Sunday, April 24, 2016

White guilt and African population

ReturnOfKings writes:
3 Reasons I Will Never Apologize For Being White
1. I’m the descendant of victims myself because many of my ancestors were from oppressed ethnic and religious groups
2. Minorities and other non-whites frequently treated and still treat each other far worse than white people did
3. White-majority countries make the humanitarian world go round
Today's whites are taught to feel guilty about being white. Even Bill Maher mocks today's white-hating leftists.

Or that all have equal value:
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty.
The Gates foundation has been boosting African population growth, and now SciAm reports:
For years the prevailing projections put Africa's population at around two billion in 2100. Those models assumed that fertility rates would fall fairly rapidly and consistently. Instead the rates have dropped slowly and only in fits and starts. The United Nations now forecasts three billion to 6.1 billion people—staggering numbers. Even conservative estimates, from places such as the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, now see Africa at 2.6 billion. The U.N. has in recent years continually raised its midline projection for 2100 world population, from 9.1 billion in a 2004 estimate to 11.2 billion today. Almost all of the unanticipated increase comes from Africa.
Their solution is educating women to not have kids, and plan that is in alignment with their feminist politics:
African women with no education have, on average, 5.4 children, according to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Women who have completed primary school have, on average, 4.3 children. A big drop, to 2.7, correlates with completion of secondary school. For those who go on to college, fertility is 2.2. ...

The empowerment of women needs no demographic justification. But it happens that women who can raise their sights high and manage their own lives also decide—and manage—to have fewer children and to have them later in life. Even if population growth did not matter, the future of Africa and the world would be better if every African girl and woman were healthy and educated and free to reach for her own ambitious dreams, to safely refuse unwanted male attention, and to have a child only when and with whom she chooses.
This is not going to work. We are going to have famines, wars, migrant crises, and refugees on a massive scale. Bill Gates will be remembered as the man who helped enable gigantic human catastrophes

If all lives have equal value, then the value of my life (relative to the world) is going down as the world is being re-populated with Africans and Asians.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Time mag tries to explain white nationalism

Time magazine has a big article on How Donald Trump's campaign brought white nationalists out of the shadows. It is filled with terms like "extremist", "far right", "supremacist", "racist", and "bigot" at every opportunity.

The curious thing is what it does not say. It does not accuse Trump of any of those things, and it does not give examples of any of his supporters expressing any of those extremist or hateful views. It is just name-calling.

So why would white nationalists be excited about Trump if he is not one of them?

The defining issue of this political year is globalism versus nationalism. The establishment Democrats and Republicans stand for destroying the American middle class by equalizing it with Third World workers, for waging perpetual overseas wars, and for keeping us in debt. That is profitable for the wealthy elites and political donors.

Trump and Sanders reject this. Trump, in particular, wants to make America great again. The white nationalists just think that it is obvious that we are going to need white people to make America great.

The internationalist business and financial interests are much more interested in global development, because that increases the supply of people who can be put into debt buying their products, and then controlled for the benefit of the wealthy elites.

Trump's big accomplishment is to put forward the idea that an American President should put America first, and advance the interests of American. And for that, he is hated by the leftists and the cucks.

Monday, April 18, 2016

The cancer of human history

Radio Derb said:
Here's the thing. Fifty years ago next fall, back in 1967, the lefty magazine Partisan Review published an essay titled "What's Happening in America" by Susan Sontag. Ms Sontag told us that, quote:
The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.
Susan Sontag was white, and that essay is a landmark in the history of white ethnomasochism. A lot of people at the time were shocked by it; but Ms Sontag had lit such a candle as, by God's grace in America, shall never be put out.

White self-hatred is now the conventional wisdom. The media promote it in a thousand ways.
Derbyshire's following program says he heard from listeners who pointed out that Sontag was Jewish. He defended calling her white, by saying that Jews cannot be blamed for white ethno-masochism. He says that he is anti-anti-white, and criticizes those who vilify whites.

He points out that there are plenty of white non-Jews who have enacted anti-white policies, and since whites outnumber Jews by a wide margin, whites would have little excuse for letting Jews trick them into destroying themselves.

He calls himself the "dissident right", but says that the term "alt right" has gotten more popular.

All that may be true, but if Sontag identified as Jewish and not white, then her anti-white rants are not examples of white ethnomasochism. She was just an example of one ethnic group hating another.

Many Jews identify as non-white, and work to undermine whites.

There are also self-hating Jews, but that is another story.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Bernie Sanders' guiding principle

CNN reports:
Though raised Jewish, Sanders says that he is "not particularly religious," nor is he a member of any congregation or synagogue. "I am not actively involved in organized religion," he has told reporters.

But at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire in February, Sanders seemed to contradict himself.

"It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely," said the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate.

"You know, everyone practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings."

So what gives? Is Bernie Sanders religious or not?
The confusion here is that Judaism is not a religion like Christianity. It is an ethnic identification that he was born with, and a set of political ideologies.

Sanders is a leftist authoritarian. There is a long tradition of Jews being leftist authoritarians, and of despising Christian culture and values.

So maybe Sanders does not believe in God, or participate in the sorts of things that Christians recognize as religious. But he is very much in the Jewish tradition of leftist authoritarian anti-American ideologies, and this tradition if obviously very important to him.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Facebook's new world order

NPR Radio reports:
Mark Zuckerberg has laid out a 10-year master plan for Facebook. It's bold. It's savvy. And it glosses over a key detail: the dark side of making the world more connected.

At F8, the company mega-conference in San Francisco, the 31-year-old CEO delivered a keynote address in which, he said, over the next decade he plans to build a suite of products — each with a billion or more users — that together will serve one humble goal: "Give everyone in the world the power to share anything they want with anyone."

It's a mouthful. And they're not empty words.
His goal is to integrate the American middle class with Third World poor people. He is a cuck. We should start calling him Cuckerberg, and resist his evil plans.

Fortune mag reports:
Donald Trump’s campaign staff have criticized Facebook fb supremo Mark Zuckerberg after he took a thinly veiled swipe at their candidate over his politics of fear.

“I think I’ll take Mark Zuckerberg seriously when he gives up all of his private security, moves out of his posh neighborhood and comes live in a modest neighborhood near a border town, and then I’m sure his attitude would change,” Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson told CNBC.

Zuckerberg this week used a keynote address at Facebook’s F8 developer conference to decry current political rhetoric against immigration and globalization. He called for politicians to have “the courage to see that the path forward is to bring people together, not push people apart, to connect more, not less.”
Meanwhile Trump called for returning the Joe Paterno statue. Good for Trump. Paterno was very unfairly maligned.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Rich men live longer

NPR radio reports:
The study, published in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, bolsters what was already well known — the poor tend to have shorter lifespans than those with more money. ...

"There are vast gaps in life expectancy between the richest and poorest Americans," Chetty said. "Men in the top 1 percent distribution level live about 15 years longer than men in the bottom 1 percent on the income distribution in the United States.

"To give you a sense of the magnitude, men in the bottom 1 percent have life expectancy comparable to the average life expectancy in Pakistan or Sudan."

And where life spans are concerned, the rich are getting richer.
This is good and expected news. If a man works hard all his life to make a lot of money, then he should be able to use that money to improve his health and longevity. If not, why would he work so hard?

But the study does not actually show that money buys a better health outcome. It just finds a correlation. It is entirely possible that the men are getting rich because they are healthier, and the money itself is not improving their lifespans at all.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

PZ Myers denies human evolution

A common premise of the Left is that all people are inherently the same, and equal, and conforming to the same ideals. Here is an example.

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist and popular blogger PZ Myers writes:
Modern humans emerged out of Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years. They were slightly smaller (and smaller brained) than the robust humans living in Asia and Europe, but they did bring about some advances in technology and swept over the world…and were adept at learning new skills. Again, we’ll say for the sake of argument, they represented a clear adaptive advantage to greater intelligence, even though there is no biological basis for assuming they were more intelligent, or that it was their intelligence that allowed them to displace other human groups. (I suspect that more complex social structures and language, which are obviously a product of the brain, are more responsible than IQ).

But here’s the thing: those early modern humans were pretty much indistinguishable from us today. They were about the same size, looked about the same, had the same capabilities we do now. If we used a time machine to go back and kidnap a Cro Magnon baby, bring her to our time and raise her in an ordinary American home, she’d probably grow up to play video games, shop at the mall, get a college degree, and land a job at an investment bank, and do just fine. Most of the evolving humanity has done since seems to be focused on their immune system and adaptations to agriculture and urban living.

One has to wonder, if IQ is such a great boon to humanity, why hasn’t the biological basis for it shown much improvement in the last 100,000 years?
Not only are we all the same, we are all the same as some Africans over 100k years ago!

This is a denial of human evolution, because it would mean that humans have not evolved over that time. He concedes some evolution, but insists that they are for unimportant traits.

He also denies twin studies, and denies that the concept of intelligence is meaningful. See this rebuttal.

In short, he is a cuck.

The NY Times reports:
The term cuckold traditionally refers to the husband of an adulteress, but Dr. Larmuseau and other researchers focus on those cases that produce a child, which scientists politely call “extra-pair paternity.”

Until the 20th century, it was difficult to prove that a particular man was the biological father of a particular child.

In 1304 a British husband went to court to dispute the paternity of his wife’s child, born while he was abroad for three years. Despite the obvious logistical challenges, the court rejected the husband’s objection.

“The privity between a man and his wife cannot be known,” the judge ruled.

Modern biology lifted the veil from this mystery, albeit slowly. In the early 1900s, researchers discovered that people have distinct blood types inherited from their parents.

In a 1943 lawsuit, Charlie Chaplin relied on blood-type testing to prove that he was not the father of the actress Joan Barry’s child. (The court refused to accept the evidence and forced Chaplin to pay child support anyway.) ...

Comparing the chromosomes of living related [Belgian] men, Dr. Larmuseau and his colleagues came up with a cuckoldry rate of less than 1 percent. Similar studies have generally produced the same low results in such countries as Spain, Italy and Germany, as well as agricultural villages in Mali.
They were looking at an era when marriage meant something, and adulterers were social outcasts. It is a different world today.

1% sounds low, but it means that you probably know someone who has told you about his father, not realizing that his father is not his father. Just in the last week, the current Archbishop of Canterbury announced that a DNA test determined that his father was the man that he always thought.

This does not count step-fathers, who know that they are rearing someone else's kids. And with the institution of marriage crumbling and women getting increasing sexual freedoms, more and more kids are disconnected from their dads.

That is no big deal if we are all the same as African cave-men anyway, right?

Update: Here is a colloquial definition of cuck. Here is an explanation of why Myers is wrong about IQ.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Sick perverts become college role models

I mentioned that I subscribe to the Princeton Alumni Weekly, and I give an example of the garbage it prints:
Eleven years ago, Jay Ladin *00 was a popular professor at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women in New York, a published poet, and a father of three. Ladin also was in constant agony over the thought of continuing to live as a man. ...

The struggle continued for another four decades, even as Ladin married, earned a Ph.D. in American literature at Princeton, and built a career as a teacher and writer. Throughout, Ladin fought — and sometimes succumbed to — the impulse to dress as a woman and seek out women for close friendships. Being a man was a performance. ...

Today, Jay is Joy. After going through a wrenching divorce and putting her job at Yeshiva — an Orthodox Jewish university — in jeopardy, Ladin is living as a woman, an “incredible miracle, something I never thought would happen,” she says. By sharing her story, she also has become an inspirational figure to LGBT Jews who are struggling to reconcile their religious faith with their identities. ...

(Ladin declines to say whether she has had gender reassignment surgery: “Part of dealing with transgender people as people is giving them privacy, and in our culture, we don’t generally discuss our genitals in public.”) ...

Transgender people pose a problem for Orthodox Judaism, Ladin says, because gender is central to so many of its rituals — men and women sit separately in synagogue, for example. ...

When it became clear that Ladin would live as a woman, her wife was distraught. “You’ve destroyed four lives to walk around in a dress,” Ladin recalls her saying.

“My wife saw me as choosing self-mutilation over her, over the life we had painstakingly built up since we were teenagers, over our future, over our past, over the well-being of our children,” Ladin writes. ...

Ladin is remarried — to Liz Denlinger, a curator at the New York Public Library — and continues to split her time between Manhattan and Massachusetts, where her children live, though her relationship with them is strained. “Two of my children have stopped talking to me. I’m down to one, my 12-year-old daughter,” who still calls her Daddy, she says. The fissure with her other children, now 16 and 21, is “unbearably painful.”
He is obviously suffering from a mental illness, and expects society to indulge his sick fantasies. He tries to use the Jewish religion to justify his perversions.

He is man with a fetish for cross-dressing. He fathered 3 kids, still has his male genitals, and is in a sexual relationship with a woman.

Parents sometimes think that sending their kids to a conservative private religious college will shelter them from role models who are openly promoting sick behavior. Nope.

The Princeton Alumni Weekly was originally an alumni magazine that came out weekly. Now it is neither. It is produced by the university public-relations staff about once a month, and it is primarily a fund-raising publication.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Hastert was a victim, not a money launderer

It appears to me that federal prosecutors have a lot of excess time on their hands, as they keep prosecuting people for things that do not seem criminal.

AP reports:
Prosecutors say when they questioned Hastert about his large cash withdrawals he told them he was being extorted by someone making a false claim of sex abuse.

In the court filing, prosecutors say Hastert agreed to let investigators record phone conversations he had with the man who later became known as "Individual A."

Prosecutors say "Individual A's tone and comments" during the conversations "were inconsistent with someone committing extortion." They say he didn't seem angry when Hastert told him he was having trouble getting money.

Agents then questioned Individual A, who told them about abuse that occurred when he was 14.

Hastert has pleaded guilty to violating banking laws.
He has never been charged with sex abuse, or even accused of it in a civil suit. So we should assume that he is innocent of that, as I assume that people are innocent until proven guilty.

So what was Hastert's crime? The heart of the charge is that Hastert described Individual A to federal agents in terms that seemed inconsistent to the agents' interpretation of "Individual A's tone and comments" on the wiretaps.

Another AP story has more details:
Hastert made 15 withdrawals of $50,000 — for a total of $750,000 — from 2010 to 2012. It's what he did next that made his actions a crime. After learning withdrawals over $10,000 are flagged, he withdrew cash in smaller increments, taking out $952,000 from 2012 to 2014.

The case had been shrouded in secrecy since Hastert was indicted in May 2015. Prosecutors only confirmed at a March hearing that sex-abuse claims were at its core.

Hastert's fear, prosecutors said Friday, was that if he didn't pay Individual A "it would increase the chance that other former students he molested would tell their stories." Burdge had already confronted Hastert at her brother's funeral and he could see "she had been deeply affected by what defendant did to her brother, and she was likely to tell her story publicly if anyone would listen."

Court records say Hastert managed to pay $1.7 million to Individual A — handing it over in lump sums of $100,000 cash — starting in 2010. The payments stopped late in 2014 after FBI agents questioned Hastert about his cash withdrawals. Prosecutors said Friday that it was a bank compliance officer who spotted the huge withdrawals.
If all this is true, then Hastert was a victim of extortion, and Individual A should be charged with a crime, not Hastert.

The feds knew about the cash withdrawals, and knew that Hastert was buying Individual A's silence, so what is Hastert's crime?

Even assuming that Hastert behaved inappropriately, and that he would be embarrrassed by a public revelation, it does not follow that he committed a crime. In Individual A believes that he was harmed, then he could sue for damages. But it is a crime for Individual A to extort money for silence, even if there was a crime.
The filing recommends that a federal judge sentence Hastert to up to six months in prison for violating banking laws as he sought to pay one of his victims, identified in court documents as "Individual A," to ensure the person kept quiet. The sex-abuse allegations date to Hastert's time at Yorkville High School in the Chicago suburb of Yorkville from 1965 to 1981.
Six months for this? And the feds continue to protect the extortionist by concealing his name.

Individual A's name should be revealed in an extortion indictment. He could have made a police complaint 35 years ago. He could have sued. He could have gone public with his story when Hastert was Speaker of the House, and destroyed his career. All of those things might be defensible. But collecting a million dollars in secret cash transaction 40 years later after threatening to go public? Indefensible.

You might say that if Hastert is a child molester, then he deserves whatever he gets. I disagree.

First of all, we don't know that he was a molester. Only that he is privately and anonymously accused of doing something inappropriate.

Secondly, is that really how child molestation should be handled? That molestation victims can just wait 40 years for the perp to get rich on his reputation, and then extort suitcases full of cash under threats to destroy that reputation?

Just think about that. It is impossible for Hastert today to prove that nothing bad happened 40 years ago. It is his word against the accusers. Admittedly, Hastert looks bad by making the payoffs, but maybe he or someone else in that position might just make the payoff rather than face an ugly fight over false accusations.

Saturday, April 09, 2016

Colleges bigoted against male personalities

Colleges claim that they are committed to diversity and inclusiveness, but it is still fashionable to badmouth whites, males, Christians, straights, and conservatives.

Autism spectrum is peculiar in that it is defined to include people with a psychological disorder as well as people with certain masculine personality characteristics.

Tyler Cowen writes:
Thinking back on history, maybe you've wondered how it was that American colleges and universities could ever have contributed to racist discourse. But Princeton and many other institutions kept out Jews, and "academic" defenses of slavery, segregation, and eugenics were commonplace until broader social changes rendered such views unacceptable.

The sad truth is that dehumanizing ideologies are still with us in the modern university, although they take very different forms. Prime examples include the unacceptable ways we sometimes talk and think about the autism spectrum.

A few years ago, Michael L. Ganz, who teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health, published an essay titled "Costs of Autism in the United States." Nowhere in the essay does he consider whether autistic people have brought benefits to the human race. Can you imagine a comparable essay titled: "Costs of Native Americans"? Ganz might think that autism is strictly a disease, but he never mentions or rebuts the fact that a great number of autistics reject this view and find it insulting. ...

Autism is often described as a disease or a plague, but when it comes to the American college or university, autism is often a competitive advantage rather than a problem to be solved. One reason American academe is so strong is because it mobilizes the strengths and talents of people on the autistic spectrum so effectively. In spite of some of the harmful rhetoric, the on-the-ground reality is that autistics have been very good for colleges, and colleges have been very good for autistics. ...

We're also learning that a lot of the stereotypes about autistics are false or at least misleading. It's been suggested, for instance, that autistics don't care much about other people, or that autistics lack genuine emotions or are incapable of empathy. The more likely truth is that autistics and nonautistics do not always understand each other very well. It's odd that the people who make this charge so often, in the very act of doing so, fail to show much empathy for autistics or to recognize their rich emotional lives. Even when the cognitive capabilities of autistics are recognized — most commonly in the cases of savants — it is too often accompanied by a clich├ęd and inaccurate picture of a cold, robotic, or less than human personality.
Yes, the nonautistics often say that the autistics have various deficiencies in understanding other people, and in the process the nonautistics show that they do not understand autistics.

I do think that the over-emotional and empathic nonautistics would be considered a disease or a plague if they were in the minority.

Thursday, April 07, 2016

Princeton stands only for diversity and inclusiveness

Princeton University has announced that it has completed its re-assessment of Woodrow Wilson, as demanded by black student protesters who occupied administration offices.

Glenn Beck has made a strong case that Wilson was the worse President of the 20th century, so I thought that the re-assessment would consider some of the reasons that conservatives have always hated him.

Wilson brought us the income tax, the Federal Reserve Bank, and World War I. He said "The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible."

I get the alumni magazine, but had not noticed this:
the high aims expressed in his memorable phrase, ‘Princeton in the Nation’s Service.’” That phrase is preserved today as part of Princeton’s informal motto, which was amended in 1996 to “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of All Nations.
The new mantras are diversity and inclusiveness, and this is no longer good enuf.
We propose modifying Princeton’s informal motto to “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity.” We do so for two compelling reasons. One is that it captures Princeton’s mission to serve the public good through teaching, research, and service that make a positive difference in the lives of people in this country and throughout the world. But it also permits the University to recast the front campus plaque, allowing it to reflect both the timehonored aspiration stated by Woodrow Wilson and the forward-looking aspiration stated by Justice Sotomayor. The new plaque would contextualize the legacy of Woodrow Wilson; it would allow us to contemporize his expression of Princeton’s commitment to service by linking it to our embrace of the coeducational, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, diverse and inclusive composition and ideals of our community today. ...

Contextualization is imperative. ...

We end this report where we began, by reaffirming our insistence that Princeton be a diverse, inclusive, and welcoming community for students, faculty, staff, alumni, and visitors from all backgrounds and perspectives.
Princeton is still one of the most elitist universities in the world, accepting only about 5% of applicants. It also has one of the largest endowments, and can afford to give free tuition to all students with just the interest, if it wanted to. And it does not believe in political diversity, as its only complaints about Wilson are that he was not leftist enuf.

Monday, April 04, 2016

National wealth does not come from consumer spending

I talked to a millennial about economics, and she said that she was taught that consumer demand drove the economy. She said that most of the GDP was consumer spending, and the best thing the govt can do is to stimulate consumer spending by increasing the minimum wage, providing welfare benefits, and making it easier to borrow money. The worst thing was for people to save money, because that is what caused the Great Depression. Immigration is also good for the economy because it increases consumption.

Is this really what is taught in schools today?

The only reason consumer spending is most of GDP is because GDP is defined to exclude other types of spending.

You create wealth for yourself by saving money, not spending it. Debt turns people into wage slaves.

When the govt borrows money and gives it to consumers to spend, the net effect is that our nation is poorer.

Wealth can be created by hard work, inventions, advancing technology, and capital investment. It is not created by consumer spending.

This girl also told me that she was taking a class in Psychology/Sociology. I asked her what she was learning, and she spend ten minutes telling me stories that blamed white Christian society for all sorts of supposed ills. I finally told her that she is being brainwashed into feeling guilty about being white. She said, "I already feel guilty about being white."

Soon she will have a 6-figure student debt. When she gets married, they will get a big mortgage and decide that they cannot afford kids. They will have to work all the time to make payments on their debts. But somehow they will think that immigrants spending welfare checks in keeping our economy going.

The millennial generation has been duped.

Saturday, April 02, 2016

Scientific elites hate democracy

The subscribers to the UK Nature magazine are overwhelmingly scientists dependent on govt funding, and so they have leftist leanings. They are baffled by Donald Trump. It published an essay :
The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington DC last month was one of the best I’ve witnessed in more than 20 years of regular attendance. The policy sessions were packed and genuinely stimulating. I met tons of smart, influential people I hadn’t seen for ages, and we all enjoyed a good chinwag about how better to engage with the public — the meeting’s theme for 2016.

The only trouble was what was going on outside the hotel — in the United States and the world at large.

In fact, the AAAS meeting took place in a sort of semi-conscious never-never land. The science-policy crowd talked a great game even as the pillars of the republic crashed noisily down around their heads.

Supporters or representatives of Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee for this November’s US presidential election, his extremely conservative rival Ted Cruz, or even Bernie Sanders, the Democrat insurgent, were simply not involved in these discussions. They never are. Senior scientists are instead inextricably linked to the centrist, free-market political establishment that has tended to rule, but which is now falling dangerously from public favour.

It is not just in the United States that this consensus — and perhaps democracy itself — is in danger.
He is saying that the scientific elite are ignorant of political views outside their own group. They are disturbed by the rise of Trump. They think that he threatens democracy because the people support him, and not the consensus of the scientific elites anymore.

Think about this the next time you hear that some Nobel prize winner endorsed some political candidate. These endorsements are based on contempt for the middle class and their wishes.

Friday, April 01, 2016

More crazy attacks on Trump

The attacks on Donald Trump are getting crazier and crazier.

He is asked a hypothetical question about if abortion is outlawed, would the lawbreakers be punished? He said that there would have to be some sort of penalty for doing something illegal.

Isn't that the definition of illegal?

Some reporter goes after Trump in a crowded room, gets pulled away, and files criminal charges? I watched the video. It shows a couple of hundred people milling around, and none of them showed any indication that anything irregular went on.

I got some comments complaining that Trump does not understand or respect the law. A law professor wrote a whole book on The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Trump is on the right side of all those issue, while the Democrats are wrong.

Breitbart has a long article on the alt-right, which has become a small faction of Trump supporters. Curiously, it does not mention the site claiming to be the world's most visited alt-right website.

Hobbit not destroying religion after all

The Guardian reports:
First reported in 2004, and officially named Homo floresiensis, the fossilised remains of the hobbit-like hominins were unearthed in the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. Just over a metre tall, the long-lost species had elongated feet and a brain the size of a grapefruit.

The original studies of the remains and the deposits around them suggested the creatures could have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. But new research now overturns that idea, proposing instead that our long-footed cousins disappeared at least 50,000 years ago - and hints that humans might have played a role in their demise. ...

Writing in the journal Nature, the international team of scientists have revealed that new excavations and analysis at Liang Bua date the Homo floresiensis remains to between 100,000 and 60,000 years ago, meaning that the species disappeared much earlier than previously thought.
This is quite a let-down. Here is what the UK BBC said in 2004:
Anthropologist Desmond Morris suggested the discovery of a human Hobbit on Flores would force many religions to examine their basic beliefs. The suggestion provoked quite a reaction.

"The existence of 'Mini-Man' should destroy religion," claims Desmond Morris.

I can't help thinking we've been here before. Indeed, Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, still cannot understand why religion survived Darwin.
They only ever found one skull and a few other bones. There are many controversies over the interpretation of those bones.

So you should unlearn whatever you were told about Flores Man.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Recognize cuck as a useful insult

A wacky political site writes:
Then in 2015, something happened. A term was birthed from the alternative right to describe precisely this dysfunctional breed of rightist: “cuckservative,” a seemingly right-leaning politician or personality who sees fascism as the greatest threat to the West, is willing to flood his country with millions of Third Worlders in the name of free-market capitalism, and is always ready to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen to defend the violently anti-Western, socialist theocracy of Israel. The word, of course, was absolutely devastating. It was so powerful that cuckservative websites devoted time and effort to writing articles condemning the word, ironically using the cuckiest logic possible and only proving the alternative right correct. The term even made its way into the mainstream media, eventually getting onto MSNBC and Real Time with Bill Maher. Even now, using the word will get one banned from National Review’s comment section.

“Cuck” works for the same reason that “racist” works: it is an irrational word that cannot be deconstructed with reasoning. Just as “racist” hits rightists hard because it attempts to psychopathologize the healthy preference for our own race, “cuck” is devastating to leftists because they are being described as the most humiliating kind of man possible, one who gets aroused by letting another man — or other men — have sex with his wife. Leftists and conservatives are not literally cuckolds, they are simply traitors. ...

The word is now everywhere. Everyone from communists to liberals to mainstream conservatives are being called cucks, on and offline. Politicians and everyday people are cucks, the wealthy and the lower-class alike… and they have no defense against it. ...

It’s time the right go on the attack. Recognize “cuck” for how powerful, funny, and effective it is at hitting the enemy in his gut, and keep using it and keep spreading it. Also recognize that it’s a nasty and immature word, and relish that. The more offended the left is, the better.
I think that he is onto something. Consider the latest from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg:
The Facebook founder said atrocities in Belgium, Pakistan and Turkey were all designed to sow seeds of hatred between different communities.

He said: "Each of these attacks were carried out with a goal to spread fear and distrust, and turn members of a community against each other."

The "only sustainable way to fight back" against the sickening attacks is to "create a world" where everyone "feels cared for and loved", he added.
He is just a cuck. He should just be insulted as someone with some sort of perverted mental illness.

Third World immigration to the USA is profitable for Facebook, and so political instability elsewhere. Most of those Syrian migrants have smart phones, and use Facebook. So maybe Zuckerberg is just doing what is profitable. But in case he believes the crap he recites, he should be called a cuck.

The above political site just got a lot of publicity, such as this NY Times story, when the notorious internet troll Weev distributed a flyer to some colleges. Here are the details. Weev was once prosecuted before on bogus charges, and was acquitted on appeal.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Bilingual education is harmful

I know English-speaking parents who goto great trouble and expense to create a bilingual environment for their kids, or to send the kids to an expensive private school that teaches a foreign language. If pressed, some of them will quote research showing that knowing foreign languages makes one smarter.

All of that is bogus.

Here is the current research:
But a growing number of psychologists say that this mountain of evidence is actually a house of cards, built upon flimsy foundations. According to Kenneth Paap, a psychologist at San Francisco State University and the most prominent of the critics, bilingual advantages in executive function “either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances.”

Paap started looking into bilingualism in 2009, having spent 30 years studying the psychology of language. He began by trying to replicate some seminal experiments, including a classic 2004 paper by Bialystok involving the Simon task. ...

“It was a really exciting finding and one that I thought would be easy to study with my students,” says Paap. “But we just couldn’t replicate any of the effects.” After years of struggling, he published his results in 2013: three studies, 280 local college students, four tests of mental control including the Simon task, and no sign of a bilingual advantage.“That broke the dam,” he says. “Others started submitting negative results and getting their articles published.”
In some areas, bilingual education appears to be a plot to teach Mexican-Americans Spanish instead of English in schools, in order to keep them as an unassimilated worker class.

Ron Unz has worked for English in the schools.

Even rich educated SWPL often have all sorts of misguided beliefs in language education.

If you don't speak English, there are plenty of good reasons to learn English, as it has become the world's standard language. But there is no measurable value to learning any other language.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Trump says America Comes First

The media elites and Trump haters argue that the more Moslems commit terrorist acts against the West, the more the West should allow them to immigrate. Otherwise the Moslems might get the impression that we do not like them and their terrorist religion.

Here is an example of this thinking:
Right after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, Donald Trump did something bizarre. He spoke the truth. Appearing on Fox and Friends, the GOP presidential frontrunner declared that, “This all happened because frankly there is no assimilation.” ...

Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adopt American customs.” …

Banning Muslim immigration would almost certainly undermine this.
Following this logic, instead of fighting World War II, we should have invited a lot of Nazis and Japs to live in the USA. Or during the Cold War, we should have invited a lot of commies in.

Actually, we did take a lot of people from communist countries during the Cold War, but they all hated communism, so it did nothing to make the true commies like us.

Of the Moslems who immigrate to the USA, probably only 20% believe in violent jihadism against infidels.

Importing Moslem jihadists in the hopes that they will like us more is just crazy. There are over a billion Moslems in the world, and no matter how many we take, there will be a billion more who will be annoyed that we did not take them also. And no matter how well we screen them, we will be bringing in thousands of terrorists. There is no good payoff from such a strategy.

Today's top NY Times headline is: In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First.

The shocking part of this is that it is big news that an American presidential candidate wants to put America first. Isn't that an essential requirement for the job? Why would anyone vote for a presidential candidate who did not put America first?

That is the essence of why I support Trump, and why I am not fazed by all the attacks on him. Any presidential consideration of American policy should be based on how it helps Americans. Not on whether it causes people on the other side of the world to like us more. Those people will hate us anyway.

Trump is the only one who stands for America first. The mainstream media and the Democrat Party are dominated by traitors who seek to undermine America. The more that they say it is wrong to put America first, the more they identify themselves as traitors.

Friday, March 25, 2016

More hysterical attacks on Trump

I follow several mainstream news media sources, and their all regularly publish irrational tirades against Donald Ttump. Here is one from David Brooks of the NY Times:
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.

Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy. ...

He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants. ...

In some rare cases, political victors do not deserve our respect. George Wallace won elections, but to endorse those outcomes would be a moral failure.

And so it is with Trump.

History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times.
He then goes on to give an Old Testament biblical argument against Trump.

Brooks is supposedly the conservative columnist at the NY Times, but he voted for Barack Obama in 2008. He is also Jewish and has a son serving in the Israeli army.

Apparently Trump trying to make America great again is deeply unsettling to his religious and ideological prejudices.

Here is an explanation for Brooks misunderstand Trump.

Brooks admits that he misunderstood Trump, but that is not all that is going on. The most venomous Trump hatred is nearly all coming from Jewish columnists and pundits. Some of it comes from supposedly conservative sources, such as the neo-conservatives and National Review.

I think that it is pretty clear that there is religious hatred for Trump. The Jews and Moslems are openly declaring a culture war against America as we know it.

It is not that Trump is anti-Jewish. He is the most pro-Jewish presidential candidate in decades. See this Jewish article for proof.

The attacks on Trump are hysterical and nonsensical. He is not childish and insecure, and that should be obvious. Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest candidate for President.

You know that they are no argument when they compare Trump to Hitler. Hitler was a socialist and a warmonger. Bernie Sanders is the socialist in the race, and Clinton is the warmonger. They are more like Hitler.

Someone sent me this page of Hitler quotes. I do not see any similarity to Trump. According to those quotes, Nazism was a reaction to Jewish Communism, which was a major threat to Germany at the time. If you do not want another Hitler, then you should be on the lookout for movements like Jewish Communism.

I also found this video of Why the Jewish Elite Hates Donald Trump. This seems like excessive criticism of the Jews to me, but educate yourself. Learn both sides of the story, because the political battle lines are being drawn.

Note that it is the Jewish elites who hate Trump. Trump and the others spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's conference (AIPAC). The Jewish elites apologized, while Trump earned the most enthusiastic response of any speaker. My guess is that Trump will win more Jewish votes in November than previous Republican candidates.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Is empathy an essential virtue?

I have become convinced that high empathy is a mental illness that prevents people from making rational decisions. It should be avoided in people with high-responsibility jobs.

The NY Times reports:
Is empathy an essential virtue for a presidential candidate?

The conventional wisdom is that a good candidate must be able to feel your pain. Bill Clinton was hailed by pundits as a virtuoso of empathy, ...

But there are a couple of problems with the conventional wisdom. To begin with, it’s not clear that empathy actually matters much to voters.

In the Republican primaries, Donald J. Trump, who brags that he’s so rich he feels no pain at all, has trounced Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who emphasized his family’s financial struggles, and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, known for comforting rally attendees with hugs.

Some political scientists say that empathy is not a crucial factor in presidential races, noting that personality traits don’t correlate well with the results on Election Day. A candidate often wins despite an opponent who receives higher marks in polls asking how much each “cares about the needs and problems of people like you.” ...

“If I want to do terrible things to a group, one tried-and-true way is to arouse empathy for victims of that group,” Dr. Bloom said in an interview. “Often the argument for war is rooted in empathy for victims of the enemy.”
Like altruism, empathy is fine in small doses. But there are people with pathological altruism who are making the world a worse place.

People argue, for example, that judges should have empathy so that they will side with the less powerful party in court. If that were true, then judges would always rule against landlords in eviction cases.

Maybe Rubio had financial troubles because he is financially incompetent.

It is very difficult for a non-schizophrenic to empathize with a schizophrenic, or a non-alcoholic to empathize with an alcoholic. Perhaps there is some advantage for clinical psychologists to have their own psychological disorders, so that they can better empathize with their patients. But that is unproven.

But why would you want a President or anyone else to have empathy? It is better to have someone who thinks rationally, than to have someone who is driven by involuntary emotions.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

NPR radio broadcast this interview, a couple of weeks ago:
In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, by a vote of 8 to 1, to uphold a state's right to forcibly sterilize a person considered unfit to procreate. The case, known as Buck v. Bell, centered on a young woman named Carrie Buck, whom the state of Virginia had deemed to be "feebleminded."

Author Adam Cohen tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that Buck v. Bell was considered a victory for America's eugenics movement, an early 20th century school of thought that emphasized biological determinism and actively sought to "breed out" traits that were considered undesirable.

"There were all kinds of categories of people who were deemed to be unfit [to procreate]," Cohen says. "The eugenicists looked at evolution and survival of the fittest, as Darwin was describing it, and they believed 'We can help nature along, if we just plan who reproduces and who doesn't reproduce.' "

All told, as many as 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century. The victims of state-mandated sterilization included people like Buck who had been labeled "mentally deficient," as well as those who who were deaf, blind and diseased. Minorities, poor people and "promiscuous" women were often targeted.

Cohen's new book about the Buck case, Imbeciles, takes its name from the terms eugenicists used to categorize the "feebleminded." In it, he revisits the Buck v. Bell ruling and explores the connection between the American eugenics movement and the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

Cohen notes that the instinct to "demonize" people who are different is still prevalent in the U.S. today, particularly in the debate over immigration. ...

Adam Cohen is a former member of The New York Times editorial board and former senior writer for Time magazine.
Here is the logic.

Eugenics was popular a century ago. Some of the science was inaccurate.

Buck v Bell said that the sterilization law had the constitutionally required due process. Many consider the decision embarrassing.

The 1924 immigration law had restrictions based on nationality, and eugenic arguments were used to support the law.

Nazi Germany also had eugenic laws, and may have gotten some inspiration from the USA.

With more lax immigration, maybe Anne Frank would have immigrated to the USA, and then she would not have died in a concentration camp.

Therefore we should open up our borders and let in more Third World immigrants today, and not discuss the eugenic effects.

Here is Buck v Bell:
In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and, if they exist, they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
We still have compulsory vaccination, and California just passed the most coercive vaccination law in American history.

The Cohen logic has many flaws at every step.

Just ask yourself: Would the USA be a better or worse place, if the 1924 Act were not repealed in 1965?

When a young woman with mental problems repeatedly has illegitimate kids, and cannot care for them, then what do you suggest?

Forced vaccination or sterilization is depriving citizens of rights, but limits on immigration do not.

Gross and Cohen are Jewish, and love to make these Holocaust arguments. But when it comes to eugenics, the argument is always that Jews should practice eugenics, and non-Jews should not. And when it comes to immigration, the argument is always that Israel should restrict immigration to Jews, and that other countries should adopt immigration policies that destroy their ethnic identities.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Only some races are modern humans

I complained that the NY Times was using the term "modern human" to mean ancient African. Now it has reversed itself, and its writer Carl Zimmer's latest article says Africans do not qualify as modern:
The ancestors of modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and another extinct line of humans known as the Denisovans at least four times in the course of prehistory, according to an analysis of global genomes published Thursday in the journal Science.

The interbreeding may have given modern humans genes that bolstered immunity to pathogens, the authors concluded. ...

The researchers found that all of the non-Africans in their study had Neanderthal DNA, while the Africans had very little or none. That finding supported previous studies.

But when Dr. Akey and his colleagues compared DNA from modern Europeans, East Asians and Melanesians, they found that each population carried its own distinctive mix of Neanderthal genes.

The best explanation for these patterns, the scientists concluded, was that the ancestors of modern humans acquired Neanderthal DNA on three occasions.

The first encounter happened when the common ancestor of all non-Africans interbred with Neanderthals.
Here the term "modern human" means non-African. Ie, it means a European or Asian of today.

It is only the non-Africans who have Neanderthal DNA, so only they have ancestors who were either Neanderthal or hominids who interbred with Neanderthals.

Those Neanderthals and other hominids were descended from Africans, but did not go back to Africa.

There used to be a consensus that there were three major races of humans: Caucasians, Orientals, and Negroes. Sometimes Pacific islanders and Amerindians are added. Now, no one wants to use these terms anymore, and leftist scientists and professors like Massimo Pigliucci deny that there is any such thing as race.

However the above research requires dividing humans into races, as the divisions are written into our DNA.

My guess is that Zimmer is trying to be politically correct and avoid race by using the term "modern human". But when he uses the term to mean a subset of the major races to the exclusion of other humans, he is being extremely inflammatory.

Or maybe he is just trying to copy the research paper, which starts:
Although Neandertal sequences that persist in the genomes of modern humans have been identified in Eurasians, ...
What it means is: Although Neandertal sequences have been identified to persist in the genomes of Eurasians, ...

Those sequences have not been found in Africans.

(There are rare exceptions to these generalities, of course. White South Africans presumably have the Neanderhal genes.)

Razib Khan also thinks it is strange for Zimmer to call the Neanderthals "hominims", rather than humans. This has been a point of contention between evolutionists and creationists. The mainstream evolutionists have usually said that the Neanderthals were not human, and were wiped out by humans. The creationists usually said the Neanderthals were humans. Khan argues that now that we know that today's Europeans are descended from Neanderthals (and others), then the Neanderthals are human under any reasonable definition.

Update: Massimo Pigliucci responds by repeating his denial of human races.

Monday, March 21, 2016

The return of shaming culture

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:+
Last year, Andy Crouch published an essay in Christianity Today that takes us toward an answer.

Crouch starts with the distinction the anthropologist Ruth Benedict popularized, between a guilt culture and a shame culture. In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad.

Crouch argues that the omnipresence of social media has created a new sort of shame culture. The world of Facebook, Instagram and the rest is a world of constant display and observation. The desire to be embraced and praised by the community is intense. People dread being exiled and condemned. Moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion.
Crouch's essay says:
I’ve come to eavesdrop on this missions conversation because I suspect that honor and shame are becoming dominant forces in the American context. ...

The idea of “shame cultures” originated with anthropologists. During World War II, Columbia University anthropologist Ruth Benedict was trying to make sense of the cultural patterns of the Japanese. Her 1946 book, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, popularized the idea that Japan was a “shame culture,” in which morality was governed by “external sanctions for good behavior.” In other words, you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you. By contrast, in a guilt culture such as the West, you know you are good or bad because of an “internalized conviction of sin” — by how you feel about your behavior and choices.
The essay is also here.

Western civilization (Europe and USA) is a guilt culture, while the rest of the world has shame cultures. Guilt culture was a great advance of Judeo-Christian society, and is better than shame cultures.

Guilt culture allows for individualism, for forgiveness, and for the teachings of moral leaders, while shame is subject to the whims of the mob.

Yes, we are shifting to a shame culture, as a result of immigration, leftist influence, feminism, and social media.

As I write this, NPR has some feminist guests who are trying to tell us how to think about some shaming incident.

Donald Trump seems like an anachronism, because he refuses to yield to leftist shaming.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Hazards of an autism cure

A NY Times essay claims that being cured of autism ruined his life:
Before the T.M.S., I had fantasized that the emotional cues I was missing in my autism would bring me closer to people. The reality was very different. The signals I now picked up about what my fellow humans were feeling overwhelmed me. They seemed scared, alarmed, worried and even greedy. The beauty I envisioned was nowhere to be found.

Seeing emotion didn’t make my life happy. It scared me, as the fear I felt in others took hold in me, too. As exciting as my new sensory ability was, it cost me customers at work, when I felt them looking at me with contempt. It spoiled friendships when I saw teasing in a different and nastier light. It even ruined memories when I realized that people I remembered as funny were really making fun of me.

And the hardest thing: It cost me a marriage.
Medical experts say that this is no cure for autism, so I am skeptical of this. But he does have a point.

Being sensitive to the feelings of others is not necessarily a good thing. Much human suffering is traceable to internalizing the perceived feelings of others. In women, especially.

If most people were insensitive to the unverbalized emotions and feelings of others, then the sensitive ones would be considered to have a mental disorder.

I tried to listen to Sam Harris's podcast interview of Omer Aziz, and Harris says:
Everyone on the Left is pretending to be a mindreader.
This was the only Harris statement I agreed with.

To prove the point, Harris is a Leftist, and he spends much of the podcast (the first half, at least) pretending to be a mindreader. He constantly makes ad hominem attacks against was Aziz is supposedly thinking.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Today's Trump hater

My local newspaper just published this letter:
We now represent the largest voting bloc, and we will vote. Independents, who despise Hillary, will vote. And we will win. Krauthammer’s accusation that Trump is a victim is dangerous. Trump is literally spewing hate speech from his orange baloney lips. Peaceful protesters are being attacked, and he is encouraging the violence. Trump has gone from an entertaining spectacle to a serious cause for concern. Anyone who defends him or blames his opponents is supporting him and should be silenced.

— Erik F. Eriksen, Santa Cruz
Krauthammer is another Trump hater, but this guy says he must be silenced also for criticizing protesters.

Note the reasoning here. The letter does not present any substantive argument. The author just declares himself to be on the side of the good-guy majority, and wants to silence the opposition. And also silence anyone who defends, sympathizes, or associates with the opposition.

(The author appears to be no relation to Erick Erickson, another Trump hater.)

Friday, March 18, 2016

Africa theory proved wrong again

Ars Technica reports:
You've probably heard the story about how Neanderthals were living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, when suddenly a bunch of Homo sapiens came pouring out of Africa about 70 thousand years ago. 30 thousand years later, pretty much all the Neanderthals were dead. Many anthropologists believe that Homo sapiens killed off our large-browed cousins in a quest to dominate the Eurasian continent. But over the past 10 years, that view has changed radically thanks to new techniques for sequencing ancient DNA.

Now, two new studies make it even less likely that modern humans killed off the Neanderthals. Instead, we interbred with them at least three separate times, and our ancestors were likely sharing tools with them half a million years ago. ...

In other words, modern humans didn't sweep out of Africa, killing everything in their paths. They settled down with the locals, many different times. Evolutionary biologist Carles Laleuza-Fox, who was not involved in the study, told the New York Times' Carl Zimmer, "This is yet another genetic nail in the coffin of our over-simplistic models of human evolution."
So all the textbooks that say that modern humans emerged from Africa are wrong.

When will the textbooks be corrected? Not for decades, I suspect. Just last month the NY Times was still referring to ancient Africans as "modern humans".

The problem was not over-simplification. Before the Out-of-Africa theory became popular about 30 years ago, the consensus was the multi-regional theory that is now considered more accurate. Neanderthals were considered primitive humans, like the popular image of a cave man.

The Out-of-Africa theory was promoted by leftist anthropologists who wanted to make a statement about the equality of all people, and to credit Africa for creating humanity. In the textbooks and popular press, they said that all of human evolution took place in Africa, that modern humans emerged there about 100k years ago, that they spread to the whole planet displacing other hominids, and that there has been no human evolution since.

All of this has been proved false.

Someone is probably going to tell me that this was all a Jewish plot. What would the purpose be -- to convince non-Jews not to have any ethnic pride in their heritage? So then Jews can retain their ethnic pride and use it to their advantage?

I don't know about that, as I don't even know whether the leaders of the Out-of-Africa movement were Jewish. Regardless, it is strange how this theory was pushed on academia and the public, without any hard evidence that it was better than the previous theory.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Obama nominates a Harvard Jewish judge

I posted yesterday about the theory that Jews vote Democrat because they are underdogs, and today the Jerusalem Post reports:
Merrick Garland emotionally recalls Jewish roots in accepting Supreme Court nomination

If confirmed, Garland would be the fourth Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court. New Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland credited his Jewish grandparents, who he said fled to the US from anti-Semitism in Russia, for putting him in position to be nominated.

“My family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. My grandparents left the Pale of Settlement at the border of western Russia and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s, fleeing anti-Semitism and hoping to make a better life for their children in America,” he said, choking up Wednesday morning in the White House Rose Garden as he accepted President Barack Obama’s nomination.

Born to a Jewish mother and a Protestant father, Garland was raised as a Jew. ...

Garland is a graduate of Harvard Law School and clerked for US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. In 1987, he married fellow Harvard graduate Lynn Rosenman in a Jewish ceremony at the Harvard Club in New York. Rosenman’s grandfather, Samuel Rosenman of New York, was a state Supreme Court justice and a special counsel to two presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

If confirmed, Garland would be the fourth Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court, which is comprised entirely of Jews and Catholics. The three current Jewish members are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elana Kagan and Stephen Breyer.
Here are my observations.

Garland comes from a high-status and high-privilege background, and is not an underdog.

Jews are not underdogs, as they are gaining control of our most powerful institutions.

Barack Obama would never have appointed a white Christian male. The reason is not that whites are privileged, because he is perfectly happy appointing a privileged Harvard grad, while all the other justices came from Harvard or Yale.

Democrats count on the courts to do their dirty work for them. Hillary Clinton recently announced that she is in favor of the death penalty, but she would breathe of sigh of relief, if the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

Obama and Clinton are liberals, but not Jews. So why the eagerness to appoint Jews to the Supreme Court? Why do they need 4 out of 9 to be Jewish, when Jews are only 2% of the population?

An anonymous comment says:
Jews have been causing trouble in Europe for at least two thousand years. I would hardly regard them as the scapegoats of tyrants, more the root cause of discontent in Europe and also worldwide. They have been deported from more nations than any other immigrant group. When many different peoples all end up reacting similarly to one group, one does not blame every other group as being tyrannical or evil. One sees the truth that the problem is with that one group that so many different peoples ended up disliking. Jews are genetically inclined to treat other Jews as family rather than simply other members of a racial or ethnic group. This means they act nepotistically wherever they go. The best way for them to hide their behaviour is to shout the loudest for equality but hypocritically never ever applying it to themselves. They are biological warfare on the peace of nations.
I found this timeline of two millennia of Christendom persecution of Jews, including deportations. Many of these items are just statements of theological differences, or discouraging intermarriage. Jewish groups also state theological differences, and discourage intermarriage. For the most part, Christendom tolerated the continued presence of Jews and allowed them to live under their own laws.

I do not really have any quarrel with Jews pursuing their ethnic interests. Most ethnic groups do, except for white Christians. But why are non-Jewish Democrats so eager to appoint Jews? Couldn't Obama better pursue his ethnic interests by appointing an African-American?

My guess is that Obama does not really relate to African-Americans that much, and that his interest in undermining white Christianity is much greater. And appointing Jews to the Supreme Court is the most reliable way.

Update: The Univ. of California Board of Regents has just declared:
Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California ...
I guess this is an example of Jews demanded equality of others (calling it non-discrimination) while they would never accept it for themselves. If no one is allowed to criticize Zionism, then no one should be allowed to criticize White Nationalism either, or any other nationalist movement.

Update: California slightly modified the language.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Political Stupidity of the Jews

Joseph Epstein writes in the WSJ:
The Political Stupidity of the Jews Revisited
Why do so many of my fellow Jews stay in the Democratic Party’s pocket? ...

The best face that can be put on this unwillingness, bordering on a genetic-inability, of Jews to vote Republican is that Jewishness, if not Judaism, has at its center a hatred of injustice and a concomitant yearning for equality. All this, presumably, has been ingrained in Jews by their own long history as the scapegoats of tyrants. Being underdogs, the Jews ipso facto are themselves for underdogs. Republicans, traditionally, have been top dogs. Don’t, something in most Jews tells them, go there.
No, the Republicans are not the top dogs, and Jews are not underdogs.

Today's super-rich are disproportionally Jewish and Democrat. And Jews do not yearn for equality.

Whatever the reasons, Jews are just one of many demographic groups that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Other non-Christians vote Democrat, including Moslems and atheists. So do blacks, and other non-whites. So do government workers, and low-information voters. So do single moms on welfare. So do America-haters and other fringe groups.

The Democrat Party has become the party of identity politics. The main thing holding them together is their promise to undermine WASPs and traditional American culture.

The Left has declared a culture war on Americanism, and the various ethnic groups are choosing sides.

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Democrats want a race war

The NY Times published 100s of stories implying that white Ferguson cops go around killing innocent black kids, and inciting hatred of whites. Now it writes:
The anger from both sides was so raw, they concluded — from supporters of Donald J. Trump who are terrified they are losing their country and from protesters who fear he is leading the nation down a dark road of hate — that a dreaded moment was starting to look inevitable. “I don’t see where that anger goes,” the historian Heather Cox Richardson predicted a few weeks ago, “except into violence.”

This weekend it finally arrived.
The violence is coming entire from those who hate white Christians. The Democrat presidential candidates have based their candidacies on white hate and anti-white policies.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are doing everything to excuse black criminals killing white cops.

The Democrats wants a race war. Trump does not, but he cannot allow criminals and thugs to shut down his campaign.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Only haters compare Trump to Hitler

Dilbert writes:
Can we agree that calling the candidate with German ancestry “Hitler” is racist? It sure feels that way to me. I’m about half German, same as Trump. And it feels like a racial insult to me.

I’m not easily offended, but I don’t see any other way to interpret the incessant Hitler analogies directed at Trump. If he were female and Asian – with exactly the same policies – would we be comparing him to Hitler every five seconds?

I don’t think so.
Dilbert understates the matter.

Trump is nothing like Hitler. Hitler was primarily a socialist, and Trump is the opposite. Hitler hated the Jews, and Trump is very closely aligned with Jews. Hitler was a warmonger, and Trump opposes the Obama-Clinton foreign wars.

I believe that the hysterical anti-Trump Hitler-crying activists are part of a plan to commit White Genocide, and they believe that Trump is their main obstacle.

Trump-hating thugs have just sabotaged a Chicago rally.

I saw Geraldo Rivera (aka Gerry Rivers) go into a big anti-Trump rant, say that he saw David Duke at a cross-buring rally 40 years ago, and so Duke is just like Hitler or ISIS. And Trump did not sufficient condemn Duke.

Maybe Rivera knows Duke better than I do, but has Duke publicly beheaded anyone? Has he committed any crimes? If not, how is he like ISIS?

I assume that Rivera is either an evil white-Christian-hater, or he has a mental illness.

Germany bans pork sausages:
An increasing number of public canteens, child daycare centres and schools have stopped serving sausages, bacon and ham over religious considerations.

Now members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party are fighting to keep pork on the menu, insisting the consumption of pork is part of German culture.
Banning pork sausages is part of subjugating the German people, and Trump would fight such nonsense.

Sailer writes:
American elections had become highly predictable exercises in demographic identity politics. As the late Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore once said:
In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
Since identity changes only in slow, predictable patterns, elections have been relatively easy to forecast.
Republicans have become the Christian party, and diversity + proximity = war.

As the Democrats pander to the underclass/criminal class, you might get the impression that non-whites are in prison because of discrimination. But no one will discuss what causes crime:
Most of the evidence about the causes of crime overlooks genetic transmission. Yet, some research has found that once you account for genetic influences on self-control, previously identified social transmission effects (read: parenting) on the child’s self-control become unstable. In other words, when you control for genetic transmission (the alternative explanation that most criminologists overlook), the effect of parenting on self-control diminishes or goes away entirely.

Consider another type of parenting effect — one that shows up in the news frequently — spanking. Not long ago, we examined the relationship between spanking and behavioral problems in children. Once we controlled for genetic transmission, there was no spanking effect in the way that most scholars think about spanking effects. Put another way, our evidence did not support the conclusion that spanking causes behavioral problems in the sense that most psychologists would argue.

The conundrum of heritability transcends parenting.
Most human behaviors are heritable.

The Wachowski brothers were considered great geniuses after they made the first Matrix movie, but then the sequels were strange stories about killing off all the white people, and now this:
Four years after "Matrix" filmmaker Lana Wachowski revealed she was transgender, her sibling and filmmaking partner, formerly known as Andy Wachowski, has also come out as transgender, and her name is Lilly, according to a statement posted Tuesday on the websites of the Windy City Times and advocacy group GLAAD.
I am assuming that they have some sort of mental illness.

Update: The lead news story this morning was the disruption of Trump's Chicago rally. This is the logical consequence of the Democrat Party teaching voters to hate white Christian males. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly make excuses for black and Moslem killers, and campaign based on identity politics.

Wednesday, March 09, 2016

Democrats blame white privilege

Here is the latest Democrat race-pandering:
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agreed tonight that, as white people, they have “racial blind spots” preventing them from appreciating the struggles minorities encounter.

“Being a white person in the United States of America, I know that I have never had the experience that so many people in this audience have had,” Clinton said. “I think it’s incumbent upon me and what I have been trying to talk about is to urge white people about what it is like to have ‘the talk’ with your kids, scared that yours or daughters even could get in trouble for no good reason whatsoever, like Sandra Bland and end up dead in a jail in Texas.”

“That is what I will try to do to deal with what I know is the racism that stalking our country,” she said.

“When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto and to be poor,” Sanders said. ”You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or get dragged out of a car. I believe as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear: We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system.”
Sandra Bland was mostly at fault for her troubles. She picked a fight with a cop, and hanged herself in jail.

Yes, white people know what it is like to be poor, live in a ghetto, and get hassled by cops.

The Democrat Party policy is to stir up non-whites into hating white, and to count on liberal white guilt to take it without saying anything.

A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote for a race war.

Monday, March 07, 2016

NPR finally explains Trump support

After 6 months of attacking Donald Trump, NPR radio finally had a couple of guests yesterday supporting him. Here is one:
MARTIN: You think Donald Trump can actually fulfill his promise to deport 11 million illegal immigrants?

REID: I don't know. I think that it's unfair to ask him all the details about it. But the fact that somebody says - I will do it if I get in office. I'll find the people to help me, and I will build a wall. All those things can be done if we have the resolve to do it. And if we don't have the resolve to do it, let's just fold our tent and forget that we're a country and become a Greece.

MARTIN: How are you making the case to your friends and family who are still not sold on Donald Trump as the guy who should be the Republican nominee?

REID: Exactly the way I'm making it to you now, and I'm not convincing all of them. But I feel very confident that I'm correct. I will tell you this, though. Trump is redefining the Republican Party. And for conservatives like me, once this thing is redefined, we may not be so happy with it. I'm not sure of that. I'm very - a strong - a social conservative. I don't believe Trump is. But social conservatism can be put on hold for four years. Doing something about illegal immigration, security of our country, building up our military, doing something about our national debt and the jobs - that can't wait. Otherwise, nothing else matters.
Tbat's right. Social conservatives want a socially conservative culture, and that will not be possible if the USA is flooded with immigrants who are opposed to the concept.

The Left is out to destroy America as we know it. Maybe Trump cannot stop them, but at least he promises to put up a fight.

NPR also found a black Trump supporter:
Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, recently endorsed Donald Trump. NPR's Rachel Martin speaks to him about why. ...

MARTIN: Most recently, he found himself in a situation during a TV interview where he did not explicitly denounce support from David Duke who's the former grand wizard of the KKK.

EVERS: Right.

MARTIN: It took him some time. Eventually, Trump did unequivocally denounce him and his support. How did you see all of that unfold? How did that sit with you as a longtime civil rights activist?

EVERS: It didn't bother me at all because he's running for president of the United States - the president of everybody, including the David Dukes. And I have no problem with it, frankly, because David's just one man. He's out there by himself. And most people now have gotten away from that. Look how far we've come since Medgar's death 50-something years ago. So you know, we have to stop living in the past and live in the present and the future.

MARTIN: Do you think he is a unifier?

EVERS: I hope so. Is President Obama a unifier? Will Hillary Clinton be a unifier?

MARTIN: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - you don't see them as having that capacity?

EVERS: What I'm saying is that - I'm saying - did they unify? They tried. I know President Obama tried, but he couldn't.

MARTIN: May I ask - did you vote for Barack Obama?

EVERS: Oh, yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. ... I want him [President Trump] to be president of all the people equally. That's all I want everybody to do.
The Jewish race-baiting leftists hate David Duke. I don't think blacks care. The KKK is just a footnote in their history books, and as Evers says, we have to stop living in the past.

The President should not go around unequivocally denouncing anyone. As far as I know, Duke has not been convicted of any crime and does not advocate any crime or violence. He is just a citizen with a point of view. He advocates for the ethnic group that he identifies with, but so do millions of others.

Update: This morning NPR had a story on Teamsters supporting Trump. It said that some Teamster members are supporting Sanders or Kasich.

Sunday, March 06, 2016

More bad arguments for privacy

Bruce Schneier argues:
The FBI wants the ability to bypass encryption in the course of criminal investigations. This is known as a "backdoor," because it's a way at the encrypted information that bypasses the normal encryption mechanisms. I am sympathetic to such claims, but as a technologist I can tell you that there is no way to give the FBI that capability without weakening the encryption against all adversaries. This is crucial to understand. I can't build an access technology that only works with proper legal authorization, or only for people with a particular citizenship or the proper morality. The technology just doesn't work that way.

If a backdoor exists, then anyone can exploit it. All it takes is knowledge of the backdoor and the capability to exploit it. And while it might temporarily be a secret, it's a fragile secret. Backdoors are how everyone attacks computer systems.

This means that if the FBI can eavesdrop on your conversations or get into your computers without your consent, so can cybercriminals. So can the Chinese. So can terrorists.
I am sympathetic to his privacy goals, but sooner or later the public is going to figure out this argument is incorrect. Backdoor technology is feasible.

The SSL/TLS protocol that everyone uses for secure web pages has backdoors. There are about 150 root certificates with super-secret keys in private hands. If a bad guy got access to one of these and intercepted web traffic, then he could subvert the system.

The system depends on the holders of these super-secret keys keeping them secret. No, they cannot be guessed and they are extremely difficult to steal. Some bad certificates have been issued, but the system works pretty well.

The US Govt can and does keep some military secrets very well.

Nate Cardoza, a staff attorney for the EFF, said on NPR Radio Ashbrook On Point:
Every computer scientist, every mathematician, every cryptographyer that has looked at the question has said: You cannot give the FBI what it is asking for here without endangering the security of all of us.
No, this is false.

Apple's main argument against the current subpoena is that it would be burdensome to assign a programmer to spend a couple of weeks supplying what the FBI wants. (Apple also argues that it has a free speech right to not comply with federal regulations, but I cannot see a court accepting that.)

Once Apple customizes its unlock program for the FBI, Apple complains that it will have no good argument against future subpoenas. That is, the work will have already been done, and so Apple cannot claim that it is burdensome.

Apple has a crappy argument. It makes about $200B a year on iphones, so I don't see how it can be burdensome to spend a couple of programmer-weeks to comply with the FBI. It is spending millions on lawyers and public relations on this issue.

I am all for individual privacy rights. But Apple is anti-privacy, and is fighting this on the basis of maximizing its profits. Apple has conned the public on this issue, and conned the leftist privacy groups as well.

Famous Israeli crypto expert Adi Shamir sides with the FBI over Apple.

I do not think that the govt should force any backdoors, but when companies like Apple put backdoors in for business reasons, they should comply with govt warrants.

Friday, March 04, 2016

Stanford crypto boys get Turing Award

The NY Times reports:
Mr. Diffie would spend the next several years pursuing that challenge and in 1976, with Martin E. Hellman, an electrical engineer at Stanford, invented “public-key cryptography,” a technique that would two decades later make possible the commercial World Wide Web.

On Tuesday, the Association for Computing Machinery announced that the two men have won this year’s Turing Award. The award is frequently described as the Nobel Prize for the computing world and since 2014, it has included a $1 million cash award, after Google quadrupled its size.
Some later developments by MIT professors (RSA) got a Turing Award in 2002.

It is strange for the ACM to omit credit to their Stanford colleague, Ralph Merkle. Merkle independently invented public key cryptography and submitted it to an ACM journal, but the journal refused to publish it for several years.

I happened to get the inside story on this, when Merkle and were on opposite sides of a lawsuit. I read all of his rejection letters. One letter criticized him for not having any references to previous work in the field. He wrote back that there had been no work in the field because he was solving a problem that no one had ever considered before.

One referee report said that he had a simple advance in computational complexity, but that he should omit all the fluff about computer security.

That fluff about computer security is the basis of most computer connections today.

The MIT/RSA work seems to be more famous, and got the Turing prize 13 years earlier. But the Stanford-Diffie-Hellman-Merkle work was earlier, more fundamental, and had all the essential ideas for SSL/TLS secure computer connections.

Considering that the ACM cheated Merkle out of credit by rejecting his brilliant paper, it should have made up for it by making him a co-winner of the Turing Award.