Biden DoJ holding Political Prisoners

ABC News:

Like many Donald Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Dona Sue Bissey has promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory on social media. But the judge sentencing her Tuesday to 14 days in jail said it was for her actions, not her beliefs.

Bissey, 53, pleaded guilty in July to parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months' imprisonment. ...

Justice Department prosecutor Joshua Rothstein said Bissey appears to be an avid consumer of other conspiracy theories, including that the coronavirus is a "hoax pandemic" and that the COVID-19 vaccine is part of a Jewish plot to murder people. She also appeared to believe the pandemic was foreshadowed by "predictive programming" during the opening ceremony for the 2012 Olympics in London. ...

Bissey was jailed for two days after her arrest in February. In a letter to the judge, Bissey said some of her neighbors in Bloomfield, Indiana, have shunned her since the riot. She called herself a "God fearing, country loving, law abiding, hard working patriot."

"I am not and never have been a violent individual," she wrote.

Some QAnon-linked defendants face significant prison time. Sentencing guidelines for Arizona resident Jacob Chansley, the "QAnon Shaman," who pleaded guilty to a felony, could call for a prison term ranging from 41 to 51 months, according to a prosecutor.

Update: A comment points out that I did not explain why she should be considered a political prisoner.

She may have committed trespassing, or some other minor act of civil disobedience, but we do not normally treat political protesters harshly, and we condemn other countries that do.

For example, here was another DC protest this week:

Demonstrators with climate change-focused protest groups turned out around the District Thursday, with large banners and fake oil, as part of ongoing protests against a perceived lack of action on the issue of climate change.

The Extinction Rebellion protest is one of many in a weeklong string of climate protests that have led to more than 300 arrests so far this week. ...

Similar protests were held at government buildings around D.C., including the Department of the Interior.

An Interior Department spokeswoman said a group of protesters rushed the lobby, injuring at least one security officer who was taken to a nearby hospital. Police and protesters clashed outside the building, and a spokesperson for the protest group accused officers of using stun guns against several unarmed protesters.

This was almost as many arrests as Jan. 6, but I bet that none of them get held without bail or charged with serious crimes. The DoJ will probably drop the charges on all of them.

Here is another political prosecution. Jason Kessler's worst offense appears to be that he once said, “Our entire country would be better off if the South had won the Civil War.” I disagree, but he has a right to his opinion.

California law requires sex neutral toys

There are feminists and leftists who somehow find it upsetting that toy stores have separate aisles for boys and girls. Of course hte customers are free to buy boy toys for girls, so it is hard to see how anyone is hurt by this.

California has passed a new law:

55.7. The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:

(a) Unjustified differences in similar products that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys can be more easily identified by the consumer if similar items are displayed closer to one another in one, undivided area of the retail sales floor.

(b) Keeping similar items that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys separated makes it more difficult for the consumer to compare the products and incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate.

55.8. (a) A retail department store that offers childcare items or toys for sale shall maintain a gender neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children [defined as age 12 or younger] that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.

This is bizarre. California stores can still label toys for boys and girls, but must have a gender neutral section, whatever that is.

Those findings are not true. There are no unjustified differences. The separation does not make it more difficult for consumers. No one is implying that anything is inappropriate. The stores are happy to sell toys for boys and girls.

The separation is greater than it was 20 years ago. Presumably the stores are meeting consumer needs.

With all the problems California has, why is it bothering with such foolish laws? I do not think that they can seriously believe that the law will make consumer shopping more convenient. This is just wack leftist ideology at work.

For an even worse example of leftist ideology at work, see this:

The Art Institute of Chicago (AIC), one of the world’s finest art museums, harbors (or rather, harbored) 122 highly skilled docents, 82 active ones and 40 “school group greeters.” All are volunteers and are all unpaid. Their job is to act as guides to the Museum’s collection of 300,000 works, which they explain to both adults and schoolchildren. I’ve seen them in action at the Museum, and they’re terrific.

Now they have all been fired, to be replace by less competent paid Blacks.

Dave Chappelle may be Canceled

The NY Times reports:

That’s all changed. Internally, the tech company that revolutionized Hollywood is now in an uproar as employees challenge the executives responsible for its success and accuse the streaming service of facilitating the spread of hate speech and perhaps inciting violence.

At the center of the unrest is “The Closer,” the much-anticipated special from the Emmy-winning comedian Dave Chappelle, which debuted on Oct. 5 and was the fourth-most-watched program on Netflix in the United States on Thursday. In the show, Mr. Chappelle comments mockingly on transgender people and aligns himself with the author J.K. Rowling as “Team TERF,” an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term used for a group of people who argue that a transgender woman’s biological sex determines her gender and can’t be changed.

He is the leading comic about the Black experience. He is funny.

The people who work for Netflix and the NY Times are horrible leftist racist people. They say that because Chappelle is Black, then he is supposed to certain opinions about trannies.

His show is not against transgender rights at all. He is all in favor of such rights. He is just not on board with some of the demands of the extreme transgender activists.

Too bad. He was one of the last Americans with free speech. Not anymore, I guess.

In the show, Mr. Chappelle comments mockingly on transgender people and aligns himself with the author J.K. Rowling as “Team TERF,” an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a term used for a group of people who argue that a transgender woman’s biological sex determines her gender and can’t be changed.

That is not correct. I don't think Chappelle or Rowling ever said that sex determines gender. Gender, as the term is commonly used, is an identification choice, and obviously a man can choose to identify as a woman. Others may still consider that man to be a man.

On Wednesday, GLAAD criticized Mr. Sarandos’s claim that on-screen content does not lead to real-world violence. “Film and TV have also been filled with stereotypes and misinformation about us for decades, leading to real-world harm, especially for trans people and L.G.B.T.Q. people of color,” the organization said in a statement.

No, film and TV have not been filled with transgendered folks for decades. Maybe three years. And no opinions like Chappelle's have led to violence, as far as I know.

If anything might lead to violence, I would suspect organizations like GLAAD and opinions like this NY Times article. They portray transgender people as anti-social perverts who aggressively try to bully everyone into accepting their peculiar lifestyle choices.

Update: I watched to the end, and Chappelle reveals that he had a trans friend who was driven to suicide by Chappelle-haters. Amazing.

The Latest Jewish Conspiracy Theories

The Jewish censorship is getting crazy again.

The Intercept reports:

To ward off accusations that it helps terrorists spread propaganda, Facebook has for many years barred users from speaking freely about people and groups it says promote violence.

The restrictions appear to trace back to 2012, when in the face of growing alarm in Congress and the United Nations about online terrorist recruiting, Facebook added to its Community Standards a ban on “organizations with a record of terrorist or violent criminal activity.” This modest rule has since ballooned into what’s known as the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, a sweeping set of restrictions on what Facebook’s nearly 3 billion users can say about an enormous and ever-growing roster of entities deemed beyond the pale.

They leaked the list, and it include a lot of conservatives who merely express political opinions, and never advocate or facilitate violence. Facebook even blocks right-wing links in private messages.

The Guardian reports:

Parallels can also be drawn between antisemitic conspiracy theories about Covid-19 and the development of vaccines, and pamphlets blaming “Jewish financiers” for the first world war or suggesting they would gain from the second world war.

David Rich, the director of policy at the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity providing security for the Jewish community, said the pandemic had resulted in people with antisemitic views taking central roles in the campaign against Covid vaccines and public health measures.

A Jewish-atheist professor argues it is anti-Semitic to point out that "Diversity and multiculturalism are mostly Jewish-led efforts". When he agrees with those efforts, he praises Jews, but when he doesn't, he says it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

Jews just love to call something a "conspiracy theory" or a "racist trope", as if these terms means something. A conspiracy is a a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful. Jews openly push diversity and multiculturalism, and there is no secret about it, except to the extent that critics get censored.

The Jews are even prosecuting a teenager for a private joke he made on his own time:

According to the facts in the case, C.G. went to a thrift store on an evening in 2019. While trying on WWII military caps, he wrote to Snapchat “Me and the boys bout to exterminate the Jews.” The post was made off school property.

A Jewish student saw the post and had their parents report it to the police, the Israeli lobbyists at the Anti-Defamation League, Rabbi Richard Rheins, and school district officials. The post, even after being deleted, was circulated widely throughout the Jewish community, which whipped them up into a hysteria and prompted a witch hunt.

This led to C.G. being investigated by the police for the “hate speech,” but they concluded that no law was broken.

School administrators initially only suspended C.G. for a few days, but the ADL then got involved and got to decide on how to punish the student following the incident. Despite C.G. being highly apologetic and the ADL’s Scott Levin admitting that the post was just a joke, the Jewish District Director had C.G. expelled from the school anyway.

Jon Gruden, the NFL's highest paid coach, just got fired for a private comment ten years ago about a man having big lips. The man was Black, and we aren't supposed to notice his lips. Gruden also supposedly made some anti-gay comments, but his team is the only one in the NFL with an openly gay player, so it is hard to see how anti-gay he could be.

The Charlie Kirk Show, ..., mentioning recent comments by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) after the latest debt ceiling deal. ...

“You think we’re still living in the same country, don’t you?” sneered Kirk. “You think we’re still living in the 1980s, where the Democrats actually want what’s best for America?”

“The Democrats want to destroy the country, we know this,” he continued. “They want to see America completely obliterated, the Constitution shredded, and remade in their own San Francisco-Brooklyn-Malibu-Manhattan image, where there is no cultural identity, where you live in sexual anarchy, where private property is a thing of the past, and the ruling class controls everything.”

Is this a conspiracy theory? Schumer would not say that he wants to destroy the country, but he certainly does say that he wants changes that many consider destructive.

Why we Celebrate Columbus Day

Here is my list of the most important events in world history for making modern civiiization possible.

• Invention of mathematical proof. As shown in Euclid's Elements, 300 BC. Perfected in the early XX century.
• Roman Empire converted to Christianity. 323 AD.
• European discovery of America. 1492.
• Discovery of Calculus and Mechanics. Newton's treatise published in 1687.
• Electromagnetic theory. Maxwell's treatise published in 1873.
• Invention of semiconductor transistor. 1947.

It is hard to imagine modern civilization with any of these things.

Pes. Joe Biden proclaimed:

President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “Columbus Day.” Today, let this day be one of reflection — on America’s spirit of exploration, on the courage and contributions of Italian Americans throughout the generations, on the dignity and resilience of Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, and on the work that remains ahead of us to fulfill the promise of our Nation for all.

No, Columbus Day is not about any of those things. The holiday commemorates a voyage that made modern civilization possible.

If you want to honor Amerindians, here is a suggestion:

I have a better name for the holiday, which preserves the tradition of giving credit to a single man, in this case, an “indigenous person” named Opechancanough. He became chief of the Jamestown colony’s Indian neighbors when his older brother, Powhatan, died in 1618. Under Powhatan, whose favorite daughter had married an Englishman, there was an only sporadically violent peace.

Opechancanough was different. In 1622, he hatched a plot to exterminate every white man, woman, and child. By then, there were about 1,200 colonists, and many had Indian helpers and employees. On March 22, the Indians came to work with weapons hidden under their clothes, and rose up and massacred the whites. Fortunately for the colony, the main population at Jamestown got wind of the plot. Men kept weapons handy, and the Indians did not attack.

Even so, Opechancanough’s men managed to kill about 400 whites, or one-third of the colonists. ...

The slaughter began a year-long war with the Indians, but Opechancanough sued for peace, and whites and Indians slowly started mingling again. Amazingly, in 1644, Opechancanough ordered an identical sneak attack, and managed to kill between 400 and 500 English. This time, the colonists went on to kill so many Indians, including Opechancanough, that two years later, the Virginia General Assembly noted with satisfaction that the natives were “so routed and dispersed that they are no longer a nation, and we now suffer only from robbery by a few starved outlaws.”

Opechancanough was a patriot and freedom fighter, a defender of his people against the rapacious white man.

Biden Covid Deaths Catching up with Trump

The Wash. Times reports:

More Americans have died from COVID-19 during President Biden‘s first nine months in office than during the first nine months of the pandemic under Donald Trump’s presidency, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

No, I don't think this is true. According to CDC data, 433,801 died of covid-19 under Pres. Trump, and 268,375 under Biden. If deaths continue at the present rate, with 53,514 in the last month, the Biden will catch up in a little over 3 months. But deaths will probably not continue at the present rate.

How Medical Lobbyists Manipulated the Election

There are still some people who doubt that the Nov. 2021 election was stolen.

There were millions of people wo voted against Pres. Trump because the news media kept saying that thousands of Americans were dying from him not doing anything about the coronavirus. He said that a vaccine was in the works, but the press said that he was lying.

Soon there will be more covid deaths under the Biden administration than there were under Trump.

It turns out that there was a Trump-hater conspiracy to suppress what was supposed to be public info about the vaccine.

MIT Technology Review reports:

After being released from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on October 5, US President Donald Trump praised the doctors who treated him for covid-19 and promised that the public would soon have a vaccine against the deadly coronavirus. “We have the best medicines in the world, and very shortly they are all getting approved, and the vaccines are coming momentarily,” he said in a video statement shared with millions of Twitter followers.

Across the country, in California, a doctor named Eric Topol was responding in real time on social media. He questioned the president’s health, his doctors’ actions, and even his mental status.

By that point Topol, a heart expert and researcher with a huge Twitter following of his own, was already weeks into a personal campaign to make sure the administration could not rush a covid-19 vaccine through regulatory authorization before Election Day on November 3.

The article goes on to say that the drug companies were scheduled to release favorable news about vaccine trials, but Democrats in the govt and industry conspired to suppress the data in order to try to make Trump look bad for the election.

This article shows Topol and others bragging about something that should be criminal. The public had a right to know the status of govt agencies considering covid health measures. If the news had been bad, then maybe Republicans would have wanted to suppress the news, but that would have been wrong. That would be like NY Gov. Cuomo covering up nursing home deaths. As it turned out, the news was good, and Democrats successfully suppressed the news.

Another plot to manipulate the election was the 4-year push to impeach Trump. The effort was almost entirely led by Jews, with one notable exception: Robert Mueller.

Now Congressman Adam Schiff has a new book out, and he reveals that Mueller was just a puppet of the Jewish Trump-haters, and they kept him out of the public eye because he was a senile fool. In an NPR Radio interview:

(On regretting that he asked special prosecutor Robert Mueller to testify about the investigation into interference in the 2016 election)

I did understand immediately why his staff had been so protective and why they were so reluctant to have him testify. And I immediately told our members, "We need to cut down our questions. We can't ask for narrative answers. We need to be very precise in what we ask. We need to have the page references of the report ready." And it was painful, honestly, it was painful. And if I had known, I would not have pushed for his testimony.

So why was Mueller leading an investigation of the President, if all the insiders knew that he was incompetent?

The obvious answer is that Schiff and the others were carrying a coup. Their gripes against Trump were dishonest and meritless, so they needed a front man with sterling non-Jewish credentials and with no ability to resist orders.

They have the same thing in Joe Biden. Long record of public service. Not Jewish. Too senile to give a coherent narrative answer to a question. All of his important advisers and officers are Jewish. They control him much better than they would control some actual Jew, like Bernie Sanders.

Hunting for Evidence for Adam and Eve

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:

This is one of the most bizarre book reviews I’ve read in Science (or Nature). It’s a long (a full page) review of theologian William Lane Craig’s new book on Adam and Eve, supposedly a “Biblical and scientific exploration,” according to the book’s title

Having established that he should believe in Adam’s existence, Craig sets out to locate him. ...

Craig argues, for example, on the basis of brain size, that the first humans could not have lived before the time of Homo heidelbergensis and late Homo erectus. A number of facts about Neanderthals—symbolic behavior, ability to cooperate and plan, probable linguistic capacity, possession of human-specific genetic modifiers of brain development—convince him that they qualify as human. He therefore concludes that humanness was a trait inherited by Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo sapiens from their common ancestral populations and that Adam must have lived circa 700,000 years ago.

This is ridiculous for several reasons, the most obvious being the criteria for “humanness”, which, even if you accept them, must have evolved gradually, not appearing in one instant when Adam was born from a not-yet-human mother less cognitive than he. ...

Part of Craig’s “creditable synthesis” is to obviate the “bottleneck data”—population-genetic analysis showing that the smallest bottleneck in our species in the last several hundred thousand years must have been at least twelve thousand individuals. That is, the human population was never even close to one or two persons, much less Noah’s band of eight.

I am not sure this is so ridiculous.

First, there are a lot of scientific papers on the Eve Hypothesis.

Second, if it is possible to define human, as opposed to other apes, then there must have been a first human. That is simple math. A million years ago there were no humans.

Third, if Neanderthals were human 700k years ago, we have no idea what population bottlenecks might have occurred then.

It appears that it is conventional evolution wisdom that humans are just modern apes, differing in degree but not kind. They might deny that it makes sense to talk about whether Neanderthals were human.

But it does make sense. Neanderthals had larges brains and were qualitatively different from apes.

It seems unlikely to me that some Neanderthal man was suddenly a lot more conscious than the others 700k years ago, but it seems possible, and I don't know how we would know. If human traits did appear suddenly, they probably would have spread rapidly.

White Women all went Nuts in 2014

This Quillette interview of Jonathan Haidt explains that White leftists went nuts, starting in about 2014.

He attributes the cause to Iphones and Facebook, but cannot prove it.

He says at 26:40 that now 54% of young liberal White women now answer Yes to the question: Has a doctor or mental health professional ever told you that you have a mental health problem?

This is stunning. If you told me that some group has X% admitting to a diagnosed mental health problem, then I would assume that the true mental illness incidence is more like 2X% or 3X%. But that would make them all mentally ill!

Haidt says these trends are happening all over the Anglosphere and in many other countries, but not everywhere.

He says the trend pre-dated the Donald Trump campaign, and helped make his election possible.

I am not convinced that this can be blamed on Iphones and Facebook. Maybe there was some infectious agent or alien brainwashing. Maybe it is the culmination of several decades of feminism.

This is another reason to rethink democracy. I do not see how it can work, if half the population is mentally ill. Haidt gives examples of crazy things that are commonly told to women, and which women believe.

Trend Towards Secession

The NY Times reports:

On Sept. 30, for example, the University of Virginia Center for Politics and Project Home Fire released a survey showing unexpectedly large percentages of voters agreeing with this statement: “The situation in America is such that I would favor states seceding from the union to form their own separate country.”

Among Trump voters, 52 percent agreed, with 25 percent in strong agreement; among Biden voters, 41 percent agreed, 18 percent strongly.

Presumably, this includes those who want their own state to secede, and those who want other states to secede.

I am not in favor of secession, but we are headed in that direction, and I don't see how the trend will be reversed.

AG Garland Forces Teaching Racist Ideology

Lots of parents are protesting the teaching of Critical Race Theory in their local public schools, and now the feds are trying to intimidate those parents into silence.

The Conservative Treehouse reports:

AG Merrick Garland’s Daughter Married to Co-Founder of Education Company Selling Critical Race Theory Resource Material to School Districts

Well, well, well… This is interesting.  U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently instructed the FBI to begin investigating parents who confront school board administrators over Critical Race Theory indoctrination material. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a memorandum to the FBI instructing them to initiate investigations of any parent attending a local school board meeting who might be viewed as confrontational, intimidating or harassing.

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s daughter is Rebecca Garland.  In 2018 Rebecca Garland married Xan Tanner [LINK].  Mr. Xan Tanner is the current co-founder of a controversial education service company called Panorama Education. [LINK and LINK]  Panorama Education is the “social learning” resource material provider to school districts and teachers that teach Critical Race Theory.

Xan is an unusual name. The NY Times says they were married by a rabbi.

Christopher F. Rufo explains Critical Race Theory: What It Is and How to Fight It, and is being chased off Twitter for saying the Biden administration is investigating parents for being domestic terrorists. Okay, maybe the parents aren't being called terrorists yet, but what else would be the grounds for the FBI getting involved in local school board disputes?

Here is Sen. Ted Cruz accusing the US DoJ of treating protesting parents as domestic terrorists. Tucker Carlson explains this DoJ move is so outrageous.

Capitalist Exploitation of Land and Bodies

New book:

Not "A Nation of Immigrants": Settler Colonialism, White Supremacy, and a History of Erasure and Exclusion (Hardcover) ...

Most of us have heard America referred to as a “melting pot” or a “nation of immigrants.” While these self-congratulatory phrases paint a rosy picture of our past and present, they obscure or downright ignore some of the core tenets of this nation: white supremacy, settler colonialism, and capitalist exploitation of land and bodies. ...

This book is one of our eight selected titles for our 2021 Fall Reading Challenge. ...

This is not in the book, but perhaps the greatest capitalist exploitation of bodies is going on right now, in the form of immigration for cheap labor, and the student loan program.

Today's teenagers are convinced that they must complete a college education, or they will never own a home or share in the American dream. To pay for college, they must incur large debts that may take a decade or more to pay off. The debts cannot be removed by bankuptcy.

Capitalism works by dividing the people into an investor class, and a debtor class. Large punishing debts are what keeps the debtor class working productively. It starts with student loan debt, then credit card debt, and finally mortgage debts. Employer-based health insurance and child support orders are also very effective at turning citizens into wage slaves. The debtors are kept working to payoff the debts, but with new purchases and refinancing, hardly anyone becomes debt-free.

The above book is correct that the USA is not really a nation of immigrants. That is just a slogan concocted to perpetuate the importation of cheap labor. The USA was created and built by White settlors and native Whites.

Non-racial Explanations for European Superiority

Jerry Barnett writes in Quillette:

Guns, Germs, and Steel is a Powerful Anti-Racist Book. So Why Doesn’t the Left Love It?

[Jared] Diamond went on, six years later, to publish his best-known book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. It set out to explain in vivid detail, region by region, and era by era, how some branches of humanity came to dominate and even eradicate others. ...

GGS provides an account of the entirety of human history over the past 13,000 years, since humans began to transition from hunting and gathering lifestyles into food-producing ones. ...

GGS opens by considering an apparently simple question that Diamond had been asked years earlier by Yali, a New Guinean politician: Why did Europeans have so much cargo (technologies and manufactured goods), while New Guineans had so little? To extend the question: Why are some societies so much more technologically and economically developed than others? It seems astonishing that such an obvious question about human history should still be either difficult or controversial to answer, but it is both.

The real problem with the book is that its explanations are speculations for things that happened millennia ago, but he has nothing to explain the last 500 years, when Europe leap-frogged way ahead of the rest of the world.

Diamond doesn’t try to deny that there may be marked genetic differences between different branches of humanity—indeed, early in the book, he makes a strong (possibly devil’s advocate) case as to why he believes New Guinean highlanders may have evolved to be more intelligent than Europeans.

Okay, I guess that is why leftists were supposed to like the books. Europeans are less intelligent than the most primitive people on Earth.

If the racist Right believed that global disparities resulted from innate differences in ability, then the anti-racist Left would provide its own counter-explanation. The answer it found was systemic racism—the idea that white success and dominance resulted from oppression by whites of all other groups.

Systemic racism can explain, at least partly, the significant economic gap between blacks and whites in the United States, and also in South Africa, but this idea applies in few other parts of the world.

It does not apply in the USA either, as systemic racism does got explain any of the White/Black gaps.

Barnett goes on to discuss Diamond's theories for what happened 13,000 years ago, but all of the developmental advantages were in China, Persia, Mideast, Africa, and India.

A similar case against white superiority is made by the New Guinea highlanders, who by 9,000 years ago (long before agriculture had reached Europe) had developed one of the most sophisticated systems of agriculture on the planet.

Again, none of this explains why Europe passed up everybody 500 years ago.

There are explanations available, and I have posted some on this blog.

I think that Diam was a big hero to the Left for this book. It won many prizes, in spite of many defects. He has many dubious generalizations about ancient societies lacking a written record.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust and the atrocities committed by European empires, the Western world awoke to the horrors that humans are capable of committing against those they perceived to be inferior.

Barnett is losing me here. XXth century atrocities were not particularly European, as they were also in Russia, China, Cambodia, Turkey, Africa, etc. And they were not against those perceived to be inferior. There were usually ethnic and political reasons.

It is not surprising in this context that postwar liberals set out to eliminate the concept of race from Western thinking.

On the contrary, liberals do everything to try to force everyone into racial thinking. The conservatives are the only ones trying to be race neutral today.

But in doing so, the Left has progressively painted itself into an ideological corner. Guns, Germs, and Steel advanced the discussion by providing a powerful explanation for disparities in outcome that relied neither on racial differences nor on a belief in invisible power structures, and on that basis deserves to be seen as an important contribution to the ongoing battle for equal rights.

Except that Diamond's arguments are scientifically dubious, that they fail to explain modern disparities anyway, and that they do not do anything to support the racial hatred that today's Left is founded on.

I am glad to see Quillette try to address these grand questions of human history, but I don't think the Left of today has much interest in non-racial explanations for European advancement. They would be all about hating Whites, no matter how Whites got where they are.

MIT just canceled a big invited geophysics lecture, because the speaker expressed opinions of race neutrality. So favoring race neutrality does not help with today's Left.

Leftists Trigger White Racial Consciousness

David Bernstein writes:

I discovered that if one googles "white racial consciousness" you will find many articles praising it and encouraging more of it–the vast majority not from right-wing white nationalists, but from progressive academics, who somehow think this is a good thing that leads to positive social outcomes. The idea seems to be that if you make people more conscious of their whiteness, they will recognize their white privilege, and this will lead them to be allies in the cause of anti-racism.

I suppose this should not come as a shock. Back in 1991, I saw the late Professor Derrick Bell, a well-known Critical Race Theorist from Harvard Law School, talk about how proud he was that he got his students, including a specific Jewish woman, who did not think of themselves as white, to recognize and become much more conscious of their whiteness.

What strikes me about this literature is how it ignores what seems to me to be the obvious dangers of encouraging a majority of the population to emphasize and internalize a racial identity, and, moreover, to think of themselves as having racial interests opposed to those of the non-white population.

That ship has sailed, I am afraid.

The non-white political groups have gone fully anti-white. The famous Ibram X. Kendi book starts:

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.

That's right. He wants more goodies for Blacks by discriminating against Whites.

There is no political room for race neutrality anymore. Kendi says you are either a racist or an antiracist. And they are really the same thing, as they are just advocating for one's own race.

It is surely true that a lot of White do not identify as White, until they see that they want no part of the White-hating leftist activism of today.

Divorce is an Act of Radical Self-Love

I mentioned that Jewish law very different ideas about marriage and family, and now a NY Times essay explains:

Divorce Can Be an Act of Radical Self-Love
Sept. 30, 2021

By Lara Bazelon

Ms. Bazelon is a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and the author of the forthcoming book “Ambitious Like a Mother.”

I used to believe that divorce is a terrible thing, particularly when children are involved. Growing up, I absorbed cultural tropes about absent fathers in efficiency apartments, mothers struggling to support themselves, and awful stepparents and unwanted stepsiblings. To this day, divorce is portrayed as precarious and grim. Parents whose marriages break apart are made to feel they have failed catastrophically. Divorce is shameful, traumatic and Bad For The Kids.

But I’ve learned that divorce can also be an act of radical self-love that leaves the whole family better off. …

Recently I asked my daughter, now 10, how she felt. She told me: “Some of my friends spend more time with their parents, but I have to give you a lot of credit because those kids are in two-parent families. Our criminal justice system is horrible and messed up, and you are trying to help it get fixed.”

Wow, she seems to really believe that radical self-love is a good thing, and that her daughter is persuade of the goodness of divorce because mom is a law professor pursuing Jewish social justice work.

Bazelon is the grand-daughter of a famous Jewish judge who actively worked to change American law.

An anonymous describes the result of this sort of thinking:

Legally, marriage is fundamentally broken. I would be interested if anyone has insight into how family law has changed over the years, but what is clear is that it creates all the wrong incentives. There are no negative consequences to divorce, and least for the non-breadwinner (typically the woman). To the contrary: there’s only upside for her. Divorce gets her 1) independence 2) custody of the kids 3) half of the man’s assets 4) typically the house and 5) abundant financial support in the form of alimony and child support. Why would she *not* get divorced at the earliest chance, at the first spat or bump in the road? She’d be crazy not to. Why would she not explode her own relationship by withholding sex, or being nasty, or humiliating her spouse in public, or having an affair? It’s no skin off her nose. She has all the power, she knows it, and the way she treats him proves it.

Given these incentives, unsurprisingly, most divorce is initiated by women: men don’t want to lose their house, kids and retirement. They don’t want to support an ungrateful woman in perpetuity while she sleeps with other men in the home he built. I would wager that the majority of husband-initiated divorces are, essentially, because she’s become so unbearable and his life so miserable that he’ll do anything to escape. Or, he has nothing to lose perhaps because he was smart enough to get a prenup.

In any event, and being as blame neutral as possible: the correct construction of a “life long” commitment is not to architect it such that by its very design it incentivizes one or both parties to blow it up. Crazy that this is not already the case.

Besides these points, marriage has become godless and often childless. If you’re not gonna have kids, why get married? So you can throw a big wedding party and she gets to be a narcissistic princess for a day? A marriage which isn’t about something bigger than yourself, like god, children and the union of two families, is vapid, narcissistic and built on sand. The marriages which still work are those in deeply religious communities who ostracize the women who initiate divorce or otherwise become so nasty as to justify it. Secular marriage is completely broken. It’s no surprise that most fail.

Australia Loses Guns, and Freedom

Anti-gun advocates often point to Australia as a White country that successfully banned guns.

The story is exaggerated, as you can read here. People used to say that it stopped mass shootings, but that is no longer true.

The ban only reduced gun ownership from 8% to 5%, so it is not applicable to the USA, where everyone has guns:

So, could such a system work in the United States? The answer is likely no.

There are several reasons; as The New York Times reported, “Australians, on the whole, were happy to give up their guns and accept the new restrictions.” Americans, who, unlike their Australian cousins, have a Second Amendment that provided the right to keep and bear arms and that has been in place for nearly 240 years.

Okay, but Australia is still a free country, right?

Nope. As Tucker Carlson explains, freedom is dead in Australia.

Schools teach wrong story about Galileo

I have complained about left-wing censorship and cancel culture. In a man-bites-dog story, the Daily Beast reports:

Far-Right Group Wants to Ban Kids From Reading Books on Male Seahorses, Galileo, and MLK

Moms for Liberty is raising hell in a Tennessee school district over books that teach about race in American history — and also books that teach about wild animals and science.

It turns out that they are raising hell about school propaganda, but not banning kids from reading books.

At one juncture, the group implores the school district to include more charitable descriptions of the Catholic Church when teaching a book about astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was persecuted by said church for suggesting that Earth revolves around the sun.

“Where is the HERO of the church?” the group’s spreadsheet asks, “to contrast with their mistakes? There are so many opportunities to teach children the truth of our history as a nation. The Church has a huge and lasting influence on American culture. Both good and bad should be represented. The Christian church is responsible for the genesis of Hospitals, Orphanages, Social Work, Charity, to name a few.”

No, Galilei was not persecuted by said church for suggesting that Earth revolves around the sun. The public schools certainly should not be using historically inaccurate books.

The Tennessee moms are not seeking to avoid the Galileo story, but merely to teach the good and the bad.

The way the story is often presented, kids get the impression that the Church was systematically persecuting scientists for suggesting new ideas. In fact, the Pope invited Galileo to write a scientific book on the pros and cons of his heliocentric ideas that the Sun is at the center of the universe. And there is no other example of a persecuted scientist, as Galileo was supposedly persecuted.

By all means, teach the Galileo story. Teach how nearly all of the scientific advances of the last 500 years came from Christian Europe and America. Teach how other cultures failed to make any significant advances in astronomy.

Trotskyists Run the Last Honest Web Site

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz writes:

But I began feeling uneasy a few minutes into reading the lead essay, by the project’s chief contributor, the journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, and then I read a key paragraph so fallacious and dogmatic that it hit me between the eyes. With a tone of absolute assurance, flagging the matter as crucial, the essay informed readers of what it called a „fact“ – a fact „conveniently left out of our founding mythology“ – specifically that „one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence“ from Britain „was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.“5

I instantly wondered how anyone even lightly informed about the history of either slavery or the American Revolution , could write that sentence. Unfortunately, the ensuing explanation only made matters worse. The British, the essay claimed, had grown „deeply conflicted“ over slavery, and the British government was facing rising calls to end the Atlantic slave trade – a reform that would have „upended“ the entire colonial economy, not just in the South. For that reason – the essay mentioned no other – the American colonists, North and South, believed that the British posed a threat to slavery, an institution they desperately wanted to protect. Rather than run the risk of losing slavery, the colonists declared their independence. The Revolution was supposedly, at its core, a reactionary, proslavery struggle to fend off abolition of slavery by the British.6

The paragraph covered subjects of unsurpassed importance and it was historical gibberish.

The 1619 Project was widely praised, and is now taught in schools.

I wonder if the whole thing is counterproductive. Everyone agrees that the American Revolution was a great thing, and brought freedom and prosperity to the world. If it were really based on slavery, then wouldn't that make slavery a good thing?

When no letter appeared and no other historians spoke up, I decided to address the matter myself in a public lecture I delivered in November, which would later appear on-line in the New York Review of Books. Only after the lecture did I learn that four highly distinguished historians – three of them old friends and colleagues, the fourth a scholar I greatly respected – had already been giving interviews to an online forum called the World Socialist Web Site, a Trotskyist venue, taking The 1619 Project seriously to task for its false statements about the Revolution and much more.

It struck me as a little odd that these well-known historians – none of them socialists as far as I knew, let alone Trotskyists – would appear in such a relatively obscure place. Surely, I thought, one of the leading academic journals would have given them a platform. As it happened, only the intellectually honorable Trotskyists…had the nerve to undertake a systematic critique of The 1619 Project….

This is amusing that the last honest historians have to publish on a Trotskyite web site.

As I understand it, the Troskyites are all about class conflict, not racial conflict. They see racial conflict as a distraction, so they are eager to debunk false narratives about race. Well, somebody should hold these NY Times propagandists accountable.

Marriage and Divorce under Jewish Law

Democrat policy is to appoint as many Jews as possible to the courts. Some say this is done because Jews are liberal; others say it is because Jews are smart. What is not so well known is that Jews have very different ideas about law and justice from everybody else's.

Here is the current episode of This American Life, an NPR Radio broadcast:

This is Gital Dodelson. She's an Orthodox Jewish woman, and she's what's known as an agunah. That's the word in Hebrew for a woman whose husband refuses to give her a divorce. Literally, it means a chained wife. Besides money, lots of money, Gital says her husband has a long list of demands for her to meet if she wants her get.

Gital Dodelson I have a four-year-old son. He wants 50-50 custody, where my son would be a week with me and a week with him.

Asking for 50-50 child custody in a divorce is normal and standard in America.

A beis din is a group of three rabbis Orthodox Jew sometimes turn to to settle disputes outside the civil courts. When her husband wouldn't give a get, Gital tried to bring him before the beis din. But he refused to show up.

So the rabbis issued something called a seruv. It's basically a contempt of court. It's supposed to ostracize him in the community. Gital's brother Aryeh is a full-time scholar of Jewish law, and he says the seruv is usually an effective tool. ...

Gital, of course, could just walk away. She's already got her civil divorce. The finances are all settled. So is the child custody. But she can't get remarried. She's a 25-year-old woman. She'd like to have more kids.

And I should point out, most Jews wouldn't care. Plenty of less religious Jews would be happy to marry Gital. But in the Orthodox world, where she was raised, where her whole family is, where she wants to stay, she can't make a new life for herself.

So Jewish women like her hire ex-military special forces to find and torture the husband into issuing the get, and a Jewish scribe witnesses it so the wife can get remarried. This one already got the money and the kids, but that is not enough.

There is some religious authority for this:

But as it happens, there's an old Jewish teaching that recalcitrant husbands should be beaten. And it wasn't some schmuck from Brooklyn who said so. It was Maimonides, the 12th century Spanish rabbi considered the greatest Jewish sage of all time.

Maimonides wrote that a man could be beaten until he gave his wife a get. Here was his reasoning. Deep down, he said, all of us are torn between our good inclinations and our evil inclinations. And being beaten might be just what a man needs to drive out his evil side so that he can see the wisdom of releasing his wife.

Listen to the episode for much more craziness.

Maybe Jews should have the religious freedom to believe whatever they want, but I don't think that Jewish judges should be ruling over non-Jews. In some areas of law, judges have a lot of discretion to do what is fair or equitable or just, but that only makes sense if there are some common beliefs about underlying principles.

I wouldn't want some Moslem who believes in Sharia Law to be an American judge either.

In 2016, Barack Obama tried to appoint a fourth Jew to the US Supreme Court. This would have made the largest voting bloc on the court in a very long time. People say we have a 6-3 conservative majority on the court now, but the conservatives disagree on many issues, and do not vote as a bloc. The liberals vote as a bloc, and consistently take the leftist postition, regardless of the law in question.

Even in Israel, I think they just have Jewish judges ruling on Jewish marriages. Christians and Moslems have their own marriage courts.

I am not even sure these Jewish beliefs should be called religious, as Christians understand religion. They don't have much to do with God, or morality, or spiritual values. They are just ancient customs of unknown origin and purpose. They are enforced by creating an ethnocentric community, and shaming the violators. The whole thing is un-Christian and un-American.

Concealing the Genetics of Intelligence

London Guardian interview:

The behaviour geneticist explains how biology could have an influence on academic attainment – and why she takes an anti-eugenics approach

Kathryn Paige Harden argues how far we go in formal education – and the huge knock-on effects that has on our income, employment and health – is in part down to our genes. Harden is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, where she leads a lab using genetic methods to study the roots of social inequality. Her provocative new book is The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality.

To even talk about whether there might be a genetic element to educational attainment and social inequality breaks a huge social taboo – particularly on the political left, which is where you say your own sympathies lie. The spectre of eugenics looms large, and no one wants to create a honeypot for racists and classists. To be clear, it is scientifically baseless to make any claims about differences between racial groups, including intelligence, and you are not doing that. But why go here?

... But also people are hearing every day about new genetic discoveries and seeing in their own families and lives that genetics matter. When asked to estimate how much genes influence intelligence, people’s answers are not zero. I’m trying to help them make sense of that information in a socially responsible way. ...

You have been accused of promoting eugenics, including by prominent sociologist Ruha Benjamin, who has written that you are engaging in “savvy slippage between genetic and environmental factors that would make the founders of eugenics proud”.

How do you predict a person’s educational attainment via their genome?

It starts with a statistical exercise in correlation called a genome wide association study (GWAS).

Okay, but the consortium that controls that data requires researchers to promise "not to use these data to make comparisons across ancestral groups." The Terms and Conditions threaten retaliation to ruin the career of the researcher. See also this 2018 statement:

The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is alarmed ...

race itself is a social construct. Any attempt to use genetics to rank populations demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.

So Harden will not say how genes affect the intelligence of racial groups, because she is not permitted to say, and because it would be career suicide. When she was accused of being a Nazi sympathizer, she said, “I care what people think about me and my work. I’m interested in changing how people think.”

Some researchers would say that they care about finding the truth. Not her. She cares about what people think of her, and she does not want to be lumped in with Nazi sympathizers.

Raxib Khan writes:

A new paper, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, highlights the fact that genes your parents didn’t transmit to you still matter—the phenomenon of “genetic nurture.” A team of researchers based in the United Kingdom conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 studies with nearly 40,000 parent-offspring comparisons. The genetic nurture effect for years of education, they found, is about 50 percent of the value of direct genetic effects. “Empirical studies,” they write, “have indicated that genetic nurture effects are particularly relevant to the intergenerational transmission of risk for child educational outcomes, which are, in turn, associated with major psychological and health milestones throughout the life course.” Genetic nurture is clearly not a factor you can ignore.

That is, you are partially determined by your genes. And so were your parents. There could be genes that helped determine your parents, and not inherited by you, and those genes could have still indirectly shape you by shaping your parents behavior.

Biden is Upset about Horses Patrolling the Border

We have a crisis at the border, and our President says:

Biden: “Of course I take responsibility. I’m president, but it was horrible what to see — as you saw — to see people treated like they did, horses nearly running them over, people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay. They will be, an investigation underway now, and there will be consequences. There will be consequences. It’s an embarrassment, but it’s beyond an embarrassment. It’s dangerous. It’s wrong. It sends the wrong message around the world. It sends the wrong message at home. It’s simply not who we are.”

Wow. I think Biden could be our worst President in a very long time. With immigration, the budget, Afghanistan, race relations, and Covid-19, his policies have been spectacularly bad.

Apparently Biden leaped to some pretty crazy conclusions about a routine border enforcement story. And he thinks it is embarrassing that some foreign invaders were repelled. The embarrassment is that we have such an incompetent and anti-American President.

Remember all the news of a few months ago about how Chinese-Americans were being targeted for hate crimes in California? Supposedly it was all Donald Trump's fault, because he used the phrase "China virus". Now they caught the perps, and here they are:

I am guessing that these guys are not Trump supporters, and did not read Trump's tweets. And they certainly do not belong to any White supremacist organizations.

Another Woman Abandons Elon Musk

Elon Musk may be the most admired man in the world, but he cannot keep a wife:

Elon Musk and Grimes have broken up after three years together, Page Six can exclusively reveal.

The SpaceX founder confirmed that he and the Canadian singer are “semi-separated” but remain on good terms and continue to co-parent their 1-year-old son, the epically named X Æ A-Xii Musk. ...

Musk was previously married to author Justine Wilson, with whom he has five sons: twins Griffin and Xavier, 17, and triplets Damian, Saxon and Kai, 15.

He was also married — twice — to “Westworld” actress Talulah Riley. They first wed in 2010 but divorced in 2012. They reconciled a year later, remarried in 2013 and divorced again in 2016.

The billionaire also dated Amber Heard from 2017 to 2018 following her ill-fated marriage to Johnny Depp.

Each of these women left him, and complained that he didn't spend enough time on her needs, or some such nonsense.

He is not alone. The most desirable husbands in the world have been dumped by their wives: Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, etc.

Even Grimes' mom attacked Musk:

The grandmother of Elon Musk and Grimes’ new baby boy has harsh words for a recent tweet by the controversial billionaire.

It happened after the Tesla and SpaceX CEO tweeted “Take the red pill” on Sunday morning.

The phrase originally appeared in the first “Matrix” film ― where it amounted to facing reality ― but it has become popularized by men’s rights activists (MRAs) presumedly unhappy over women making their own choices.

When Grimes’ mother, former Canadian prosecutor and arts advocate Sandy Garossino, saw Musk’s tweet, she called out her daughter’s partner in two now-deleted tweets of her own.

“If your partner went through a challenging pregnancy and childbirth in the last two weeks... and you were over 16 years old, would you be blaring MRA bullshit on Twitter right now?” she asked in one post.

No, the phrase has nothing to do with men's rights activism, and men's rights acivists almost never use the term.

Yes, the red pill means facing reality, and especially accepting the reality of human nature and how the world works. A red-piller might see the Musk breakup news, and observe that no man is good enough for today's woman. The red-pillers accepts that female nature is to make these sorts of choices.

The men's rights activists have a very different attitude. They see various laws and policies as being unfair and sexist, and seek changes to make them more fair. The red-pillers see that as a hopeless attempt to change human nature.

The hostility from Grimes' mom is bizarre. You would think that mom's would be happy to have Musk as a son-in-law.

No, not from today's feminists. Here is current advice from Jezebel:

Here Are Some Good Reasons To Divorce Your Husband This Fall ...

But assuming some of these people getting divorced are women who date men, I have a couple alternate theories for why the divorce rate is spiking. For instance: During the pandemic, when both members of a couple were working from home full-time during a lockdown, 67% of women reported they were fully or mostly responsible for housework. When a child was homeschooled during the pandemic that shuttered schools for months, 3% of women said their spouse was doing more schooling than they were. Between May and June of last year, one in four women who left the workforce reported doing so because they needed to care for a child. One in eight men reported the same circumstances, and while most fathers say they’re actively and equally involved in raising their child, a full three-quarters of women say they do more child work than their spouse. The cumulative effect of all of this labor foisted on American women—labor that appears to go unnoticed by the men who are living with them and co-parenting their children—has been called “grotesque,” and it has help create a scenario in which women’s participation in the workforce is now as low as it was in the ‘80s.

There are a lot of women who would much rather be caring for a child in the home, than working outside the home.

Here is a typical comment:

I’m sure it’s because I’m a barren millennial spinster with no prospects but I’m also sure it’s because I watched my mother and aunts struggle in their relationships with men that I am convinced that marriages with men are a true dice roll in life.

Married men get all of the benefits of a live in house keeper who raises their children while they get to act like permanent children.

She will probably remain a barren millennial spinster with that attitude.

Advice for men is not much better.

Matthew Fray is the pseudonym of a man with widely publicized post on SShe Divorced Me Because I Left Dishes by the Sink. He would drink a glass of water, and leave his glass by the sink, so he could use it again. His wife was some sort of obsessive-compulsive control freak who kept putting his glass into the dishwasher, against his wishes. She eventually got fed up and left him.

Now he has decided that this was inconsiderate on his part, and made him a terrible husband, so he has launched a new career as a marriage coach to advise other men not to make the same mistake he did. He even has a book coming out, with such advice.

Is that what Musk, Gates, and Pitt did wrong? They failed to wash their dirty cups?

This must be a unique time in human history. Women have become impossible to please. It is hard to imagine divorces over such matters in any other era.

Jews Try to Censor Truth about Demographics

Jews and Jewish organizations consistently seek to replace Whites with non-whites in the USA and Europe, and to destroy anyone who points this out.

The Daily Beast reports:

The Anti-Defamation League is reiterating its calls for Fox News to fire Tucker Carlson after the network’s primetime star went all-in on espousing the racist “Great Replacement” theory this week.

The last time Carlson embraced the conspiracy theory, his boss Lachlan Murdoch dismissed the outrage, claiming the Fox star was merely talking about voting rights. But now, the ADL said, Carlson is “openly embracing white nationalist talking points.”

The Fox News host has repeatedly fear-mongered about Democrats allegedly bringing in dark-skinned immigrants with the express purpose of “replacing” the American (read: white) electorate. On Wednesday night, he declared that the Biden administration is intentionally trying “to change the racial mix of the country” through immigration.

“In political terms, this policy is called ‘the great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries,” Carlson exclaimed. “They brag about it all the time, but if you dare to say it's happening they will scream at you with maximum hysteria.” ...

On Thursday, in response to Carlson’s latest segment, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt renewed his calls for Fox News to dump its biggest star.

“It cannot be overstated enough,” Greenblatt said in a statement to The Daily Beast. “For Tucker Carlson, host of one of the most-watched news programs in the country, to use his platform as a megaphone to spread the toxic, antisemitic, and xenophobic ‘great replacement theory’ is a repugnant and dangerous abuse of his platform.”

Note that the ADL doesn't say that the Great Replacement theory is false. The NY Times has about one article a week celebrating the replacement as being a good thing. That is, good for Jews.

Israeli law prevents Jews being replaced with non-Jews in Israel. Most Jews and Jewish organizations openly support policies to keep the ethnic mix of Israel predominantly Jewish. But if you argue to preserve the ethnic mix of the USA, then Jewish organizations will use their power and influence to cancel you.

It is a fact that the Biden administration is intentionally trying “to change the racial mix of the country” through immigration. If the ADL were honest, it would welcome an informed public debate on the merits of this. Nope. It is all-in for racist and destructive policies that would not survive such a debate.

It goes without saying that not all Jews are in favor of replacement. Probably only 80% of them. A lot of the orthodox Jews are probably against it. I am commonent on the Jewish organizations and publications that are openly in favor of it, such as the ADL and NY Times.

Update: Here is Tucker Carlson responding, on another show. He doesn't say anything about Jews It is funny that the ADL is so adamant that any criticism of the great replacement must be a criticism of Jews. It is implying that Jews are the driving force behind the great replacement.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency also writes about this:

The “Great Replacement” is ... Jews are orchestrating the replacement of white people in western countries with nonwhite immigrants. ... white supremacists marching in Charlottesville, Virginia infamously chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

It is also funny how Jews endlessly complain about Whites not wanting Jews to replace them with non-whites. If this were not a Jewish goal, they would surely say so.

ACLU says Abortion is no longer a Women's Right

The ACLU used to be a civil liberties organization, and now it tweets a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

So why all the square brackets? The feminists of RBG's generation wanted to transfer power and sexual freedom to women, and enable women to avoid responsibility. But now her quotes are considered transphobic, because women who prefer a male gender want to abort their babies also.

Update: The NY Times reports that the ACLU mistake was quite deliberate:

There are people who are pregnant and who seek abortions, he said, who do not identify as women.

“My colleagues do a fantastic job of trying to understand a reality that people who seek abortions are not only women,” he said. “That reality exists.”

Fathers have Few Rights

From a New Yorker story:

And fathers — his hand swung again — have few rights. In this country, children belong to their mothers. So, as for raising children, there’s little that fathers can do. When married to his ex-wife, he said, he’d worked a hundred and twenty hours a week, and his ex-wife, a homemaker with two live-in servants, taught the boys to be rude and slothlike. Now he paid millions annually and attended court regularly just to see the boys four days a month, and that brief access did not provide a platform for lessons in manners. In addition, he couldn’t sway his kids’ minds about much, because their mother told them daily that their father was a selfish miser and a godforsaken liar, alcoholic, and adulterer.

This is probably fiction, but plausible as it happens all the time, and is not even newsworthy.

Women complain that the USA is misogynist because they have trouble getting an abortion in Texas. But look at how fathers are treated.

There are examples of women and mothers being mistreated by the family court. I have seen a couple of particularly outrageous examples. But I have seen a lot more examples of fathers getting mistreated.

` Here is a ProPublica essay arguing that moms should be able to collect welfare without naming the dad:

This was another common fear articulated by mothers who were asked to name fathers to get aid: that an absent dad forced to pay support would spitefully seek custody or greater involvement in medical and educational decisions about the child.

If the mom cannot take care of the child, and has to go on welfare, then child custody should probably go to the dad. The moms are the irresponsible and spiteful ones, as they areeeI hav depriving their kids of a dad.

Projecting Costs to the Year 2300

A new paper looks at the cost of carbon emissions out to the year 2300:

The Social Cost of Carbon: Advances in Long-Term Probabilistic Projections of Population, GDP, Emissions, and Discount Rates

This paper, coauthored by scholars at RFF and top research universities, examines the key methods and challenges involved in estimating a more accurate social cost of carbon.

The paper mentions the effect of climate change on agriculture, but no one knows whether the cost will be positive or negative. Much of the paper is devoted to discussing how to figure the economic growth rate, and suggests using 2% or 3%.

If the economy really grows at that rate for 200 years, then everyone will have so much wealth that atmospheric carbon will be insignificant.

I was struck by the UN population projections, as shown above. As you can see, the world will be overwhelmingly African and Asian. Mostly African. Maybe 20 billion of them. Whites will be an insignificant fraction of the world.

So where is all that economic growth going to come from? Will Africans enslave the Whites and force them to invent new technologies? Where will the Africans get enough food to feed themselves?

If this kind of population growth takes places, there will probably be famines and wars that kill billions of people. They might burn coal just to increase atmospheric CO2 and crop yields. A small temperature increase will be the least of their problems.

Children Bypass Parents to get Tranny Drugs

AP reports:

Britain’s Court of Appeal ruled Friday that doctors can prescribe puberty-blocking drugs to children under 16 without a parent’s consent, overturning a lower court’s decision that a judge’s approval should be needed.

Appeals judges said the High Court was wrong to rule last year that children considering gender reassignment are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to medical treatment involving drugs that delay puberty. The December 2020 ruling said that because of the experimental nature of the drugs, clinics should seek court authorization before starting such treatment.

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which runs the U.K.’s main gender identity development service for children, appealed against that ruling.

On Friday the Court of Appeal agreed with the trust. The judges said it was “inappropriate” for the High Court to have given the guidance and said it was up to doctors to “exercise their judgment” about whether their patients can properly consent.

This is sick. What are parental rights for, if not to shelter their kids from taking these dangerous drugs.

Human are Still Evolving

Not long ago, Stephen Jay Gould and the other evolution popularizers were fond of saying that humans had not evolved in 50,000 years. We were all the same as our African ancestors.

A famous and accomplished 19th century biologist is being canceled because he believed that human races diverged evolutionarily:

[From the report on the WWU President’s website]: Even though Thomas Huxley made significant contributions in the field of biology, he also had significant contributions to scientific racism. He was a polygenist: someone who is of the belief that all races evolved from different origins instead of coming from one homosapien. [sic] This is not only scientifically disproven, but also a racist mindset, and an argument that one of his “archrivals” at the time called Richard Owen attempted to refute with evidence that we all are the same species that evolved from the same homosapien [sic] thousands of years ago. Huxley won the argument, and it is historian Nicolaas Rupke’s thesis that this argument between Huxley and Owen in which Huxley’s “deeply racist, polygenist viewpoint” won lead to building the scientific racism of the early 20th century.

[Evolutionist professor's response]: It’s not true that Huxley was a “polygenist”; like Darwin, he correctly believed in a single evolutionary origin of humans: both were monogenists.) Huxley believed, correctly, that different ethnic groups (then called “races”) evolved in geographic isolation from one another following migration to new places. But, like Darwin, Huxley also thought that whites were on the top of the racial hierarchy.

So you cannot say that humans are still evolving, because that geographically isolated groups could be genetically somewhat differenct from the rest of the population.

Research from last year indicates that Europeans evolved the ability for adults to digest milk in only the last 3,000 years.

Other research suggests that some Eurasians had dairy farms in the Early Bronze Age.

Other research says that the poorer British are evolving towards worse health:

Studying natural selection can help us understand the genetic architecture of health outcomes: we find evidence in modern day Great Britain for multiple natural selection pressures that vary between subgroups in the direction and strength of their effects, that are strongly related to the socio-economic system, and that may contribute to health inequalities across income groups.

Evolution of lactase is easy to measure. Evolution of intelligence is not so easy. It is very likely that genes for human behavior are also evolving, and they are more difficult to measure.

The 2019 Movie Parasite is a Revelation

I expect Hollywood movies to be leftist propaganda. When they show a conflict between rich and poor, the rich are the greedy jerks, and the poor are the heros.

The 2019 movie Parasite is an exception.

Alex Tabarrok reviews it:

I am late to this but Parasite, now available on streaming services, is the most willfully misinterpreted movie that I have ever seen. The conventional interpretation is so obviously wrong that I cannot but think that it is anything but a collective gaslighting. The conventional interpretation is that the film is about inequality and on the surface that makes sense. After all, there is a rich family and a poor family, and an upstairs and a downstairs, and everyone knows that inequality is the problem of our age so despite the subtitles this Korean film must be a version of what we expect to see.

The movie is strange for several reasons. It is not in English. No Jews were involved, except those giving it Oscars. And it won more praise and big awards than any other movie in recent years.

It is about a family of good, honest, successful people who prey to parasites.

The parasites are not rats or cockroaches, but they as might as well be. They are lower-class humans who pretend to be decent folks, but they are disgusting crooks who are unfit for polite company.

If there is any message to this movie, it is that poor people deserve to be poor, and must be seperated from productive citizens.

I am still wondering why this movie was so popular. Did they really like the message that much?

A new Netflix movie, JJ+E, is also all about class divide. It is a Romeo and Juliet, with a low-class dark-skinned boy and a nice rich Swedish girl. It keeps portraying the rich as bigoted for looking down at the boy, even tho he started the movie as a hero.

It turns out that the Swedish father is exactly right when he tells his daughter to stay away from the boy. The girl seduces him, as a way of rebeling against her father. The viewer is left with the impression that the school should not have let them attend classes together, and the girl should have to obey her father. The movie ends with the boy and girl kissing in the back seat of a police car, after they both get arrested.

Psychologists claim that we do now know ourselves

David Brooks writes:

One of the most unsettling findings of modern psychology is that we often don’t know why we do what we do. ...

We have a conscious self, of course, the voice in our head, but this conscious self has little access to the parts of the brain that are the actual sources of judgment, problem-solving and emotion. We know what we’re feeling, just not how and why we got there.

No, this is ridiculous.

In the first place, humans have made enormous progress in understanding the roots of their behavior. If you fear intimacy and tend to be emotionally avoidant, you can consult attachment theory to gain insight into how the attachment model you learned as a toddler is influencing your relationships today. Moreover, if you look at the patterns of your life — you tend to get dumped about three months into a relationship — you can discern the underlying causes. You’re doing something off-putting at three months for a reason, and you can gradually come to discern the source, the “why,” of that pattern.

Psychologists can make big claims for attachment theory as the most scientific work in the whole field, it is almost completely worthless. It is pseudo-science. It seems like science because it has some experiments that can be replicated, but those experiments don't really tell anything about adult relationships or anything useful.

Polls show Marriage and Trump Trends

Gallup reports:

Ninety-four percent of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013. The current figure marks a new high in Gallup's trend, which spans more than six decades. Just 4% approved when Gallup first asked the question in 1958.

I wonder how many people alive today have even heard the arguments. I suggest this Muhammad Ali on Mixed couples are against God and nature.

I also wonder what is meant by "approve". If pollsters asked who approves of Prince Harry's marriage, what would they say? They would probably say the marriage is his business, even if they find the couple very annoying, and agree with kicking them out of the English royal family.

A new CNN poll says:

In a new CNN poll released Sunday, 59 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say that believing Trump won the 2020 election is "important" to being a Republican⁠ — 36 percent indicated that it's "very important" and 23 percent "somewhat important." ...

Additionally, 61 percent of Republicans consider support for Trump to be a crucial part of what it means to be a Republican — 34 percent say it's "very important" and 27 percent "somewhat important." Only 23 percent say supporting Trump is "not at all important" to what it means to be a Republican.

On the other hand, we apparntly had General Mark Milley conspiring with Communist China and Nancy Pelosi to undermine President Trump, during his last month in office. Yes, we have a Deep State that is betraying America, and they help rig the election against Trump. Republicans need to stand up against all of it.

I see now Calif. Gov. Gavin Newson is claiming to have survived election based on mail-in ballots. While he outspent his opponents with ads, his endorsers did not even argue that he had done a good job. They just attacked Larry Elder for being a Black conservative.

I listened to this Nov. 2020 Quillette podcast:

While Trump’s hopes of a second Presidential term seem to be vanishing, his surprisingly strong showing among Black, Hispanic, Muslim, and Asian voters is challenging the progressive claim that Trump’s primary appeal is rooted in racism. Quillette’s Jonathan Kay discusses these surprising election results with author and journalist Jamil Jivani.

He is correct that Biden's primary appeal was rooted in racism, not Trump's.

But at the end, he went into a little rant about how all Moslems are apt to hate Trump because of some comments critical of a Moslem Democrat attack dog couple who made some wildly anti-Trump campaign statements.

No reasonable person would be offended by what Trump said. If it is really true that Moslems hate Trump for these remarks, then Moslems are not fit to be Americans. I don't think it is true, as many Moslems voted for Trump.

Pope Makes Apolitical Remarks about Hungary

The NY Times reports:

‘Not a Flag to Wave’: Pope Criticizes Political Use of Christianity

On a four-day visit to Slovakia and Hungary, Francis had strong words for those who wield Christian symbols for personal gain.

I am not sure why this is news. The Vatican has always favored staying out of politics.

What is the value, he asked, of hanging a crucifix from a rearview mirror or one’s neck if a person has no meaningful relationship with Jesus? “What good is this,” he said, “unless we stop to look at the crucified Jesus and open our hearts to him?”

Okay, this seems apolitical to me.

The Vatican said that the pope’s visit to Budapest was purely spiritual in nature, to celebrate the closing Mass of a weeklong Catholic congress. But others close to the pope allowed that there could be a tacit message to Mr. Orban in the discrepancy between the time spent in Hungary and that spent in Slovakia, which is led by a progressive president who, like Francis, is critical of nationalism.

This is ridiculous. The NY Times hates Hungary and Orban. It hates that Orban presents Hungary as a Christian country. It will twist anything to try to make him look bad. However bad this Pope is, he certainly does not want Hungary to be invaded by Moslems, as the NY Times does.

Adoption Studies Prove Heritability

I mentioned Kathryn Paige Harden, and her new book on the genetic lottery. One of her main points is:

Average IQ scores are increasing acrbbbbbbbbboss birth cohorts, such that Americans experienced an 18-point gain in average IQ from 1948 to 2002. And the most decisive and permanent environmental intervention that an individual can experience, adoption from a poor family into a better-off one, is associated with IQ gains of 12 to 18 points.

If this were true, then everyone would be in favor of those policies that increase IQ. But Americans are getting dumber, not smarter. And adoption is not helping.

Consider this new adoption study on the heritibility of IQ:

Heritability of IQ was estimated to be 0.42 [95% CI 0.21, 0.64]

Proportion of variance in IQ attributable to environmentally mediated effects of parental IQs was estimated at .01 [95% CI 0.00, 0.02]

See also discusssion here.

That is, smart parents have smart kids. You might think that the cause is White privilege, or having enclopedias at home, or sending kids to good schools, or better nutrition, or some combination. But nobody has found any parental strategies that work, other than having better genes to start with.

If this were the only study, I would not believe it. But dozens of studies have been showing this for decades. It is probably the most well-verified theory in the entire field of psychology. Psychology is filled with untestable nonsense, such s Freud, and studies that failed replication, such as what fills the textbooks. But the IQ studies have been well-replicated.

Nobody likes these results. They suggest genetic determinism, and no one wants to be a pre-programmed robot. Furthermore, they suggest that all the things parents do to improve their kids intelligence are wasted.

Leftists especially hate these results because all their programs to close IQ gaps are doomed to fail.

There are similar results for bahavior traits that may even be more important than IQ.

This is part of why the Left has shiftwd from "equality" to "equity". They know that equality of opportunity will never lead to equality of outcomes.

Vatican Submits to Rabbi Demands

I mentioned that the Jews were badgering the Pope into submission.

Rabbi Daniel F. Polish

Why Pope Francis’ comments on the Torah were hurtful to his Jewish friends ...

This past August, Pope Francis made a statement that some have characterized as causing the greatest tension in the relationship between the church and the Jewish people since the beginning of his pontificate. ...

That the pope could embrace the notion that Torah is just a way-station to a fuller, higher truth is painful to Jewish ears. Whether it was said with strategic intentionality, or just blurted out inadvertently, it is a testimony to the fact that for all that has been achieved since 1965, and despite all the hopes held by many — Jews and Catholics alike — there is still much work to be done until the hopes engendered by “Nostra Aetate,” until the implicit message of that document, bloom into the fullness of their potential. For Jews those words carry great weight; and they will, undoubtedly, be the subject of much conversation with the church in the time ahead. They raise the question whether the church is truly prepared to accept the faith of Jews as a spiritual equal. That is an issue of the greatest significance, indeed.

Now the National Catholic Register reports:

A cardinal has written to Jewish leaders, assuring them that recent comments by Pope Francis did not devalue the Torah, the Vatican confirmed on Friday.

The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which oversees the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, published two letters on Sept. 10, written by Cardinal Kurt Koch, who is president of both the council and the commission.

The letters, dated Sept. 3, were addressed respectively to Rabbi Rasson Arussi, chair of the Commission of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel for the Dialogue With the Holy See in Jerusalem, and Rabbi David Sandmel, chair of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations in New York.

Reuters reports:

The Vatican's official response, seen by Reuters on Friday, said the pope's comments in a homily on the writings of St. Paul should not be extrapolated from their context of ancient times and had no bearings on today's Jews.

"The abiding Christian conviction is that Jesus Christ is the new way of salvation. However, this does not mean that the Torah is diminished or no longer recognised as the 'way of salvation for Jews,'" wrote Cardinal Kurt Koch, whose Vatican department covers religious relations with Jews.

"In his catechesis the Holy Father does not make any mention of modern Judaism; the address is a reflection on (St. Paul's) theology within the historical context of a given era," Koch wrotei

"The fact that the Torah is crucial for modern Judaism is not questioned in any way," he said.

The Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, contains hundreds of commandments for Jews to follow in their everyday lives. The measure of adherence to the wide array of guidelines differs between Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews.

This admits that the Reform Jews do not even accept the Torah. So why should the Pope?

This show how pervasive Jewish power and influence are today. Some rabbi can made an absurd rant about the Catholic Church being insfuffiently res pectful of an ancient Jewish law that that most Jews don't even care about, and the Vatican has to issue a groveling apology.

Relations between Catholics and Jews were revolutionised in 1965, when the Second Vatican Council repudiated the concept of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus and began decades of inter-religious dialogue. Francis and his two predecessors visited synagogues.

So are the Jews going to Hell or not?

Is following the Torah really a way of salvation for the Jews? If so, does that mean that Orthodox Jews can be saved, but not Reform Jews who ignore the Torah? And who is responsible for killing Jesus?

Of course Judaism is contrary to Christianity. So is Islam and every other religion. The Pope should make that clear, and not take orders from any rabbis.