Saturday, June 25, 2016

Orlando shooter was not gay

The public has probably moved on from this, but I am afraid that some false info has been burned in.

The Democrats and the (((news media))) have been trying to convince us that the Orlando shooter was not a Moslem jihadist, but really a gay suffering from repression by Republicans.

Now the LA Times reports:
Since the shooting at an Orlando nightclub last week that left 49 people dead, reports have emerged that gunman Omar Mateen frequented the gay club, used gay dating apps and had gay lovers.

But the FBI has found no evidence so far to support claims by those who say Mateen had gay lovers or communicated on gay dating apps, several law enforcement officials said. ...

On Tuesday, Univision aired a report in which “Miguel,” a man wearing a disguise to conceal his identity, alleged he had sex with Mateen after meeting him on the gay dating app, Grindr. He said Mateen had sex with other men too, including a threesome with a Puerto Rican who allegedly told Mateen, after having had unprotected sex with him, that he was HIV positive.

But investigators do not consider the man’s account credible, according to one senior law enforcement official with access to the investigation.

In seeking to verify the reports, federal agents have culled Mateen’s electronic devices, including a laptop computer and cellphone, as well as electronic communications of those who made the claims, law enforcement officials said.

So far, they have found no photographs, no text messages, no smartphone apps, no gay pornography and no cell-tower location data to suggest that Mateen — who was twice married to women and had a young son — conducted a secret gay life, the officials said.
Wow. This was just straight Mohammedan terrorism. If the USA had a reasonable immigration policy, Mateen never would have been here.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Another Freddie Gray defendant acquitted

The Democrat race war is based on convincing non-whites that they are being persecuted, as shown by cases like Trayvon Marton, Ferguson Mo, and Freddie Gray. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have personally said things to encourage race riots.

I have always assumed that some blacks are mistreated, by why can't the Democrats and (((news media))) find any examples?

Another genius physicist has joined the Trump-haters:
Letter to My Friends, by Leonard Susskind

I’m watching this thing that’s happening with disbelief, dismay, and disgust. There is a lunatic loose — I’m sure we all agree about that — but I keep hearing people say that they can’t vote for Hillary. ...

The lunatic may be just that — a lunatic—but he is also a master of smear and innuendo. He is a gigantic liar, and he knows that if you keep saying something over and over, it sticks in people’s minds. It’s called the Big Lie, and it works. Say it enough and it sows confusion and distrust, not only among the know-nothings, but even among those who know better.

The lunatic and his supporters are exceedingly dangerous. Tell your friends: don’t be fooled. The only thing between us and the lunatic is Hillary. Get off your ass and vote in Nov.

Leonard Susskind
Director, Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Stanford University
There is no real argument here, except the opinion that everyone agrees that Trump is a lunatic.

(((Susskind))) is a well-respected theoretical physicist, but he is mainly known for work that has no relation to the real world, such as info leaking out of black holes. It is not mathematically rigorous either.

I mentioned other genius Trump-haters, who also rely on simply saying that all their friends are against Trump.

Is this really the best they can do with their 180 IQ?

If he said that an asteroid were going to destroy the Earth, then I would expect some verifiable evidence, and an estimate of the damage. What damage will a Trump candidacy cause?

No explanation is given. My inference is that it is all part of hating white people.

All of the experts, political leaders, globalists, super-rich, and other elites have been telling Britain that it has to stay in the EU. Pollsters and bettors were saying that it would vote to remain. It has now voted to leave. This is amazing. The British people have voted to stand up for their national self-interest, over the advice of the elites who have been selling them out. America needs to do the same in November.

Update: Lenny defends his letter, but only with arguemnts to appeal to brainless leftists.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

What we mean by America First

Donald Trump summarizes what his campaign is about in a speech today:
Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people really first. We have to go back to putting our American people first.

We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.

We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed. They get punished!

This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs.

We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again.

That’s what we mean by America First.
This is the essence of why Trump is such a timely and important candidate. Everyone else has abandoned Americanism for globalism.

Putting America First should be the top job requirement for the President. It swamps all other issues. Why vote for a candidate who does not put America First? Hillary Clinton and the anti-Trump Republicans just seem like traitors in comparison.

Why White-haters vote Democrat

A WSJ op-ed asks:
Many of this year’s college graduates will cast a vote in a presidential election for the first time in November. If they are Jewish or Asian-American, as we are, the odds are that they will vote Democratic. Among Jews, 78% backed Barack Obama in 2008, and 70% did in 2012, despite a foreign policy that at best could be described as rough on Israel. Asian-American support for Mr. Obama grew between 2008 and 2012, from 62% to an even more lopsided 73%. What accounts for this overwhelming support for Democrats?
It is funny how people ask this question, and then give a bunch of answers that do not make any sense.

It is real simple. Jews and Asians are extremely ethnocentric. The Democrat Party has become the hate-White-Christian party.

White Christians are the least ethnocentric people on Earth, and even have a hard time understanding how others could be so preoccupied with identity politics. But to most others, it is very important, and to Jews and Orientals, it is nearly everything. Jews will vote for the Jewish party, and Chinese with vote for the Chinese party. Since these groups are too small to have their own parties, they just vote for the anti-white party.

Democrats also get votes from self-hating whites, such this famous German-American moral philosopher. I mentioned this case, and now there is a follow-up:
Yale philosophy professor Thomas Pogge has “engaged in behavior that violates the norms of appropriate professional conduct,” states an open letter signed by over 200 of his peers. “Nothing is more important to our philosophical community than the trust he has betrayed.” ...

The open letter states that Pogge appears to have “engaged in a long-term pattern of discriminatory conduct,” including “unwanted sexual advances, quid pro quo offers of letters of recommendation and other perks, employment retaliation in response to charges of sexual misconduct, and sexual assault.” It notes that other allegations have surfaced since BuzzFeed News’ investigation was published, and that all of the public allegations to date have been made by women of color.
Really? Nothing more important?

Sexual assault would be a crime, but no one has complained to the police. The complaints are pretty lame, from a legal view, as no one suffered any harm. They are troublesome for Yale because of Obama Title IX policies.

It is funny what they choose to complain about. They do not complain about his adultery or his preference for young colored women. Most of all, they do not complain about his horrible moral philosophy, which mainly consists of thinking up of new ways to blame white people for varous real and imagined ills. It is not clear whether he really believes the nonsense he spouts, or if it is just a ruse for fame and fortune in academia, or for seduction of young non-white girls who are impressed by his white hatred.

"Nothing is more important"? No, nothing is more important to academics than blaming white people, as that is how this charlatan got promoted in the first place.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Science of physiognomy

CH argues:
Pman sells the science of physiognomy short. There’s evidence (re)emerging from the labcoats’ mental masturbatoriums that a person’s looks do say something about his politics, smarts, personality, and even his propensity to crime. Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air, and the historical wisdom that one can divine the measure of a man (or a woman) by the cut of his face has empirical support.

For instance, facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is a reliable cue to dominant social behavior in men. Another study found that wide-faced men are untrustworthy. You CAN judge a book by its cover: ugly people are more crime-prone.

Shitlibs have a look. Shitlords have a look. And you can predict with better than 50/50 chance which 2016 presidential candidate a person supports based on nothing more than their photograph.

Physiognomy is real. It needs to come back as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and the snarling equalists who lied and slandered good men to suppress the investigation of physiognomy should have their faces rubbed in the realtalk. Physiognomy isn’t just an illusion of confirmation bias, or of backwards rationalization of evoked emotions. The connection between facial appearance and character is observable and measurable, not a figment of cognitive self-bias. There are exceptions, of course, but the existence of exceptions should not be used as an excuse to sweep the reality of the rule under the rug.
The CH blog has its own jargon that makes it hard for outsiders to read. Sometimes I think that he does this deliberates, because the typical blue-pill reader will not grasp his points, and be offended by his posts. His jargon is a way of directing his message at those who will get it.

Part of the purpose of Uber and Airbnb is to let the vendors and customers see each other before making a deal.

The leftist egalitarians complain that it is discrimination to judge someone based on appearance. Of course it is. It is also essential to human civilization.

Americans get taught in kindergarten to treat everyone alike, and not to make any judgments based on appearance. This goes against science, and against human nature. Adults who say this stuff are just mindlessly reciting what they learned in kindergarten. It is nearly impossible to reason with such people because they are brainwashed. They have a kindergarten morality that is ingrained like a religion. Most people do not critically examine their religious beliefs. When someone has been sticking to a belief since an early age, even in the face of obvious counterexamples, he will probably not be persuaded by any logical argument.

Monday, June 20, 2016

ABC News bans Christian from show

Here is an opinion from someone calling himself the "friendly atheist":
Here’s an interesting move: ABC News had scheduled Christian hate group leader Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council) to appear on today’s episode of This Week, then quietly removed him from the lineup after many people complained.

Whether the removal was the direct result of the complaints hasn’t been confirmed, but given Perkins’ previous statements about LGBT people, it’s difficult to see what he would have contributed to any discussion on the Orlando shootings.

Zack Ford of ThinkProgress notes:
FRC has long been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a prominent anti-LGBT hate-group, and Perkins himself has a notorious reputation for his anti-LGBT vitriol. Though he often tames his rhetoric in mainstream news appearances to sound like his anti-gay views represent all U.S. Christians, he then tells FRC’s audiences things like that homosexuality leads to “eternal damnation” and is “harmful” to individuals “and to society as a whole.”
Writer Laura Bethany Taylor also asked ABC in an open letter, “How tolerant would the national media be of a KKK leader speaking on a massacre of African Americans?”
So why does an atheist care about Christian damnation?

My guess is that most Americans believe that homosexuality is harmful to individuals and to society as a whole. Whether that is true depends on what you mean by harm.

But Moslems commonly believe that homosexuals should be put to death. Many Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuals. However offensive Perkins might be, he is a big friend to LGBT folks, by comparison.

I don't watch ABC News, but does it ever have Moslem guests? If so, and if they represent mainstream Islam, then they are 1000x more offensive to LGBT. If they are putting gay Moslems on the air, then they are misrepresenting Islam.

I suspect that they are suppressing the truth about Islam.

I have heard (((SPLC representatives))) on NPR radio, and almost everything they said was based on hatred of whites and Christians. You would think that if he wanted to defend LGBT rights, then then he would criticize the ideologies that favor killing homosexual. Nope. All they want to do is to spread their own hatred.

Florida killer audio censored

One reason we get so many wacky crime stories out of Florida is that it has a very strong open records law. So mug shots, 911 calls, and police evidence are released to the public.

But in the case of the Orlando gay bar shooting, the Barack Obama administration is now censoring the 911 calls from the Afgan-American Moslem killer Mateen. The FBI says that he declares his allegiance to Islam, and the recording might give people the impression that Islam is a religion of violence. So it is being suppressed for the duration of a multi-year investigation.

We have one Presidential candidate who says that Islamic terrorism is a problem, and we have another who says that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and that we should ban guns instead.

We have a (((mainstream media))) trying to convince everyone that the massacre was caused by guns, Republicans, American schools, homophobia, racism, etc. Maintaining their power depends on keeping people brainwashed.

Ask yourself: Why is it taking years for the FBI to figure out what Donald Trump deduced within an hour of the news of the shooting? The answer is that destroying Christendom requires concealing the motives of the lizard people.

Update: The censored portion has supposedly now been released.

Tech companies go full Leftist

It was widely reported that (((Facebook))) is rigging its system to favor Hillary Clinton, but so are the other big tech companies. See Anonymous - Google manipulating Hillary Clinton, Twitter blocking conservatives, and Apple fighting the GOP.

Apple is always adding gay emojis, but it and Microsoft have now banned the rifle emoji.

I tried watching some video clips of late night comedy shows on Trump and Clinton. They are just pro-Clinton propaganda, and not funny at all. Jay Leno would at least make an effort to make fun of both Republicans and Democrats. The shows today do not do that at all.

These tech companies are all heavily invested in betraying America. They want open borders, and to integrate America with the Third World. They want to import cheap labor, and subsidize foreigners to get hooked on their products. They want socialist control over all of your communications.

If Clinton is elected, look for a special law sheltering Google from liability for self-driving cars. Or maybe a fully-socialized car insurance system. Buying influence gets favors.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Famous feminist reveals damaged family

The lead book review in today NY Times is of a new memoir by man-hating feminist (((Susan Faludi))).

Previous books have trash her father as embodying all the evils of the patriarchy. Now she decides that he is not so bad, because in his 70s he traveled to Thailand to have his genitals chopped off, and now he is dead.

She says "she was born in Hungary", referring to her father. She says that his/her real name is Friedman, and he/she were from a wealthy Jewish family.

The NY Times caters to a Jewish audience, and celebrates this sort of story. This hits many of their favorite themes: Jewish, leftist, man-hating, emasculated man, family betrayal, social destruction, America-hating, Holocaust reminder, bitter feminist, sordid, etc.

The NY Times promotes this book with an author interview and rave review. Actually I didn't read the review, and I am just judging by the interview. What is so great about this garbage? This is the sad story of mental illness and emotional damage. I think that this is more evidence of control by lizard people.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

The latest goofy value judgments

I keep seeing complaints that 20yo Stanford swimmer Brock Allen Turner was only sentenced to 6 months or less for a rape conviction.

No, he was not convicted of rape, and his sentence was not just 6 months. He was also sentenced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Those requirements are so onerous that many find it necessary to move out of state or out of the country.

I did not follow the case, so maybe he deserves the punishment. But it is disturbing the way everyone overstates the crime, and understates the punishment. Just part of the war on men, I guess.

One of the great advances in the history of philosophy is the conclusion that "ought implies can". Immanuel Kant said that if you ought to do something, then it must be that you can do it. That is, you cannot be morally commanded what you are unable to do. Now experiments supposedly show that people do not reason this way at all. The philosophers go on to argue whether Gandhi's morality can be said to be any better than Hitler's. I guess the idea is that both were popular extremists who were just doing what they could to help their people.

Such is the sorry state of philosophy.

Non-philosophers in respectable publications are not much better. This Julia Ioffe essay concludes:
No religion is inherently violent. No religion is inherently peaceful. Religion, any religion, is a matter of interpretation, and it is often in that interpretation that we see either beauty or ugliness — or, more often, if we are mature enough to think nuanced thoughts, something in between.
Her main argument is that the early Christians persecuted the rival Manicheans about 1700 years ago.

(((She))) is just another Trump-hater.

Yes, Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. Islam was founded by a military conqueror, and teaches killing its enemies. Christianity teaches peace.

Friday, June 17, 2016

No free speech at Catholic college

Breitbart reports:
After a tepid apology to college Republicans last week after disruptive protests and threats of violence forced the early cancellation of their event with Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, the President of DePaul University has released a statement kowtowing to left-wing activists on campus.

The President, Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, has faced a week of pressure from left-wing activists after he released a statement apologizing to the college Republicans for the disruption of their event, and criticizing protesters for their actions (which included grabbing a microphone from the event’s host, waving it in Milo’s face, and threatening violence).

In the wake of his apology (which included a condemnation of Milo as a “self-serving provocateur”), Terry Smith, a Distinguished Professor of Law at DePaul authored an article in the campus newspaper calling on him to step down or be fired, due to, among other things, betraying “marginalized” students by allowing the Yiannopoulos event to take place on campus.
The DePaul President has now resigned.

You would think that a private Catholic university could have a guest speaker with some non-leftist opinions. I have seen a couple of videos of this Milo character, and I did not see anything particularly offensive. He is not even very right-wing. He is some sort of gay anti-feminist.

Our colleges are in a sorry state. I think even the Catholic schools are run by (((lizard people))). Holtschneider's statements do not even sound human. The Pope is also suspect.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Secret Lizard Person denial

Gizmodo reports:
Mark Zuckerberg hosted his first ever Facebook Live Q&A today. And it went about as well as you’d expect. One of the key things we learned? Mark Zuckerberg is not a lizard person. Or so he says.

The hour-long Q&A has been viewed by nearly 6 million people, and it even had a celebrity cameo in the form of a very awkward looking Jerry Seinfeld. But the most interesting part of the Q&A was when Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and billionaire, denied that he was actually a gigantic lizard posing in human form.

There have long been conspiracy theorists who believe that the world’s most powerful people are actually lizards disguised in giant human-shaped costumes. David Icke, the British conspiracy theorist, is perhaps the most famous person who contends that almost all powerful people are actually shape-shifting reptilian humanoids.

But Zuckerberg insists that he isn’t one of them.

“Mark, are the allegations true that you’re secretly a lizard? Um... I’m gonna, I’m gonna have to go with ‘no’ on that. I am not a lizard,” Zuckerberg said seeming oddly nervous.

“But keep the high quality comments coming in please, this is surely on track to be a great Live Q&A if we continue getting stuff at that level of quality,” Zuckerberg continued sarcastically.

The weirdest part is that the questions seemed to be pre-screened, at least in part. It almost seems like Zuck wanted to address the issue.

A 2013 poll found that roughly 4 percent of registered voters in the United States believe that “lizard people control our societies by gaining political power.” At the time of this writing 11,275 people have liked the Reptilians fanpage on Facebook.
Of course (((Zuckerberg))) would deny it.

The more relevant question is: If he were a secret lizard person, how would he behave any differently?

If there were a conspiracy of lizard people, the first thing they would do would be to set up a FaceBorg network to control all the humans on the planet, and brainwash them against any allegiances that would resist the lizard people.

I am going to use echo parentheses for (((suspected lizard people))).

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Clinton to flood USA with Moslems

Hillary Clinton said:
Let's be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
Donald Trump says:
In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.

If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.

The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.

We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.

Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
This alone is reason enuf to support Trump over Clinton.

The Democrat Party reliably gets the votes of those who hate white Christians. So they import Moslems. Clinton is betraying the country for short-term political gain. Your grandkids may live under Moslem rule, if she gets her way.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Echo parentheses

Wonder what the latest sinister threat on the internet is? It is extra parentheses:
In the early days of the social web, putting someone's name in multiple parentheses was meant to give that person a cute virtual hug. Today, it's something far more sinister. ...

"I get plenty of anti-Semitic things, but this was different," said Michael, a Jewish journalist who was targeted by right-wing trolls in 2015 following a story he wrote that was critical of the GOP. (Michael asked Mic to use only his first name to protect his family.)

"[The echo] is a way of bringing attention to people who are Jewish — intimidating," Michael said. "They try to threaten." ...

Coded hate speech like ((())) may not be searchable, but it is public; tweets containing it can be reported to Twitter for abuse and shut down. This will not stop abusers from simply creating new accounts, and it will not stop other users from swarming on victims once they've been identified using the ((())) symbol — a method of abuse known as "dogpiling." ...

Whether they know it or not, Neo-Nazis on Twitter have discovered a brilliant loophole — a code that's difficult to filter whose meaning incites waves of hate before the target realizes what's happening. Jewish writers can report those tweets all they want, but the damage ((())) sets into motion may only be beginning.
This is funny. The mainstream news media is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. A political candidate represents about half the population, but the big newspapers, TV, radio, etc. are filled with vile Trump-hating nonsense.

A few trolls mock the Trump-haters with echo parentheses, and their immediate reaction is to try to censor excess punctuation on Twitter!

Supposedly the parentheses are anti-Semitic because a lot of the news media Trump-haters are Jewish. Nor is it anti-Semitic to point that that they are just echoing propaganda.

It is not anti-Semitic to point out that people like Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Tom Friedman are Jewish. Jewish identity politics dominates their thinking.

If anyone is anti-Semitic, it is the Moslems and liberals supporting the BDS movement.

You may be thinking that hate is not justified under any circumstances. From what I have seen, the anti-Trump forces have far more and invidious hate than the Trump supporters.

At political rallies, anti-Trump forces have initiated violence against Trump supporters, while the pro-Trump forces have not bothered anyone.

In the NY Times, Wash. Post, NPR radio, etc, the Trump haters regularly disseminate some of the most hateful stuff I have seen in the mainstream media. And it is all against Trump, Republicans, whites, Christians, and cis-gendered males.

Maybe I will start using the parentheses for (((Hillary Clinton))), (((Trump-haters))), and others using identity politics to make America a worse place.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Banning interracial marriage

China is banning interracial marriage:
The Supreme People’s Court of China today passed legislation that will ban Chinese women from marrying non-Chinese men, with the law coming into effect at the beginning of 2018. The policy had been fiercely debated for a number of months before it finally won approval from the required number of legislators earlier today. Civil rights groups in China have condemned the restriction, pointing out that it discriminates against women by still permitting males to enter into interracial marriages.

“We strongly urge the People’s Court to reconsider this new law, and repeal the legislation before it comes into force.” A small group of protesters staged a rally outside the courthouse in central Beijing today, but were soon dispersed by authorities. Following decades of the one-child policy, China is now faced with a shocking gender imbalance – for every girl below the age of 18 in China, there are now three boys. “The law was introduced in order to promote social harmony,” commented one of the People’s Courts legislators. “We need to ensure there are enough Chinese women available for marriage; otherwise there is a high probability of increased levels of rape and other violence.” One of the more controversial aspects of the new law is the fact that Chinese men are not banned from marrying women of other races. “Because we have such a shortage of women in China, we need to make sure Chinese men have as many opportunities as possible to find a bride.”
See also Muhammad Ali on interracial marriage and couples. Ali is hilarious, white the white liberal is stunning into babbling nonsense.

The academic research on interracial couples is pretty horrifying, especially for white women.

If you think academic research might be biased, check out this Retraction Watch notice:
Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.

As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism. That paper also swapped ideologies when reporting on people higher in neuroticism and social desirability (falsely claiming that you have socially desirable qualities); the original paper said those traits are linked with liberal beliefs, but they are more common among people with conservative values.
Got that? The papers said that conservatives are high in psychoticism and liberals are high in social desirability, while the data said the opposite.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Why did Hillary Clinton win?

Hillary Clinton's nomination is usually explained in terms of her advantages in super-delegates and in fundraising. But she had those advantages in 2008, and still lost.

The difference in 2016 is that she had identity politics on her side. She ran a campaign based on hating white people, and she picked of the votes of the blacks, hispanics, and other non-white groups. The polls showed that Sanders won in white states, and Clinton only did well in areas with a lot of non-whites.

This is also my impression from listening to a lot of Clinton and Sanders supporters. I never hear any Clinton supporters say that they like her personally, or that they prefer her policy positions, or that they find her trustworthy, honest, or competent. I have never even heard anyone agree with her foreign policy.

It all comes down to identity politics. They want her because she is pro-feminist and aligned with anti-whites. She is the most racially divisive candidate since the segregationist Democrats of the 1960s.

So vote for Hillary Clinton if you want a race war.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

More smart people hate Trump

Scott Aaronson is one of the 30 Smartest People Alive Today, and he now joins the Trump haters:
Since Tao was criticized for not explicitly listing his reasons why Trump is unqualified, let me now give my own top ten — any one of which, in a sane world, I think would immediately disqualify Trump from presidential consideration. To maximize the list’s appeal, I’ll restrict myself entirely to reasons that are about global security and the future of democratic norms,
Global security? Hillary Clinton is a warmonger who has done more to undermine the security of the Mideast than any living person.

I won't go thru his list of reasons, as they are too silly. His first reason has to do with free speech. But the Left is all about shaming people who say something that is not politically correct, and Trump has surely opened up political discussion of the hot issues of the day. So I see Trump as very much helping free speech.

He has reason to hate to hate the social justice warriors (SJWs):
Meanwhile, many of the social-justice types who are Trump’s ideological opposites did try to destroy my life — and not because I hurt anyone, tried to hurt anyone, or said anything false, but just because I went slightly outside their Overton Window while trying to foster empathy and dialogue and articulate something true. And having spent a year and a half reading their shaming attacks, on Twitter, Tumblr, Metafilter, etc., I’m well-aware that many of them will try again to destroy me if they ever see an opportunity.

So on the purely personal level, you might say, I have a hundred times more reason to fear Amanda Marcotte than to fear Donald Trump, even though Trump might become the next Commander-in-Chief (!?), while Marcotte will never become more than a clickbait writer.
So what makes him endorse Clinton? He is very much in favor of the changing demographics that are eliminating the white Christian majority in the USA. (He looks white, but he is Jewish and his wife is Israeli. Many Jews do not identify as white.)

Apple, Google, and Facebook are also working for the Clinton campaign.

I can accept that these guys are smarter than I am, but that does not mean that I have to agree with them about exterminating white people. They are clever enuf that they do not explicitly say that they are working towards genocide, but they can be judged by their actions. How would they be acting differently if they were trying to destroy white America?

It is apparently in the interests of the super-rich, elites, white-haters, Christian-haters, and others to flood the USA with Third World immigrants, to destroy the middle class, and to mire us in pro-Moslem foreign wars. That is what you get when you vote for Clinton.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

We are better than this

I listened to Hillary Clinton victory speech. Her biggest point was all about having a woman nominee is a feminist milestone.

Okay, fine, but is there any reason to vote for her?

She started to credit those who influenced her, but there was no credit for her husband Bill or for any man. It was all women, all the way. She gave sort of a backhanded compliment to Sanders, but only to the extent that she wants to pick up his voters.

There was no mention of her foreign policy or any other of her disastrous policy ideas.

She launched personal attacks on Donald Trump. She accused him of using code words, and said that she wanted to build bridges not walls.

Trump does not use code words. He is the best straight talker in politics today. The wall is not a code word. He wants to build a wall.

It is safe to assume that Clinton is using code words. She is not going to build bridges, as that is just a code word. It is code for importing Third World migrants to kill your sons and rape your daughters.

All of the news media commentators I heard were praising Clinton. The authoritarian left controls most of the news media, I guess.

That woman disgusts me.

I am also disgusted by all the Republican and cuckerservatives who rushed to the defense of the judge in the Trump U. case, just because he is a Mexican-American. None of them have any defense for the rulings that Trump was criticizing.

Judge Curiel belongs to the Mexican equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. It promotes the Mexican race over whites and others.

Look at the judges that Democrats appoint. I cannot remember the last time a Democrat appointed a white male Christian to the US Supreme Court. Maybe 50 years ago? I will have to look it up. Clinton, Obama, and all the others insist on appointing non-whites for ideological reasons. If the non-whites really judge the same, then why make such an effort to appoint them?

So I would not be surprised at all if this Judge Curiel were appointed for his hatred of white people, and if he is unfairly biased against Trump.

Paul Ryan is related by marriage to a black woman federal judge. So maybe he thinks that non-white affirmative action judges should not be criticized. So for that he tries to sabotage the Republican nominee? Ryan is a creep. Even if Trump loses the election, he will have done a public service by exposing traitors like Ryan.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

More on Tao's endorsement

I mentioned mathematician Terry Tao's claim that it is common knowledge that Donald Trump is unfit, but that everyone is afraid to say it. A comment points out that the truth is more nearly the opposite:
Trump routinely gets about 40 percent in nationwide polls. It’s probably not a solid majority that privately thinks the way you are conjecturing. And if you restrict to white voters, Trump does seem to get over 50 percent support as of now. ...

If there are any secret opinions not being expressed, it’s the people who vote for Trump but keep quiet about it. In public he is routinely trashed. In academic circles you could conceivably lose your job for expressing his kind of views. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no need to hold back if you are a Clinton supporter.
This election reminds of the one in 1984, when academics claimed that it was common knowledge that Ronald Reagan was unfit. Many, including a famous New Yorker writer (I believe), said that never met anyone who liked Reagan or voted for him. Reagan went on to win a landslide, taking 49 states.

How can these folks live in such a bubble, and be so oblivious to it?

Tao is a brilliant mathematician, and one of the smartest men on the planet. And yet his political comments are pathetic.

By any objective measure, Trump is vastly more fit and competent than Hillary Clinton. She cannot give an unscripted speech, has not been able to do a press conference in a year, and cannot name an accomplishment to brag about. She has lived off the fame of her husband, failed at everything she has done, is a terrible manager, and no one likes her. She is also riddled with scandals.

Trump has successful businesses, wrote a widely praised book, starred in a successful TV show, deals with the press daily, and is brilliant. Most of all, he has successfully articulated the important issues of the day, and transformed the Republican party.

I have tried quizzing Clinton supporters for why they like her. Like Tao, they don't really say that they like her. All I ever get out of talking to them is that to complete the leftist agenda, they need to eliminate the white Christian American majority. Clinton will help flood the country with Third World migrants who will supply cheap labor, destroy the middle class, and eventually vote Democrat.

It is a little curious that Tao's post links to a puzzle where the solution is to kill all the blue-eyed people! Maybe that is the biggest clue to his reasoning.

How did Neanderthals survive so long?

Anthropologist and Neanderthal-defender John Hawks write about how little is known about Neanderthals, and adds:
Across the entire timespan of existence of Neandertals and the branch that gave rise to them, probably fewer than 50,000 of them existed at any time. I would not be much surprised if the true number was much smaller. If the average lifespan of a Neandertal was 20 years, maintaining a population of 50,000 individuals would require around 7 births per day. For the more than half million years this population and its ancestors existed, back past Sima de los Huesos to their common ancestors with Denisovans and African peoples, we can say there were as many as 1.3 billion Neandertals.
Anthropologists speculate endlessly about why the Neanderthals went extinct, with the leading theory being that they were raped and murdered by African migrant hominids who were invading Europe. The only survivors were Neanderthal-African hybrids.

The previous theory was the Out of Africa theory, but that has been disproved by DNA evidence.

I think the bigger mystery is how the Neanderthals lasted so long. The lived for 0.5M years with small populations in Europe where regular ice ages made it nearly uninhabitable.

A Wash. Post article says that polar bears could be wiped out in a manner analogous to Neanderthals:
Many humans carry traces of DNA from Neanderthals, which means we’re all hybrids. ...

Amstrup has studied bears in the Arctic since the 1970s and was instrumental in helping list the polar bear as a threatened species in 2008. He, like other experts, characterizes this “new” bear relationship as more beneficial to grizzlies than polar bears. That’s because there are more grizzlies than polar bears and because grizzly territory is expanding while polar bear territory is contracting. What that adds up to is a good chance grizzlies could essentially dilute the polar bear population until it doesn’t exist at all, they say.

Polar bears are getting the short end of the stick in this relationship, not “gaining any genetic diversity,” said Geoff York, who led research on polar bears at the World Wildlife Fund for almost a decade before joining Amstrup at PBI. ...

All hybrids that have been analyzed had grizzly fathers, because grizzly males roam to establish territory and come in contact with receptive female polar bears. Female grizzlies tend not to stray far from their home ranges, and male polar bears don’t usually creep into grizzly habitats.
The Neanderthals did not know what they were up against. Neither do the polar bears.

If this were happening to a modern human society today, what would it do?

Monday, June 06, 2016

Incredibly empty attacks against Trump

Famous Australian-Chinese UCLA mathematician Terry Tao writes:
Proposition 1. The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, is not even remotely qualified to carry out the duties of the presidency of the United States of America.

Proposition 1 is a statement which I think is approaching the level of mutual knowledge amongst the US population (and probably a large proportion of people following US politics overseas): even many of Trump’s nominal supporters secretly suspect that this proposition is true, even if they are hesitant to say it out loud.
Tao usually proves his propositions, but this time he shows no evidence that he knows much about Trump or has even met a Trump supporter. The only reasons given are that Trump was denounced by Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and a British comedian.

As a comment also pointed out, Clinton also said in 2008 that Barack Obama was unfit to be President. But Tao endorsed Obama anyway, with the only reason given being that some other black dude endorsed him. Otherwise, Tao stays out of politics.

Czech physicist Lubos Motl responds:
But what's amazing is that Tao isn't discussing – and maybe, he isn't even willing to discuss – any of the political issues at all. He doesn't want to care whether Trump is right or whether most people in the U.S. agree with Trump or not. Tao seems to think that a few cheap insults such as "unqualified" and "petty" combined with some would-be mathematical jargon are more important than the actual political and personality issues and values and dreams. Sorry but it is not more important.

Terry Tao is absolutely detached from the issues that matter to the American voters, he is detached from politics, he is largely detached from America's life. But he's still arrogant enough to think that with some would-be mathematical terminology, his cluelessness may be sold as a superior analysis of the U.S. politics. I think that the comment section at Tao's blog shows that it can't. Almost everyone sees how deeply flawed Tao's attempts to axiomatize politics are, how shallow his insults are, how he has nothing to do with and nothing to say about the values and political issues that matter.

I believe that many opponents of Trump must start to see how incredibly empty most of these attacks against Trump are.
Yes, Tao is clueless about politics, and just parroting propaganda from other white-hating America-hating leftists.

One comment says:
Here are a bunch of arguments that Trump is qualified:

1. He’s a billionaire. He had a reputation as a businessman for getting a lot of things done. His properties are run very smoothly. Conclusion: He’s good at getting things done.

2. He has many children and grandchildren. So he doesn’t want the world to go to hell. Conclusion: He has skin in the game.

3. His wife loves him. He sells many books. He’s very skilled at persuading people (e.g. in rallies). He’s a skilled talker in interviewers. Conclusion: He’s sharp and good with people.

4. His family members endorse him, including ex-wife. Contestants on the Apprentice who’ve worked for him like him. Golfers like Natalie Gulbis like him. Conclusion: He’s honest and has worked to keep a good reputation all his life.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton has a terrible track record, is widely hated by people who know her, and is lousy at persuasion. Trump talks to the press every day, and Clinton has not has a press conference in over a year.

Most of all, Trump has competently addressed the important issues of the day, and that got him the nomination. Clinton has not yet done that, even tho she just had token opposition.

Since Tao does not give any logical argument, and only relies on what he thinks is conventional wisdom, then what is his real reason for hating Trump?

Maybe he is foolish enuf to believe his fellow leftists. This is possible.

Maybe he has some underlying animus or agenda that he is unwilling to spell out. I think this is more likely.

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Dilbert endorses Clinton out of fear

The Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams has been writing how Donald Trump has been running a much wiser campaign than Hillary Clinton, and now announces:
This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.

That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. ...

The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. ...

If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. ...

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
Yes, Clinton's campaign is based on shrill name-calling and threatening a race war. She is just spewing fear and hatred to the low info voters.

I even have anonymous commenters on this blog who keep trying to compare Trump to Hitler. You know that the Trump-haters have no argument when Godwin's Law takes over before any substantive argument.

As Adams explains, Clinton does have one thing going for her. Republicans, Trump supporters, and white Christians are 10x more tolerant than Democrats and Clinton supporters. Clinton is the one threatening a race war. Trump supporters do not threaten violence against Clinton supporters, but Clinton supporters threaten violence against Trump supporters.

Political tolerance means tolerating people with political views different from yourself. Clinton and her supporters are all about exterminating views and cultures that deviate from her leftist agenda. They even want the President to dictate bathroom policy in every American school. Not even the Communists did that.

I live in a leftist Democrat area, and the ppl are far more intolerant than any Republican area I have been in.

The news media is dominated by cucks and leftist authoritarians who are betraying America, so Adams can endorse Clinton without threatening his life or livelihood.

Vote Trump for Rule of Law

The top NY Times story was:
Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.
Shapiro is a Russian Jew who advocates open borders, on the theory that American law should not favor Americans over foreigners in any way.
And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego, who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.

Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.

“They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?”
Curiel identifies as Mexican and Latino, and his parents are Mexican citizens. Trump told the truth.
When Mr. Trump recently released a list of his potential Supreme Court nominees, conservative and libertarian scholars were heartened, but only to a point.

“It was a tremendous list, a great list,” said Mr. Shapiro, from the Cato Institute. “Who knows how much you can trust the list?”
I think that the problem here is that the Trump-haters fear that he is against judicial supremacy. They have liberal goals that they will never achieve by persuading the public. They count on dictatorial judges to impose them. Trump may not go along with that.

The term "Rule of Law" does not mean accepting judges opinions. It means applying written laws. Clinton is openly opposing rule of law on many fronts, such as promising to use executive power to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

Update: Alberto R. Gonzales explains why Curiel presents an “appearance of impropriety.”

Occidental Dissent adds:
The cucks want you to simultaneously believe two things:

1.) First, a person’s racial, ethnic, cultural and religious background – in this case, a Hispanic federal judge – tells you nothing of importance about that person. Instead, we are all “individuals,” and it is a heresy against TruConservatism to suggest that “individuals” in the real world are anything more than this role in which they have been cast, which is to say, “individuals” have tribal loyalties and affiliations.

2.) Second, Donald Trump is destroying the GOP because the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious affiliations of non-Whites, whether they are blacks, Hispanics, or Muslims, is of supreme importance because these groups all have a collectivist mindset and have been offended by Trump’s racist and bigoted comments. This is also true of women who have been offended as a group by Trump’s sexist remarks over the years.

A housebroken cuck expects you to know that “we are all individuals,” but at the same time we are not. If you go off that script, it makes you a racist. Meanwhile, the Left attacks Trump as a “racist” for his comments on the Mexican federal judge, but simultaneously demands that women and “people of color” be appointed to the courts precisely because their background gives them a different perspective than cisgendered White males. Trump’s list of Supreme Court picks was attacked because of its lack of “diversity.”

The Left wants you to know that Trump is the last stand of White America. They want you to know that Whites are dying out and that racial demographics determines political power in the United States. They want to talk about it on CNN and MSNBC, but if you take them at the word and start talking about it yourself that makes you a racist. From the point of view of a cuckservative, it makes you a literal Klansman.

Trump doesn’t grasp the nuance of Judge Curiel’s objectivity, people!
Yes, it is funny to see the cuckservatives manipulated by the Left.

Update: It is amazing how many cucks are saying that Trump criticized the judge solely for being Mexican. No, he criticized the judge for bad decisions and for anti-Trump political affiliations.

Thursday, June 02, 2016

Man is in a civilizational death dance

The NY Times has an article about how Silicon Valley billionaires support Hillary Clinton, as she is owned by super-rich globalist donors. But what do the voters think:
One employee at a software firm declined to speak on the record, saying it would be a bad career move for a Google search of his name to turn up any Republican connection, let alone one with Mr. Trump.
The Apple-Google-Facebook-Twitter leftists have intimidated a lot of Trump supporters to keep quiet, so most Silicon Valley voters probably do not even know why Trump is popular.

The CEO of Mozilla Firefox was fired for expressing an opinion in agreement with the vote of a majority of Californians.

The leftists of Silicon Valley are extremely intolerant of other views.

Here is an explanation I found:
If you occupied what was considered the ideological/moral centre ground in 1965, and went to sleep for 50 years and woke up in 2015, you’d find yourself occupying the ideological/moral ”far right”.

That whizzing sound you heard was the ideological/cultural centre ground zooming over to the Cultural Marxist hard Left.

Everything that was considered mainstream obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965, is now considered by our poltical, academic and media elite to be bigoted, ignorant, hateful, xenophobic, racist, extremist, and some form of mental abnormality.

In other words, within the space of 50 years, morality, right, wrong, evil, good, normal, obvious, extreme, sanity, truth, beneficial, dangerous and the instinct for group self preservation, has been inverted and stood upside down on its head.

Never before in the entire course of human history, has an entire culture, race and civilization decided to hand over its lands, social capital, heritage and indenties to competing and intruding alien cultures without a fight, and even worse, to evolve an ideology that morally justifies it and glorifies it as proof of their moral supremacy.

European man is in a civilizational death dance.
Trump stands for what was considered mainstream, obvious, common sense, logical and moral in 1965.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

The zoo had to kill the gorilla

The NY Times reports:
It seemed like quick thinking when the Cincinnati Zoo shot to death a gorilla that was manhandling a small boy who had fallen into its enclosure on Saturday afternoon.

But soon supporters of animal rights were organizing a vigil outside the zoo in remembrance of the gorilla, named Harambe, a male weighing more than 420 pounds. Online petitions circulated blaming the mother of the child for negligence. By Monday the chorus of outrage had reached such an intense pitch that the zoo held a news conference to defend itself. ...

The boy’s mother, however, has certainly not been at peace. On Twitter, Facebook and other forums, tens of thousands of people have expressed vitriol over her failure to keep the boy out of trouble.

By late Monday, an online petition had garnered more than 180,000 signatures calling for her to be investigated by law enforcement and child protective services agencies for possible child neglect. The Cincinnati police said on Monday that they had no such plans.

In hundreds of comments on the petition, supporters said Harambe, an innocent animal, had not deserved to die.
Just what makes this animal innocent?

If you are anthropomorphizing a gorilla, it was threatening to kill a small child. A human would be killed for doing that.

The gorilla lovers would probably say that it was too dumb to realize what it was doing. Okay, fine, but is that why Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rush to the defense of blacks who attempt murder?

It is bad enuf to excuse the gorilla, but it is disgusting to blame the victims (mom and child) for going to the zoo. Visiting the zoo is not child neglect.

These animal rights creeps are really sick. So are the social justice warriors.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Comparing to Hitler

From a NY Times article comparing Trump to Hitler, I learn:
Some opponents have likened Donald J. Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini; supporters call that a smear tactic.
The NY Times does not call it a smear tactic. The paper does everything to convince you that Trump is Hitler, and only a pro-Trump Nazi would deny it.

The article even finds a Libertarian who says Trump is like Hitler, because Trump is against open borders. The Libertarians need to learn that we cannot have freedom, democracy, and open borders. When they support open borders, they are acting against freedom.

Hitler was primarily a socialist, and today's socialists are in the Democrat Party. If you want to see socialism in action, just look at Venezuela or Cuba.

Hitler was also a warmonger, and Hillary Clinton is the biggest warmonger in prominent American politics today.

And the NY Times has become an anti-American newspaper. If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has clarified the distinction between loyal Americans and anti-Americans. Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, and others supposed conservatives have been reveals as Republicans in name only. Democrats like Clinton and Obama have been revealed as traitors, and as actively working towards a white genocide.

Another biased NY Times article is mocked by the Daily Stormer, a site that is not intimidated by Nazi name-calling.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Response to the unhinged militant left

I found this comment:
“The answer to this racist SJW garbage is not to embrace white supremacy! But without a forceful, effective, unambivalent response to the unhinged militant left, sooner or later the forces of white supremacy are going to organize the dispossessed, demoralized, chaotic white rabble, and the SJWs, as well as the Washington elites, aren’t going to know what hit them. God knows I’m not saying I want this to happen, but I think it probably will happen if we continue on this current trajectory. Slouching rough beasts and all that. It’s Weimar America.”
This could be correct. The Democrat Party, the news media, the colleges, and other institutions are increasing based on white hatred as their reason for being. At some point, the people will get fed up with this, and take drastic action, if the white hatred is not moderated.

Saturday, May 28, 2016

New Neanderthal cave finding

They keep telling that Neanderthals were stupid, and got outsmarted by African hominids. Evidence keeps proving that they were as smart as the Africans.

The Atlantic mag reports:
A rock structure, built deep underground, is one of the earliest hominin constructions ever found.

Some 336 meters into the cave, the caver stumbled across something extraordinary—a vast chamber where several stalagmites had been deliberately broken. Most of the 400 pieces had been arranged into two rings—a large one between 4 and 7 metres across, and a smaller one just 2 metres wide. Others had been propped up against these donuts. Yet others had been stacked into four piles. Traces of fire were everywhere, and there was a mass of burnt bones.

These weren’t natural formations, and they weren’t the work of bears. They were built by people.

Recognizing the site’s value, the caver brought in archaeologist Francois Rouzaud. Using carbon-dating, Rouzaud estimated that a burnt bear bone found within the chamber was 47,600 years old, which meant that the stalagmite rings were older than any known cave painting. It also meant that they couldn’t have been the work of Homo sapiens. Their builders must have been the only early humans in the south of France at the time: Neanderthals.

The discovery suggested that Neanderthals were more sophisticated than anyone had given them credit for. They wielded fire, ventured deep underground, and shaped the subterranean rock into complex constructions. Perhaps they even carried out rituals; after all, there was no evidence that anyone actually lived in the cave, so what else were the rings and mounds for?
CH comments:
It’s possible then that Neanderthals picked up some beneficial “Game genes” from interbreeding with Cro-Magnons, but the intervention was too little too late to save them from the race annihilation we currently can see happening in Sweden, Britain, Germany and swaths of America.

Theory: too much sexual or cultural selection for Game genes will corrode the modern civilization that fewer Game genes helped create. When social savvy genes crowd out math and high impulse control genes… welp there go your highways, sewage treatment plants, and circuit boards.

Friday, May 27, 2016

California has too many immigrants

A reader claims that Mexicans have been good for California. I am skeptical.

There is no doubt that strawberry growers have been able to harvest their crops more cheaply, and a lot of other businesses have profited from Mexican migrants. Maybe this has reduced the grocery store prices of strawberries significantly, but that is harder to say.

Overall, there are many other factors to consider.

Most Californians have had their water rationed in the last year. Without the Mexican influx, there would have been plenty of water for everyone.

California used to be a Republican state. Now it is Democrat, and the popular mindset is that of parasites and perverts.

California highways are overcrowded. Too many people.

The county where I live used to be free of gang violence. Now I regularly read stories of violent crimes, and they all have Mexican names.

California used to consider a leader in education, and in many other measures of a quality civilization. Not any more.

Millions of white people have fled the state.

So was all the Mexican immigration worth it, to save a nickel on strawberries? I don't think so.

Someone is probably going to comment that most Mexicans hard-working and law-abiding, and that many white Californians are worthless bums. Yes, that is true, but is not really the issue.

So for whoever claimed that there was a study showing that Mexican immigration was good for California, did the study even consider the obvious negatives?

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Her hero is a moral philosopher

Here is an anonymous rant by a female grad student who had an affair with an old professor:
My hero is a moral philosopher, who devotes his life to global justice. ... I remember worrying about the possibility that he must already have someone in his life, and my friends reassuring me that he wouldn’t be inviting me to his room if he did. He must be a good man, this moral philosopher. He has, after all, devoted his life to global justice. ...

I said that like the ADULT African women who choose to undergo female genital mutilation because they couldn’t find husbands, like my aunts and grandmothers who had no choice but to bitterly endure watching their middle-aged husbands gallivanting around town with women half their age, his partner’s choice to stay with him is not as a result of free choice, given more favorable and dignified conditions. I am not blaming him for patriarchy, but I am citing him as an example. ...

I should’ve never met my hero, because when I did I found out that, just like his mentor (another famous philosopher), he vehemently refused to subject the private sphere to assessments of justice. I found out that it wasn’t true that he hasn’t had sex for many years, and that I was joining a list of his secret mistresses. The one before me was a 22-year-old virgin, his student in a summer school. Most of my predecessors were sexually inexperienced young women. I was an aberration from his type, he said, for I was not as inexperienced as he usually prefers them to be. He confessed to being unable to find to experienced women closer to his age attractive, to having a preference for innocent and inexperienced young women because older, experienced women remind him of his god-awful mother.
According to this leftist philosopher, the moral philosopher is same one who is accused by another girl.

You are probably expecting me to say he is a hypocrite, or something like that. No, my reaction is a little different.

Pogge is a philosopher pushing "global justice", and that whole field is all about trying to value people on the other side of the world higher than your own family, and in imposing your morals on them.

So he would probably complain about Moslem African female circumcision reinforcing the patriarchy, regardless the women want it or not, and regardless of the local culture.

So of course he disrespects his wife. He disrespects everyone who has done anything for him.

These professors are also white-haters, so it makes sense that he would go after young non-white girls who idolize his moral stances.

My gripe is that Yale college students are learning moral philosophy from creeps like this. He just teaches white guilt, and blames white people for everything. He has some sort of weird fetish for seducing non-white virgins who are impressed by his white hatred.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Thumbs up for Angry Birds

I just watched the new Angry Birds movie, and it was refreshingly different. A 2-year-old can appreciate it without being subjected to the usual man-hating Disney propaganda about lesbian princesses. It is loosely based on the popular Android/Apple phone game.

The hero of the movie is an angry bird who is ignored when he raises concerns about illegal alien pigs from another island. Leftists, feminists, and SJWs tolerate the pig visitors, but send their fellow bird to a humiliating anger management class. The birds do not wise up until the pigs steal their eggs and threaten to eat their babies.

The pigs are also perverts who read "Fifty Shades".

Even then, the dumb majority of birds would have let the pigs get away with it, until the hero angry bird convinces them to go to the pig island and wage war to get their eggs back.

A dormant American bald eagle also rises to heroically take the birds and eggs back to their home island.

I don't know how the Hollywood thought police let this film out of the can. Maybe today's 2-year-olds will watch this and grow up to be patriotic Americans.

Donald Trump just said that Citizen Kane is his favorite movie. Maybe he would have said Angry Birds, if he had seen it.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Clinton panders to black killers

If there is one thing that defines the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is using identity politics to generate hatred for other demographic groups. Mostly she seeks votes of those who hate white Christian American men.

The NY Times reports:
Hillary Clinton invoked her roles as mother and grandmother on Saturday to deliver an impassioned rebuttal to Donald J. Trump’s contention that her push for stricter gun control would make families less safe, saying the presumptive Republican nominee would put more children “at risk of violence and bigotry.” ...

On Saturday, Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed her commitment to both gun control and the overhaul of the criminal justice system, two issues that formed the pillars of her primary campaign and have helped her win broad support among African-Americans.

Mrs. Clinton vowed to end the “schools to prison pipeline” that affects black men. “Something is wrong when so many Americans have reason to believe that our country doesn’t consider their children as precious and worthy of protection as other children because of the color of their skins,” she said.
She is pandering to those who think that gun laws and racism caused Trayvon Martin to be killed for the color of his skin.

No. Trayvon Martin died because he was a criminal thug who tried to kill an innocent man. Race had little or nothing to do with Martin's crime.

Blacks like Martin do commit violent crimes at much higher rates. I guess Clinton is promising not to prosecute criminals like him, and to disarm the law-abiding men like Martin's hispanic victim.

The Democrats are seeking a race war.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Pastor is confused about LGBT

NPR Radio reports:
As churches seek understanding about the LGBT community, a Dallas pastor wrote a blog post sharing seven things he learned about transgender people.

NPR is cheering him for a blog post with this lesson:
7. Transgender persons are the product of nature much more than nurture. Debate the origins of homosexuality if you’d like and what role nature vs. nurture plays. But for those who are transgender, nature undeniably plays a primary role. According to medical science, chromosomal variances occur within moments of conception, and anatomical development happens within the nine months in the womb. There is no nature vs. nurture argument, except in cases of brain development, which is an emerging field of study.
No, this is not correct. Bruce (aka Caityn) Jenner does not have any "chromosomal variance" or anything like that. There is no medical science that nature plays a primary role.

Medical science says that transgenderism is a mental disorder.

Wingfield concludes:
This last point in particular raises the largest of theological questions. If Christians really believe every person is created in the image of God, how can we damn a baby who comes from the womb with gender dysphoria? My pediatrician friend puts it this way: “We must believe that even if some people got a lower dose of a chromosome, or an enzyme, or a hormonal effect, that does not mean that they got a lower dose of God’s image.”

I don’t know much about transgender issues, but I’m trying to learn — in part because I want to understand the way God has made us. For me, this is a theological quest as much as a biological inquiry or a political cause. How about you?
His theology is as bad as his medical science.

Christianity teaches that Man is afflicted with original sin, ever since Eve ate the forbidden fruit. That sin is determined in the womb.

Medical science has shown that many criminal and sinful tendencies have genetic causes or are determined in the womb.

If this pastor is going to make excuses for all of that, when what is left to preach about?

His other points are dubious also:
4. Transgender persons are not transvestites. Far too many of us mix these up, in part because the words sound similar and we have no real knowledge of either. Cross-dressers, identified in slang as “transvestites,” are people (typically men) who are happy with their gender but derive pleasure from occasionally dressing like the opposite gender. Cross-dressing is about something other than gender identity.
Again, not correct. Many, if not most, are transvestites. Bruce Jenner is an example, as he does not appear to truly identify as a woman. He just likes the act and the attention.
5. Transgender persons are not pedophiles. The typical profile of a pedophile is an adult male who identifies as heterosexual and most likely even is married. There is zero statistical evidence to link transgender persons to pedophilia.
Bruce Jenner also identified as a heterosexual male, and was married 3 times.

I don't know if anyone claims that people with chromosomal abnormalities are more likely to be pedophiles. The concern, I assume, is that men who want to use the ladies bathroom are more likely to be pedophiles, and represent a threat.

With all the debate over policies encouraging people to use opposite-gender bathroom, we ought to have some real data on who wants to do that.

The current Time mag cover story is a pro-trans opinion piece, and says:
For decades, men has sometimes been caught and prosecuted for entering women's restrooms or dressing rooms, either in drag or dressed as men, to watch or film women. The laws and rules requiring sex separation did not prove a deterrent in those cases.

This is like saying: People have committed murder, theft, and other crimes for millennia, and the laws did not prove a deterrent in those cases. Maybe the laws did not deter those particular crimes, but the laws have certainly deterred and reduced crime.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

AI creates useless class of humans

Here is a prediction that most people will become useless:
Yuval Noah Harari, author of the international bestseller "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," doesn't have a very optimistic view of the future when it comes to artificial intelligence. He writes about how humans "might end up jobless and aimless, whiling away our days off our nuts and drugs, with VR headsets strapped to our faces," writes The Guardian. "Harari calls it 'the rise of the useless class' and ranks it as one of the most dire threats of the 21st century. As artificial intelligence gets smarter, more humans are pushed out of the job market. No one knows what to study at college, because no one knows what skills learned at 20 will be relevant at 40. Before you know it, billions of people are useless, not through chance but by definition." He likens his predictions, which have been been forecasted by others for at least 200 years, to the boy who cried wolf, saying, "But in the original story of the boy who cried wolf, in the end, the wolf actually comes, and I think that is true this time."
Harari's book is quite good, even tho he does overgeneralize in places and have a leftist bias.

What is going to happen, when the world gets to 10 billion people and the authorities decide that 99% of them are useless?

That is plausible, and if it happens, I think that we will see a mass extermination of the sort that has never happened before. Our grandchildren will wonder why we spent so much effort on non-problems like global warming when we were headed for a demographic apocalypse.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Save dogs, not people

The NY Times reports that its readers think it is unethical to extend human lives, but they are all in favor of prolonging dog lives:
In fact, many readers of our article about rapamycin claimed they would just say no to such a drug. Rapamycin was tested during a study of dogs at the University of Washington to see if it could slow aging without too many harsh side effects.

Lisa Wesel of Maine spoke for many who argued that trying to extend life was like playing God.

“This is disturbing on so many levels,” she said. ...

Perhaps the most passionate voices, though, came from readers completely unconcerned about human life span.

“Not sure I want to live forever, but my dog? YES!” exclaimed Brian from Montana.

“I don’t want to live longer, but if dogs could live longer that would be wonderful,” a reader named Mary mused. “Beloved dogs are too soon gone from our lives.”

“The heck with human research — I just want my dogs to live longer,” Durt from Los Angeles said.
Meanwhile, BuzzFeed trashes a social-justice-warrior big-shot Yale ethics professor. Supposedly he uses his fame and influence to manipulate much younger women in his field into sexual relationships. I don't know about that, but why was anyone listening to his foolish leftist ideas about global justice anyway?

Update: Professor Pogge responds. He is innocent until proven guilty, and I did not bother to read the details. I am just amused to see the SJWs backstab one of their own.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Ravens alleged to be mindreaders

A Nature mag research paper reports:
Recent studies purported to demonstrate that chimpanzees, monkeys and corvids possess a basic Theory of Mind, the ability to attribute mental states like seeing to others. However, these studies remain controversial because they share a common confound: the conspecific’s line of gaze, which could serve as an associative cue. ... Our results suggest that ravens can generalize from their own perceptual experience to infer the possibility of being seen. These findings confirm and unite previous work, providing strong evidence that ravens are more than mere behaviour-readers.
So the ravens behave differently when they are watched by other ravens, and also when there is an empty peephole. The empty peephole is supposed to fool the ravens into thinking that there is a possibility of being watching, even tho there appears to be no one watching.

This is supposed to convince us that ravens are smart enuf to know what other ravens are thinking, even if they are not smart enuf to know that a raven has to look thru a peephole in order to see thru it.

The ravens were raised in zoos, and had to be trained by humans to understand the significance of peepholes.

I dunno about this. It appears to me that they just trained some ravens to watch out for peepholes. The ravens are reacting to peepholes, not to the minds of other ravens.

I am very skeptical about all these Theory of Mind results, even in people. Attempts to demonstrate it in animals are very weak.

(Before I get racist comments -- ravens are birds, and not a metaphor for anything else.)

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Trump's consistency and foolish academics

A NY Times op-ed writes:
But the most highly educated Americans — those who have attended graduate or professional school — are starting to come together as a political bloc.

Last month, the Pew Research Center released a study showing that nearly a third of those who went to graduate or professional school have “down the line” liberal views on social, economic and environmental matters, whereas this is true for just one in 10 Americans generally. An additional quarter of postgrads have mostly liberal views. These numbers reflect drastic change: While professionals have been in the Democratic column for a while, in 1994 only 7 percent of postgrads held consistently liberal political opinions.
There are various explanations. The most obvious is that academia is subject to groupthink. Right-wingers are tolerant of others having independent views, but left-wingers require conformity.

In case you think postgrads are better at analyzing politics, just look at the silly things they say about Donald Trump. Even philosophy professors fail to grasp elementary logic.

Michael P. Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, writes:
Consistency, Emerson said, is the hobgoblin of little minds. Perhaps no one in American public life channels this thought more than Donald J. Trump. He not only doesn’t fear contradiction, he embraces it. And he is downright scornful of those little minds that are bothered by his performances.

Mr. Trump’s willingness to be inconsistent — even in a single interview, or the same speech — has baffled political strategists for months. Even more puzzling is his followers’ happy toleration of it. ...

In George Orwell’s “1984,” the protagonist is tortured until he agrees that two plus two equals five. The point, his torturer makes clear, is to make him see that there is no objective truth other than what the party says is true. That’s the deep power of contradiction.
No, the point is to make him accept what the party says, whether it is true or not.

The Left depends on denying objective truth. Currently, the Obama administration is obsessed with denying the existence of male-female distinctions.

Emerson did not say that. He wrote in Self-Reliance:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
Lynch's article does not give an example of a Trump inconsistency. The closest is to point out that Trump disavowed David Duke, but refused to make a blanket disavowal of other unspecified groups. Trump also said he loves Hispanics, but not the one who come here illegally and commit nasty crimes. These are not inconsistencies at all.

Trump has, of course, revised his position on some issues, and had to occasionally had to issue a clarification after he misspoke. But Lynch is not concern with those examples.

Newspapers like the NY Times seem clueless about Trump's popularity. They just do not get it.

It is nutty for Lynch to say that people like him for his inconsistency. The truth is more nearly the opposite. Trump has been in the public eye for decades, and he is an authentic man who is just what he appears to be. He opinions show a consistent world view. He is much more consistent than Hillary Clinton.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Democrats promote racial murders

Democrat Party hatred of white people was on clear display with its treatment of Ferguson Missouri. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and newspapers like the NY Times regularly told us that Missouri white men kill blacks for no good reason, and that blacks need to fight back.

The truth is that the Ferguson cop was 100% justified.

These Democrats have increased the murder rate, and a Liberal Researcher Now Admits Ferguson Effect on Murder Is Real.

The obvious explanation is that stirring up anti-white hatred helps get black and non-Christian votes.

The Trump-haters are open about it:
Fed-up with being called cucks for demanding America be flooded with brown people, the cucks decided they would start calling themselves cucks as a way to mitigate the stigma.

The PAC tweeted “Being that #Cuck is the new word for people who don’t hate minorities, WE HERBY DECLARE OURSELVES PROUD #CUCKS!” It was accompanied by a meme image declaring their pride in their cuck status.

They have since deleted the tweet – which is telling. But it’s on

Donald Trump has forced these people to reveal their true nature – that they actually hate the White middle and working classes. That they genuinely desire to drain our nation of all of its resources through “free trade” deals and mass non-White immigration.
The Presidential election is boiling down to loyal Americans versus cucks and white-Christian haters.

BTW, a reader asks what makes the NY Times a Jewish newspaper. Admittedly, its biggest stockholder is a Mexican billionaire who makes a lot of his money from illegal immigration into the USA. He is not Jewish, as far as I know. But the owners, management, principal editors, and reader base have been largely Jewish for decades. It is not entirely Jewish, of course, and has many excellent articles on many subjects. The science and book review sections are particularly good. But its editorial positions are always in favor of Democrat anti-white anti-Christian flooding the USA with Third World immigrants.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Scientists want to de-fund genomic research

A Nature mag article says:
The findings have proved divisive. Some researchers hope that the work will aid studies of biology, medicine and social policy, but others say that the emphasis on genetics obscures factors that have a much larger impact on individual attainment, such as health, parenting and quality of schooling.

“Policymakers and funders should pull the plug on this sort of work,” said anthropologist Anne Buchanan and genetic anthropologist Kenneth Weiss at Pennsylvania State University in University Park in a statement to Nature. “We gain little that is useful in our understanding of this sort of trait by a massively large genetic approach in normal individuals.”
This is probably the world's leading science journal, and it suggests suppressing science research? What goes?

I don't think that there is any proof that health, parenting, and quality of schooling do have larger impact on individual attainment. We would certainly need some research to determine that. But this Nature article is against the research.

I can only assume that Nature mag is infected with a leftist ideology, as this is the sort of thing that Marxists would say.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Barack and Michelle are trans

One thing that might explain recent political events is that Barack Obama is really a woman, and Michelle is really a man.

Check out the YouTube videos on Michelle Obama is a man, Barack Obama is a homosexual, and Barack Obama is a man.

Barack's publicly-released birth certificate says that he is male, but that is not the original. He could have gotten a court order to change it, based on the gender that he currently identifies with.

Admittedly, it is wildly implausible that the couple could have so many people so badly fooled. But watch the videos. They make surprisingly strong arguments.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

When was nationalism invented?

I just learned that historians say that nationalism was only invented in around 1800.

I have also read that science was only invented in around 1600, and that before that, it never occurred to anyone to use observation or experiment to guide their thinking.

I have also read that romantic love was also recently invented. Before modern times, couples married for various reasons other than love.

I have heard it claimed that the concept of human races is a modern invention. Until recently, no thought of Caucasians, Negroes, and Orientals as different people.

I have heard that individualism is another modern European invention. Before that, no one thought of people as having indepedent and individual interests. Nobody thought that they could think for themselves.

Until recently, no one understood that gender was a social construct. Well, this claim might actually be true.

And on and on. I don't know what to make of these claims. Most of them seem absurd to me. But I am not a historian.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Libertarian ethno-hate of non-Jews

Trump-hater and libertarian Cathy Young writes:
Israel was founded as an ethno-state (though it is worth noting that a quarter of its citizens are not Jewish); the United States of America was not. Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors; the United States is not. ...

The “double standards” argument has blatantly anti-Semitic overtones, since it invariably invokes Israel and never other small nations, like Finland, that limit immigration and grant automatic citizenship on the basis of ethnic background.
Most of the pro-immigration arguments I see come from Jews. But they never say that Israel should accept non-Jewish immigration.

Are Finns working to flood the USA with Third World migrants? If so, then maybe they have double standards also. But I doubt it.

Anti-Semitism used to mean people hating Jews. Now it means Jews hating other people.

Young is probably not even Jewish, but she is a libertarian, and libertarians are always wanting to give foreigners more rights than Americans.

Third World immigration can destroy the USA as surely as Arab immigration could destroy Israel.

It is a little crazy to say that Israel can have immigration policies favoring Jews, while the USA cannot have policies favoring white Christians. If you point this out, you will be subjected to various name-calling, like anti-Semitic or like Hitler, or something like that.

What is now Israel was founded in 1948 as two states, one Jewish and one Arab-Moslem. The Arab-Moslems chose to fight instead. So saying that Israel is okay because it was founded that way is a little strange. The USA was founded by white Christians who probably would never have agreed with importing millions of Moslem and mestizo migrants, as we are doing now.

Just remember that every time you hear the word "anti-Semitism", you are listening to someone who claims that Jews have a right to practice identity politics, but that white Christians do not. If there are any exceptions to this rule, please let me know in the comments.