Thursday, August 25, 2016

Carbon tax on white kids

I mentioned this anti-birth professor on NPR radio, and here is a Wash. Times story:
Climate-change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.

Travis Rieder, assistant director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR that bringing down global fertility by half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” said Mr. Rieder, who has one child.

He proposed procreation disincentives such as government tax breaks for poor people and tax penalties for rich people, a kind of “carbon tax on kids.”

Poor nations would be cut slack “because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids,” NPR said.

His paper, “Population Engineering and the Fight Against Climate Change,” written with two Georgetown University professors, is scheduled to be published in October.

Their work coincides with that of Conceivable Future, a New Hampshire-based nonprofit founded on the premise that “the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.”
He argues for using psychological manipulation to pressure western white ppl into not having kids, while it would be unethical to discourage Third World peasants from having as many babies as they can.

In short, he seeks policies that will exterminate white ppl.

He and his fellow leftist professors are brainwashing a whole generation of students with this nonsense.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Alt Right hits prime time

CBS News reports:
Hillary Clinton will address Donald Trump and his campaign’s embrace of the “alt-right” political movement in a speech on Thursday, according to a Clinton campaign official.

“This “alt-right” brand is embracing extremism and presenting a divisive and dystopian view of America which should concern all Americans, regardless of party,” the official said.
This is getting interesting. Until recently, the alt-right was a fringe movement that could be dismissed by calling them neo-nazis.

Now, the mainstream news media is suddenly writing articles attacking them, such as this Wash. Post article:
“The single biggest issue of the 21st century is whether the First World has the will to resist being inundated by the Third World,” said Steve Sailer, an influential writer for VDare and Taki’s Magazine. “If we do preserve our borders, the Third World will figure out how to control its own fertility like everybody else has. If we don’t, though, we’ll become Rio with worse weather and scenery. But [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s [mistake] last year of letting in a million Muslim mob shows how badly the ideology of borderlessness has warped the judgment of the ruling class.”

Now Hillary Clinton is joining in. The alt-right will be called racist, ignorant, xenophobic, and white-supremacist. Curiously, these articles do not emphasize anti-semitism, as that is usually part of calling someone a Nazi.

I can only assume that the Jews in the news media have decided that they cannot plausibly accuse Trump of being anti-Jewish. Or that they do not want to draw attention to arguments about Jewish influence on society.

I would have advised Clinton to avoid the issue. She risks turning the election into a referendum on whether white ppl are good guys or bad guys. If you believe that whites are the cause of all the evil in the world, you will vote for Clinton. If you believe that white influence is overwhelmingly positive, you will vote against her.

I do believe Sailer is correct that the big issue of the coming decades is whether the Third World inundates the First. The trend is in that direction, unless the USA and Europe finds the will to limit immigration.

Will ppl watch Clinton's speech, and decide that the USA should be re-populated with brown ppl, and anyone who disagrees is an evil Nazi racist? I doubt it, but we shall see.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Complaining that math is elitist

Historian Michael J. Barany writes in SciAm:
Most people never become mathematicians, but everyone has a stake in mathematics. Almost since the dawn of human civilization, societies have vested special authority in mathematical experts. The question of how and why the public should support elite mathematics remains as pertinent as ever, and in the last five centuries (especially the last two) it has been joined by the related question of what mathematics most members of the public should know.

Why does mathematics matter to society at large? Listen to mathematicians, policymakers, and educators and the answer seems unanimous: mathematics is everywhere, therefore everyone should care about it. ...

Imagining math to be everywhere makes it all too easy to ignore the very real politics of who gets to be part of the mathematical elite that really count — for technology, security, and economics, for the last war and the next one. Instead, if we see that this kind of mathematics has historically been built by and for the very few, we are called to ask who gets to be part of that few and what are the responsibilities that come with their expertise. We have to recognize that elite mathematics today, while much more inclusive than it was one or five or fifty centuries ago, remains a discipline that vests special authority in those who, by virtue of gender, race, and class, are often already among our society’s most powerful. If math were really everywhere, it would already belong to everyone equally. But when it comes to accessing and supporting math, there is much work to be done. Math isn’t everywhere.
Mathematical knowledge is available to everyone, more or less equally. It is taught in every school. Books and videos at every level are freely available on the web.

The best schools are a couple of years ahead of the worst schools, but almost everyone has a chance to get a first class math education.

Talent is not distributed equally, of course. Most ppl have difficulty with the simplest math arguments.

Universities are filled with scholars whose main object is to dream up kooky theories for blaming straight white Xian men. Barany is an example.

We need more math competence, not less.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Blaming Trump for Olympic results

Sometimes I think that the Trump haters are just morons.

Consider this:
The games can be read as something of a physical rejoinder to Trump. “The performance of immigrants and children of immigrants in the Olympics really contradicts Trump in two ways,” Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist with an upcoming book on sports, told me in an email. “One is that America is already great (look at the medal count!) and the second is that immigration is a big factor in what makes America great in sports (and business, and culture).” ...

“The success of these athletes should be read as a stinging rebuke of the sophomoric stereotypes and dime-store xenophobia that all too often clog up political discourse around immigration,” Jules Boykoff, a Pacific University professor who explores the intersection of sports and politics, told me an email. “Given the choice between knee-jerk Trumpism and the elegant excellence of these athletes,” he added, “I side with the athletes every time.”
So what are they saying? That the USA should import all the best athletes so we can win more medals? Or that we do not need more athletes because of our already great medal count?

Of all the arguments for increasing immigration, increasing Olympic medals is surely one of the worst. We could make Jamaica our 51st state, and get more sprinting medals, but why would that be a good thing? Who would be better off?

In case you are going to say that Trump hates all immigrants, do you even realize that his wife is an immigrant?
Here is another silly attack:
Trump landed in the top 20 percent across the board on psychopathy traits, with a total score that placed him between Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler.

To read more of Kevin Dutton’s analysis and to see how all 42 Presidents preceding Barack Obama scored in psychopathy, see the Sept/Oct issue of Scientific American Mind, available on newsstands and on Scientific
This is just politics masquerading as science.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Time complains about trolling

Joel Stein writes the current Time mag cover story:
Trolling has become the main tool of the alt-right, an Internet-grown reactionary movement that works for men’s rights and against immigration and may have used the computer from Weird Science to fabricate Donald Trump. Not only does Trump share their attitudes, but he’s got mad trolling skills: he doxxed Republican primary opponent Senator Lindsey Graham by giving out his cell-phone number on TV and indirectly got his Twitter followers to attack GOP political strategist Cheri Jacobus so severely that her lawyers sent him a cease-and-desist order.

The alt-right’s favorite insult is to call men who don’t hate feminism “cucks,” as in “cuckold.” Republicans who don’t like Trump are “cuckservatives.” Men who don’t see how feminists are secretly controlling them haven’t “taken the red pill,” a reference to the truth-revealing drug in The Matrix. They derisively call their adversaries “social-justice warriors” and believe that liberal interest groups purposely exploit their weakness to gain pity, which allows them to control the levers of power. Trolling is the alt-right’s version of political activism, and its ranks view any attempt to take it away as a denial of democracy.
Joel Stein says "I'm a straight white male" in the article, but he is Jewish. He has done some trolling on his own, such as this 2010 Time mag article:
I am very much in favor of immigration everywhere in the U.S. except Edison, N.J. The mostly white suburban town I left when I graduated from high school in 1989 — the town that was called Menlo Park when Thomas Alva Edison set up shop there and was later renamed in his honor — has become home to one of the biggest Indian communities in the U.S., as familiar to people in India as how to instruct stupid Americans to reboot their Internet routers.

My town is totally unfamiliar to me. The Pizza Hut where my busboy friends stole pies for our drunken parties is now an Indian sweets shop with a completely inappropriate roof. The A&P I shoplifted from is now an Indian grocery. The multiplex where we snuck into R-rated movies now shows only Bollywood films and serves samosas. The Italian restaurant that my friends stole cash from as waiters is now Moghul, one of the most famous Indian restaurants in the country. There is an entire generation of white children in Edison who have nowhere to learn crime.
(See pictures of Thomas Edison's Menlo Park.)

I never knew how a bunch of people half a world away chose a random town in New Jersey to populate. Were they from some Indian state that got made fun of by all the other Indian states and didn't want to give up that feeling? Are the malls in India that bad? Did we accidentally keep numbering our parkway exits all the way to Mumbai? ...

I called James W. Hughes, policy-school dean at Rutgers University, who explained that Lyndon Johnson's 1965 immigration law raised immigration caps for non-European countries. LBJ apparently had some weird relationship with Asians in which he liked both inviting them over and going over to Asia to kill them. ...

Eventually, there were enough Indians in Edison to change the culture. At which point my townsfolk started calling the new Edisonians "dot heads." One kid I knew in high school drove down an Indian-dense street yelling for its residents to "go home to India." In retrospect, I question just how good our schools were if "dot heads" was the best racist insult we could come up with for a group of people whose gods have multiple arms and an elephant nose.
This humorous article would get him respect from the alt right, except that his employers are dead serious about changing the culture and destroying Americanism. He and Time had to apologize for suggesting that there might be anything wrong with destroying a white American culture.

Internet trolling is the logical consequence of free speech, modern communication networks, and an establishment that attempts to suppress certain truths and extinguish certain cultures.

To me, the real offensive ones are those who constantly badmouthing white Christian males, and name-calling with terms like racist, sexist, Nazi, etc. I see this everyday from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, universities, Hollywood, NY Times, other news media, and Trump haters. If the alt right name-calling increases to being as much as 1% of the liberal name-calling, that would be great.

Sites like the Daily Stormer figure that leftists are going to call them Nazis anyway, so they as might as well embrace the term and use it annoy the leftist name-callers.

Most of the hatred is for immigration restrictions, but a recent poll shows that an overwhelming majority seems to agree with Trump's immigration proposals.

Meanwhile, I expect liberals to cite the Time article as evidence that the alt right should be censored.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Talent is not equally distributed

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:
Moreover, America doesn’t win because we have better athletes (talent must be distributed equally). America does well because it has such great systems for preparing athletes. Medals are won by institutions as much as by individuals. The Germans have a great system for training kayakers, equestrians and throwers — the discus or javelin.
Steve Sailer responds:
Why do people say things like “talent must be distributed equally” when all the evidence of our eyes from watching the Olympics is that talent is not distributed equally? Instead, talent is distributed in complex patterns by nature, which are in turn made even more complex by nurture.

For example, Jamaica has seven medals with the sprint relays still to come, while all of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka) so far has only one bronze in any sport. Yet, South Asia has about 500 times more people than Jamaica.
Brooks regularly relies on social science research, so he ought to know better.

So why does Brooks say such silly things?

The obvious explanations are that he is ignorant, or that he has some ideological purpose. It is hard to see how someone as well-educated as Brooks could be so ignorant, or even how anyone watching the Olympics could think that talent is distributed equally.

Brooks comes from an ethnic group that teaches that they are better than everyone else, but that no other group should be allowed such feelings. They are consumed with identity politics, and they promote themselves by promoting equality and diversity in everyone else.

Speaking of the Olympics, Ryan Lochte is getting a bad rap. He really was robbed at gunpoint. A Brazilian security guard pointed a gun at him and demanded that he pay money. In the USA, that is armed robbery. Even assuming that there was something improper or unlawful about Lochte wanting to use a gas station restroom, he was not threatening anyone, and USA law would not permit a guard using a gun to extract money as compensation.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Tolerant Moslem is heretical

A public radio program had a long interview with a Moslem attacking Trump:
Donald Trump said this week he was ready to get vicious in the war with what he called radical Islam. ...

Qasim Rashid rejects the label “moderate Muslim.” ...

Rashid is also North America spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. ...

Rashid acknowledges other schools of Islam are less tolerant, but says that highlights “the need to work together. Rather than fighting fire with more fire, water is what puts out fire, not more fire."

The Ahmadiyyas are seen as a heretical sect by mainstream branches of Islam.
Rashid denies that there is any such thing as extreme or radical Islam, and says that the real dangerous extremists are the white ppl.

And this is supposed to be an example of a tolerant Moslem, and a reason to vote against Trump!

Thursday, August 18, 2016

The supposed birth rate disaster reports:
The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. ...

The more productive people you have in your society, the healthier your country's economy. ...

The fewer young, productive people you have to pay for entitlements for old, unproductive people, the steeper the bill for the entire society becomes. This basic problem is strangling Europe's economies. And while the United States is among the least bad of the bunch, it is still headed in the wrong direction. ...

There is no reason for the United States to have a weak birth rate — and it is a national emergency that it does.

Yet no one seems worried. And that might be the biggest worry of all.
No. Expanding the population just to pay welfare to the old people is foolish, and not sustainable.

The USA population is rapidly increasing from immigration. There is no shortage of ppl. That is why no one is worried about not having enuf ppl.

We have been able to increase GDP by importing labor, but that has not made us better off.

Some companies profit from unsustainable population growth. For example, Facebook wants a billion users for every product, because it can make $10 per year per user on each one. Likewise, Google wants a billion users for each of its products. Market analysts regularly trash Twitter because of doubt that it can ever get to a billion users.

Cult of Mac reports:
Google dubbed its new operating system “Fuchsia.” Unlike Android and Chrome, it doesn’t use the Linux kernel at all. The GitHub page discovered by AndroidPolice simply teases “Pink + Purple == Fuchsia (a new Operating System).”
What more do you need to know about Google? It wants to put "Pink + Purple" controlling every device. And it is doing everything it can to stop Donald Trump.

Economic growth sounds great, until you discover where that the extra money is going. It is not going to the American middle class.

Claiming that we have a shortage of ppl is just an excuse to coerce us to accepting more immigration and to globalize our economy. Third World populations will be exploding for the foreseeable future.

Update: NPR radio reports:
Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He's at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a "small-family ethic" — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to "give them grandchildren."

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe. ...

Adding to that challenge, the world is expected to add several billion people in the next few decades, each one producing more emissions.
If he or anyone else feels so strongly about it, then the logical conclusion would be to freeze all immigration into the USA and Europe, deport all recent immigrants, and stop supplying technology to the Third World.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Brexit has been good for stocks

Lion blog writes:
June 23: 6338.10 Last close before Brexit vote.

June 27: 5982.10 Low after Brexit vote. Commetentators in mainstream media saying “see, Brexit destroyed the United Kingdom’s economy, you stupid voters are getting what you deserve.”

August 15: 6941.19 Today. Up 10% since June 23, up 16% since June 27. Maybe the stupid voters were right and mainstream media commentators were actually the stupid people?
Yes, I am concluding more and more that the globalists are systematically lying to us.

They all said that Brexit would be an economic catastrophe, and gloated afterwords about how Brexit had destroyed a trillion dollars of market capitalization.

They say similar things about immigration and trade deals. They are ideologically committed to be against Britain or any other country being independent and self-sufficient.

Sometimes I think that immigration, trade deals, and foreign wars are all designed with the main purpose of destroying middle class wealth.

With all the economic and technological progress of the last 50 years, you would think that all middle class American ppl would be wealthy by now. Instead, they are mostly in debt.

The supposed experts in the news media were against Brexit, and now they are against Donald Trump. Do you believe them?

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Voodoo psychos attack Trumpism

A SciAm blog writes:
Can Psychiatry Turn Itself around?

The public is deeply skeptical about the profession—but given the problems of addiction, depression and other forms of mental illness, we need it more than ever

Psychiatry needs help.

Mental health has become a national issue, as growing numbers of mentally ill people have filled our streets and our jails. Yet the public remains deeply skeptical of psychiatrists, our doctors best equipped to care for these patients.

In a 2012 Gallup poll, 70 percent of Americans surveyed felt that medical doctors have "high" or "very high" standards of honesty and ethics. By comparison, just 41 percent attributed the same traits to psychiatrists, though psychiatrists are in fact medical doctors. That Gallup even separated psychiatry from the rest of medicine in the survey says a great deal about perceptions of the field.

Despite recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, many still view the work of psychiatrists as a kind of pseudoscience, somewhere between neuroscience and voodoo.
Most of psychiatry is voodoo, from Freud to the DSM-5.

For proof, just read this NY Times story:
In the midst of a deeply divisive presidential campaign, more than 1,000 psychiatrists declared the Republican candidate unfit for the office, citing severe personality defects, including paranoia, a grandiose manner and a Godlike self-image. One doctor called him “a dangerous lunatic.”

The year was 1964, and after losing in a landslide, the candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, sued the publisher of Fact magazine, which had published the survey, winning $75,000 in damages.

But doctors attacked the survey, too, for its unsupported clinical language and obvious partisanship. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association adopted what became known as the Goldwater Rule, declaring it unethical for any psychiatrist to diagnose a public figure’s condition “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.
Is there any doubt today, that LBJ was the dangerous lunatic, and Goldwater was the voice of reason? LBJ was one of the most crooked, distructive, and dishonest presidents we have ever had.
Enter Donald J. Trump.

The 2016 Republican nominee’s incendiary, stream-of-consciousness pronouncements have strained that agreement to the breaking point, exposing divisions in the field over whether such restraint is appropriate today.

Psychiatrists and psychologists have publicly flouted the Goldwater Rule, tagging Mr. Trump with an assortment of personality problems, including grandiosity, a lack of empathy, and “malignant narcissism.” The clinical insults are flying so thick that earlier this month, the psychiatric association posted a reminder that breaking the Goldwater Rule “is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.”

Putting a psychiatric label on a candidate they oppose can be a “seemingly irresistible tool for some in the field,” said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry, medicine and law at Columbia University who disapproves of the practice. “This year, perhaps more than most, they’re persuaded they’re saving the nation from a terrible fate.”

William Doherty, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota, believes exactly that. In June, Dr. Doherty posted an online manifesto against “Trumpism” that has been signed by more than 2,200 mental health specialists.

“Yes, for me this is an exception,” Dr. Doherty said. “What we have here is a threat to democracy itself.”
The field is dominated by leftist/effeminate/anti-American/Jewish creeps.

Among the complaints about Trumpism is that it "promotes hyper-masculinity"! Sometimes I think that these shrinks want all men to be castrated.

Polizette reports:
In a Freudian slip, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee appeared to inadvertently admit Thursday that Democratic policies are inherently harmful to white Americans.

While speaking to a group of black Baptists in New Orleans, Tim Kaine seemed to suggest that in order to achieve “equity” between the races, white people need to willingly submit themselves to a state of repression similar to what black Americans have experienced.

“I’ve never been treated badly in life because of my skin color or my gender,” Kaine said. “I think the burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put ourselves in a place where we are the minority.”
A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to make Caucasians a minority. The Democrat Party is all about creating a race war, and nearly all of the support for Clinton comes from anti-whites and anti-Christians.

Yes, Kaine is white, but he attends a black church, speaks Mexican Spanish, and has made a career out of being a self-hating white. Maybe the shrinks should have a new diagnosis for self-hating whites and cucks.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Stop the American melting pot, a Jewish mag using the slogan "News that Matters to American Jews", writes:
There’s a piece of the “alt-right” puzzle of bigotry you need to know more about: “human biodiversity.” ...

These writers are, for the most part, long on “evidence” and short on policy: ... However, at least in the blogs and forums I examined, there was little discussion of what to do with the data of “human biodiversity.”
That sums up a huge difference between the alt-right and the Jewish left on this issue. The alt-right focuses on the facts, and figures that reasonable ppl will come to reasonable conclusions, once the facts are established.

The Left is long on policy and short on evidence. They push their policy objectives, without regard to the evidence.

The article credits Steve Sailer for the term, but he credits an anthropology book.

Forward just objects to the alt-right discussing race. Its own site is filled with all sorts of opinions about race, mostly promoting Jewish racial theories.

Funny that she objects to the word "diversity". Today's white-hating college professors insist on it:
Students enrolled in Art Appreciation at the University of Florida risk losing credit on assignments if they use the phrase “melting pot” in class.

Professor Pamela Brekka told Campus Reform that she has reprimanded students for using the term in the past, and even withheld credit from those who used the phrase on assignments, because in her opinion, “melting pot” is a term that “signals a Euro-White Colonial standard, point blank, period.”

The course itself, entitled Art Appreciation: American Diversity and Global Arts, fulfills UF’s general education requirements for both the “Diversity” category, which requires three credits for graduation, and the “Humanities” category, which requires nine credits.
Right-wing professors do not dictate use of terminology like this.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

Atomic bombs ended WWII

An essay argues:
The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
The quote apparently refers to a conditional surrender, and the surrender might have been to Russia.

With the benefit of hindsight, I do not doubt that the war could have been won more quickly and easily if different decisions had been made. And that the USA could have won the war without the atomic bomb.

There were also American officials who hated the Germans and wanted to nuke them, but liked the Commies and did not want to do anything hostile to Russia. Maybe they even wanted Russia to take Japan.

All these quotes confirm that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan did end the war, and it did save lives. If it saved Japan from being absorbed into the Communist empire, that is also a good thing.

These arguments about Truman's "real reason" are dubious. When Truman became President, he did not even know anything about the Manhattan Project. Meanwhile the Russians knew so much about it, they were already cloning it.

The harms from the bombs have been greatly exaggerated:
The detonation of atomic bombs over the two Japanese cities in August 1945 led to the death of 200,000 people in the immediate aftermath while also flattening homes and monuments up to three miles from the centre of the blasts.

Yet the long term impacts of the nuclear weapons on those who survived the blasts may not be as severe as many believed, a review of scientific evidence has found. ...

The radiation flung out by the nuclear explosions has been feared to have increased the cancer rates in survivors and their children.

But 71 years after the bombs were dropped, bringing the Second World War to an end, one scientist has found our perception of cancer rates and birth defects as a result of the radiation are greatly exaggerated in the public sphere.
Ppl also argue that the USA would have won the war without relocating the Japanese nationals away from the west coast. With benefit of hindsight, I do not doubt that there is a long list of things that the USA could have skipped and still won.

In the case of the atomic bombs, it shortened the war by at least 3 months, and maybe much more.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Trump or game over

Lion Blog writes:
Game over if Hillary wins

Let’s go back to 2012. Mitt Romney lost. But it was NOT game over for Republicans. They maintained dominance in Congress, they blocked Obama from granting statutory amnesty to illegal aliens, not much changed in four years.

Now, a lot of #NeverTrumpers think that the same thing will happen again, and they can run a “true conservative” candidate in 2020. Assuming Republican primary voters will select a “true conservative.” Even if Mitt Romney can be considered a “true conservative,” in 2008 voters selected John McCain (a very moderate pro-amnesty Republican who made deals with Democrats) and of course this year they selected Donald Trump. Primary voters NEVER selected a conservative firebrand like Ted Cruz. George W. Bush was very conservative on Christian issues, but under his presidency we saw massive increases in government spending and government debt, stupid wars in the Middle East that in the long run accomplished no useful goal, and he supported the amnesty bill. The Republican primary process is not capable of selecting a great candidate. Trump is the best we are going to get.

(1) It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court remains conservative or even moderate after Hillary gets to select at least one liberal justice to replace Scalia, ...

(2) Republicans will be utterly demoralized and there will be forces saying that the key to the Republican future is to agree to amnesty for Hispanics who are “natural conservatives” and will start voting Republican if only Republicans weren’t so hostile to immigration.
. He is Jewish, but obviously disagrees with all the Jewish Trump haters.

He is right about this. Hispanics are not natural conservatives. I think that the Karl Rove theory is that Hispanics are Catholics, Catholics and Republicans are anti-abortion, so Hispanics will vote Republican. But this analysis is wrong. American Catholics are not even particularly Republican. Hispanics have very high illegitimacy rates, and thus are not particularly Catholic. Opinion surveys of Hispanics show them to be closer to liberal Democrats. And then there is the identity politics of the Democrats, which is to cater to those who hate white ppl.

Trump certainly has exposed a lot of traitors within the Republicans. A lot of Republican politicians have succeeded by promising conservatives things and not delivering, and sometimes actively working for immigration that will destroy American conservatism.

Dilbert writes:
The mainstream media knows they are smarter than Donald Trump. ...

The reality of Trump’s clever persuasion is crystal-clear to anyone who thinks Trump is smart. Trump was clearly joking about the “founder” part to get people squawking, and it worked. Total success. Brilliant technique.

Now the media has a big problem. They can’t admit that they were extraordinarily dumb in this situation and Trump was brilliant. That reality is invisible to them because it doesn’t fit their worldview.

So…cognitive dissonance happens.

This is a textbook set-up for cognitive dissonance. The facts we observe (Trump is smart, the media is gullible) is opposite of the media’s worldview in which they are smart and Trump is uninformed. So what do they do?

They act as if Trump is the dumb one in this situation. Because that fits their worldview.

And…they … fact-check his claim.

Meanwhile, the unhypnotized laugh themselves into a stupor watching this spectacle of cognitive dissonance. Humor aside, it is a marvelous and incredible thing to behold. ...

Oh, and Trump hates babies, and he also wants a 2nd amendment supporter to assassinate his opponent. As long as the media is being dumbasses, they might as well fact-check that stuff too.

I have never been so entertained.
Yes, it is funny to see fact-checkers rush to the Democrats' defense, and argue that Obama and Clinton do not actually carry ISIS membership cards in their wallets.

Friday, August 12, 2016

All sorts of Muslims writes:
Trump simply does not understand that there are all sorts of Muslims. There is no common Muslim identity or common interest, any more than there is a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist one. What has a Muslim in Indonesia have in common with a Moroccan Muslim? Nothing, save a vague attachment to the Muslim faith. In the Mideast, Muslim Sunni are almost at war with Shia Muslims. In South Asia, there is fierce enmity between different schools of Islam. Wahabis from Arabia are at scimitars drawn with easier-going Sufis from Asia.

In short, one cannot generalize about Muslims. The reason that America’s three million Muslims have no political clout is because they are so fragmented in faith, history, and culture. Disunity, tribalism, and localism are the curses of the Muslim world.

This is Understanding the Outside World 101. Alas, Trump and most Americans do not.
Did Trump ever say that all Muslims were the same?

Funny how he can say that "one cannot generalize about Muslims", and then procede to generalize about Muslims.

I am all in favor of distinguishing the good Muslims from the bad Muslims around the world, but Trump is running for President of the USA, not theology professor.

It is funny also how Margolis can point to fierce differences among schools of Islam, but then deny differences among the Muslim, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist worlds.

Christians and Muslims have very much opposing world views. For the most part, Christians can tolerate Muslims and others, but Muslims cannot tolerate Christians. That is the first thing that an American President needs to know.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

ISIS wants Hillary Clinton elected

I just heard some supposed experts on NPR Radio say that Donald Trump is the President that ISIS wants, because he portrays Islamic terrorism as the enemy.

This is the opposite of the truth.

Radical Islam wants to take over the world, but they know they can never win with either persuasion or military power. So they are following this plan:

1. Get the West's attention by terrorist attacks.
2. Bait USA and Europe into wars to depose the secular govts in Islamic countries.
3. Get popular uprisings to force militant Islamic control of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.
4. Create a humanitarian crisis, and flood Europe with Islamic migrants and refugees.
5. Under the guise of religious tolerance, replace European cathedrals with mosques.
6. Continue, depending the West lacking the will to defend its culture and borders.

The policies of Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Trump-haters at the Pentagon and State Dept. have directly abetted this strategy. They have been suckered into fighting wars in behalf of Moslems. They have deposed the secular leaders of Islamic countries, and allowed Islamic radicals to take over. They have imported millions of Moslems into the USA. They have made excuses for Islamic terrorists, and denied that Islam has anything to do with the terrorism. They use NATO and trade threats to deter Europe from defending its borders. They deny that they have any responsibility to protect the USA and Europe from Islamification.

The Republicans at least got bipartisan, UN, and public support for their invasions. The Democrats never got approval for their pro-Moslem invasions of Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and other Islamic countries.

Hillary Clinton claims the credit for killing Libyan dictator Khaddafi, and making Libya the transit point for African migrants into Europe. She also advocates war to depose Assad in Syria, which would let ISIS take over and send more refugees into Turkey.

Trump is the first and only Presidential candidate to stand firmly against all of this. He is the only one to declare that American presidential policies should advance American interests first, and the only one to object to importing millions of Moslems from pro-terrorist areas.

The Trump-haters do not want to admit that their policies have been failures. Their policies have been much worse than failures. Not only have they failed to improve the Mideast countries that they were ostensibly trying to help, they have wasted trillions of dollars and advanced an Islamic invasion of Europe.

Instead of trying to defend their horrible policies, I see that the Trump-haters are once again claiming that Trump means something other than what he actually said.

As before, the interpretation is bizarre, is not implied, and does not even make any sense. Killing the President would not reverse a Supreme Court decision.

I think that it is correct that the 2A advocates would not give up and concede defeat, just because they got an adverse Supreme Court decision. Until the ruling of about 10 years ago (DC v Heller), a lot of them probably assumed that the Court would go against them. Their tools have been primarily educating the public with the facts about guns and gun use, and writing letters to legislators.

Ask yourself: Why is Trump hated so much? Is it because he wants to put America First? Because he agrees with how all the court of final authority have interpreted the Constitution on guns for 220 years, but now hangs by a 4-4 thread? Is it because he does not want an Islamic invasion of the USA?

Yes, these are some of the reasons he is hated.

Update: I posted this before hearing that Trump accused Obama and Clinton of being founders of ISIS. I do think that Al Qaeda and ISIS have advanced their goals greatly during the Obama administration, with the huge assistance of Obama and Clinton. We would have been much better off if Obama and Clinton had done nothing.

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Experts giving bad advice

Nature mag reports on a new book:
Yet, as Alison Gopnik notes in her deeply researched book The Gardener and the Carpenter, the word parenting became common only in the 1970s, rising in popularity as traditional sources of wisdom about child-rearing — large extended families, for example — fell away. Gopnik, a developmental psychologist (or as she describes herself, “a bubbe at Berkeley, a grandmother who runs a cognitive science laboratory”), argues that the message of this massive modern industry is misguided.

It assumes that the 'right' parenting techniques or expertise will sculpt your child into a successful adult. But using a scheme to shape material into a product is the modus operandi of a carpenter, whose job it is to make the chair steady or the door true. There is very little empirical evidence, Gopnik says, that “small variations” in what parents do (such as whether they sleep-train) “have reliable and predictable long-term effects on who those children become”. Raising and caring for children is more like tending a garden: it involves “a lot of exhausted digging and wallowing in manure” to create a safe, nurturing space in which innovation, adaptability and resilience can thrive. ...

She also cites a number of studies on play, which is so crucial to human development that children engaged in it even in Nazi concentration camps.
There is indeed very little empirical evidence that any parenting practices are any better than any other.

Gopnik has her own parenting advice anyway. It is not clear that any evidence supports her advice either.

I don't get the comment on Nazi concentration camps. What else were kids going to do there? Why does that show that playing is crucial?

The jacket flap says:
Caring deeply about our children is part of what makes us human. Yet the thing we call "parenting" is a surprisingly new invention. In the past thirty years, the concept of parenting and the multibillion-dollar industry surrounding it have transformed child care into obsessive, controlling, goal-oriented labor intended to create a particular kind of child and thereby a particular kind of adult. In The Gardener and the Carpenter, the pioneering developmental psychologist and philosopher Alison Gopnik argues that the familiar twenty-first-century picture of parents and children is profoundly wrong - it's not just based on bad science, it's also bad for kids and parents.

Drawing on the study of human evolution and on her own cutting-edge scientific research into how children learn, Gopnik shows that although caring for children is immensely important, the goal shouldn't be to shape them so they turn out a certain way. Children are designed to be messy and unpredictable, playful and imaginative, and very different both from their parents and from one another. The variability and flexibility of childhood allow them to innovate, create, and survive in an unpredictable world. "Parenting" won't make children learn - rather, caring parents let children learn by creating a secure, loving environment.
She appears to be sloppy about what the science says, and what her personal opinion about parenting is. When she says "the goal shouldn't be to shape them", that is her opinion, not science.

Don't gardeners try to grow particular kinds of plants?

Parents do seem more possessive and controlling than ever. A friend told me that he had to attend his kid's college orientation, as the college had scheduled several of the events for the parents!

The USA feds recently dropped their recommendation to floss teeth, after a journal demanded the supporting evidence and they could not find any.

The dentists say that flossing is worthwhile, and the only reason they cannot prove it is that it would be unethical to do a controlled study. That is, they would refuse to tell the control group not to floss, for fear that they would all get tooth decay.

I conclude from this that experts are always giving us worthless advice with no scientific backing. Sometimes I think that the sort of ppl who become dentists are the ones who enjoy lecturing on the merits of flossing, and watching them descend into pitiful low self-esteem.

Saturday, August 06, 2016

Wanting a symbol of White Christian hatred

A Yahoo Sports (((reporter))) writes:
The selection of Michael Phelps, as decided by athlete vote, is certainly a good one. He is the greatest Olympian of all time, ...

But the choice of flag bearer is an opportunity to say, “This is who we are.” Everyone around the world knows Phelps is who we are. But not everyone knows the stories of some of the other candidates, and why they are so meaningful. Not everyone knows the story of Ibtihaj Muhammad.

Muhammad, raised by a police officer and a teacher, is a fencer who went to Duke, where she got degrees in African and African-American Studies and International Relations. She is also a devout Muslim. She will become the first American Olympian woman to compete in a hijab.
No, this is not "who we are". We are not a Mohammedan country that makes women wear hijabs.

Today, a degree in African or African-American studies is a degree in hating white ppl. To most ppl around the world, Islam stands for killing infidels more than anything else.

The author is obviously a Christian hater. He probably hates Moslems also, and would never live in a Moslem country or have anything to do with Moslems. But if promoting a Moslem helps his anti-Christian agenda, that is more important.

It would make more sense to honor someone from the Klu Klux Klan.

You are going to say that I should not treat Miss Muhammad with the hijab as a terrorist, because she may not believe in terrorism. Surveys show that a majority of American Moslems say that they do not believe in terrorism. Yes, I know that. But this Yahoo author wants to pick her as a symbol.

What does she symbolize besides terrorism and killing infidels? The author wants her to symbolize an American trend toward hating white ppl, hating Christians, and importing millions of ppl with anti-American values.

Phelps is a fine choice, but he is not the greatest Olympian. His famous performance of 8 gold medals was nearly identical to what Mark Spitz did. Phelps got one more medal, but it was in a new event that Spitz probably would have also won if he had a chance. The main difference is that Spitz was banned for doing endorsements, and Phelps was not.

Friday, August 05, 2016

Alumni disgusted with colleges

The NY Times reports:
A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of complaints.

Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech.
Unexpected? Why give money to people who seem to be opposed to much of what is great about Western Civilization?

Usually ppl donating to colleges want to advance civilization, not thwart it.

Then there is the matter of how the college spend the money their receive. Look at who they admit, and who they reject, and at who gets a free ride and who pays the big bucks. It is not a social or economic model that I would want to endorse.

Inside Higher Ed reports:
Many colleges have adopted affirmative consent policies in recent years to help combat sexual assault. But some research suggests that the policies are far removed from how students actually request and receive consent.
In fairness, those policies were partially forced by the Obama administration.

Update: Here is an example of bad college behavior:
DePaul University has denied a request to have conservative commentator Ben Shapiro give a speech at the university, citing security concerns.
For Ben Shapiro? He does not even have any extreme views, as far as I know. He is very Jewish and I think he is a Trump-hater. These universities let commies speak, but not anti-commies.

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

No accepted explanation for female orgasm

Carl Zimmer writes in the NY Times:
For biologists, few phenomena are as mysterious as the female orgasm. ...

For decades, researchers have put forward theories, but none are widely accepted. ...

The male orgasm has never caused much of a stir among evolutionary biologists. The pleasure is precisely linked to ejaculation, the most important step in passing on a male’s genes to the next generation. That pleasure encourages men to deliver more sperm, which is evolutionarily advantageous.

For women, the evolutionary path is harder to figure out. The muscle contractions that occur during an orgasm are not essential for a woman to become pregnant. And while most men can experience an orgasm during sex, it’s less reliable for women. ...

Still, a number of scientists suspect that the female orgasm serves some biological function favored by natural selection. They just need to figure out what it is.
Why is this so mysterious?

Assume that evolution is selecting traits that maximize grandkids. The male orgasm makes sense because it allows men to inseminate more women.

If women never had orgasms, they might not want sexual relations at all. If women always had orgasms quickly and easily, then they might terminate the copulation before the man ejaculates, and they might be less likely to seek out alpha males with higher quality genes.

It seems to me that women will have more grandkids if they are sexually frustrated most of the time. The orgasms have to be good enuf for them to want them, and rare enuf for them to be not too satisfied.

This same reasoning would not apply to men because have to ejaculate for pregnancy to be possible, but women can get pregnant without orgasms.

I am just speculating, but this seems like the obvious explanation. Any other explanation should be compared to this obvious explanation, but this article does not even mention it.

The article does mention the other obvious explanation:
Dr. Lloyd thinks the best explanation for the female orgasm is that it hasn’t served any evolutionary purpose at all. It’s nothing more than the byproduct of the development of the male orgasm. The orgasm is to women, she believes, as nipples are to men.
Possible, but that does not explain female orgasm frequency. Male nipples are not partially functional, they have no function.

Monday, August 01, 2016

Democrats like Pakistani Trump hater

People keep telling me that there are Moslems who are good loyal Americans not support Islamic terrorism. I don't doubt this, but are there any in the public eye?

The Democrats had Pakistani immigrant Khizr Khan give a convention speech, but it turns out that he hates white people, hates Christians, hates America, and supports importing Moslem terrorists.

Did he really think that he could spew all that hatred and not be criticized?

The more I hear people like that, the more I think that he never should have been allowed in the USA in the first place.

Please don't tell me that I should be grateful that his son died for America. That was Hillary Clinton's war, and it advanced extremist Islamist interests, not American interests. Had that soldier lived, he might be part of ISIS today, for all I know.

So who do you think said this?
“This is the time for us American Muslims to rat out any traitor who walks amongst us. This is high time for Muslims to stand firm [against terrorists] ... Among us hides the enemies of the value system of this country. And we need to defend it. And if it means ratting out the traitors who hide behind an American passport, that’s what we need to do.”
That came from Khan's other son, and appears to agree with Trump. It is from the essay that caused the Clinton campaign to invite Khan.

It is true that American Muslims are permeated with traitors to America, and that there is a need for those with American values to rat them out.

Clinton and the Democrats were not interested in that message.

I heard NPR radio saying that Trump said that Khan's wife kept quiet because of her religion. He said no such thing. The news media consistently misrepresents him.

Update: I see that the news media is preoccupied with this story.

The previous week Trump's enemies were gloating that he had self-destructed because he encouraged Russian espionage. He just made a sarcastic comment that, even if taken literally, did not encourage the Russians to break into anything. It did successfully draw attention to the possibility that the Russians had already gotten Hillary Clinton's emails.

This time the Trump-haters and the cucks are hysterical about a Pakistani's argument that the US Constitution forbids a religious test on immigration, and the suggestion that his wife was not allowed to speak.

In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it is legal to have a religious test on immigrants, and such tests are frequently applied. Khan's speech had to be approved by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and as far as I know, she has not said whether or not his wife was allowed to speak. So Trump is entirely correct that his proposals are constitutional, and that Mrs. Khan not being allowed to speak is a possibility.

In the larger picture, Trump has only been able to get his message out by baiting his enemies with provocative statements. This has been going on for a year now, so you would think that the pundits would be smart enuf to see a pattern by now.

Trump makes some completely reasonable statements, but phrases them in a way that surprises or upsets the leftists and cucks. They jump on the attack, either misquoting him or trying to say that he meant something other than what he said. They create a huge media firestorm, acting as if Trump will be forced to backtrack and apologize. Trump doubles down, and proves that what he actually said was correct. The news media is aghast that Trump cannot be so easily manipulated as other politicians.

I am sick of wimpy Republican politicians who are always apologizing to their sworn enemies. The Presidency requires a man with a backbone.

Update: Khan is in the business of bring Moslem immigrants in, so that was his objection. He makes money from importing Moslem terrorism.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

BLM is a racist hate group

(((Richard Cohen))) writes in Time mag:
Each year, the Southern Poverty Law Center, of which I am the president, compiles and publishes a census of domestic hate groups. ...

Black Lives Matter is not a hate group. But the perception that it is racist illustrates thery t problem. Our society as a whole still does not accept that racial injustice remains pervasive.
BLM is a group of black ppl celebrating black criminals and blaming the white society. SPLC is a group of Jews who also try to blame the white Christian society for everything.

Yes, it illustrates the problem. How do you blame white ppl for blacks murdering white cops? How do you keep crying racism against whites when white Christians are the least racist ppl in the world? How do Jews keep a straight face blaming whites, when Jews are the most racist?

They will say and do just about anything if it gets votes for the Democrats.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Michael Moore predicts Trump win

Leftist movie-maker Michael Moore

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words, 'cause you'll be saying them for the next four years: "PRESIDENT TRUMP."

Never in my life have I wanted to be proven wrong more than I do right now.
He gives 5 reasons, such as winning factory workers in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, one country is doing something about its foreign rats:
The New Zealand government has announced a “world-first” project to make the nation predator free by 2050.

The prime minister, John Key, said on Monday it would undertake a radical pest extermination programme – which if successful would be a global first – aiming to wipe out the introduced species of rats, stoats and possums nation-wide in a mere 34 years. ...

“The biggest challenge will be the rats and mice in urban areas. For this project to work it will need the urban communities to get on board. Possum extermination will be the easiest because they only breed once a year and there are already effective control methods in place.”

Saturday, July 23, 2016

American dream is for Americans

Here is the latest attack on Donald Trump, from the (((America-hating NY Times))):
Under his presidency, the American dream would be primarily reserved for Americans.

“The American people will come first once again,” he said.
The leftist Democrat appear to be genuinely perturbed that a US President would put America first, and make policies favorably to Americans.

Why would anyone vote for anyone else for President?

Until this election, I assumed that most people understood that the job description for the American President is to put America and Americans first. But of all the Republican and Democrat candidates, Trump is the only one standing for this principle.

The USA is infested with traitors.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Historians against America First

Some historians announce:
Today, we are faced with a moral test. As historians, we recognize both the ominous ...

Historians Against Trump ... are united by the belief that the candidacy of Donald J. Trump poses a threat to American democracy. ...

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a campaign of violence: violence against individuals and groups; against memory and accountability; against historical analysis and fact. ...

Writers On Trump and Citizen Therapists are organizing in defense of the ideals in which their professions are grounded. ...

When Donald Trump accepts the Republican nomination on July 21st, a Grand Old Party born out of the struggle for abolition and justice will have succumbed to snake oil. We are here to say, “No more.”
Someone might think that a "threat to American democracy" with "a campaign of violence" might mean stealing ballots at gunpoint, or something like that.

This reminds me of how, at the end of the Ronald Reagan administration, the academic historians declared Reagan to be the worst President of the XX century. Then someone wrote an essay arguing that he was the best, because he won the Cold War. The historians admitted that they never considered crediting him for that.

You would think that a statement from historians like this would include some historical facts. Nope. Or have some facts about Trump. Nope. Or accurately state some of his policy positions. Nope. Or state teh premises underlying their political opinions. Nope. Or use their expertise to say what we can expect from a Trump presidency. Nope.

The first signatory is an Ethiopian attorney.

If anything, the campaign of violence is coming from Black Lives Matter, and the Democrats. Obama, Clinton, and other Democrat leaders are openly encouraging BLM, and accusing police of systemic racism for doing their jobs.

I am assuming that these historians are smart enuf to make a case against Trump, if they wanted to. So I conclude that they are concealing their true motivation, which is probably hatred of America or of White Christian culture.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Tech star endorses Trump

NY Times columnist Farhad Manjoo
When the technology investor Peter Thiel takes the stage just before Donald J. Trump at the Republican convention this week, he will become the most prominent public face of a species so endangered it might as well be called extinct: the Silicon Valley Trump supporter. ...

On the one hand, an emissary from tech will have a national platform to push the industry’s agenda and, more important, its worldview. By the end of Mr. Thiel’s speech on Thursday night, it’s possible he will have succeeded in showing off an ideology that is rarely encountered in public — the hands-off-my-stuff, techno-libertarian vision that is a hobbyhorse of Mr. Thiel and a few other Silicon Valley bigwigs.
So why are the other Si Valley super-rich reluctant to show those techo-libertarian views in public? Maybe because they are the robber barons of the modern era. Most of them would rather pretend that they identify with the poor and disadvantaged.
Though Silicon Valley has well-known problems with diversity in its work force, people here pride themselves on a kind of militant open-mindedness. It is the kind of place that will severely punish any deviations from accepted schools of thought — see how Brendan Eich, the former chief executive of Mozilla, was run out of his job after it became public that he had donated to a campaign opposed to gay marriage. Mr. Trump’s comments about immigrants, women and so many other groups have made him a kind of kryptonite in Silicon Valley.

Those problems are not widely understand, as in this article:
Facebook has explained away another year of dreadful diversity figures by claiming that there simply aren't enough minorities available for it to hire.

Despite having been at the receiving end of years of criticism for its overwhelmingly white male workforce, the social media giant's latest figures show that only 4 per cent of its workers are Hispanic and just 2 per cent African-American. The percentage of women at the company crept up a single percentage point to 33 per cent.

Despite acknowledging that "we still have a long way to go," the company that is never wrong says it has been "working hard to increase diversity" but has been stymied by the fact that there just aren't enough qualified people that aren't white men.
The article gives the impression that FB hires all white men, but the staff is 38% Asian and 7% LGBTQ. FB hires whites at a lower rate than the whites in the national population.

Most of the Si Valley super-rich support Democrats because they favor the modern day slave trade. They import Asians to do most of their work, and they sell out American interests.

Manjoo continues:
Mr. Thiel, a billionaire known for his unusual positions, does not appear to be too bothered by kryptonite.
Si Valley is very politically intolerant, and Thiel is rich and independent enuf to tell the truth. Twitter just banned Milo Yiannopoulos for criticizing liberals.
“As a black guy in Silicon Valley, I just find it very hard to support a candidate who has been called racist,” Mr. Johnson said.
Si Valley is mostly non-white and non-Christian, and they can be manipulated into voting Democrat by using identity politics. The Democrats just have to call someone a racist, whether it is true or not, and they will get the votes of the white haters.

I mentioned Steve King defending Western Civilization, and Leftist sites like the NY Times and Wash. Post go into hysterics. Vox does not even quote what King actual said, and posts anti-white nonsense:
America was built on the slave labor of black Americans.

There were many famous black inventors throughout US history.

Jesus was possibly brown.
I guess this is what is taught in schools today, but it does not actually contradict anything King said.

I very much doubt that there was any net benefit to building America from the black slave trade. Whatever economic benefits there were before 1860 were surely wiped out by the Civil War.

Maybe blacks invented peanut butter, I don't know. I would rather credit them with jazz, blues, and rap music.

There is no proof that Jesus was brown. I am not even sure that he was of Jewish descent. For all we know, he could have been a blond-haired blue-eyed Roman, as the Romans occupied the Jerusalem area at the time.

Update: Jerry Coyne claims that Milo deserves a ban because he responded to a forged tweet. It seems to me that rooting out forged tweets is Twitter's responsibility, not Milo's.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

White Christian America is dead

NPR Radio reports:
"The End Of White Christian America" is the provocative title of a new book by Robert P. Jones. He heads the Public Religion Research Institute here in Washington. According to Mr. Jones, the '50s were the apex of white Christian America's power in this country, including the power to choose presidents. But Mr. Jones says, in his book, that has ended. He joins us in our studios. Welcome.

ROBERT JONES: Thanks, I'm happy to be here.

WERTHEIMER: You were so convinced that white Christian America is basically over that you include both an obituary and a eulogy in your book. What happened?

JONES: Yeah. Well, you know, I began to look at both the numbers but also just what I was seeing in public life and began to sort of scratch my head along with a bunch of other people. And, you know, we were getting these numbers from demographers and the Census Bureau saying that 2042 we were going to be a majority, quote, "minority nation." But that still seemed pretty far off.

And when I started to look closer, I realized that we had actually crossed a pretty important threshold in this country, that if we just look back to the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency in 2008, the country was 54 percent white and Christian. That number today is 45 percent.
Here is his NY Times op-ed.

Similar statistics have been reported many times, but nearly always with an air of inevitability, and with a celebration of multicultural progress.

No, these changes were never inevitable, and they are not making America better. They are the result policies designed to transform America into something that is not White or Christian.

Just look at all the headlines from Black Lives Matter, Mohammedan terrorism, and their sympathizers. These are all people who hate White Christians. Some are also cucks.

Corey Savage discusses reasons for counter-defense to Jewish policies:
You can’t talk about Zionism and anti-Semitism without discussing the supposed white genocide and the destruction of the Western civilization. The oft repeated conspiracy is that Jews or Zionists are actively plotting to decimate the white population and destroy Christianity.

Honestly, I just don’t see it. I will briefly summarize why.

First, it is true that historically, the Jews preferred the European societies to be multicultural and tolerant so that they themselves could thrive without persecution. The more influential Jews may have changed the course of the culture, but I don’t see it as a white “genocide.” Especially so today when multiculturalism is already achieved in all the major Western nations. ...

Can it not just be that white population is declining because educated and affluent population prefer to delay marriage and have less children? ...

Ethnic and religious tolerance in the Occident goes back as far as the ancient Rome (which later converted to Christianity and openly invited a horde of foreign invaders to their lands). ...

Instead of obsessing over a specific group, it would be more productive to fight against the tide itself by looking after your own tribe. Because whether you believe in a Jewish conspiracy or not, that’s how they operated to thrive as a group. As it stands, there are more white people engaging in the so-called white genocide than the “Jews” can ever hope to achieve — and constantly pointing to the Jews as the source of all problems will not stop that.
He is right that most of those pursuing a white genocide are not Jewish. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not Jewish, and they are doing everything they can to flood the USA with non-whites and non-Christians.

It is true that the Roman Empire allowed its enemies to immigrate, and it eventually fell as a result.

White Christians are unusual in that they do so little to promote their ethnic identity interests.

Probably a third of the Trump-haters in the mainstream media are Jewish. I assume that they are just pursuing their perceived ethnic interests, because their arguments make no sense otherwise. But the other 2/3 are not Jewish. Some even claim to be conservative Republicans. So yes, Jews are certainly not the source of all problems, or even all the efforts to undermine America.

The top-read story on the Wash. Post today is this:
"This 'old white people' business does get a little tired, Charlie," King said. "I'd ask you to go back through history and figure out, where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you're talking about, where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?"

"Than white people?" Hayes asked, clearly amazed.

"Than, than Western civilization itself," King replied. "It's rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That's all of Western civilization."

The other panelists objected, with Hayes trying to keep the peace. Panelist April Ryan, who is black, asked, "What about Asia? What about Africa?"
Of course Western civilization has contributed more than any other subgroup. Asia and Africa are not close.
For the record, there have been a great number of non-white contributions to human civilization. Civilization first arose in cities in Mesopotamia, in what is now Iraq and Syria. Arabic and Middle Eastern inventors and scientists brought astronomy to the world, which in turn aided innovations in navigation. Critical innovations in mathematics and architecture originated in the same area. The Chinese contributed philosophical precepts and early monetary systems, among other things. The specific inventions that were created outside of the Western world are too many to list: the seismograph, the umbrella, gunpowder, stirrups, the compass.

Oh, and, of course, the non-Western world gave us the numeric system that will be used to tally up the delegates to make Trump the nominee of King's party.
This is comical. Those things go back a millennium or more. Yes, the earliest primitive and barely useful seismograph was in a area that has earthquakes. They are common in China and rare in Europe.

Almost all of astronomy came from Western civilization.

Update: There are good comments on Sailer's blog, and Vox complains that King preaches literal white supremacy on national television.
US Rep. Steve King preaches literal white supremacy on national television

US Rep. Steve King (R-IA) thinks that white people have contributed more to civilization than any other race. And he said it on national cable news.

This is not an exaggeration.
I thought that white supremacy meant whites enslaving or subjugating other races. But I guess it can also mean calling attention to historical facts about the progress of civilization.

Black lives matter, if you ignore the facts

The NY Times philosopher column argues:
The correspondence theory of truth no longer reigns supreme in philosophical circles when it comes to the study of knowledge and judgment. But it remains handy for everyday people, especially citizens. That theory says, simply, a proposal is true if it corresponds to an observation in the world. Not a bad way to go when people are trying to figure out the stuff of democratic living. After a week in which we have seen the unwarranted killing by police of two black men — Philando Castile in Minnesota and Alton Sterling in Louisiana — I’d like to think the correspondence theory of truth would get all Americans on the same page. But this has consistently failed to be the case. Maybe we can figure out why together.

So, I say: In America, black lives don’t matter. You say: That is false. I respond, implicitly invoking the correspondence theory of truth: Just look at the rate at which blacks are killed by the police and the rate at which police officers are exculpated. ...

Chris Lebron is an assistant professor of African-American studies and philosophy at Yale University and the author of “The Color Of Our Shame: Race and Justice in Our Time.” He is at work on a book on the history of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Yale students deserve better than this.

First, there is not enuf public info to determine whether those killings were warranted or not. Previous killings were widely reported to be unwarranted, such as Trayvon, Ferguson, and Freddie Gray having had narrative collapses, and the killers were not to blame.

Second, the rate of black killings says little if not compared to black crime and other black misbehavior.

Third, he is rejecting the idea that facts can illuminate the matter. If blacks feel aggrieved, then whites must do something, regardless of the facts.

Lots of people believe that they are unfairly treated, based on paranoia and subjective impressions. I post this because even Yale students are taught to disregard facts when concluding that blacks are unfairly treated.

The NY Times is run by (((Trump haters))), of course, and here is their latest attack:
But Tony Schwartz, the book’s ghostwriter, who spent 18 months in the 1980s interviewing and shadowing Mr. Trump, says that it is really a work of fiction. ...

“I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is,” Mr. Schwartz said. “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If the guy is willing to lie in a book for money, and if he thinks that Trump will end civilization, then I assume that he will tell any lies he can to damage Trump.

Is anyone going to believe this hysterical paranoia?

Hillary Clinton is the biggest warmonger Presidential candidate in many decades. If Schwartz is really worried about war, then he would vote for anyone who might defeat her.

Since he is not rational, I assume that Schwartz has some sort of emotional ethnic hatred for Trump.

Monday, July 18, 2016

There is only true Islam

The NY Times reports:
A Saudi Morals Enforcer Called for a More Liberal Islam. Then the Death Threats Began. ...

Mr. Ghamdi’s colleagues at work refused to speak to him. Angry calls poured into his cellphone and anonymous death threats hit him on Twitter. Prominent sheikhs took to the airwaves to denounce him as an ignorant upstart who should be punished, tried — and even tortured. ...

The first thing many Saudis will tell you about Wahhabism is that it does not exist.

“There is no such thing as Wahhabism,” Hisham al-Sheikh told me the first time we met. “There is only true Islam.”
The view that there is only one Islam is very widespread. Not everyone says it includes killing infidels, but a lot do.

Harvard law professor (((Noah Feldman))) tries to explain Islam in the NY Times:
Muslims have a wide range of different beliefs about what Shariah requires in practice. And all agree that humans are imperfect interpreters of God’s will. But to ask a faithful Muslim if he or she “believes in” Shariah is essentially to ask if he or she accepts God’s word. In effect, Mr. Gingrich was proposing to deport all Muslims who consider themselves religious believers.

Start with a crucial distinction. Shariah doesn’t simply or exactly mean Islamic law. Properly speaking, Shariah refers to God’s blueprint for human life. It is divine and unchanging, reflecting God’s unity and perfection. It can be found in God’s revealed word in the Quran and in the divinely guided actions of the Prophet Muhammad. ...

But almost all faithful Muslims would say that they believe there is a single, truthful answer that lies in Shariah — we just cannot be absolutely sure as humans what that answer is.

In public discourse both in majority-Muslim countries and in the West, Shariah has come to take on other meanings. Advocates of political Islam — roughly, people who buy into the slogan “Islam is the answer” — sometimes use the term to describe a government that complies with the dictates of Islamic law.
There is a problem when people believe that there is a divine and unchanging blueprint for human life. You cannot reason with such people, and such beliefs are not consistent with Western civilization.
A vast majority of Muslims reject the use of Shariah to legitimate terrorism.
Unfortunately, that is not true. Polls show Muslim support for terrorism varies from 10% to 80%, depending on the country and how the question is asked.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Europe censors political views

Israel News reports:
Police in 14 German states reportedly conducted raids on 60 individuals in an attempt to root out the sources of anti-Semitic and other hate postings on the internet.

The raids on Wednesday marked the first time that Germany has conducted a nationwide hunt for internet hate purveyors, according to German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, who said he hoped the operations would send a strong message that criminals cannot hide from the law in the seemingly anonymous internet.

According to German news reports, the raids followed months of observing one Facebook group that glorified National Socialism and broke German laws against promoting hate.

Suspects were accused of posting anti-Semitic, extremist and xenophobic messages, including denial of or relativizing the Holocaust, celebrating aspects of National Socialism and using Nazi symbolism, and calling for attacks on refugees and politicians. Evidence was seized at several locations.
I assume that "relativizing the Holocaust" means comparing the Holocaust to mass deaths, such as from Communism or war, and that such relativizing is now a crime in Germany.

Richard B. Spencer writes that he was banned from Britain for saying this and some similar things:
The ideal I advocate is the creation of a white Ethno-State on the North American continent. Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based on the “rights of man” and "democracy," our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be a state for the 21 century — or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a re-constitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an > Altneuland> — an old, new country.”
He had already been banned from most of the rest of Europe.

Only the USA has a First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.

I live in the USA, but I do not want to be banned in Europe, or even to have this blog banned in Europe.

I hereby disavow anything the Europeans consider illegal.

If I thought that the Holocaust were the second worst crime in the history of humanity, I would not say it here. The Jews can have whatever beliefs they want about the Holocaust, and it does not make any difference to me. It is outside my expertise anyway.

The Spencer quote is obviously some sort of fantasy. Nothing like that could be achieved except thru a horrible war, and starting such a war would be exceptionally foolish.

Yes, most of the world's nations were created as ethno-states, and the Zionists created one in 1948. But there is way too much hatred of whites today for a white ethno-state.

Ask yourself: why would anyone try to ban philosophical or political ideas? Usually it is because some truth is being suppressed.

I might cite some offensive story like this:
Israeli rabbi who advocated rape of ‘comely gentile women’ during war becomes chief army rabbi
However it should be obvious that I am not saying that all Jews have such views. In this case, I suspect that 99% of Jews disagree with that rabbi. But apparently that rabbi has a following in Israel.

There are probably a lot of Moslems who approve of raping infidel women.

Again, I am not expressing hatred towards these groups or any other. They can have whatever opinions they want. I am just reporting on some controversial views.

Driving while looking like a drug dealer

The (((NY Times))) reports:
His mother, Valerie, who was often called on to help when her son’s car was impounded, believes that the police were stopping Mr. Castile not because of his driving but because of his race. “Driving while black,” she said. ...

Amid the string of traffic stops was one in Maplewood, another suburb of St. Paul, one afternoon in 2008. Mr. Castile had driven a friend’s car, a 1997 black Mercury Marquis, to a Taco Bell for lunch. An officer pulled him over for tinted windows. ...

Mr. Castile’s sister Allysza said her brother’s love of wide-bodied, older-model cars, like the 1997 Oldsmobile he bought for $275 and was driving when he was shot, attracted police officers’ attention.

Ms. Castile was pulled over three times when she borrowed his car, she said, because “those are mostly stereotyped as drug dealer-type cars.”
So how did the officer know that he was black, if the windows were tinted?

It appears that his cars were being profiled, not his race.

I have been pulled over just because my car was unusual for the neighborhood. None of this seems unreasonable to me.
In the six years after he lost his license, Mr. Castile was pulled over another 21 times, repeatedly convicted of driving with an invalid license, fined and ordered not to drive.
This might be police harassment if he never did anything wrong, but maybe the cops were good at spotting scofflaws like him.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Experts say anyone can be a genius

NPR Radio reported, a couple of weeks ago:
VEDANTAM: Well, we’ve known for a very long time that family income really matters. This could be because schools in richer neighborhoods are better schools. But it could also be that rich parents are able to give their children more learning opportunities outside of school. ...

The researchers find there’s a very strong correlation between family income and these non-cognitive skills. ...

VEDANTAM: Yes. And the question of course is why is this happening? Why are children from richer families demonstrating more of these skills? The most obvious explanation, David, is that poverty creates stresses in people’s lives. If you have Mom or Dad working two jobs to make ends meet, it’s going to be harder for Mom and Dad to be spending time helping children develop these kinds of non-cognitive skills.
No, that is not the most obvious explanation. It would not even be in my top ten.

Many richer families have Dad and Mom both working full time jobs, and often high-stress jobs. I would expect stressed kids to have better non-cognitive skills, all other things being equal.

The most obvious explanation is that the non-cognitive skills are heritable.

Maybe the NY Times is similarly misguided, as a recent essay started:
Talent is equally distributed.
Facebook and Google are investing in Africa because:
"We live in a world where talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not. Andela's mission is to close that gap," Zuckerberg said in a statement.
A new book, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, by some authors who should know better, argues that everyone has the talents to excel at anything. For proof, he says that some top football players were not drafted in the first round, and some top scientists had low IQ. As examples, he gives R.P. Feynman (of quantum electrodynamics fame) and Jim Watson (of DNA fame).

No, they did not have low IQ. Successful scientists do not brag about their IQ, just as successful NBA basketball players do not brag about their height. They want to be credited with their superior performance, and not with their innate talents.

The NFL teams are actually quite good at picking the college players with the best potential. Sometimes they get it wrong when a very good player becomes a drug addict and drops out, as what happens in the book's biggest example. The man probably would have been a fine player, if the team could have kept him away from drugs.

The book furthermore claims that studies show that IQ has no relation to success in science. They say that scientists tend to have high IQ, because they have to pass exams to get into the field and those exams are correlated with IQ, but once someone passes the exams, his IQ is of no help at all.

Malcolm Gladwell has also written best-selling books with related themes.

I don't know how these guys could write such nonsense. Do you really think that you could have been Tom Brady or RP Feynman if only you had the right training? Nope. So why do they say this stuff? Because it sells books, I guess.

Friday, July 15, 2016

NY Times and neo-nazis agree

A NY Times article quotes a neo-nazi site, and that site agrees:
I agree with the general consensus which is reported in this article:

1.) Donald Trump is not one of us. He isn’t a racialist. He isn’t a White Nationalist. He certainly isn’t a Southern Nationalist. Trump can best be described as a nostalgic American civic nationalist who is driven by instinct and who taps into the racial and cultural grievances of the White majority. Still, Trump is a nationalist of sorts though, and he speaks our language, which is why we relate to him. After decades of cuckservatism, Trump’s message is a breath of fresh air.

2.) The cucks don’t have any principled objection to Trump. They have spent decades tapping into the same vein of racial and cultural anxiety in White America. Their objection to Trump is that they have lost control of their base and can’t harness all that energy and resentment to push their awful economic agenda.

3.) Trump is like an elephant who is trampling all over the boundaries of “mainstream” political discourse. He is breaking the rules and leading a mass movement of millions of White people off the reservation. In that sense, Trump is nothing but a good thing for us and I am going to continue to cheer him on.

4.) Trump has inflicted a fatal blow on the cucks. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude. Everything else that happens in this election cycle is just icing on the cake. The destruction of the cucks has always been the precondition of a nationalist revival.
Yes, it is amazing how much Trump has accomplished, even if he does not win in November. I think that he helped inspire the Brexit vote. He has proved that the Republicans do not need the cucks, the globalists, and the warmongers. He has made it politically acceptable to say that American policy should favor America first. He speaks with common sense about terrorist threats.

This is like Goldwater v LBJ or Reagan v Carter. A choice between a real American and a traitor.