Friday, July 21, 2017

Anthropologists deny violence and race

SciAm publishes:
In 1986, Adams gathered a group of 20 scientists, including biologists, psychologists, and neuroscientists, to issue what became known as the Seville Statement on Violence. It declared, among other things, that “it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.” The statement, later adopted by UNESCO, an agency of the United Nations that promotes international collaboration and peace, was an effort to shake off the “biological pessimism” that had taken hold and make it clear that peace is a realistic goal. ...

“I think the growing evidence about innate propensities for violence have shown [the Seville statement] rather clearly to be simplistic and exaggerated at best,” says Wrangham.
And more likely, an outright lie perpetrated by blank slate leftists who deny human nature.

My guess is that they are worried that if they admit that there are genes for violence, then that suggests that some people will be innately more violent than others. That seems obvious to me, but I guess that some deny it.
The article is from another site, that features this article from a black professor:
The word “Caucasian” is used in the U.S. to describe white people, but it doesn’t indicate anything real. It’s the wrong term to use! ...

One reason we keep using the term “Caucasian” is that the U.S. legal system made use of Blumenbach’s taxonomy. As early as 1790 the first naturalization law was passed, preventing foreigners who were not white from becoming citizens. ...

A second reason the term has had staying power is that, as new immigrants began to stream into the country in the 20th century, political leaders and scientists supported a new racial science called eugenics that built on 19th-century notions of race. Eugenicists divided Caucasians into four ranked subraces: Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Jew (Semitic). I’m sure you will not be surprised to learn that the Nordics were ranked highest intellectually and morally. ...

Today, the word “Caucasian” is still used in many official government documents, and it continues to carry a kind of scientific weight. For example, it is found in social science and medical research, and is used by some colleges and universities in their data collection and distribution of student, staff, and faculty statistics. ...

What can we do to change it? We need to acknowledge that the word “Caucasian” is still around and that its continued use is problematic. We should use terms that are more accurate, such as “European-American.” Doing so would at least be consistent with the use of descriptive terms like “African-American,” “Mexican-American,” and others that signify both a geographical and an American ancestry.

The bottom line is that it is time for a modern — and accurate — terminology. The use of an outdated and disproven term that falsely purports to describe a separate race of people has no place in the U.S.

-- Yolanda Moses is a professor of anthropology and the associate vice chancellor for diversity, equity, and excellence at the University of California, Riverside. Her research focuses on the broad question of the origins of social inequality in complex societies.
She can call herself negro, black, African-American, or anything else, and no one cares. It is odd for her to tell others how to identify themselves.

She says the term inaccurate, outdated, and disproven, but her only arguments are that she does not like some of the reasons that some people have used the term historically.

Some call themselves Mexican-Americans, but they often call themselves hispanics, latinos, chicanos, or la raza.

I see this article as another academic attempt to de-legitimize white Americans. The author is obviously pre-occupied with her black skin, and hates white people.

The site also has this:
In space and on planets like Mars, our environment must be thought of as precious. ...

As we build new societies in space, cultural difference and all forms of diversity will also be precious assets, the results of millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of experience and history. ...

The United Nations reports that there are now more refugees than at any time in human history since WWII, and that “one in every 122 humans is now either a refugee, internally displaced, or seeking asylum.” This humanitarian crisis, the environmental crisis of climate change, ongoing wars, inequality, and injustice are all tests of our ability and will to build a future for the planet and all the species who share it. How we respond to these challenges today will demonstrate whether we are prepared to go back to the moon, onward to Mars, and beyond.

As bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and fear continue to shape policy and debates, I am reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, who warned: “If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.”
This is pretty crazy stuff. If we send colonists to Mars, we are not going to meet any Martians, and adding some blacks and Moslems for diversity will not help. Diversity creates extraneous difficulties.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Reasons for the modern slave trade

A Russian-American libertarian Jewish law professor writes:
You don’t have to take my word for the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause, or even the word of the overwhelming majority of Civil War historians. Take that of Confederate President Jefferson Davis himself, who unequivocally stated in 1861 that the cause of his state’s secession was that “she had heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.” Or that of Davis’s vice president, Alexander Stephens, who famously avowed that “slavery . . . was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution” and that protecting it was the “cornerstone” of the new Confederate government. Consider also the Southern states’ official statements outlining their reasons for secession, which focus on slavery far more than any other issue.
A Southern newspaper has a contrary view:
Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by taxes only, and not by slavery, at all.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
Even if you had a time machine to take you bak to 1861, you could not resolve this by asking Lincoln, a soldier, or anyone.

Note that the slave trade had been abolished at least 50 years before.

Compare this to the modern slave trade, by which I mean the induced movement of millions of ppl to fill labor markets.

Here are the main reasons our elites support the slave trade:
Much has been written about the strange bedfellows of the establishment left. What unites feminists, Islamists, anarchists, Bernie-bros, LGBTQ+, BLM rioters, and Hillary voters often seems to be little more than rebellious hatred for Western Civilization. However, that still does not explain what motivates their upper-echelon donors. What causes the—mostly white and male—chairmen and executives of the Western, corporate elite to financially support the very people who would gladly see them hanged in the streets?

The short answer is a deadly combo of greed and virtue-signaling, exacerbated by a small cohort of anti-white agitators. While this is a varied and complicated issue, for simplicity’s sake this article will focus solely on the effects this has on immigration policy. ...

What makes the majority of corporate elites support mass-immigration?

1. Cheap Labor ...
2. More Consumers ...
3. Cheap Virtue-Signaling ...
I would not be surprised if 10% or more of global CO2 emissions can be attributed to the modern slave trade.

Here is an explanation from a libertarian economics professor in an elitist British mag:
Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.
Bryan Caplan appears to confirm all 3 reasons.

All 3 arguments are dubious. Let's compare again to the negro slave trade of 1800. It apparently provided the labor to pick cotton, but surely the external costs were much greater. The Civil War itself must have more than wiped out all the money that was ever made on cotton.

Likewise, mass immigration is profitable for certain businesses today, but costly for everyone else.

There is also a myth that our economy is improved by having more consumers buying more goods. Economists create this myth by the way they calculate GDP, and saying silly things like consumer spending being two thirds of the economy.

The cheap virtue-signaling is maybe the most disgusting of all the arguments. Caplan acts as if there is something noble about buying slaves from Boko Haram and sabotaging societies elsewhere.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Mindreading comments not helpful

I found this in a Comment moderation policy:
Comments that attack another person’s motivation, intelligence, or character are bad because they degrade the quality of the discussion and discourage thoughtful comments by others. For some reason, human beings often are confident that they can discern the hidden motivation for another person doing or saying something. Trained psychiatrists and psychologists, however, do very poorly at this task, so what hope is there for a lay person?
I agree with this.

In political discusssions, and in others with controversy, many people immediately launch into theories about motivations, and then into ad hominem attacks.

Such remarks are nearly always inaccurate, and do not advance the discussion. As explained above, trained experts are really poor at mindreading. Nevertheless, it is so common that it is considered "neurotypical" to do it. If it were not so common, it would be considered a mental disorder.

Consider the many attacks on President Trump in the news media. Most of the attacks do not address his policies, and just make personal attacks on him. Worse, they often claim to say what Trump is thinking or intending, even tho they are obviously misinterpreting him. Most of Trump's words and actions are very transparent, and yet most of the commentators badly misunderstand them.

That being said, I will sometimes speculate about what someone is thinking. Sometimes I find useful explanations that way. But I do not take it too seriously, unless there is some way to determine whether I am right or wrong.

Monday, July 17, 2017

Sweden wants Moslems, not Swedes

A Swedish newspaper reports:
Researchers in Sweden have listed the top four things people can do to reduce their carbon footprint.

The report in the journal Environmental Research Letters described a “missed opportunity” to let people know the most effective steps they can take to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a primary driver of global warming.

“We found there are four actions that could result in substantial decreases in an individual's carbon footprint: eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car free and having smaller families,” said lead author Seth Wynes of Lund University in Sweden.

“For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tons of CO2 equivalent a year.”

Avoiding airplane travel saves about 1.6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per trip.

By far the biggest action was having one less child, which saves an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emission reductions per year, the report said.

“A US family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives,” it said.
Sweden already has a low birth rate, as Swedes have decided to re-populate the country with Moslems.

The Moslem immigration program is where the large carbon footprint is. If there is a “missed opportunity”, then it is to stop or reverse the immigration.

Sweden will go down in history as a great example of a nation committing national suicide.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Harvard bans private speech

Harvard college announces:
Harvard students may neither join nor participate in final clubs, fraternities or sororities, or other similar private, exclusionary social organizations that are exclusively or predominantly made up of Harvard students, whether they have any local or national affiliation, during their time in the College. The College will take disciplinary action against students who are found to be participating in such organizations. Violations will be adjudicated by the Administrative Board.
So Harvard students cannot join an off-campus club of their choosing.

I went to Princeton where there is a long tradition of students joining off-campus clubs. Those clubs are some of the most independent anywhere, as they have no affiliation with the university or with any national organization. The university administration has hated the clubs for a century, because they are not subject to taking orders from deans.

Last month the Harvard newspaper reported:
Harvard College rescinded admissions offers to at least ten prospective members of the Class of 2021 after the students traded sexually explicit memes and messages that sometimes targeted minority groups in a private Facebook group chat.

A handful of admitted students formed the messaging group—titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens” — on Facebook in late December, according to two incoming freshmen.he

In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking ...
Apparently some officials found their mocking to be too offensive.

Harvard has joined the Orwellian Ctrl-Left.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Two more offensive books

I mentioned finding a century-old racist book, and now I stumbled across another one.
The Passing of the Great Race:
The Passing of the Great Race: Or, The Racial Basis of European History is a 1916 book of scientific racism by American eugenicist, lawyer, and amateur anthropologist Madison Grant. Though influential, the book was largely ignored when it first appeared; it went through several revisions and editions, but was never a best seller.[1] Grant expounds a theory of Nordic superiority and argues for a strong eugenics program.

Grant's proposal to create a strong eugenics program for the Nordic population to survive was repudiated by Americans in the 1930s and Europeans after 1945. It is considered one of the main works in the 20th century tradition of scientific racism and has been described as "The Manifesto of Scientific Racism".[2]
I knew that eugenics was popular a century ago, particularly among intellectuals and socialists, but I thought that concern over white genocide was more recent. I guess that observers have been pointing out these demographic trends for a century.

Another book that probably could not be published anymore is The Great Heresies, 1938, by Hilaire Belloc. It has a chapter on "The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed".

Update: Sweden is burning books that were once extremely popular.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Alarmism about human and animal populations

The NY Times reports:
From the common barn swallow to the exotic giraffe, thousands of animal species are in precipitous decline, a sign that an irreversible era of mass extinction is underway, new research finds.
It is comforting to hear that it is irreversible, because then we should not have a big political debate over what to do about it.
The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calls the current decline in animal populations a “global epidemic” and part of the “ongoing sixth mass extinction” ...

Gerardo Ceballos, ... acknowledged that the study is written in unusually alarming tones for an academic research paper. “It wouldn’t be ethical right now not to speak in this strong language to call attention to the severity of the problem,” he said.

Dr. Ceballos emphasized that he and his co-authors, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, both professors The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calls the current decline in animal populations a “global epidemic” and part of the “ongoing sixth mass extinction” caused in large measure by human destruction of animal habitats. The previous five extinctions were caused by natural phenomena.

Gerardo Ceballos, a researcher at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City, acknowledged that the study is written in unusually alarming tones for an academic research paper. “It wouldn’t be ethical right now not to speak in this strong language to call attention to the severity of the problem,” he said.

Dr. Ceballos emphasized that he and his co-authors, Paul R. Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo, both professors at Stanford University, are not alarmists, but are using scientific data to back up their assertions that significant population decline and possible mass extinction of species all over the world may be imminent, and that both have been underestimated by many other scientists.
Not alarmists? The Wikipedia page for Paul R. Ehrlich starts:
Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932) is an American biologist, best known for his warnings about the consequences of population growth ...

Ehrlich became well known for his controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb, which asserted that the world's human population would soon increase to the point where mass starvation ensued.[3][4] Among the solutions he suggested in that book was population control, to be used in his opinion if voluntary methods were to fail. Ehrlich has been criticized for his opinions; for example, Ronald Bailey termed Ehrlich an irrepressible doomster.
The Population Bomb started:
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...[5]
If this is not alarmism, what is?

Back to the NY Times article:
Conservatively, scientists estimate that 200 species have gone extinct in the past 100 years; the “normal” extinction rate over the past two million years has been that two species go extinct every 100 years because of evolutionary and other factors.
We have many millions of species on Earth. I suspect that the normal extinction rate is a lot higher.
Dr. Ehrlich, who rose to prominence in the 1960s after he wrote “The Population Bomb,” a book that predicted the imminent collapse of humanity because of overpopulation, said he saw a similar phenomenon in the animal world as a result of human activity.

“There is only one overall solution, and that is to reduce the scale of the human enterprise,” he said. “Population growth and increasing consumption among the rich is driving it.” ...

Dr. Ehrlich, however, continued to sound the alarm. “We’re toxifying the entire planet,” he said.

When asked about the clear advocacy position the paper has taken, a rarity in scientific literature, he said, “Scientists don’t give up their responsibility as citizens to say what they think about the data that they’re gathering.”
Maybe they have a responsibility to report the data, but to inject their personal political opinions into their science papers?

Erlich appears to be blaming population growth among the rich, but that is false. Rich folks are barely reproducing at all. If anything, the blame belongs to population growth among the poor who are reproducing at higher rates, and increasing their consumption and ecological impact.

Erlich is a leftist, so he avoids putting his finger on the problem, but the main extinction problem areas are in Africa, India, and China. They are essentially the same places as the runaway human population growth.

Musk worries about population collapse

C-Net reports:
On Thursday, Elon Musk was taken to musing about the world's population. On Twitter, he replied to a 2016 New Scientist article titled: The world in 2076: The population bomb has imploded.

"The world's population is accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care," he tweeted.  ...

"After hitting the demographic doldrums, no country yet has seen its fertility recover. Many demographers expect a global crash to be under way by 2076," says the article's author, Fred Pearce.

Pearce specifically mentions Japan, where the fertility rate -- based on the population of women aged 15 to 44 -- is 1.4 children per woman.
This is nonsense. Japan is overpopulated, and needs a reduction.

The UN projects Sub-Saharan Africa to reach 4B ppl this century. China and India are growing beyond what their resources can support. All of the major environmental issues, from global warming to everything else, are really over-population problems.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Robots call the police on squabbling couple

Here is another sign that our robot overlords are taking over.

ABC News reports:
A smart home device alerted authorities to an alleged assault at a residence in New Mexico earlier this week.

Eduardo Barros was house-sitting with his girlfriend and her daughter Sunday night at a residence in Tijeras, some 15 miles east of Albuquerque. The couple got into an argument and the altercation became physical, according to the Bernalillo County Sheriff Department's spokesperson, Deputy Felicia Romero.

Barros allegedly wielded a firearm and threatened to kill his girlfriend, asking her: "Did you call the sheriffs?" A smart speaker, which was hooked up to a surround sound system inside the home, recognized that as a voice command and called 911, Romero said.

The sheriff's department said deputies arrived on scene and were able to remove the woman and her daughter from the residence. The woman sustained injuries from the altercation but was not taken to a hospital. Her daughter was unharmed, according to Romero.

A crisis negotiation team, as well as a SWAT team, were deployed to the home and were able to take Barros into custody after an hours-long stand-off, Romero said.

Authorities said the smart device potentially played a life-saving role in the incident.
Most ppl probably think this is great. Furthermore, they probably see it as desirable to have robots reporting domestic violence, because the girlfriend may not act in her own best interest.

Cops, prosecutors, judges, or other officials will decide whether couples have a healthy relationship, and issue restraining orders if they don't. Eventually robots may make those decisions.

Eventually robots could police use of profane language, offensive opinions, discriminatory practices, failure to recycle trash properly, or anything else political incorrect.

Update: Amazon says that it was unlikely that its Echo/Alexa product was used, contrary to the police report. The point remains that such a product could be making 911 calls, based on an AI analysis of private conversations.

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Unless we set our house in order

Slate quotes:
“Unless we set our house in order, the doom will sooner or later overtake us all. And that would mean that the race obviously endowed with he greatest creative ability, the race which had achieved most in the past and which gave the richer promise for the future, had passed away, carrying with it to the grave those potencies upon which the realization of man’s highest hopes depends,” wrote Stoddard in his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.
I had never heard of that book, but it is freely online. It is filled with plain talk that is considered impolite today. It calls World War I the "White Civil War".

Here is what is says about California:
Our Pacific coast takes precisely the same attitude. Says Chester H. Rowell, a California writer: “There is no right way to solve a race problem except to stop it before it begins.... The Pacific coast is the frontier of the white man’s world, the culmination of the westward migration which is the white man’s whole history. It will remain the frontier so long as we regard it as such; no longer. ...

Says another Californian, Justice Burnett: “The Pacific States comprise an empire of vast potentialities and capable of supporting a population of many millions. Those now living there propose that it shall continue to be a home for them and their children, and that they shall not be overwhelmed and driven eastward by an ever-increasing yellow and brown flood.”[177]

All “economic” arguments are summarily put aside. “They say,” writes another Californian, “that our fruit-orchards, mines, and seed-farms cannot be worked without them (Oriental laborers). It were better that they never be developed than that our white laborers be degraded and driven from the soil. The same arguments were used a century and more ago to justify the importation of African labor.... As it is now, no self-respecting white laborer will work beside the Mongolian upon any terms. The proposition, whether we shall have white or yellow labor on the Pacific coast, must soon be settled, for we cannot have both. If the Mongolian is permitted to occupy the land, the white laborer from east of the Rockies will not come here — he will shun California as he would a pestilence. And who can blame him?”[178] ...

Fortunately, the majority of thinking Americans are to-day convinced that Oriental immigration must not be tolerated. Most of our leading men have so expressed themselves. For example, Woodrow Wilson, during his first presidential campaign, declared on May 3, 1912: “In the matter of Chinese and Japanese[Pg 287] coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. Their lower standard of living as laborers will crowd out the white agriculturist and is in other fields a most serious industrial menace. The success of free democratic institutions demands of our people education, intelligence, and patriotism, and the State should protect them against unjust and impossible competition. Remunerative labor is the basis of contentment. Democracy rests on the equality of the citizen. Oriental coolieism will give us another race-problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”[181]
Slate mentions this book with a claim that it has some similarity to Trump's message.

From Trump's Poland speech:
And if we don’t forget who are, we just can't be beaten. Americans will never forget. The nations of Europe will never forget. We are the fastest and the greatest community. There is nothing like our community of nations. The world has never known anything like our community of nations.

We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers.

We reward brilliance. We strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honor God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression. (Applause.)
I guess the idea is that writing symphonies and pursuing innovation are things that white people do. Praising these things is just a sneaky way of expressing white identity politics. Or so is the theory. Likewise defending Western Civilization or free speech or American values will be considered pro-white, because mainly white people care about these things.

Obviously there is huge overlap between the creators of modern civilization and whites, Christians, English (and related language) speakers, etc. If the folks at Slate like to think of civilization as white culture, it is a first approximation.

Friday, July 07, 2017

Trump defends The West

Robert P. Jones writes in The Atlantic mag:
The evidence, however, suggests that Trump’s unlikely victory is better understood as the death rattle of White Christian America — the cultural and political edifice built primarily by white Protestant Christians — rather than as its resuscitation. Despite the election’s immediate and dramatic consequences, it’s important not to over-interpret Trump’s win, which was extraordinarily close. Out of more than 136 million votes cast, Trump’s victory in the Electoral College came down to a razor-thin edge of only 77,744 votes across three states: Pennsylvania (44,292 votes), Wisconsin (22,748 votes), and Michigan (10,704 votes). These votes represent a Trump margin of 0.7 percentage points in Pennsylvania, 0.7 percentage points in Wisconsin, and 0.2 percentage points in Michigan. If Clinton had won these states, she would now be president. And of course Clinton actually won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, receiving 48.2 percent of all votes compared to Trump’s 46.1 percent. The real story of 2016 is that there was just enough movement in just the right places, just enough increased turnout from just the right groups, to get Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.
I previously posted that Trump's winning margin was about 80k, so I guess this is the more accurate number after all the counts came in.

Jones spends most of the rest of the article expressing how he is baffled that white evangelicals Protestants supported Trump. However, the answer is revealed in his data:
Just a few weeks before the 2016 election, 66 percent of white evangelical Protestants said the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values.
Yes. Trump promised to help preserve American customs and values, while Democrats try to destroy them. It is not hard to understand why traditional Americans would favor Trump.

Peter Beinart follows this with an essay in the same magazine:
In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to “the West” and five times to “our civilization.” His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It’s important that other Americans do, too.

The West is not a geographic term. Poland is further east than Morocco. France is further east than Haiti. Australia is further east than Egypt. Yet Poland, France, and Australia are all considered part of “The West.” Morocco, Haiti, and Egypt are not.

The West is not an ideological or economic term either. India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics. Is Latin America Western? Maybe. Most of its people are Christian, but by U.S. standards, they’re not clearly white. Are Albania and Bosnia Western? Maybe. By American standards, their people are white. But they are also mostly Muslim.

Steve Bannon, who along with Stephen Miller has shaped much of Trump’s civilizational thinking, has been explicit about this. In a 2014 speech, he celebrated “the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam” and “our forefathers” who “bequeathed to use the great institution that is the church of the West.”
I believe that Miller is Jewish and Bannon is not religious, but I could be wrong.

Steve Sailer quips:
What should the The Atlantic change its bigoted, biased, Westophilic name to? The World-Ocean might sound good to you at first, but it discriminates against inland countries, such as Niger.
The West refers to a whole set of ideas, beliefs, traditions, cultures, peoples, etc. that go back to ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, to European Middle Ages and Enlightenment, and to creation of the USA. It does not include China. The concept has been in common use for centuries.

There are ppl with theories that China and India have not progressed the same way because of racial, genetic, religious, cultural, geographic, or other factors. These theories are interesting, but there is no consensus, as far as I know. I do not think that any such theory is necessary to understand that Western Civilization is a good thing, and worth defending.

As I write this, Rush Limbaugh is playing tapes of Ronald Reagan talking about defending Western Civilization and American values in terms very similar to Trump's speech. No one should be surprised that Reagan Republicans support Trump.

Thursday, July 06, 2017

Why CNN threatens to dox an enemy

I posted how CNN was blackmailing a reddit poster into silence, under threat of doxing him, but I did not know why. Apparently the guy had posted details on how the big majority of CNN management and personalities are Jews.

I did not know that CNN was a Jewish network. That explains a lot.

I am not saying this is wrong. They are free to belong to any religion they want. There are Christian channels with Christian programming, and there is Al Jazeera with their view. If you watch CNN, you can expect views that are hostile to white Christians. For all I know, CNN broadcasts all these kooky Russian conspiracy theories because they perceive Russia to be a white Christian country and they hate white Christians.

CNN did threaten to dox someone for making fun of CNN, and succeeded in blackmailing the guy to remove posts about Jews on CNN.

Update: A legal expert tries to define blackmail, but cannot say whether CNN is guilty.

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Earlier date for African interbreeding

Carl Zimmer reports in the NY Times:
In a study published Tuesday in Nature Communications, Dr. Krause and his colleagues report that Africans did indeed walk out — over 270,000 years ago.

Based on newly discovered DNA in fossils, the researchers conclude that a wave of early Homo sapiens, or close relatives of our species, made their way from Africa to Europe. There, they interbred with Neanderthals. ...

The new study raises a host of tantalizing implications about human history.

It is not possible to know just how many times these early Africans interbred with Neanderthals. But somewhere in prehistory, at least one female human from Africa must have carried the child of a male Neanderthal.

“Now you have this hybrid child, which is probably pretty unusual-looking,” Dr. Siepel said. “One way or another, this hybrid individual was absorbed into Neanderthal society.”
Not only that, but such hybrids are the ancestors of all modern non-Africans.

All of this calls into question the conventional wisdom that Neanderthals were some sort of non-human species. Neanderthals and Africans (at the time) were just two races of humans that occasionally interbred. This research implies they interbred 270k years ago, and other work implies interbreeding 50k years ago. Maybe Denisovans were another race. These races were as modern and as human as the others. More African DNA has survived than Neanderthal, but the DNA differences are not well understood.

Monday, July 03, 2017

Joking about deporting white Americans

The latest NY Times Jewish columnist writes:
In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.

They need to return whence they came. ...

And then there’s the all-important issue of demographics. The race for the future is ultimately a race for people — healthy, working-age, fertile people ...

Bottom line: So-called real Americans are screwing up America. Maybe they should leave, so that we can replace them ...

O.K., so I’m jesting about deporting “real Americans” en masse.
I am not sure what the joke is. He proposes deporting the white Christians, and re-populating the country with Jewish slave-masters and brown-skinned slaves.

This is some sort of NY Times Jewish fantasy that can only be articulated behind closed doors, or as a joke?

Or maybe he is speaking in code, and he really wants to deport all the Arabs, Somalis, Chinese, and others that he considers undesirable?

I don't think that the NY Times would publish an opinion column by a non-Jew saying things like this. Does being Jewish mean a license to create racial hatred?

Saturday, July 01, 2017

Advocating a coup by shrinks

The London Daily Mail reports:
A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who also teaches constitutional law at American University, has predictably failed to attract any Republicans to his banner. ...

Raskin's bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president.

The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee's chairman.

Once the group is officially seated, the House and Senate could direct it through a joint resolution to conduct an actual examination of the president 'to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically,' according to the Raskin bill.

And if the president refuses to participate, the bill dictates, that 'shall be taken into consideration by the commission in reaching a conclusion.'
As far as I know, there is only one religion that believes in this sort of thing. And that religion is always trying to impose its silly views on the rest of us.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Against cultural appropriation

NPR Radio broadcast this opinion:
Last week, the New York Times published an op-ed titled "In Defense of Cultural Appropriation" in which writer Kenan Malik attempted to extol the virtues of artistic appropriation and chastise those who would stand in the way of necessary "cultural engagement." ...

But the truth is that cultural appropriation is indefensible. Those who defend it either don't understand what it is, misrepresent it to muddy the conversation, or ignore its complexity — discarding any nuances and making it easy to dismiss both appropriation and those who object to it. ...

All of this lies at the root of why cultural appropriation is indefensible. It is, without question, harmful.
I haven't checked the ethnic background of the author, but if she is a white supremacist, then I assume that she objects to blacks, orientals, and latinos trying to act white and take advantage of white culture.

Now that a jury has failed to find Bill Cosby guilty of any sex crimes, maybe we should move on to his cultural appropriate crimes. He used white technology (television) to portray a black family that acted white all the time. He made many millions of dollars exploiting white culture.

The NPR opinion says this is harmful. Cosby should have portrayed black ppl acting black. Now he is accused of raping white women, but none of that was on this TV show.


Thursday, June 29, 2017

No moral obligation for refugees

From an atheist blog:
As [atheist podcaster Sam] Harris said in response to this slander doing the rounds, “I’ve said on multiple occasions that I think we have a moral obligation to let in as many Syrian refugees as we can properly vet. I’ve also said that secular, liberal, tolerant Muslims are the most important people on earth — and that if I had control of our immigration policy, I’d move them to the front of the line for citizenship.”
Of course the Syrians cannot be properly vetted, so this ought to be the same as excluding the Syrian Moslems.

There are only about 5 "secular, liberal, tolerant Muslims" in the whole world, so I am not sure it matters where they go. But I would think that he would prefer that they stay in Muslim countries in order to help reform movements there. We have no need for such ppl in the USA.

However peaceful those refugees may seem, they have been taught from the Koran to kill infidels. He is not going to hear anything else from an Islamic source, as far as I know.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Free oneself from the climate illusion

I just found this 2010 article:
The latest case in point comes from United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer. In a recent interview with Germany’s NZZ Online, Edenhofer lays out just what the climate talks are all about:

NZZ: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet — and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 — there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Is this for real? If so, the whole UN climate dealing is more politics than science.

If CO2 is so deadly that we have to keep it in the ground, how will throwing a lot of money at Africa help that? Just the opposite. CO2 is a population problem. If the coal should stay in the ground, then Africa should stay undeveloped.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Diversity harms productivity

A reader recommends this podcast:
Garett Jones returns to the podcast to discuss the issue of ethnic diversity. There is a wide body of research showing that ethnic diversity can reduce the productivity of teams, firms, and even whole countries. ...

Williams and O’Reilly (1996)
review dozens of studies showing that ethnic diversity has a negative impact on group performance. In the two decades since, more research has reinforced that result. Alesina and La Ferrara (2005) find that increasing ethnic diversity from 0 (only one ethnic group) to 1 (each individual is a different ethnicity) would reduce a country’s annual growth by 2 percent. Multiple studies (La Porta et al., 1999; Alesina et al., 2003; Habyarimana et al., 2007) have shown that ethnic diversity negatively affects public good provision. Stazyk et al. (2012) find that ethnic diversity reduces job satisfaction among government workers. Parrotta et al. (2014a) find that ethnic diversity is significantly and negatively correlated with firm productivity. ...

Given that diversity is so costly for organizations, there is a huge industry dedicated to diversity training to mitigate these effects. However, a recent issue of the Harvard Business Review argues that diversity training seems to be a general failure.
These studies are new, but I think that the main ideas were known in ancient times. Most of those arguing for the benefits of diversity today are just lying to you.

Monday, June 26, 2017

The Chinese race is a big family

The London Financial Times reports:
“The Chinese race is a big family and feelings of love for the motherland, passion for the homeland, are infused in the blood of every single person with Chinese ancestry,” asserted Chinese premier Li Keqiang in a recent speech.
The article goes on to explain that the Chinese do not distinguish "Chinese nation" from "Chinese race".

I am not agreeing or disagreeing. Just pointing out ethnic allegiances.

While we often hear of Mexican-Americans or Russian-Americans, we often hear "American-born Chinese" instead of Chinese-American. In other words, even if they are born in the USA, they think of themselves as primarily Chinese.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Man is more attached to his family

Here is one way of looking at the difference between Left-wing and Right.

Sailer quotes:
Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg writes: "This is our challenge. We have to build a world where everyone has a sense of purpose and community. That’s how we’ll bring the world closer together. We have to build a world where we care about a person in India or China or Nigeria or Mexico as much as a person here."

“It is a known fact in human nature, that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object. Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each State would be apt to feel a stronger bias towards their local governments than towards the government of the Union; unless the force of that principle should be destroyed by a much better administration of the latter.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist XVII
The leftist Zuckerberg seems to just assume that global togetherness is a good thing. He does not attempt to explain why it is good to care about a person in India as much as someone next door.

It is not a good thing. The world would be a horrible place if Zuckerberg got his way. He won't, because of human nature.

Hamilton directly addresses human nature. I guess he is arguing that sometimes local govt should let federal govt handle some matters, but he recognizes that the federal govt is going to have to it better to convince ppl.

Right-wingers are more likely to start by recognizing human nature. Sometimes they will propose something that goes against human nature, but at least they understand what they are up against.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Progressives want to kill white babies

I am seeing more and more explicit white-haters, such as this:
Beyond Pro-Choice: The Solution to White Supremacy is White Abortion ...

White women: it is time to do your part! Your white children reinforce the white supremacist society that benefits you. If you claim to be progressive, and yet willingly birth white children by your own choice, you are a hypocrite. White women should be encouraged to abort their white children, and to use their freed-up time and resources to assist women of color who have no other choice but to raise their children. Women of color are in need of financial and humanitarian resources.
Crazy as this sounds, there is a logic to it. Aborting white babies is helping the progressive cause.

Do you ever hear progressives say that we need more white babies? No, I don't. Such views are denounced. They do everything to reduce white babies, relative to non-white babies.

The web site complains that it gets negative emails about its offensive articles.
I dared to voice my opinion online, and Internet Trolls descended on me
The Wash. Times reports:
A Connecticut college professor has created a firestorm for calling white people “inhuman a-holes” who need to “die” following last week’s shooting attack on congressional Republicans.

Trinity College’s Johnny Eric Williams’ social media feed after the June 14 shooting of Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise included racial tirades and commentary calling on minorities to “confront” white people and “end this now,” a reference to an alleged system of “white supremacy.”

“It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system. #LetThemF–ingDie,” the associate professor of sociology said June 18 in a series of Facebook posts. “The time is now to confront these inhuman assholes and end this now.”
Yes, they are teaching white genocide in the schools now.

Update: The above white abortion article may be a hoax. It has other articles that hilariously take Ctrl-Left thinking to its logical extreme.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Our most unpopular President

I am beginning to think that Barack Obama may have been the USA's most unpopular President.

Sure, his approval ratings were good, he got his Nobel Peace prize, and the TV comedians did not make fun of him. But what is his legacy?

A better measure would be to look at the long-term electoral consequences of his presidency.

The public has firmly rejected everything he stood for:
During his eight years in office, the Democrats lost 11 seats in the Senate and 69 in the House, relinquishing control of both chambers. Add to that a loss of 13 governorships and nearly 1,000 state legislative seats around the country — and now, of course, the White House. By those measures, the Democrats are politically weaker than at any time since the Coolidge administration.
Has any other President done so poorly?

Richard Nixon was widely disliked, but many of his policies were popular and he did not damage his party very much.

Donald Trump causes embarrassment among liberals, and he triggers wacky emotional responses, but is he turning Republicans into Democrats? On balance, I doubt it.

Jimmy Carter was bad enuf to lose the White House and the Senate, but did not also lose the House.

When was the last time Obama even said anything that anyone paid attention to?

Let's face it. He was just a figurehead President, and he did not work out well for his political party.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Population Bomb Is Still Ticking

The NY Times reports:
In tiny Lesotho, a landlocked kingdom in southern Africa, about one-third of its estimated two million people spent much of the past two years in danger of starving because of the lingering effects of a drought. ...

More than 40 years ago, I made Lesotho the centerpiece of a book, “The Alms Race,” that explored why so many development projects kept failing. I chose it because in 1974 it received more development aid per capita than any other nation.

It could also have been voted most likely to vindicate Thomas Malthus’s warning in 1798 that human numbers would inevitably outrun the resources on which our lives depend. ...

Even with only 1.2 million inhabitants in 1974, Lesotho’s leaders saw the country was overpopulated. A 1966 British Colonial Office study estimated that the land could support 400,000 people at best — a number Lesotho had reached by 1911.
The article goes on to explain that international aid is futile, as the Africans there reproduce until they die of starvation and AIDS.

Normally it would seem racist to point out these facts, because they lead the reader to some uncomfortable conclusions. But the article goes on the argue that it is all Donald Trump's fault!

Telling the story of Lesotho probably would not have made the pages of the NY Times in the Obama administration.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Cars will punish jaywalkers

Treehugger.com warns:
In January, Carlton Reid wrote that Makers of driverless cars want cyclists and pedestrians off the roads. He quotes Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn, who says pesky cyclists "don't respect any rules usually." ...

In the Guardian, Laura Laker describes Street wars 2035: can cyclists and driverless cars ever co-exist? She worries that, because AVs are designed to recognize and not run over pedestrians or cyclists, chaos will ensue. ...

Proposed solutions include RFID beacons built into bicycles to warn AVs (and perhaps our cellphones, talking to lamp posts and cars, as we showed a few years ago) or criminalizing walking in front of cars, which would take a photo and send it to the police department, who “will come and arrest you for annoying an autonomous vehicle.”
This is plausible. Pedestrians and others will learn that they can take advantage of autonomous cars being programmed to avoid pedestrians at all costs. So jaywalking will become popular. But then the car lobby will demand that the cars become a jaywalking police force, and videorecording all bad behavior by pedestrians and others and reporting to police. Maybe if you even just make an obscene gesture on the sidewalk, a self-driving car will record it and report it. We have red-light cameras now, but this will be 100x more intrusive.

I suspect that we will also see Mohammedans reprogramming the autonomous cars to be deadly weapons, and to run over pedestrians. These cars will not have secure operating systems, the necessary code will be downloadable from ISIS.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Cosby got hung jury

Bill Cosby has about 60 accusers, but I assume that the trial was based on the strongest case against him. We got a hung jury:
The New York Times asked some top criminal law experts who have been monitoring the case to provide their assessments of the trial. Here are their analyses.

Some jurors were no doubt moved by Ms. Constand’s contradictory statements to police during the initial investigation. She denied having been alone with Mr. Cosby before the alleged assault; she denied having contacted him afterward; and stated that the assault occurred in March of 2004. All demonstrably false.
NPR Radio reported this by interviewing a woman who complained about an incident with Cosby in 1969!

Constand said that she voluntarily took drugs with Cosby, but I am not sure that her alleged symptoms are consistent with any known drugs.

I knew a girl once who suspected that she was drugged at a college fraternity party. She went to the emergency room, and her blood tested positive for the drug. The perps were prosecuted. So it is possible for an accuser to prove her case.

Saturday, June 17, 2017

How Scotland abolished marriage

A divorced man writes:
In 2006, Scotland changed its laws so that a person who says that he or she lived with someone else can, within a year “after the day on which the cohabitants cease to cohabit.”, go down to the family court and sue for property division and alimony, just as if the two parties had been married. ...

In litigation-oriented societies, I wonder if this Scottish idea will catch on. If the opportunity to litigate is a positive thing for people who were once married, why not for people who once lived together, however briefly?
This is more evidence of the end of marriage.

Some will say that it is pro-marriage, because it recognizes various relationships as if they were marriages, thus inducing more de facto marriages.

Marriage used to mean voluntarily making a deal, and then becoming an autonomous unit. This is putting Scottish couple under the arbitrary supervision of the state. It is the leftist totalitarian state taking over their private lives.

The USA has its own goofy leftist court decisions:
But what happens when a child born abroad to an unmarried couple has one parent who is a U.S. citizen, and one parent who is not? Well, strangely, until today, it all depended whether the foreign parent is the child’s mom or the child’s dad. ...

Under §1409(c), that ten-year requirement is reduced to just one year as long as we’re talking about the year prior to the child’s birth, and as long as we’re talking about the child’s unmarried mother, and not the child’s father. If you’re thinking that this sounds kind of unfair to fathers, you’re definitely getting it.
No, the law was not so strange.

I am all in favor of being fair to fathers, but if the mom is in the USA for the year preceding birth, then the unborn child is also in the USA for 9 months of it. The same cannot be said for the dad. This is a biological reality, and just some arbitrary discrimination.

The article says the vote was 8-0, but it was really only 6-2 in favor of the dicta against the discriminatory law. Under tradition legal interpretation, such an opinion is meaningless, because it did not affect any party to the case. But the court liberals are determined to deny that pregnancy makes women different from men.

Stop the cultural appropriation

An Indian-born British writer dares to say:
For this is an essay in defense of cultural appropriation.

In Canada last month, three editors lost their jobs after making such a defense.
United Nations Wants to Outlaw “Cultural Appropriation” Worldwide:
The UN wants to expand intellectual property regulations to include cultural entities and concepts, such as clothing, dances, arts, medicines, etc. The UN’s efforts would allow for legal action to be taken by minority groups against those who supposedly steal or monetize a piece of their culture.

The United Nations has been making efforts to outlaw “cultural appropriation” for over fifteen years.
Maybe this idea is not so crazy, and we should start by stopping non-whites from appropriating white culture. The next time you see some non-white or MENA guy driving a car or using a cell phone, tell him that UN policy considers him a thief.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Evergreen college chaos continues

Here are some anonymous college Jews who hate whites:
A Letter to Bret Weinstein from some Jews bent on the destruction of White Supremacy

... However, the fact that Jews have not always been enmeshed in whiteness does not negate the fact that today many Jews in this country benefit from and uphold white supremacy. ...

We will not allow him to invoke our history, the history of our ancestors, as an excuse for his vile and inexcusable behavior. We, Jewish people, wish to express our unequivocal support and solidarity with undocumented, Latinx, black, MENA and Arab, Native, disabled, and trans and queer students, staff, faculty, and residents of the surrounding Olympia area.
The term MENA is used for the purpose of identifying Jews and Arabs as non-white.

This letter seems like a parody, but I don't think it is. Weinstein is a typical Jewish leftist professor, and not a white supremacist. But it appears that he has been kicked off campus anyway.

The letter is saying that Jews should unequivocally support the invasion of the USA by illegal/undocumented non-whites. They will support anything that undermines and demeans white ppl, I guess.

Speaking of weird Jewish views:
Oliver Stone started a “cringe-worthy” fight about Israel with Stephen Colbert on the latter’s CBS show that never made it on-air. ...

Stone said words to the effect of: “Israel had far more involvement in the US election than Russia.”

The “Platoon” director further challenged Colbert by saying, “Why don’t you ask me about that?” — but we’re told that the host shot back, “I’ll ask you about that when you make a documentary about Israel!”

(The source described Stone’s Israeli argument as “a classic anti-Semitic canard.”)
So the major news media goes crazy with paranoid fantasies about Russian influence on the American election, but mentioning Jewish or Israeli influence gets you censored from a supposedly-live show.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Hayek was wrong about central planning

Friedrich Hayek is known for making this argument against a centrally planned economy:
When Hayek explains the obstacle to effective central planning, his claim is not merely that information is widely dispersed and therefore hard to acquire. Rather, it is impossible to acquire (Hayek 1973, 51). When prices are set periodically by a central planner, rather than instantaneously by consumers and producers who are the first and typically the only people to have that information in reliable and timely form, prices inevitably carry less reliable, less timely information. ...

A central planner could have the world’s most powerful computer, beyond anything imagined when Hayek published “Use of Knowledge” in 1945. No computer, however, could solve the problem that Hayek was trying to articulate. The problem is not lack of processing power so much as a lack of access to the information in the first place. ...

Although computers cannot solve the problem, Hayek thought radically dispersed decision making by buyers and sellers can and does solve the problem, so far as it can be solved. Sellers who charge too much end up without customers; they learn to be more efficient or else go out of business.
I never found this argument convincing. Nowhere does he estimate or compare the computational resources needed.

Sure, it was obvious in 1945 that computers of the day could not do it. He may not have been aware of any computers at all. But what about today?

If radically dispersed decision making by buyers and sellers can solve the problem, then surely computers can if enuf info is digitized. Amazon could soon understand the buying habits of consumers better than they understand them themselves, if it has not already.

Hayek would have said that Amazon is impossible, as Amazon is essentially an empire that is bigger and more complicated that the centrally planned economies that he contemplated.

Amazon seems to be more efficient than the markets it is replacing. Isn't it a counterexample to Hayek? Wouldn't Hayek have said that dispersed independent bookstores would be more efficient than Amazon?

There are other arguments for the freedoms that Hayek advocated, but I am not buying this one.

I had this exchange with a Hayek buff:
You should send this to Russ Roberts of Econ Talk. He is a big Hayekian and is very interested in this type of discussion. You've got some credentials... get on the show!
How can he be a disciple of a guy who wrote in 1945 about the limits of computers, and there aren't even any numbers or formulas in the analysis?
Well, he would argue that you are never going to be able to run the whole economy that way. There is an infinity of markets, prices and preferences, always changing. I' m serious. Russ is a good guy, I've met him. Put your argument in a concise form and get a dialogue going. He loves this kind of stuff.
This is sometimes an argument against AI: a computer can never make an optimal choice among an infinity of possibilities.

First, it doesn't have to make an optimal choice. It only has to outperform humans.

In 1945, these arguments said that computers would never play chess.

Look at Amazon today. I don't have any hard data, but I bet its complexity is already greater than that required to manage the whole economy of more than half the countries of the world.

I log into Amazon, and its seems to already know what I want to buy and what I am willing to pay. In some cases it is better, as it recommends a product that I would not find on my own. And it gets better all the time. It may soon be the case that its predictions are better than my own
shopping skills.

If you look at its distribution system, where it can buy products in China or wherever, ship them to warehouses in my state, and deliver them to me on a 2-day order. That is already better than what humans can do. Only a centrally managed computer system can do that.

I can't keep up with a serious Hayekian tho. He'll probably point to the failure of managed economies like N. Korea. But there has never been one with the ruthless efficiency of Wal-mart or Amazon.
Well, there is no doubt that computers have come farther, faster, than most people predicted. Kasparov has interesting things to say to Harris on this, and points out that a man-machine blend will beat the strongest computer. But ultimately, you have to bet on the pure machines (I don't think Kasparov does, yet).
Kasparov is engaging in wishful thinking. As I understand it, the best chess computers are now rated above 3200. Kasparov at his best was about 2800, while the average grandmaster is 2400 and the average expert is about 2000. So the computers will beat him every time, and man is no help to a man-machine blend.
Amazon and Walmart are a little different story. In principle, they are like huge supermarkets (which were themselves a tremendous innovation). They know what you like, and what you might like (like a good store clerk who has waited on you before). They also have a very efficient delivery service. They are outstanding at reacting to local information, like shipping out salt when there is a sudden outbreak of snowstorms. As a book addict, it is truly magical how Amazon has "gathered" all the used books out there and made them available for about $5 each. But to manage an entire economy... well, that is very different. There is so much local knowledge that would have to be constantly gathered, updated, collated, predicted-upon, reacted-to.. and it is a lot more complicated than what Amazon is doing, because you have the whole logistics and manufacturing chain behind it, not to mention agriculture, which is dependent on weather... Layer on top of that finance, investment, capital markets... Anyway, we have a history of being scared by bigness. And of course the biggest problem of all (forget the system becoming to vulnerable to hacks/viruses, etc.) is the control of the system. Big government anyone? I think a healthy fear of centralization is a good thing... who tweaks the inputs to that vast computer algorithm? Thanks, I think I'll opt for a chaotic, dispersed ecosystem that contains some huge megafauna like Amazon, but leaves plenty of space for the little guys. Don't you know some fancy complexity/chaotic systems theorems that would give you pause?
Let's figure out what is possible before discussing the policy implications.

If Hayek is right that big govt central control of the economy is impossible, then why fear it? If it is possible and harmful, then we need to take steps to prevent it. If it is possible and beneficial, then we should welcome our new robot overlords.

The new high-tech economy appears to be a winner-take-all economy. Look at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc. have all thrived by using massive economies of scale and central planning to dominate their markets. The Libertarian-Hayekian dream of a diversity of vendors is needed to address a diversity of consumers has turned out to be false.

We are finding out that at the billion-user scale, it is a whole new game, and computer AI takes over. Humans and Hayekian bargaining are as useless as humans trying to team up with that 3200-rating chess computer. The systems are just too complex for humans to tweak. It is big-data and AI all the way.

There are a lot of professors who projected limits to AI based on their experiments will millions of data items. But a lot of those problems evaporate when you jump from the million-scale to the billion-scale.

There are some AI programs used by Google and others with as many as a billion parameters that are determined by training on billions of data items. No one knows what the parameters do. No human can eyeball the parameters and tweak them for better results. It is impossible for any human to even understand 1% of it.

Look at this recent WSJ article:
Facebook is launching new tools to help marketers optimize their ads to target the people most likely to buy their products.

Some advertisers already share purchase data from their websites with Facebook via a tracking pixel so they can measure whether ads on the social network are generating sales. But the launch of the new tools, announced in a blog post Monday, will be the first time advertisers can use this data to optimize their campaigns toward the highest-spending customers.

Advertisers spend huge amounts of their budgets on researching the desired target audiences for their products. The idea for both new tools is to reduce the amount of money advertisers spend targeting the wrong people—known in the ad industry as wastage.

Facebook is hoping its algorithms, which take advantage of the rich set of data it has on its 1.9 billion users, will be able to do some of this job for them, or at the very least help them focus their ad campaigns on driving real purchases rather than just clicks. If Facebook can prove it is driving sales, advertisers are likely to increase their spending with the platform.

“This is a priority product for the company,” a Facebook spokesman said.

The first of the new tools, Value Optimization, uses prior purchase data to estimate how much money a person might spend in an advertiser’s store over a seven-day period. The tool then adjusts the advertiser’s campaign to send ads to the people it anticipates are most likely to actually spend the most money.

The second new product is an add-on to an existing tool called Lookalike Audiences, which launched four years ago and finds people on Facebook who display similar traits to advertisers’ existing customer lists. The add-on, called “Value-Based Lookalikes,” as the name would suggest, finds the Facebook users among those with similar traits who are also most likely to make a purchase after seeing an ad.

Both tools are rolling out from Monday and are free for marketers to use.
This is only possible because Facebook has a billion users, has millions of computers in server farms, and has sophisticated big data AI program managing everything.

The Hayek vision of a farmer bargaining with a vendor in his local village is obsolete.

Sure, there is room for little guys selling products, but more and more of them are going to end up advertising on Google or Facebook and selling on Amazon. Soon the little guys will not even be setting their prices, as they find it more efficient to let Amazon AI programs set them. They will just be cogs in a massive centrally-planned machine.

Maybe the Hayek fans have answers for all this, but I doubt it. What do they say about what Amazon and Facebook have already accomplished?
Here is the classic article: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Sowell wrote an outstanding book on this called Knowledge and Decisions. ... Always thought it was the best econ book I ever read. It re-launched my interest in free-market economics.
If they are thinking of markets on the million-scale, they might be right. But on the billion-scale I think that they are wrong.

They would probably say that the larger the market, the more you need independent human decision-makers. That is probably true up to the point up to the limits of the human brain. When you get to the billion-scale market, humans are useless and computer central planning becomes much more efficient.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Regulators killed the electric car

From Tesla's Elon Musk:
Here’s a screenshot of Musk’s missive, which he later followed up with a tweet urging people to watch the 2006 documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”
I saw that movie, and my recollection is that California regulators tried to artificially create a market by requiring the car companies to either sell a lot of electric cars or sell none. The companies decided that the minimum sales could not be met, so they had to abandon the electric cars.

Musk's company depends on huge subsidies for all its sales. The subsidies are based on a theory that the cars are good for the environment, but nothing that expensive is good for the environment. If you pay a lot of money, then a lot of resources will get used somehow.

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Cars will double as security cameras

Many new technologies are privacy-invading, and most of the companies like Google and Facebook try to hide this problem. Intel just revealed one problem.

CNBC reports:
The benefits of having self-driving cars go far beyond automatic parking or fewer accidents, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich told CNBC on Thursday.

Among those other benefits: Driverless cars will double as security cameras, he said from the sidelines of the Code Conference in California.

"I always say that the cars are going to be out there looking, so the next time an Amber alert comes up and they're looking for a license plate, the cars should be able to find that license plate quite rapidly," said Krzanich.

The idea could bring up concerns about privacy, but Krzanich has already thought of how to minimize those worries.

"We'll have to put limitations on it," he said. "We'll have to encrypt that data and make sure I can't tell that it's John's [car] necessarily," said Krzanich.

"I think there will be rules and new areas we'll have to explore, but the amount of social good that can come from that far outweighs those concerns," he said. "We just have to deal with them."
Most Amber alerts are based on a dad seeing his child outside the court-approved hours, and the mom calling the cops on him.

For that, we will have 10 million cars video recording everyone in public, and keeping a record of where everyone is at all times. In a few years, you will not be able to go anywhere without your trip being recorded in a database accessible to law enforcement, advertisers, credit bureaus, insurance companies, and subpoenas in civil lawsuits. Get used to it.

Banned from SoundCloud

A UK site reports:
Richard Spencer has had his podcast banned from SoundCloud because it violates the audio platform’s terms of use which explicitly forbid hate speech.

The leading white supremacist, who rose to fame for being punched at an anti-Trump protest, is credited with coining the term “alt-right” and used his podcast to discuss his controversial views with guests. ...

A spokesperson for SoundCloud told The Independent why they had chosen to remove the podcast, saying: "SoundCloud is an open platform, so freedom of expression is important to maintain credibility and authenticity with our creators and users. ...

A gym in Virginia recently removed Mr Spencer's membership after a university professor confronted him while he was working out and accused him of being a neo-Nazi. ...

Spencer, who is president of the far-right National Policy Institute, has previously said he rejects the label of white supremacist and instead calls himself an “identitarian”. He supports a white homeland for a “dispossessed white race” and calls for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” to put a stop to the “deconstruction” of European culture.

He once claimed: “Hispanics and African Americans have lower average IQs than whites and are more genetically predisposed to commit crimes.”
I suspect SoundCloud is a Nazi service. If they want everyone to believe that Spencer is right, the best way is to announce that what he is saying is so dangerous that it cannot be refuted.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Losing sleep over climate change

Wondering about the consequence of opting out of the Paris climate agreement? The temperature will be about the same, but you might lose some sleep. Or maybe not.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Treating a socially-created disorder with drugs

From a nutty 2013 essay:
Like every feminist I interviewed, Tauni echos that gender needs to be dismantled and that transgender individuals are perpetuating stereotypes that hurt women. More worrying to Tauni, however, is how lesbians are being pressured to transition, often by their partners: ‘There is this particular aesthetic you have to be—it is the coolest thing to be trans. The hottest lesbian now is the trans man and so a lot of lesbians are going this way. The other lesbians can pressure their partners to become trans. They fetishise other trans men and then they pressure their partners through their sexuality.’ Noting some of the changes in Australian society Tauni adds: ‘What I am really concerned about is that young girls are being channeled into sex reassignment rather than encouraged into thinking about lesbianism. Children in Australia are exposed to transsexuality before being exposed to ideas of being lesbian and gay. Children in Australia at the age of ten are put on hormone blockers and they don’t know at that age what their beliefs will be like as an adult. It is a human rights violation that these drugs are being pushed onto children and vulnerable adults. Essentially they are treating a socially-created disorder—treating a social illness with drugs.’
These essays just seem like jokes to me.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Alabama white man complains about blackface

Here is a tiresome opinion:
When (if) the tykes finally rumble into the two new Gardendale elementary schools in the fall, will someone please immediately begin teaching them their history?

Yes, their history -- the history of their families and their neighbors' families, of their city (Birmingham, not just Gardendale), their state and their nation, with all its wonders and heroes, its villains and ugliest warts.

Especially its warts.

Like why it is never, ever, ever a good idea to wear blackface.

Never.
No, trying to silence expression is not teaching history with its warts.

99% of blackface was completely innocuous. It is mainly white ppl and Jews who complain about it, and they complain for the purpose of stirring racial hatreds. No one is actually offended by blackface.

I guess he wants to teach little kids that black skin color is shameful and grotesque, and giving an appearance of black skin is something so disgusting as to be avoided at all costs. When he says that blackface must not be tolerated, he has just found a politically correct way of saying that the appearance of black skin is disgusting to him.

Update: If the man really wants the truth out, then he should be happy about this:
Yes, Trump Is Making Xenophobia More Acceptable

A scientific experiment shows that the election liberated people to express feelings they’d otherwise keep to themselves.

By Cass R Sunstein ...

The upshot is that if Trump had not come on the scene, a lot of Americans would refuse to authorize a donation to an anti-immigrant organization unless they were promised anonymity. But with Trump as president, people feel liberated. Anonymity no longer matters, apparently because Trump’s election weakened the social norm against supporting anti-immigrant groups. It’s now OK to be known to agree “that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”

Movie celebrates adultery

I watched the movie Never Forever (2007), as described by this review:
Watching this movie was a breathtaking experience to me. From the very first scene, it grabbed my attention, and I became more and more involved with the story of this beautiful and desperate woman, Sophie Lee.

The movie touches so many important issues such as interracial marriage, faith and religion, class determined by economic factors, and illegal immigrant. Yet those issues are so well blended without distracting the audience' attention from the main story.

The main story is purely simple. It's a woman's struggle to keep a man she loves happy. But in the end, she realizes that she has to pursue her own happiness.

It's the story of my own life. It's the story of so many women that I know. It's also the story of so many sons and daughters, wives and husbands, and fathers and mothers. That's why this movie touches the very core of my heart - anybody's heart.
She aborts her husband's baby, without telling him, and has a secret affair with an illegal alien. She gets pregnant and rejects her husband while her lover gets deported.

Pursue her own happiness?! Does this reviewer really know many women like that?

Is this supposed to glorify a wife becoming a degenerate slut, like Eat-Pray-Love?

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Transracial transsexual trendiness

The NY Times announces:
‘The Physics of Forbidden Love’
Malcolm Conner, Trinity University

The winning essay from our Modern Love College Essay Contest explores an unlikely romance between a transgender man and an immigrant Indian woman.
From the essay:
I was told by my doctor that I had gender dysphoria, the product of a mismatch between body and brain. ...

She was truly unfazed by my transness. I exulted in this; it seemed as though I had finally cleared the last hurdle between me and the mundane heterosexual existence I had yearned for. Joking about reincarnation once, she said I must have had great karma to be a human in this life.

“It couldn’t have been that good,” I said, “or I wouldn’t have wound up in a girl’s body.” ...

She and I are still together, and we will almost certainly break up. Our relationship is based on mutual respect and trust — like any healthy pairing — but also on denial. She cannot marry me. We both know this, though I think she knows it better than I do.

The foolhardy logic I use to rationalize my commitment to her will no doubt worsen my inevitable heartbreak. But for now, it sustains me. As animosity toward brown-skinned immigrants seems to worsen daily in this political climate, and anti-transgender bills that strip me of my dignity draw closer to becoming law in the Texas Legislature, there are days when we wake up scared, go to bed scared and navigate our isolation in between.

Why not find refuge, however finite and daring, with each other? In a time of such upheaval and uncertainty, our reckless, quiet love feels like deliverance.
This sounds like a sick joke, making fun of leftist Jewish efforts to debase American culture.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Feminist professor denies male risk-taking

Australia history professor and feminist Cordelia Fine
What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference was actually a difference between white males and everyone else.
She denies that men are bigger risk-takers. They might be more likely to go skydiving or tightrope walking, but then they usually take safety precautions so that it is not really so risky!

Women take risks in other ways, such as buying lottery tickets. White male risk-taking just seems riskier, because they are better able to control their risks.

She is confused. Men are willing to take more risks, but that does not mean that they are stupid about it.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Marxist view of identity politics

Here is a Marxist view of identity politics:
Marx's surprising claim in OtJQ is that, while calls for equal treatment of disenfranchised ethnic and religious minorities may seem to subvert the prevailing social and economic order, they are actually often welcomed by it for reasons having to do with the logic of capitalism. ...

However, these calls for emancipation are, in another respect, regressive. The extension of formal legal equality to disenfranchised groups is perfectly in keeping with the logic of capitalism, which seeks to erode all ethnic, national religious and ideological barriers among people so as to integrate them more effectively into a world market - one in which the only division left is the class division between laborer and capitalist (a division the market itself masks). Concretely, the ability to own property and participate in markets should be as widespread as possible for this to function, and that ability is unthinkable without legally protected rights of various kinds. So the call for emancipation, though partially emancipatory, is, in this instance, something of a capitalist ruse.

"Political emancipation", the granting of formal legal equality, and other less tangible forms of equal status to disenfranchised religious and ethnic minorities, would never be sufficient for true, human emancipation - a fact evidenced for Marx by the fact that the most formally egalitarian nation on earth (the USA) remained among the most religious, and therefore, most alienated (here, Marx is relying on Feuerbach's insight that the persistence of religion is evidence of frustrated human aspirations). True human emancipation would come about not through the inclusion of disenfranchised minorities into the prevailing social and economic order but, rather, through its revolutionary overthrow and the replacement of a mode of production driven by the interest of a particular class by one governed by the general will.
So the Marxist revolutionaries are foolishly falling for a capitalist ruse to assimilate more workers into the world labor market.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Leftist cries "hypocrisy" as usual

From the blog of leftist-Jewish-atheist professor Jerry Coyne:
Looking at the new first thing this morning, I saw photos of Donald, Melania, and Ivanka with the Pope [JAC: see below], and was immediately struck by the fact that both women were wearing head coverings. I was pleased that the Trump delegation did not kowtow to Saudi dress codes for women, but to turn around and abide by Vatican ones strikes me as being incredibly disrespectful to the Saudis, and to Muslims in general. ...

This of course is a form of hypocrisy: kowtowing to Christianity—seen by many as the Official United States Religion—while slapping Islam in the face. If I had my way, no leader of a secular state would wear religious garb on any official state visit—UNLESS they’re visiting a religious site, in which case I have no big objection. But if you’re going to osculate the rump of one faith, you’ll have to osculate the rumps of all of them.
(For nitpickers, I know he does not call his blog a blog.)

I guess that since Coyne is Jewish, he excuses Trump wearing Jewish garb in Israel.

No, this is not hypocrisy. Coyne is usually outspoken about the evils of Islam, and about allowing free speech to let ppl make whatever statements they want. And yet his Jewish atheist leftism requires him to say that all non-Jewish religion must be treated alike, even in the use of minor symbols.

Religions are not all the same. Even for an atheist religion-hater like Coyne, there is much more reason to disrespect Islam than Christianity.

Saying: there is no evidence

Here is a
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli history professor. ...

First published in 2011 (in Hebrew) and then in 2014 (in English), it’s a Jared Diamond-esque trip laced with Harari’s Big Thoughts on evolution, religion, life, people, all of human history, etc. Harari is a 40-something gay vegan who lives with his husband on an Israeli kibbutz, according to Wikipedia.

Sapiens begins tantalizingly enough, with a discussion of imagined orders and how they serve as touchpoints for mass human cooperation. Division of humans into “superiors and “commoners” might be a figment of the imagination, he says, but so is “equality.” “All men are created equal”, he observes, is a purely aspirational declaration.

“According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal.’

In addressing the Interbreeding v. Replacement theories of out-of-Africa evolution, he notes that if the Interbreeding theory is right, “there might well be genetic differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians that go back hundreds of thousands of years. This is political dynamite, which could provide material for explosive racial theories.”

And, he concedes, the appearance of small amounts of Neanderthal DNA in humans, discovered in 2010, pushed the Interbreeding theory to the front.

But then, on page 152, he preserves his tenured position, book sales and popularity with this: “Between blacks and whites there are some objective biological differences, such as skin color and hair type, but there is no evidence that the differences extend to intelligence or morality.”
I didn't think that same-sex marriage was legal in Israel.

There are many educated scholars who insist on using the phrase "there is no evidence" when there is obvious evidence as well has 100s of published papers. What do they even mean, as they obviously do not mean that there is literally no evidence?

One possibility is that they want to be as transparently wrong as they can be. If you lived in a Communist country and you were not allowed to criticize Communism, you might say "Communism is the most perfect system ever invented". It is so silly, it is just a clever way of signalling that you believe the opposite.

Another possibility is that they have some technical or political reason for saying that the published evidence is not really evidence. Maybe they categorically reject anything influenced by the white Christian patriarchy, for example.

Maybe they believe that the evidence has been refuted somehow. If so, it is more accurate to say that the evidence has been refuted, not that there is no evidence. Scholarship then requires a reference to where a refutation can be found.