AI. Without the government’s and public’s cooperation, they will never be able to operate. The Justice can also block future mergers which it probably should anyway.

The internet is a cash cow but the technological edge they have is fleeting and consumers can change literally at the click of a button. Once it all comes out that they have been spying on our peccadilloes and using the information to overturn democracy they will be the once cut out of the future.

* The (somewhat questionable) Matthew Shepard story got hundreds of times the ink as did Jesse Dirkhising’s murder. Because the latter was dog-bites-man.

Heck, Gary Trzaska’s murder in Buffalo on the same night as Shepard’s got a microscopic amount of coverage in comparison. Five black teens beat a white queer to death? That’s just another Friday night in Buffalo.

* Last week, its YouTube unit demonetized numerous conservative channels, apparently after being bullied into doing so by one journalist.

Sure, “one journalist” — the ADL and other Jewish organizations are and have been the ones pushing hardest for censorship — the one homo journalist was just a convenient pretext to deflect blame.

Assuming the action against GOOG moves forward, it will be interesting to compare the language GOOG uses to defend their censorship campaign against ‘hate’ to the language the Supreme Court used to uphold racial discrimination affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger.

* I think once the bodycam footage came out, the police slaughter of Daniel Shaver story did generate a fair amount of public interest. (Recall that it was the girlfriend’s video of Castile bleeding out that was the vehicle for mass hysteria in what otherwise would have been a he-said-she-said text story.)

The NYT et al. declining to cover Daniel Shaver is an active, not a reactive decision. There is a chicken and egg dynamic, or “Megaphonics” as Steve calls it. By not promoting the story (in particular by not inserting it into their Opinion piece outrage machine) the story doesn’t generate buzz. By promoting a story, the story does generate buzz. So the “newsworthiness” of these events is still fairly self-fulfilling, and it is not really accurate to say that “white men shot dead” “don’t generate enough ‘clicks’”. They could, if the Megaphone holders chose to promote it.

Anyhow, most of these papers abandoned the profit motive long ago and are now run by ideologues backed by billionaires, so they don’t really care what the public is interested in.

* If it came to be known that Police make mistakes of judgment in high intensity situations involving suspects of all colors including white men, it would be much more difficult to maintain the narrative and political mobilization useful for fringe coalition politics.

I don’t think it’s much more complicated than curating the information that forms the daily news cycle in such a way as to conform to their politics and worldview.

Posted in Google | Comments Off on Is Google Calling Trump’s Bluff?