Friday, March 16, 2018

David Brooks bashes Trump again

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:
In the decades before Trump, the Republican Party stood for an idea: character before policy. To Mitt Romney, John McCain, the Bushes and Ronald Reagan, personal character and moral integrity were paramount. They stood for the idea that you can’t be a good leader or a good nation unless you are a good person and a good people.

Trump asked the G.O.P. to reverse those priorities. He asked the Republican Party to accept the proposition that it doesn’t matter if your leader is a liar, a philanderer and a narcissist. It doesn’t matter if he is cruel to the weak and bigoted toward the outsider. What matters, when you’re in a death match in which the survival of your nation and culture is at stake, is having a bastard in charge who understands and is tough enough to win.

The central Republican bet is that Trump’s moral nature won’t matter. You can be a bad person and have a successful presidency. You can have a good nation without good moral norms. Trump asked for the party’s soul, and he got it. That was the story of 2016 and 2017.

The question of 2018 is whether the Democrats will follow suit.
I have criticized Brooks many times for his silly ideas. I have also noted his bogus research reporting and personal moral failings. He also exhibits Jewish supremacy, and likes to equate Christian Americans with other non-Jewish inferiors. He probably has more allegiance to Israel than to the USA. He treats non-Jews as sub-human. He plays the identity politics game, and has contempt for white Christian America.

No, the most annoying thing about Brooks is that he has been a regular commentator on PBS TV and NPR Radio for many years in which he supposedly represents Republican. There is nothing Republican or conservative about him. He enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and vehemently denounced Trump in 2016. He had plenty of bad things to say about G.W. Bush also.

It is extremely dishonest of him to get paid the big bucks to represent ppl he personally despises. PBS and NPR will have him and a Democrat on, supposedly for balance, and ask both about some Trump issue or other political matter of the day. Both of them will spend their time trashing Trump and other Republicans! Brooks also keeps his job at the NY Times because he is a Jewish Republican-basher, but the paper can pretend that he is a conservative because he is more conservative than the other Jewish Republican-bashers on staff.

Calling Trump a liar is getting tiresome. Trump is the most honest political leader we have seen in a long time. He is called a liar for exaggerating his inauguration crowd, and for a few other trivialities, but he is much more straightforward and honest with the public than Obama and Hillary Clinton ever were. Trump explains what he does and why he does it.

Trump is also much more honest than Brooks. Brooks does not correct his errors or explain his biases.

The Democrat Party sold its soul a long time ago. Most of its campaigning is to attract votes from those who hate white straight male Christian Americans.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Jews have ruined National Geographic

Want an example of Jewish influence on our society today?

Jews took over Disney many years ago, and have now ruined kiddie cartoons, Star Wars, and Marvel Comics.

Hollywood took over National Geographic mag recently (first by Fox, then Disney). They appoint a Jewish editor in chief, who vows to remake the magazine in support of Jewish causes:
For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It
By Susan Goldberg, Editor in Chief

This story is part of The Race Issue, a special issue of National Geographic that explores how race defines, separates, and unites us. Tell us your story with #IDefineMe.

… I’m the tenth editor of National Geographic since its founding in 1888. I’m the first woman and the first Jewish person—a member of two groups that also once faced discrimination here.
She then hires a Jewish journalist to write an article promoting the Jewish version of scientific racism -- namely that all non-Jews are essentially the same as Africans.
There’s No Scientific Basis for Race — It’s a Made-Up Label

It’s been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.

… DNA reveals what skin color obscures: We all have African ancestors.
This illustrates two of the main beliefs of the Jewish religion: that Jews are persecuted, and that non-Jews are essentially the same as Africans.

Goldberg pretends to have some sort of moral superiority because her previous non-Jewish editors often portrayed unclothed savages as lesser beings. She is saying that those non-Jewish white editors were essentially the same as those primitive savages, and so had no right to portray them as less civilization. And because she is a persecuted Jewish woman, she is entitled to say that white people are essentially niggers.

There is, of course, a scientific basis for race. You can go pay $200 to have your genes sequenced, and the lab will tell you what race you are.

You might say that it is unfair of me to single out these authors for being Jewish. But these Jewish supremacist ideas are mostly, if not entirely, promoted by Jews.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Collaborating with Muslims against Christians

I always thought that Jews and Muslims hated each other, but this blog has many articles to the contrary:
Throughout Islam’s existence, Jews have collaborated with Muslims against Christians. Indeed, a strong case can be made that Jews created Islam in the first place to weaponize Arabs against Christians in order to gain re-admission to their homeland, from which they had been expelled centuries before by the Romans.

The Jewish collaboration with Muslims during their invasion of Spain is one of the best-documented Jewish betrayals, one that has eerie parallels with our own times.
It is funny to see Jews rushing to the defense of Muslims immigrating to Europe and the USA.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Labeling Jews a hostile elite

Talking Points Memo reports:
MacDonald has claimed that Jews are trying to change the “racial hierarchy” in the U.S. by promoting immigration from non-European countries, and he has said that Jewish people lack the “moral idealism” that he claims white people possess. MacDonald has written, appeared on and edited for several openly racist media outlets like the Occidental Observer and The Political Cesspool.

In April 2013 he wrote in the Occidental Observer: “Given the prospect that Jews will continue as an elite hostile toward White America and given the ethnic/racial transformation of the country resulting from importing millions of people who do not identify with the traditional people and culture of the country (presumably the Boston bombers) and often have historical grudges of their own to grind, the future of Whites in America is grim indeed.”

In January 2013, he told the David Duke Show that Jewish people “don’t really have moral principles,” but rather “a set of interests.” In December 2012, he claimed that Jewish people are “opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America.”

“I realize that many good people shy away from saying it, but the reality is that Jews have very aggressively pursued policies that benefit them and are opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America and the West,” he wrote. “And because Jews attained status as an intellectual and media elite, they have been able to have a very large effect on public policy and even on the attitudes of non-Jews.”
It is funny how articles like this will quote this stuff, and make no effort to rebut it except to declare it is anti-Semitic.

Okay, I accept that many now use the term to mean saying that Jews pursue their own group interests.

There is a faction of the Alt Right that greatly admires the Jews, and that seeks to similarly pursue their own ethnic group interests.

The Daily Stormer blames the Jews for everything. It quotes the above, and adds:
The Jews absolutely are a “hostile elite.” They are the single most wealthy and powerful group in America, and they use that wealth and power to abuse the native population of this country in absurd, extreme ways. They absolutely are the sole driving force behind the mass immigration agenda.

They are also the sole driving force behind:

Racial integration
The homosexual agenda
The feminist agenda
The pornography agenda
Removing prayer from schools
The abortion agenda
Gun control
The censorship of political speech
The tranny agenda
The anti-Trump agenda

And the list goes on and on and on.

They use their power in the financial industry, the news media, academia and Hollywood to shove all of this stuff down our throats.
This is clearly exaggerated. They are only maybe 50-80% of the driving force behind the mass immigration agenda and those other items. Maybe 90% in the cases of porn, school prayer, and feminism.

For saying things like this, Google and others have expelled the Daily Stormer from the .com world. That is just Google's way of saying that the Daily Stormer is mostly correct. When I have found YouTube videos with warnings, the warnings are invariably based on the video containing uncomfortable truths.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

MeTooism will be destroying marriages

Whenever there is a successful social movement, we have to ask how far it will go.

Many of the programs on Netflix openly promote miscegenation. I watched one where the FBI sent an undercover agent to seduce a pretty white woman, and it sent a black man! The woman was bisexual, and they just assumed that she liked blacks. In another, the white Marvel superhero Jessica Jones seduces a big strong black man, and it is implied that no white man could similarly satisfy her.

There is a girl who won a girls wrestling championship by taking steriods, and it was allowed because she claimed to be transitioning to a boy.

Where is MeToo headed? Read this Vox essay:
We need to talk about sexual assault in marriage

Eight years into our marriage, sitting in a therapist’s office with my husband, I mustered all my courage and said my deepest, darkest truth: “When we have sex, I feel like I’m being violated.” The unwanted sex at times made me sick: Once I had to run straight from bed to the bathroom, where I retched into the toilet.

I lived every evening dreading the signals of my husband’s desire. I bargained my way out of sex as often as I could. I gloried in being sick enough to have the right to refuse.

I read a book to distract myself for as long as I could while he did the thing he needed to do.

The majority of sexual encounters in America take place in marriage…. Do we believe there is no painfully “bad sex,” coercion, or sexual assault in marriage?
I believe that prostitution will soon be considered the only morally acceptable form of heterosexual activity. Only explicitly-paid prostitution is fully consensual, according to newer definitions of consent.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Why Most Obituaries Are of White Men

The NY Times apologizes:
So why not more women and people of color on the obituary pages? (Why, for that matter, not more openly gay people, or transgender people?)

The larger answer: Because relatively few of them were allowed to make such a mark on society in their own time. Universities may have barred them. Businesses and political parties may have shut them out. The tables of power were crowded with white men; there were few seats for anyone else.
Do you believe that? About 95% of the great accomplishments of the world are by white men. And that's all because universities, businesses, and political parties have shut out women and ppl of color?

American universities are mostly women. They have not had any barriers to ppl of color for at least 50 years. In many other countries, the opportunities are mainly for ppl of color.

The picture at the top of the NY Times article is that of a South African woman who "began a movement to reforest Kenya by paying poor women to plant trees." Really? Is that what passes for a great accomplishment when the paper wants to write obituaries of ppl other than white men? It is pitiful. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, but Kenya needs to have others pay poor ppl to plant trees. It is a wonder that they do not all starve to death.

Friday, March 09, 2018

Making human-chimp hybrids

Psychology professor David Barash proposes:
It is a bit of a stretch, but by no means impossible or even unlikely that a hybrid or a chimera combining a human being and a chimpanzee could be produced in a laboratory. After all, human and chimp (or bonobo) share, by most estimates, roughly 99 percent of their nuclear DNA. Granted this 1 percent difference presumably involves some key alleles, the new gene-editing tool CRISPR offers the prospect (for some, the nightmare) of adding and deleting targeted genes as desired. As a result, it is not unreasonable to foresee the possibility—eventually, perhaps, the likelihood—of producing “humanzees” or “chimphumans.” Such an individual would not be an exact equal-parts-of-each combination, but would be neither human nor chimp: rather, something in between.

If that prospect isn’t shocking enough, here is an even more controversial suggestion: Doing so would be a terrific idea. ...

In his book, Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith examined how dehumanization goes hand-in-hand with racism and genocide. ...

On the other hand, it seems equally likely that faced with individuals who are clearly intermediate between human and ape, it will become painfully obvious that a rigid distinction between the two is no longer tenable. ...

And—more important—for any human being currently insistent upon his or her species’ specialness, to the ultimate detriment of literally millions of other individuals of millions of other species, such a development could well be a real mind expander and paradigm buster. ...
A lot of u=innumerate ppl do not seem to understand that measurements can be continuous or discrete. That is, you can measure something as a real number, with continuous variation in possible values, or as an integer or true/false value, where intermediates are not possible.

This is fifth-grade arithmetic, but is too much for most ppl.

Leftist egalitarians often argue that it is unscientific to distinguish between human races because they can cross-breed and produce intermediates. Some even argue that it is impermissible to distinguish between the sexes, because of tomboy girls and effeminate boys.

So if this guy produced a human-chimp hybrid, would they conclude that humans and chimps were all the same? Maybe so, but I think that it is more likely that most ppl would conclude that some human races are more evolved than others, and that it makes good scientific sense to distinguish them.
After years of opposition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced in August, 2016 that it intends to lift its moratorium on stem cell research, which holds out promise for treating (perhaps even curing) many serious human diseases, such as cirrhosis, diabetes, and Parkinson’s. Currently prohibited—and likely to remain so—is funding for studies that involve injecting human stem cells into embryonic primates, although inserting such cells into adults is permissible. Insofar as there is a biological line separating human beings from other species, it should be clear that this line is definitely permeable, not hard and fast, and is based more on ethical and political judgment than on science or technology. All sorts of things can be done; whether they should, is another question.
Did President Obama really have an 8-year moratorium on stem-cell research? I thought that 100 Nobel Prize winners endorsed him in 2008, with their main argument being that he was going to do stem-cell research that was going to make the crippled walk again. Didn't he do that?

The opponents of human embryonic stem-cell research pointed to the slippery slope of degrading what it means to be human. They could have cited Barash as proof.

Barash very much wants to blur the distinction between humans and animals, as he wants to attack Christianity and promote animal rights.
But I propose that generating humanzees or chimphumans would be not only ethical, but profoundly so, even if there were no prospects of enhancing human welfare. How could even the most determinedly homo-centric, animal-denigrating religious fundamentalist maintain that God created us in his image and that we and we alone harbor a spark of the divine, distinct from all other life forms, once confronted with living beings that are indisputably intermediate between human and non-human?

In any event, the nonsensical insistence that human beings are uniquely created in God’s image and endowed with a soul, whereas other living things are mere brutes has not only permitted but encouraged an attitude toward the natural world in general and other animals in particular that has been at best indifferent and more often, downright antagonistic, jingoistic, and in many cases, intolerably cruel.
Now I am beginning to wonder if he is trolling us, but I doubt it. He is just carrying goofy leftist opinions to the next level.

Update: I found that NIH announcement:
The National Institutes of Health announced on Thursday that it was planning to lift its ban on funding some research that injects human stem cells into animal embryos.

The N.I.H. announced its proposal in a blog post by Carrie Wolinetz, the associate director for science policy, and in the Federal Register.

The purpose is to try to grow human tissues or organs in animals to better understand human diseases and develop therapies to treat them.

MeToo is a form of mass hysteria

The NY Times reports:
A Yale student who had been suspended by the university was found not guilty on Wednesday of sexually assaulting a fellow student, in a rare college rape accusation to be tried in the courts. The verdict laid bare seemingly gaping divides in the national reckoning around sexual consent and assault. ...

In an interview after the verdict, Norman Pattis, a lawyer for Mr. Khan, said he had tried to challenge “the outer limits of the #MeToo movement,” which he called “a form of mass hysteria.”

“Sex happens, especially on college campuses,” he said.
Yeah, there is a gaping divide between those claiming sexual assault, and the facts.

Yale kicked this guy out of college, and the NY Times printed his name, even tho he is innocent. Meanwhile, they conceal the name of the girl who made the false accusations.

Nearly all of these big publicity rape stories have turned out to be false.

One could also ask why Yale is admitted kids from Afghanistan, or why the USA let the guy in the country in the first place. Surely there are many thousands of better qualified Americans.

Or ask why some dopey white college girl would go get drunk in an off-campus party with an Afghan? Probably no one told her how foolish that is. Not Yale, not her friends, not her teachers, and probably not even her parents.

Of course the MeToo crowd would say that girl should have been free to dress provocatively, flirt with an Afghan, be promiscuous, get drunk, and go home with the guy, without the jury finding out because she is free to do what she wants with her own body.

Our whole legal system has been corrupted by bogus MeToo research:
The example discussed here began with a small study by an associate professor at a commuter college in Massachusetts. The 12-page paper describing the study barely created a stir when it was published in 2002. Within a few years, however, the paper’s principal author, David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts-Boston psychologist, began making dramatic statements that extrapolated far beyond the study’s conclusions. He created, virtually out of whole cloth, a theory that “undetected” serial rapists are responsible for 90 percent of assaults on college campuses, that they premeditate and plan their attacks, and that they are likely to have committed multiple acts of violence.
Lisak was exposed as a fraud, and yet he continues to influence the legal system for the worse.

Thursday, March 08, 2018

Why black people are afraid

The movie Get Out just won an Oscar:
“The conventional dynamic people understand is white fear of the black neighborhood,” says Peele. “In recent times, we’ve been dealing with the fact that black people have a lot to fear in a white neighborhood. This movie explores why black people are afraid of white people.”
Really? Is that a thing?

Surely blacks have a lot more fear in black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods. The chances of a black being victim of a crime are about ten times higher in the black neighborhoods.

I am guessing that most ppl saw this movie as an amusing race-reversal movie. They understand whites have a fear of black neighborhoods but aren't allowed to talk about it, so they watch this movie and imagine all the races reversed.

I also wonder if Black Panther is just a clever way of making fun of black ppl. It is a modern version of Amos 'n' Andy.

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

The killer was held accountable

NPR Radio News reported,
a couple of days ago:
The African-American director's documentary tells the personal tale of his brother's killing by a white man. Michel Martin talks to Ford, the first openly transgender director nominated for an Oscar.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Finally today, we want to tell you about one more contender for an Oscar tonight. It's a documentary about the death of William Ford Jr.. Before you knew the name Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice or Eric Garner or the names of other unarmed black men and boys who've died violent deaths for which no one was held accountable, William Ford Jr., a teacher about to become a police officer, was killed after an altercation with a white employee at a car repair shop near his home on Long Island, N.Y. An all-white grand jury declined to charge him for shooting Ford.
George Zimmerman certainly was held accountable for the death of Trayvon Martin. He was vilified by the news media and President Barack Obama, investigated, indicted, jailed, and put on a nationally-televised trial for murder.

After hearing overwhelming evidence that Martin was trying to beat Zimmerman to death, the jury unanimously agreed that he was not guilty.

Yet the white-haters still try to make a martyr out of Martin. They are essentially saying that it is okay for blacks to go around viciously beating and injuring others. Saying this is much more offensive than anything that I've heard a white supremacist say.

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

California, immigrant welfare state

The LA Times reports:
Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. ...

California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation's welfare recipients. ...

55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.
Companies get cheap labor out of immigrants, and so argue that they are good for the economy, but that doesn't take into account all the welfare, crime, and other problems.

The NY Times reports:
Part of the reason is that Sweden’s gang violence, long contained within low-income suburbs, has begun to spill out. In large cities, hospitals report armed confrontations in emergency rooms, and school administrators say threats and weapons have become commonplace. Last week two men from Uppsala, both in their 20s, were arrested on charges of throwing grenades at the home of a bank employee who investigates fraud cases. …

Last year, Peter Springare, 61, a veteran police officer in Orebro, published a furious Facebook post saying violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden.” It was shared more than 20,000 times; Mr. Springare has since been investigated twice by state prosecutors, once for inciting racial hatred, though neither resulted in charges.

Even President Trump weighed in on the issue, saying that after taking in “large numbers” of immigrants, Sweden was “having problems like they never thought possible.”
Trump is one of the few truth-tellers in public life today.

Here is another low California rating:
Stop bragging about your beaches, mountains and culture, Californians. The latest study by U.S. News editors say all those amenities add up to nothing short of the worst "quality of life" in the United States.

The annual Best States ranking was part of a study that scored all 50 states across eight categories: health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, fiscal stability, and quality of life.

More weight was given to scores in categories that, based on a survey, "mattered most to people." ...

In this ranking, quality of life is defined by more than just the sunny skies.

"In addition to a healthy environment, a person's quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them," U.S. News writes. "Studies show that when people feel socially supported, they experience greater happiness, as well as physical and mental health."
This is a polite way of saying that California has the best natural environment, but the worst people because it has been ruined by immigration. Nobody likes the immigrants, and they don't even like each other.

Meanwhile, the white-haters are rioting in Michigan:
Violent clashes erupted Monday when Richard Spencer, a leading figure in the white nationalist movement, visited Michigan State University to spread his message decrying diversity and taking aim at a society where "everything that is good is anti-white."

Fights broke out as some protesters hurled bottles, rocks and horse manure to block Spencer's supporters from entering the Pavilion for Agriculture and Livestock Education, a venue at the southern tip of campus where Monday's event was held. Punches were thrown as members of the two groups hurled insults at one another. ...

Law enforcement were out in full force. Helicopters buzzed overhead as more than 100 officers clad in riot gear guarded the entrance to the pavilion and escorted some of Spencer's supporters inside. Dozens of police vehicles lined the street near the venue, and protesters at one point lied down on the street to block an armored vehicle moving down the road.
These riots should prove that some people are unfit to be citizens in a civilized society. If Spencer had trouble convincing anyone, he could just tell his audience to look out the window.

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Whites have not benefited from slavery

I have heard several ppl recently claim that all white Americans are privileged from slavery.

I very much doubt that there is any white American alive today who has benefited from slavery. Slavery was aboloshed 150 years ago. Before the Civil War, only a small minority of whites owned slaves. Poor whites probably suffered reduced wages as a result of labor market competition from slaves. Slaveowners lost their slaves, without compensation. Most of the wealth of the South was destroyed by the war and Reconstruction. There is no remaining wealth from slavery, and there has not been for a very long time.

Having the descendants of African slaves living in the USA may have been of some economic advantage to some whites, but that has to be balanced against the economic harm, such as the decline of Detroit and Chicago. I will defer to economists who might have analyzed this, but I very much doubt that there is any net benefit.

On the other hand, American blacks appear to have benefited from slavery. Most of them are better off than their cousins in Africa. Even during American slavery before 1860, it is still likely that the black slaves were better off in the USA. Many of them would have been slaves in Africa. The American slaves probably had a higher standard of living, and maybe even more personal freedom, than their African counterparts.

I could be wrong about some of this, but I listen to black scholars on sources like NPR Radio, and they do not appear to dispute any of this. They have complaints, like an occasional use of the N-word, but no substantive argument for white privilege resulting from slavery.

Friday, March 02, 2018

Two bad reviews of Pinker

Steven Pinker's new book has gotten a lot of praise, but criticism from Nature:
But the book’s premise lies in the past: the Enlightenment, that period in the eighteenth century when, Pinker argues, reason, science, humanism and progress became the centre of intellectual endeavour in Europe and North America. That legacy, he asserts, is ripe for resurrection at a time of political upheaval, the rise of demagoguery, climate scepticism and ‘fake news’. ...

Although it is framed as a historically informed template for a new age of reason, Enlightenment Now ultimately becomes something else: an extended dismissal of the arguments of despair that Pinker fears are defining politics and crowding out an alternative approach rooted in rationality and global cooperation. He does not frame the thesis in economic terms. Yet he essentially defends globalization and the growth of market economies by claiming that it has brought more progress than any force in history.
And here:
Pinker never seems to see the force of the question: How do we know that all this did not take place in spite of, rather than because of, the Enlightenment? In fact, he doesn't even pretend to go to the trouble of establishing a causal connection between his contentious version of the Enlightenment and the various improvements that he imagines follow in its wake. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc seems to be the operative principle.

For the sceptical reader the whole strategy of the book looks like this. Take a highly selective, historically contentious and anachronistic view of the Enlightenment. Don't be too scrupulous in surveying the range of positions held by Enlightenment thinkers - just attribute your own views to them all. Find a great many things that happened after the Enlightenment that you really like. Illustrate these with graphs. Repeat. Attribute all these good things your version of the Enlightenment. Conclude that we should emulate this Enlightenment if we want the trend lines to keep heading in the right direction. If challenged at any point, do not mount a counter-argument that appeals to actual history, but choose one of the following labels for your critic: religious reactionary, delusional romantic, relativist, postmodernist, paid up member of the Foucault fan club.
I don't think that these reviews get to the heart of what is wrong with Pinker's approach, but interesting anyway.

Update: A new London Guardian article also attacks Pinker:
One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.

The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups. In particular, many of them argue that black people fare worse than white people because they tend to be less naturally intelligent. ...

The recent revival of ideas about race and IQ began with a seemingly benign scientific observation. In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent – first in a lecture to a Jewish studies institute, then in a lengthy article in the liberal American magazine The New Republic the following year. This claim has long been the smiling face of race science; if it is true that Jews are naturally more intelligent, then it’s only logical to say that others are naturally less so.
The leftists probably hate Pinker more for his book on The Blank Slate.

The article goes on to conclude that IQ research has "potentially horrible human consequences", and that it is not just bad science, it is not science at all.

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Muslim complains about Muslim culture

I watched this TEDx talk:
What We Don’t Know About Europe’s Muslim Kids and Why We Should Care | Deeyah Khan

Published on May 13, 2016
Aged 17, Deeyah fled from Norway confused, lost and torn between cultures. Unlike some young Muslims she picked up a camera instead of a gun. She now uses her camera (and her superpower) to shed light on the clash of cultures between Muslim parents who prioritise honour and their children's desire for freedom. She argues that we need to understand what is happening to fight the pull to extremism.

Deeyah Khan is a critically acclaimed music producer and Emmy and Peabody award-winning documentary film director. ...
There is a similar TED talk:
Published on Feb 16, 2017
As the child of an Afghan mother and Pakistani father raised in Norway, Deeyah Khan knows what it's like to be a young person stuck between your community and your country. In this powerful, emotional talk, the filmmaker unearths the rejection and isolation that many Muslim kids growing up in the West feel -- and the deadly consequences of not embracing our youth before extremist groups do. Note: Comments are disabled for this video because YouTube's comment moderation tools are not up to the task of maintaining a quality discourse here.
She complains that Afghan and Pakistani Muslims are not treated as true Norwegians in Norway, but her real complaints are against brown-skinned Muslims. She portrays the entire brown-skinned Muslim culture as being horrible and evil. She wants us to understand them, as if you too might become a terrorist or a murderer if you also grew up with brown-skinned Muslims.

Do these people sound like true Norwegians to you?

Watch this video if you want a better understanding of the people who will be trying to kill your grandchildren.

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Defining the left-right dichotomy

Thomas Sowell has explained clearly the differences between right and left wing politics, and wrote this is a book several years ago:

One of the fertile sources of confusion in discussions of ideological issues is the dichotomy between the political left and the political right. Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the left and the right is that only the former has even a rough definition. What is called “the right” are simply the various and disparate opponents of the left. These opponents of the left may share no particular principle, much less a common agenda, and they can range from free-market libertarians to advocates of monarchy, theocracy, military dictatorship or innumerable other principles, systems and agendas.

To people who take words literally, to speak of “the left” is to assume implicitly that there is some other coherent group which constitutes “the right.” Perhaps it would be less confusing if what we call “the left” would be designated by some other term, perhaps just as X. But the designation as being on the left has at least some historical basis in the views of those deputies who sat on the left side of the president’s chair in France’s Estates General in the eighteenth century. A rough summary of the vision of the political left today is that of collective decision-making through government, directed toward—or at least rationalized by—the goal of reducing economic and social inequalities. There may be moderate or extreme versions of the left vision or agenda but, among those designated as “the right,” the difference between free market libertarians and military juntas is not simply one of degree in pursuing a common vision, because there is no common vision among these and other disparate groups opposed to the left — which is to say, there is no such definable thing as “the right,” though there are various segments of that omnibus category, such as free market advocates, who can be defined. ...

Conservatism, in its original sense, has no specific ideological content at all, since everything depends on what one is trying to conserve. In the last days of the Soviet Union, those who were trying to preserve the existing Communist regime were rightly referred to as “conservatives,” though what they were trying to conserve had nothing in common with what was advocated by Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek or William F. Buckley in the United States, much less Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a leading conservative in the Vatican who subsequently became Pope. Specific individuals with the “conservative” label have specific ideological positions, but there is no commonality of specifics among “conservatives” in different venues.
No, the commies were not conservatism, and conservatism is not just the opposition to social change.

Sowell classified Nazis and Fascists as left-wing, because they were socialists seeking social change. Yes, they were socialists. They were called right-wing largely because they were anti-communist, and hence hated by leftist commie sympathizers.

You cannot define a movement by saying what it is not. It is defined by its beliefs.

Right-wingers are guided by a belief in the natural order of the world. Sometimes that order is rooted in human nature, faith, science, culture, tradition, or natural law. The precise reasoning may vary, but their conclusion is that changing the natural order is impossible, impractical, or undesirable.

Left-wingers are guided by what I call kindergarten morality. They only accept concepts of fairness that can be explained to a five-year-old. If someone has more toys than someone else, they will think that it is unfair. The right-winger will probe deeper, and is likely to conclude that there are good reasons for how things are.

Here is a leftist opinion from Steve Pinker:
AR: You write that “globalization helped the lower and middle classes of poor countries, and the upper class of rich countries, much more than it helped the lower middle class of rich countries. Of the claim that only the rich are doing well, while everyone else is “stagnating or suffering,” you write “most obviously, it’s false for the world as a whole: the majority of the human race has become much better.” How should American domestic politics reflect this fact: That our planet, however grim it may look, is fairly prosperous? Are conventional, free-market economics actually working?

SP: This is an acute dilemma. If you are a morally serious person — whether a humanist or a Judeo-Christian, who believes that all human lives have equal value — then policies that lift billions of people out of crushing poverty at the expense of millions of Americans who are laid off from factory jobs are a moral no-brainer. But of course it would be political suicide for an American politician to consider this tradeoff for millisecond. Still, there are other America-centric reasons to favor globalization: cheaper goods for hundreds of millions of American consumers; bigger markets for American exporters; and the greater stability of a richer world, with fewer migrants, epidemics, and insurgent movements.
It would be political suicide to express that, because no one really believes that all human lives have equal value. That is just a silly slogan that you might say to a kindergarten class to get them to all do the same thing.

A right-winger would be more skeptical of a plan to gut the American middle class in order to reduce Third World (and enrich the super-rich). There will always be poverty. You can't build a great nation by selling out its citizens to outsiders. You cannot expect people to be like other people on the other side of the world.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Billy Graham on the Jewish stranglehold

The late Billy Graham was a devout evangelical Christian, so no one should have expected him to praise rival religions. His son preaches about the evils of Islam.

The Atlanta newspaper reports:
At first, Graham denied comments Haldeman made in his book, "The Haldeman Diaries" that Graham and Nixon had disparaged Jews in a conversation following a prayer breakfast in Washington D.C. on Feb. 1, 1972. Haldeman said Graham had talked about a Jewish “stranglehold” on the country.

''Those are not my words," Graham said in May 1994. ''I have never talked publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms.''

Graham was believed and the matter dropped until 2002 when tapes from Nixon’s White House were released by the National Archives. The 1972 conversation between Nixon and Graham was among those tapes, and Graham had to face the fact that he had been recorded saying the things of which Haldeman accused him.

The tapes proved damning.

''They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,'' Graham had said to Nixon. The Jewish ''stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,'' he continued.

Graham told Nixon that Jews did not know his true feelings about them.

''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal (A.M. Rosenthal) at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''
I do not know what Graham's concerns about Jews were precisely, but it is a fact that "They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff". The newspaper does not say anything to the contrary, except that Billy Graham apologized to the Jews. I guess he wanted to keep getting favorable stories in the NY Times and other Jewish media.

Apparently some people were offended by what Graham said.

It is a little silly to promote a religion, unless you can explain why it is superior to the alternatives. Graham may have thought that Jews and Moslems and others were going to Hell. So what? If you believe him, then you are probably a Christian anyway. If you subscribe to some other religion, then you are rejecting his message, and have no reason to care about his opinions.

Friday, February 23, 2018

Neanderthals were artists and thought symbolically

New research:
Hominins have lived in Western Spain’s Maltravieso Cave off and on for the last 180,000 years. At some point in those long millennia of habitation, some of them left behind hand stencils, dots and triangles, and animal figures painted in red on the stone walls, often deep in the dark recesses of the cave. The art they left behind offers some of the clearest evidence for a key moment in human evolution: the development of the ability to use symbols, like stick-figure animals on a cave wall or spoken language. ...

Now, two new studies have dated cave art and decorated shell jewelry from sites in Spain to at least 20,000 years before the first [African] Homo sapiens arrived in Europe. That date offers the first clear evidence of Neanderthal art, which means our extinct relatives were also capable of symbolic thought. ...

“There was already evidence that Neanderthals were behaving symbolically, using pigments and beads presumably as body adornment. We didn’t think it would be a huge leap if we found they also painted caves,” he told Ars Technica. “But if you had asked academics if they thought Neanderthals painted caves, most would have said ‘no.’”
Did they think that Africans figured out how to paint caves all by themselves?

Evidence has been accumulating for a long time now that Africans did not discover cave art until after they started interbreeding with European Neanderthals, about 40k years ago.

The article says that Neanderthals were "our extinct relatives", but they were actually direct ancestors of today's white Europeans.

It appears that the European Neanderthals foolishly accepted the Africans as refugees, but the Africans murdered the men, raped the women, and stole the inventions like cave art.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Professor dares to defend culture

Penn law prof Amy Wax writes in the WSJ:
The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-‘acting white’ rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. ...

A response published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, our school newspaper, and signed by five of my Penn Law School colleagues, charged us with the sin of praising the 1950s ...

Shortly after the op-ed appeared, I ran into a colleague I hadn’t seen for a while and asked how his summer was going. He said he’d had a terrible summer, and in saying it he looked so serious I thought someone had died. He then explained that the reason his summer had been ruined was my op-ed, and he accused me of attacking and causing damage to the university, the students and the faculty. One of my left-leaning friends at Yale Law School found this story funny—who would have guessed an op-ed could ruin someone’s summer? ...

Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind — we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts — is unanswerable. It is like accusing a speaker of causing emotional injury or feelings of marginalization. Using this kind of language, which students have learned to do all too well, is intended to bring discussion and debate to a stop—to silence speech deemed unacceptable. ...

As John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”
She also got attacked for this:
She later said in an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian that she thinks Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.

"I don't shrink from the word 'superior,'" she said. “Everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify" these values. "Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.”
The word "Nazi" has become just a racial slur against white people. It doesn't really mean anything, except that the name-caller does not like whites.

Being pro-immigration or pro-diversity is just code for hating white people. Usually the proponents do not have any serious arguments, and they are embarrassed to admit that they just hate white people.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Why anonymous speech is right-wing

An anonymous poster writes this insight:
Anything anonymous inevitably turns Right Wing, because the only point of being Left Wing is for status, and you can’t win status anonymously, so left wing talking points quickly dissipate, there is no incentive to repeat the pretty lies of the left.

The less anonymous the forum, the less about truth and more about status-signalling the political discussion becomes. It’s why Left Wingers create and congregate in the most deanonymous discussion places, they quickly abandon anonymous places. They can’t hang with unvarnished discussion, and have no status to gain there, so they leave.
This could be empirically tested.

For example everyone praises Martin Luther King Jr in publicly identified speech. But what if we compare all that praise to what people say anonymously?

Reviewers all praised the movie Black Panther. Is it really that good? What do ppl say anonymously?

Almost no public figures criticize MeTooism. A couple of celebrities had some mild criticisms and were forced to recant. This is not healthy. What do ppl say anonymously?

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

5 Best Arguments Against Immigration

Here is a libertarian defense of immigration, at
The 5 Best Arguments Against Immigration—and Why They're Wrong ...

They take our jobs and lower wages.
Yes, that is true, but he says: "low-skilled immigrants make things cheaper for all Americans". The biggest thing pro-business libertarians want is lower wages.
They're using massive amounts of welfare.
This one is true also, but they argue that immigrants don't always claim the benefits they are allowed, and thus they collect benefits at a lower rate than poor blacks do.
They don't pay their fair share.
He claims that half of the illegals pay taxes. I doubt it.
They broke the law to get here and they're bringing all their relatives.
No, not all their relatives. Millions of them are on waiting lists to get in.
They're not assimilating.
They say: "By the third generation, just 25 percent of Hispanic households say that Spanish is the dominant language at home.

Maybe assimilation is not the best word here. Even when Mexicans and Hindus and others learn to speak English, they still do not become genuinely American.

Here is what I found most annoying:
More important, immigrants grow the population, which stimulates economic growth, the only way over the long term to improve standards of living.
No, this is crazy libertarian talk. The USA would be a much nicer place if we had 200M residents, and a lot fewer immigrants. While immigration has raised the GDP, it has lowered the standard of living.

And of course the immigrants are not libertarian. The more immigrants we have, the less we will have a free society.

Monday, February 19, 2018

Everyone wants rule by white Europeans

Amy Wax still generates controversy for some common-sense remarks she once made, so I read this Sept 2017 essay attacking her:
I was one of the 33 members of the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty to sign a letter criticizing Amy Wax’s (joint with Larry Alexander) op-ed and subsequent comments regarding the decline of bourgeois culture and its role in America’s perceived social ills. ...

For starters, in defending her claims regarding the superiority of Anglo-Protestant norms, Wax stated “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.” This might be surprising to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants to African countries over the last two decades. While it is true that numbers 1 and 2 on the list of top destination of immigrants are the US and Germany, they are followed by those well-known WASP enclaves of Russia and Saudi Arabia. Number 5 on the list (the UK) fits Wax’s claim, but it is closely followed by that modern-day Mayberry the United Arab Emirates. ...

Wax’s evidence for the proposition that everyone wants to come to Anglo countries due to the cultural norms is about as robust as the evidence for the claim that diversity is our strength. Could be, but how could you prove it? If, as Wax and Alexander suggest in their original op-ed, the US began to deviate from its winning cultural recipe in the late 1960s, their empirical prediction should be that there is less demand to get into the US today than there was in the glorious 1950s.
Is this professor joking?

Yes, there is a lot less demand to live in Detroit since it started going diverse in the 1950s.

Nobody wants to live in Saudi Arabia or UAE, except for the wealth created by white Europeans.

The Chinese are colonizing Africa to exploit its natural resources but they are also coming to the USA to the maximum extent that our immigration and visa laws allow.

This attack on Wax is surprisingly lame. Somehow this guy thought that the issue was important enough that Wax should be condemned, but his essay confirms what she says.

Now her Penn Dean has asked her to take a leave of absence!

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Pinker defends cultural appropriation

More from Pinker:
Steven Pinker: Identity politics is the syndrome in which people’s beliefs and interests are assumed to be determined by their membership in groups, particularly their sex, race, sexual orientation, and disability status. Its signature is the tic of preceding a statement with “As a,” as if that bore on the cogency of what was to follow. Identity politics originated with the fact that members of certain groups really were disadvantaged by their group membership, which forged them into a coalition with common interests: Jews really did have a reason to form the Anti-Defamation League.

But when it spreads beyond the target of combatting discrimination and oppression, it is an enemy of reason and Enlightenment values, including, ironically, the pursuit of justice for oppressed groups. For one thing, reason depends on there being an objective reality and universal standards of logic. As Chekhov said, there is no national multiplication table, and there is no racial or LGBT one either. ...

In this regard nothing could be more asinine than outrage against “cultural appropriation”—as if it’s a bad thing, rather than a good thing, for a white writer to try to convey the experiences of a black person, or vice versa.
So what usually follows "as a"? Who is playing the identity politics game?

About 99% of the time, it is someone pushing leftist-Democrat politics based on hatred of white Christian men.

Jews have reason to promote their group interests, regardless of whether they are advantaged or disadvanted. Jews today are probably the most privileged group in the USA, and they still pursue their group interests.

The ADL just got caught making a false claim that the recent school shooter was a white nationalist.

At least Pinker defends free speech:
AR: There is, as you recognize a “liberal tilt” in academia. And you write about it: “Non-leftist speakers are frequently disinvited after protests or drowned out by jeering mobs,” and “anyone who disagrees with the assumption that racism is the cause of all problems is called a racist.” How high are the stakes in universities? Should we worry?

SP: Yes, for three reasons. One is that scholars can’t hope to understand the world (particularly the social world) if some hypotheses are given a free pass and others are unmentionable. As John Stuart Mill noted, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” In The Blank Slate I argued that leftist politics had distorted the study of human nature, including sex, violence, gender, childrearing, personality, and intelligence. The second is that people who suddenly discover forbidden facts outside the crucible of reasoned debate (which is what universities should be) can take them to dangerous conclusions, such as that differences between the sexes imply that we should discriminate against women (this kind of fallacy has fueled the alt-right movement). The third problem is that illiberal antics of the hard left are discrediting the rest of academia, including the large swaths of moderates and open-minded scholars who keep their politics out of their research. (Despite the highly publicized follies of academia, it’s still a more disinterested forum than alternatives like the Twittersphere, Congress, or ideologically branded think tanks.) In particular, many right-wingers tell each other that the near-consensus among scientists on human-caused climate change is a conspiracy among politically correct academics who are committed to a government takeover of the economy. This is sheer nonsense, but it can gain traction when the noisiest voices in the academy are the repressive fanatics.
So Pinker should be all in favor of those who attack the leftist identity politics. The leftist identity politics primarily attacks whites, men, Christians, and straights. The necessary response is to defend those groups. In particular, white Christian men should culturally appropriate as much as possible.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Legally fired for telling the truth

Ars Tecnhnica reorts:
Former Google engineer James Damore has attempted to take civil and legal action against his former employer after being fired in August, but on Thursday, a federal memo revealed that one of Damore's filings has been unequivocally denied.

The National Labor Relations Board published its memo this week, which was issued in January after Damore filed a charge against his former employer on August 8. In spite of Damore withdrawing his NLRB filing in September, the board proceeded to examine and issue its own ruling: Google "discharged [Damore] only for [his] unprotected conduct while it explicitly affirmed [his] right to engage in protected conduct." The NLRB emphasized that any charge filed by Damore on the matter should be "dismissed."

In explaining the board's reasoning, NLRB member Jayme Sophir points to two specific parts of the controversial memo circulated by Damore in August: Damore's claim that women are "more prone to 'neuroticism,' resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress" and that "men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women."

Sophir describes how these gender-specific claims resemble other cases decided by the NLRB that revolved around racist, sexist, and homophobic language in the workplace. She says that specific Damore statements were "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak [his] comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding [his] 'not all women' disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace."
Got that? If you recite liberal egalitarian opinions that are contrary to the facts, you are protected. If you cite scientific studies that contradict those opinions, you can be summarily fired.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

H-1B workers are like low-wage dog walkers

A couple of leftist Jewish professors write:
While the program might seem crazy at first, it would not be that different from the existing H1-B program, except that individuals like Mary rather than corporations like Google and Exxon would sponsor the workers.
The proposal is to bring in sub-minimum-wage migrants to do jobs like dog-walking.

It would make more sense to export our dogs.

This must be how the slave trade of 300 years ago was justified. It cost more to pay free citizens to pick cotton, so it was more economical to import slaves.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Pinker's new book promotes humanism

Harvard Jewish atheist psychologist Steven Pinker has a new book out about everything good can be credited to rationalist atheist Enlightenment thinkers a few centuries ago. They taught us that it is good to live in peace and harmony, and rescued us from the tyranny of narrow-minded Christians.

He writes a British summary:
The idea of a universal human nature brings us to a third theme, humanism. The thinkers of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment saw an urgent need for a secular foundation for morality, because they were haunted by a historical memory of centuries of religious carnage: the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the European wars of religion.

They laid that foundation in what we now call humanism, which privileges the wellbeing of individual men, women, and children over the glory of the tribe, race, nation or religion. It is individuals, not groups, who are sentient – who feel pleasure and pain, fulfillment and anguish. Whether it is framed as the goal of providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number or as a categorical imperative to treat people as ends rather than means, it was the universal capacity of a person to suffer and flourish, they said, that called on our moral concern.

Fortunately, human nature prepares us to answer that call. That is because we are endowed with the sentiment of sympathy, which they also called benevolence, pity and commiseration. Given that we are equipped with the capacity to sympathise with others, nothing can prevent the circle of sympathy from expanding from the family and tribe to embrace all of humankind, particularly as reason goads us into realising that there can be nothing uniquely deserving about ourselves or any of the groups to which we belong. We are forced into cosmopolitanism: accepting our citizenship in the world.
Also in the WSJ:
To what do we owe this progress? Does the universe contain a historical dialectic or arc bending toward justice? The answer is less mysterious: The Enlightenment is working. Our ancestors replaced dogma, tradition and authority with reason, debate and institutions of truth-seeking. They replaced superstition and magic with science. And they shifted their values from the glory of the tribe, nation, race, class or faith toward universal human flourishing.
So Pinker is a universalist egalitarian leftist who believes that he should sympathize with people on the other side of the world as much as his own family.

Pinker has no kids. He is married to a woman philosopher with no kids.

I am all for using reason and evidence, but this is kindergarten morality. Reason leads me to favor my family, tribe, and nation over others.

Even if you favor all those supposedly enlightened liberal values, most of the rest of the world does not. Helping the rest of the world means undermining those values.

Pinker complains about the Crusades, but he does not get to the heart of why the European Enlightenment was superior to what was happening in the Islamic world. An essential part was that the Christians were willing to fight wars to keep the Moslems out of Europe. That was far more important than the ramblings of those Jewish/Atheist thinkers that Pinker likes to cite.

He says that he favors a humanism that privileges individuals over groups, but has any great civilization ever been built with such thinking? Or without waging wars against enemies?

Bill Gates recommends Pinker's book. I haven't seen it. It probably has a lot of legitimate facts about how modern life is good, but his theorizing about causality is questionable.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

MeTooism is a plot to enslave men

For the last week, the mainstream news media has been filled with stories about how some White House aide had some fights with his ex-wives. The most serious specific allegation is that they had a fight 2 years into their 5-year marriage, and she ran off to the shower, and he opened the shower door, grabbed her by the shoulders, and yelled at her. She also said that the good times outweighed the bad, that he is a good man, and that she is now consumed with jealousy about his new girlfriend.

This is really trivial. It is hard to see how anyone could think that this was relevant to his White House job, even if it were true. Something else must be going on here.

I think that we are witnessing a new movement taking hold. A coalition of feminists and white knights is promoting the belief that in any dispute between a man and a woman, we must always take the side of the woman. They are aided and abetted by opportunists, who want to sell gossip or take down enemies, and cowards, who are afraid to express their true opinions.

As evidence for this, I point to the increasing ridiculousness of the accusations. It is as if the feminists and white knights deliberately want to make a spectacle out of baseless accusations, in order to make the point that we must all take the woman's side even if it has no merit.

Another target in the news is Woody Allen. The accusations against him don't make any sense, and were obviously cooked up to support a child custody dispute in court.

Furthermore, the accusers in most of these cases are pretty obviously mentally ill. The publicity is not helping them, because it is fueling their delusions, shame, anger, paranoia, and weirdo obsessions.

So what is the point of these accusations? What is the endgame that the feminists and white knights seek?

Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe that we should move to a matriarchal society. You see it from Hillary Clinton and others who say "the future is female". But you also see it from some men who consider themselves traditional conservatives. They seem to believe that marriages will be better if the husband is under a constant blackmail threat. That is, if things go bad and the husband does not behave as the wife wishes, then she will claim some sort of abuse, and he will be ruined. She will get the house, the money, and the kids, and he will be permanently blackballed from any respectable position in our society. His future employers will be told to fire him, as what happened to Porter, the White House aid.

What if we passed a law saying that in any dispute between a white man and a black man, the white man is always to be believed and the the black man is not allowed to testify? Everyone would agree that his would just be a trick to enslave blacks. Likewise, MeTooism is a trick to enslave men. The purpose to blackmail all men by holding them under a threat of an accusation from many years that will be impossible to refute.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Women once ruled computers

Bloomberg excerpts Brotopia:
Based on data they had gathered from the same sample of mostly male programmers, Cannon and Perry decided that happy software engineers shared one striking characteristic: They “don’t like people.” In their final report they concluded that programmers “dislike activities involving close personal interaction; they are generally more interested in things than in people.” There’s little evidence to suggest that antisocial people are more adept at math or computers. Unfortunately, there’s a wealth of evidence to suggest that if you set out to hire antisocial nerds, you’ll wind up hiring a lot more men than women.

Cannon and Perry’s research was influential at a crucial juncture in the development of the industry. In 1968, a tech recruiter said at a conference that programmers were “often egocentric, slightly neurotic,” and bordered on “limited schizophrenia,” also noting a high “incidence of beards, sandals, and other symptoms of rugged individualism or nonconformity.” Even then, the peculiarity of male programmers was well-known and celebrated; today, the term “neckbeard” is used almost affectionately. There is, of course, no equivalent term of endearment for women. In fact, the words “women” and “woman” don’t appear once in Cannon and Perry’s 82-page paper; the researchers refer to the entire group surveyed as “men.” ...

Damore’s argument hinged on the conventional wisdom that being interested in people somehow correlated with poor performance as a software engineer. Men were more likely to be antisocial than women; therefore, he intimated, men were inherently better programmers. Damore presented this as a novel observation. In fact, it was the same lazy argument advanced by Cannon and Perry 50 years earlier.
The article (and book, I guess) seems to accept the idea that men are naturally more likely to be antisocial nerds, but reject the idea that men are naturally more suited to computer programming.

If you have some sort of equalist philosophical prejudice, then I guess you would believe that men and women, whites and blacks, Catholics and Moslems, etc would all be equally suited for computer programming. But then I would think that you would insist on believing that all are equally likely to be antisocial nerds.

Once you admit that one group is more likely to include antisocial nerds, then it seems obvious that the group will be more suited to some occupations than others.

Or perhaps there is a belief that our society should be re-engineered in order to make life easier for women and harder for antisocial nerds. If computer programmers were forced to spend half their time doing child care, then maybe it would not appeal to antisocial nerds anymore, and women would take over the field.

Tuesday, February 06, 2018

Female professionals going back 20 years

From a NY Post op-ed:
Men are scared, and feminists are delighted. But the urge to call out and punish male sexual transgression is bound to clash with an inescapable truth: We’re all in this together, men and women.

Consider what’s happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found “many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately,” reported The Miami Herald. “I had a senator say, ‘I need my aide here in the room because I need a chaperone,’ ” lobbyist Jennifer Green told the paper. “I said, ‘Senator, why do you need a chaperone? ... Do you feel uncomfortable around me?’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘anyone can say anything with the door shut.’”

“I’m getting the feeling that we’re going back 20 years as female professionals,” said Green, who owns her company. “I fully anticipate I’m going to be competing with another firm that is currently owned by some male, and the deciding factor is going to be: ‘You don’t want to hire a female lobbying firm in this environment.’”

This kind of thinking is catching on in aggressively P.C. Silicon Valley, where men are taking to message boards like Reddit to express interest in sex segregation — sometimes labeled “Men Going Their Own Way,” or the “Man-o-Sphere.” How will that work out for women in the tech industry, where they already face substantial challenges?
VP Mike Pence figured this out many years ago. Don't give women the opportunity to make a false accusation.

If trends continue, cautious men will keep all women at a distance, except when using prostitution services. Prostitution will be seen as the most politically correct sexual experience.

Meanwhile, the Wash. Post reports on male frustration on the other side of the world:
Nigel, a handsome gannet bird who lived on a desolate island off the coast of New Zealand, died suddenly this week. Wherever his soul has landed, the singles scene surely cannot be worse.

The bird was lured to Mana Island five years ago by wildlife officials who, in hopes of establishing a gannet colony there, had placed concrete gannet decoys on cliffsides and broadcast the sound of the species’ calls. Nigel accepted the invitation, arriving in 2013 as the island’s first gannet in 40 years. But none of his brethren joined him.

In the absence of a living love interest, Nigel became enamored with one of the 80 faux birds. He built her — it? — a nest. He groomed her “chilly, concrete feathers ... year after year after year,” the Guardian reported. He died next to her in that unrequited love nest, the vibrant orange-yellow plumage of his head contrasting, as ever, with the weathered, lemony paint of hers.
A trolling neo-nazi site celebrates:
Everything we’d hoped for when we began the Metooist journey is coming to fruition.

This is more than we ever could have hoped for.

There are two angles in this golden triangle:

Jews are getting destroyed at a much higher rate than anyone else
It is making feminism totally non-viable as a system, given that the implications of “any woman can say anything and be believed” means that no man is willing to be around women, and women are thus less desirable as employees or colleagues

This is liberal lupus: the body is attacking itself.

And the thing about this train is: it’s like an Amtrak – it has no brakes!

They can’t somehow walk this back or say that a time is coming when men won’t be mobbed and fired for touching a woman’s leg. They have committed themselves to giving women the right to destroy the life and career of any man they wish to target, and there is no path to take away that power within the liberal system. This is very similar to the way that when they triggered blacks and Antifa to attack Confederate heroes, there was no way to stop them from going after Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

The liberal Jewish system can only go forward, never backward.

And how can sustained metoo possibly be compatible with the modern mutlti-sexual workplace? ...

The feminist idea was forced on society by Jews. It is unnatural. And its ultimate end is obviously sex segregation, which is the thing that it was initially designed to oppose.

Again, this is similar to the way blacks are now demanding racial segregation at universities and elsewhere.

The natural order will always assert itself. Everything works toward that end. The only way to keep the natural order at bay is to constantly be applying force against it, as the Jews have done. But the longer you do that, the more force is necessary as the pressure builds.

This is why this super-authoritarianism has emerged from the J-left, where everything is about shutting down speech and punishing people for any small disagreement with the system while also attempting to bury white people under a mountain of brown third world sludge. But that mindset is what created Donald Trump. And the pressure that is being applied to Donald Trump will ultimately create an even more aggressive right-wing force.

The tides of the universe itself are now turning in our favor, friends. All we need to do is continue the sabotage of the social order.
I wonder if the MeTooism folks realize that their actions are aligned with neo-nazi trolls.

Monday, February 05, 2018

No immigration reform is feasible

I meant to post of list of things that I have learned in 2017. I have sometimes posted such lists in previous years.

Here are a couple.

I no longer think that any reasonable immigration reform or compromise is possible. The white-haters are convinced that they now have the momentum to turn the USA into a non-white-majority country, and they will refuse to deal.

As someone pointed out, the Democrats are somewhat like the Palestinian Arabs who are always demanding some sort of deal, but then turn down every reasonable deal that is proposed. They are bent on radical policies that will lead to disaster.

Cape Town South Africa is running out of water. Would American tolerate something similar happening here? We shall see. I think that we will have some ugly fights, no matter what.

Sunday, February 04, 2018

Child support is evil

Dalrock is a Bible-reading Christian, and he criticizes other Christians
Brother Jed preaches the gospel of child support: ...

In preaching this evil gospel, for the destruction of marriage is evil, Brother Jed is ignoring the only truly innocent party to the process he loves: the children. Child support is designed to replace marriage, and it is wickedly effective at this. The point of the post Brother Jed was responding to was that child support creates a powerful incentive for women to deliberately become single mothers. ...

Over a million and a half children are now born out of wedlock each year in the US alone. Not all of this “progress” is due to the financial incentives Bro Jed loves so much. Part of the credit must go to the moral cover Bro Jed and other conservatives provide for single mothers.
Dalrock is right to call out these Christians who supposedly support Christian marriage, but actually support a variety of anti-marriage policies. The biggest is child support. If policymakers were trying to devise an evil plot to destroy marriage, it is hard to see how they could have done a better job.

Saturday, February 03, 2018

Why leftists hate YouTube

The Guardian reports:
He believes one of the most shocking examples was detected by his program in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As he observed in a short, largely unnoticed blogpost published after Donald Trump was elected, the impact of YouTube’s recommendation algorithm was not neutral during the presidential race: it was pushing videos that were, in the main, helpful to Trump and damaging to Hillary Clinton. “It was strange,” he explains to me. “Wherever you started, whether it was from a Trump search or a Clinton search, the recommendation algorithm was much more likely to push you in a pro-Trump direction.”
YouTube is owned by Alphabet/Google, and management was openly supporting Clinton in the election. How can this be?

It is simple. YouTube has too much content for management to efficiently censor. The mainstream news media was ducking the real campaign issues. If you wanted clear-cut explanations for a Trump vote, you could find them on YouTube.

I watched the pro-Clinton videos also, but they were painful. Her ads appealed mainly to those who hate white males. Her incompetence and dishonesty were astounding. It was amazing that anyone could think that she was fit to be President.

The article complains that YouTube promoted videos by Alex Jones and his "far-right conspiracy theories". Jones does have some fringe material, but if you watched him, then you would have known the revelations in the House intel FISA abuse memo about a year ahead of everyone else.

YouTube tries to censor right-wing videos, but hasn't figured out how to do it yet. For a while, it was tagging disclaimers to some videos with offensive views. I watched a couple of them, and they were completely reasonable fact-filled videos. Google was effectively saying that these were dangerous facts, just as it was saying by firing James Damore.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Why Hollywood is liberal

A sociology professor writes in the NY Times:
It’s award season in Hollywood, and it looks like the big winner will be progressive politics. ... What makes actors so liberal?
He gives some explanations, including demographic ones, but strangely omits the most obvious demographic, except to say that the industry "had become an ethnic niche for Jews."
There is, however, a third explanation worth pondering: that the emotional requirements of acting are conducive to progressive politics. ...

But in a recent paper, the psychologist Adam Waytz and his colleagues report a more nuanced finding: The main thing distinguishing liberals and conservatives in this regard isn’t how empathetic they are overall; rather, the key difference is how much empathy they feel for specific groups. Where conservatives empathize foremost with family members and country, liberals extend the bounds of empathy to include friends, the socially disadvantaged and citizens of the world, to whom they’d like government to lend a hand.
No, I really doubt that the Harvey Weinsteins of Hollywood have any more empathy for anyone, except fellow Jews. They live in gated communities and want personally nothing to do with the socially disadvantaged. Pretending to have empathy for specific groups is just part of their religion.

The same paper has this interview:
[Philip Galanes] The motto of the foundation is: “Every life has equal value.” And in your new book, Steven, there’s the idea that we can’t want something good for ourselves without wanting it for everyone. But in truth, I want better things for my husband and my kids than for you. Is that evil, or human?

[Bill Gates]]BG That’s natural. It’s even predicted by evolutionary logic. What makes Papua New Guinea — where there’s no police and revenge after revenge — different from Western society is that when we give ourselves over to the law, we want it to be executed impartially. We gain stability. But if you could get your son off, of course you’ll try.

[Steven Pinker] You left off a crucial piece in framing the proposition, Philip — which comes from Spinoza. He said those under the influence of reason desire nothing for themselves that they do not desire for all humankind. But reason is not a powerful part of human nature. Innately, we favor family over strangers, our tribe over other tribes. It’s only when we’re called upon to justify our beliefs — not consult our gut feelings, but convince others of the right way to act — that we conclude that all lives have equal value.
Spinoza was a 17-th century Jewish atheist philosopher. Pinker's "Better Angels" book attacks Christianity, and instead credits Spinoza for inventing peaceful thinking. Pinker has a sequel about to be published, Enlightenment Now.
In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing. ... Enlightenment Now makes the case for reason, science, and humanism ...
I am skeptical about humanism, but I'll wait for the book. I previously criticized Better Angels.

Thinking that all lives have equal value is not a rational or enlightened view. It is just what I call kindergarten morality. That is, it is something we tell small children in order to induce certain behaviors. With small kids, you can get away with unjustified platitudes if they sound fair to a 5-year-old.

Even Gates seems to concede that his own slogan runs contrary to evolutionary logic. Saying that lives have equal value is just a dumbed-down way of saying that we get stability from applying the laws impartially.

Update: I see that the Grammy Awards TV show featured Hillary Clinton reading from an anti-Trump book, and the show had the lowest viewer rating in its history. Face it -- Hollywood is at war with mainstream America.

Sunday, January 28, 2018

New fossils from ex-Africans

NPR Radio reports:
Archaeologists in Israel have discovered the oldest fossil of a modern human outside Africa. The fossil suggests that humans first migrated out of the continent much earlier than previously believed. ...

A detailed analysis of the jawbone and the teeth confirmed that it indeed belonged to someone of our species, Homo sapiens. And when they dated the fossil, it turned out to be between 177,000 and 194,000 years old, making it the oldest known such fossil outside the African continent.
No, we have Neanderthal fossils older than that, and they are human and found outside Africa.

These new fossils are from humans who were not modern humans, and not known to be ancestors to modern humans. What was found was that the teeth look slightly more similar to Africans than to Neanderthals and other human relatives. And they only got about 100 out of Africa, so this is not a big deal.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Lost without Indian engineers

The San Jose Mercury News reports:
Foreigners are wrecking America, some say, but new data suggests that Silicon Valley would be lost without them.

About 71 percent of tech workers in the valley are foreign-born, compared to about 50 percent in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region, according to a new report based on 2016 census data. ...

Although 2016 data released by the federal government last year shows that outsourcing companies — mostly from India — raked in the bulk of H-1B visas, Google took more than 2,500 and Apple nearly 2,000 to hire foreign workers, about 60 percent of them holding master’s degrees.

Large companies, the Seattle Times pointed out, are better equipped to bring in workers under the H-1B.
Lost without them? Not a chance.

Americans sent a man to the Moon without Indian engineers. Sure, we had Werner von Braun, but nearly all the work was done by Americans.

And now we need Indians to make some web sites for Google and Facebook? This is pitiful. Every one of those H-1B jobs could be better done by an American.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Most people are irresponsible for their actions

Artist Raoul Martinez gives this TeDx talk:
Much about who we are is determined by the lottery of our birth. We inherit genes we didn't ask for, and are faced with a world we played no part in creating. In short, we are shaped by forces over which we have no control. Raoul Martinez examines the radical implications this has for our personal and political freedom. He challenges the way we think about responsibility, blame, punishment, and, ultimately identity, compelling us to question the forces — religious, cultural, economic and political — that have shaped us.
He previously wrote this book:
‘If our choices are produced by a brain we didn’t choose, I don’t think it makes sense to say we are truly responsible for our actions,” says Raoul Martinez, pausing to sip from his glass of stout. I eye him over my cappuccino. If I spilled his pint now, would I deserve punishment for this action, in the form of a punch on the nose from the 33-year-old author of this season’s must-have text for thinking radicals? Apparently not. “If that is true,” resumes Martinez, “then the moment we blame or say certain actions deserve punishment seems to be incoherent.”

This may seem the stuff of a million undergraduate philosophy essays on the free will versus determinism puzzle. ...

What makes his arguments unusual is that they lead to some chastening conclusions. Here are a few: prisons need to be emptied of all but those who pose a threat to society. Elections must be exposed as a shabby trick on a deluded populace, a lie of democratic choice in a system controlled by money. The media must be revealed as what it is – a corporate capitalist machine to mass-produce stupidity (with the happy exception of this article). The planet needs to be conceptually reconfigured as something other than a resource to be despoiled to keep us in lifestyles that don’t make us happy or fulfilled. The pursuit of economic growth, profit and consumption must be shown up as a damaging value system that, as he puts it, “drives us to chase things that don’t matter and disconnect from things that do”.
He appears to be some sort of neo-nazi who has carefully tempered his conclusions to be palatable to the Crtl-Left.

If he is right, then it is a waste of time to try to persuade or reform other peoples and cultures. If you want to raise your nation into something better, then you have to exile or exterminate the undesirables.

Democracy is a big sham. Votes are manipulated, and predicted by demographics. Ultimately you need some sort of ethnic cleansing to maintain democracy, or else the barbarians will take over.

Economic growth is another false god. We already have enough riches to make everyone happy, at least in the USA. Chasing profits disconnects us from the corrupting influences of forces outside our control.

He seems to believe that some people can achieve freedom, while most people are effectively slaves. We should stop pretending that the slaves have any agency in their behavior, and start treating them likes the slaves that they are.

I am not saying I agree with him. He states some strange opinions about what is good and bad. He overstates genetic determinism. But if he says he has no free will, maybe we should believe him.

Here is a leftist-atheist-evolutionist who denies free will:
I have no confidence in free will, even though, like all people, I feel as if I have agency. But if I think about it for a millisecond, I know that I could not do otherwise than what I do—nor can anybody else. Has that made me fatalistic, subject to a deteriorating mind? I don’t think so! ...

I don’t deny for a minute that all of us feel that we make real choices, and could have made different choices. But feeling that and believing that it’s true are different matters. We can still feel that we have agency, but at the same time realize that we don’t—and society will survive. It’s members will be like me, and though you may say that’s not such a good thing, I contend that a nation of determinists is not a nation doomed.
It is hard to see how democracy can work if most people do not have free will. It is also hard to see the libertarian ideal of a consensual society can exist, if people do not have the freedom to make the choices that they appear to have.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Brooks on the power of touch

David Brooks writes in the NY Times:
In 1945, the Austrian physician René Spitz investigated an orphanage that took extra care to make sure its infants were not infected with disease. The children received first-class nutrition and medical care, but they were barely touched, to minimize their contact with germs. The approach was a catastrophe. Thirty-seven percent of the babies died before reaching age 2.

It turns out that empathetic physical contact is essential for life. Intimate touch engages the emotions and wires the fibers of the brain together.
I don't believe this. It suggests that 37% of the babies died because they were not touched? No, they were dying of something else, and "barely touched" is just an excuse.

From googling this, I see that Spitz was a Jewish psychoanalyst student of Freud.
One unintended effect of this disenchantment is that it becomes easy to underestimate the risks inherent in any encounter. The woman who talked in an online article about her date with Aziz Ansari is being criticized because what happened to her was not like what happened to the victims of Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. There was no workplace power dynamic and no clear violation of consent. The assumption seems to be that as long as there’s consent between adults, everything else is kosher.

Surely that’s setting the bar amazingly low. Everything we know about touch suggests that even with full consent, the emotional quality of an encounter can have profound positive or negative effects. If Ansari did treat her coldly or neglectfully, it’s reasonable to think that the shame she felt right after was the surface effect of a deeper wound. Neglectful, dehumanizing sex is not harassment, but it’s some other form of serious harm.
This is weird. Ansari is not accused of treating her coldly or neglectfully. He is accused of the opposite.

The accusations against Louis C.K. did not involve any workplace power dynamic or clear violation of consent. His accusers were groupies who went to his hotel room after a comedy act, and they reported that he explicitly asked them for consent, and he refrained if they said no.
The abuse of intimacy erodes all the building blocks of agency: self-worth, resiliency and self-efficacy (the belief that you can control a situation). It is precisely someone who lives within a culture of supposedly zipless encounters who is most likely to be unable to take action when she feels uncomfortable. It’s the partner’s responsibility to be sensitive to this possibility.
The slut who went home with Ansari later complained that he was just like the other men that she dated. Did that mean that she was unable to recognize her discomfort? No, that's crazy. It meant that she knew exactly what she was doing, and was consciously consenting to it.

Brooks is probably mainly known for appearing on TV representing Republicans, when in fact he denounces Donald Trump in the harshest terms. For his personal life, see this 2015 Politico story:
New York Times columnist David Brooks is getting the full Washington book party treatment Thursday night, with a fancy party to be hosted at the Kalorama mansion of his old friends Atlantic owner David Bradley and his wife. The new Brooks book, The Road to Character, extols the virtue of a noble life via the study of a handful of leaders and thinkers. However, it’s the effusive 110-word display of admiration and gratitude Brooks gives to Anne C. Snyder, his 30-year-old former New York Times research assistant, which is catching people’s attention. Brooks, easily one of the most admired conservative columnists in America, with a distinguished list of bestselling books, and a vocal critic of morality and cultural habits, devotes the opening paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section to Snyder, gushing about the “lyricism of her prose” and the “sensitivity of her observations.” Brooks says it was Snyder’s influence that led him to write a book about “morality and inner life” and that she was a close partner in the “three years of its writing.”

The big-thinking journalist even gives credit to Snyder for the ideas in The Road to Character, writing: “If there are any important points in this book, they probably come from Anne.” Contacted Wednesday, Brooks backpedaled a bit. “That phrase,” he said, “was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I was trying to be appreciative and lighthearted.” Yet Anne Snyder, who now lives in Houston, stands in the acknowledgements as the only person not given a specific title: Fact-checker, editor, friend, parent, or even “ex-wife.” Brooks recently divorced his wife of 28 years, Sarah Brooks, and she gets a brief nod in the very last paragraph of the Acknowledgements for the “amazing job” she has done raising the couple’s three kids. Brooks didn’t respond to a question about his relationship with Snyder, and when asked whether the columnist and Snyder had ever been in a relationship, Brooks’ publicist answered only in the present tense: “He is not in a relationship with Anne Snyder.”
Yeah, it was just what you think. Politico was astute to notice this. Brooks is now married to Anne Snyder. It is funny how a mistress can persuade him to dump his wife and write a book about “morality and inner life”.

I am not trying to MeToo Brooks, he is irritating with bogus research reporting and anti-American politics. One professor remarked:
We all know that New York Times columnist David Brooks deals in false statistics, he’s willing and able to get factual matters wrong, he doesn’t even fact-check his own reporting, his response when people point out his mistakes is irritation rather than thanks, he won’t run a correction even if the entire basis for one of his columns is destroyed, and he thinks that he thinks technical knowledge is like the recipes in a cookbook and can be learned by rote. A friend of facts, he’s not.