Adolf Hitler may be on bank notes

Raw Story reports:

Patrik Hermansson, a 25-year-old Swede, went undercover to infiltrate the alt-right, creating a fake identity that led him to meetings with some of the group’s leaders.

As video Hermansson provided to the New York Times shows, he got one of the group’s highest-ranking members — Alt-Right Corporation board member Jason Reza Jorjani — to admit his “final solution” for minorities.

“It’s gonna end with the expulsion of the majority of the migrants, including [Muslim] citizens,” Jorjani told an undercover Hermansson at a pub near the Empire State Building in New York City. “It’s gonna end with concentration camps and expulsions and war at the cost of a few hundred million people.”

“We will have a Europe, in 2050, where the bank notes have Adolf Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great,” he continued. “And Hitler will be seen like that: like Napoleon, like Alexander, not like some weird monster who is unique in his own category — no, he is just going to be seen as a great European leader.”

I don't know whether anyone is advocating such a war, but I do believe that this scenario is possible.

Some European countries will probably keep taking Moslem migrants until they become Islamic countries, and the white Christians and atheists will have to submit to Islamic authorities. Other European countries will reject this, and see deporting the Moslems as their only way out. If this happens, then we could be headed for a world war.

Again, I am not advocating war, and I don't know if Jorjani is either. I am hoping for more sensible immigration policies, and I think that war could be prevented. But policymakers do not listen to me, and I believe that we are on a path that is headed for world war.

Closet MGTOWs in Si Valley

I am surprised to see this NY Times article:

Silicon Valley has for years accommodated a fringe element of men who say women are ruining the tech world. ...

“It’s a witch hunt,” he said in a phone interview, contending men are being fired by “dangerous” human resources departments. “I’m sitting in a soundproof booth right now because I’m afraid someone will hear me. When you’re discussing gender issues, it’s almost religious, the response. It’s almost zealotry.” ...

“What Google did was wake up sectors of society that weren’t into these issues before,” said Paul Elam, who runs A Voice for Men, a men’s rights group. He said his organization had seen more interest from people in Silicon Valley.

Silicon Valley has always been a men’s space, others said. Warren Farrell, who lives in Marin, Calif., and whose 1993 book, “The Myth of Male Power,” birthed the modern men’s rights movement, said, “The less safe the environment is for men, the more they will seek little pods of safety like the tech world.” ...

One radical fringe that is growing is Mgtow, which stands for Men Going Their Own Way and pronounced MIG-tow. Mgtow aims for total male separatism, including forgoing children, avoiding marriage and limiting involvement with women. Its message boards are brimming with activity from Silicon Valley, Mr. Altizer said.

Cassie Jaye, who lives in Marin and made a documentary about the men’s rights movement called “The Red Pill,” said that the tech world and the men’s rights community had “snowballed” together and that the rise in the number of people in Mgtow is new.

On the Mgtow message boards, members discuss work (“Ever work for a woman? Roll up your sleeves and share your horror story”), technology (“The stuff girlfriends and wives can’t stand — computers, games, consoles”) and dating (mostly best practices to avoid commitment).

“I think there are a lot of guys living this lifestyle without naming it, and then they find Mgtow,” said Ms. Jaye, who calls herself a former feminist.

Jaye's movie is about men's rights activists (MRAs), and does not acknowledge until the very end that the MRAs have very little to do with the game players and the MGTOWs.

What these groups have in common is taking the red pill. This means accepting human nature of men, women, and relationships, and also recognizing practical and legal realities. Where they sharply differ is in what to do about it. They either want to change the system, adapt to the system, or drop out.

Colonialism article might be censored

I mentioned an essay justifying colonialism, and now the author writes:

I have asked the Third World Quarterly to withdraw my article “The Case for Colonialism.” I regret the pain and anger that it has caused for many people. I hope that this action will allow a more civil and caring discussion on this important issue to take place.

Wow. Obviously he must have been threatened with firing or ostracism.

No, there cannot be a civil discussion of this issue if merely raising the issue causes so much pain and anger that academic articles must be censored.

Obviously the article must have contained a lot of uncomfortable truths. That is why articles get censored.

I am not an expert in colonialism, but it is probably good if the arguments for it are so valid that the only way to refute them is to censor. And if Third World scholars are not capable of discussing an issue without pain and anger, then maybe those countries are not competent to rule themselves.

The NY Times reports:

BERKELEY, Calif. — The class is called symplectic geometry, a high-level course in mathematics that provides elite graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, a better understanding of, among other things, planetary motion.

But symplectic geometry will not be meeting for its scheduled session on Tuesday because the professor, Katrin Wehrheim, is one of dozens of faculty members who have canceled classes ahead of a series of scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers next week in the latest round of Berkeley’s free speech wars.

“It’s just not safe to hold class,” Professor Wehrheim said. “This is not about free speech. These people are coming here to pick a fight.” ...

“I think a person needs to hear stuff that they don’t agree with,” Ms. Piper said. “They need the opportunity of discovering that they are not going to melt and go down the nearest drain as a puddle if somebody says something ugly to them. I don’t think we should be protected from those experiences.”

In stark contrast to this position is Professor Wehrheim, the symplectic geometry expert, whose German heritage informs a stance that certain speech should be banned from campus.

“Americans are missing the profound analogies between present day U.S. developments and German history,” Professor Wehrheim said.

In Germany today, Professor Wehrheim said, “you will get jailed for certain speech — and I think that is absolutely the right thing.”

So this German professor wants to jail citizens with dissenting political opinions?

The dissenting opinions are not even particularly unusual. They are similar to views expressed by President Trump, who got 60 million votes. They are not in any way a threat to symplectic geometry. These leftist professors are disgusting.

It is funny that the NY Times would pick a German math professor for the anti-free-speech position. He sounds like some sort of Nazi, with his eagerness to jail citizens for their opinions. Most of the leftist-activist-white-hating professors are from soft departments like English and African-American studies.

Update: A widely publicized Brookings poll claimed that about 20% of students agreed with "A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking." It appears that the margin of error is higher than what was first reported, but even so, it is hard to have free speech if 10% of the students believe in using violence to block a campus message.

How cat parasites affect the mind

This story may shed some light on the peculiar personality characteristics of cat-lovers:

The brain-dwelling parasite Toxoplasma gondii is estimated to be hosted by at least 2 billion people around the world, and new evidence suggests the lodger could be more dangerous than we think. While the protozoan invader poses the greatest risk to developing fetuses infected in the womb, new research suggests the parasite could alter and amplify a range of neurological disorders, including epilepsy, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's, and also cancer. "This study is a paradigm shifter," says one of the team, neuroscientist Dennis Steindler from Tufts University. "We now have to insert infectious disease into the equation of neurodegenerative diseases, epilepsy, and neural cancers." The findings are part of an emerging field of research looking into how T. gondii, which is usually transmitted to humans via contact with cat faeces (or by eating uncooked meat), produces proteins that alter and manipulate the brain chemistry of their infected hosts.

How Libertarians seek to destroy America

Javier Hidalgo is an academic specializing in concocting justifications for illegal immigration, and he writes for a handbook on Libertarianism:

If you’re a libertarian, you should endorse open borders. Here’s why.

Libertarians prize individual liberty. According to libertarians, we have rights to associate with others as we see fit and engage in economic transactions with them. These rights are constraints on state action. Libertarians think it is unjust for states to infringe on individual rights even in order to bring about socially beneficial outcomes. States certainly can’t violate our rights to protect some of us from economic competition or shield our cultures from change.

These commitments should lead libertarians to oppose immigration restrictions. When states restrict immigration, they stop you from associating with foreigners and engaging in many mutually beneficial economic exchanges with them. ...

Some libertarians reject rights-talk. They use more utilitarian reasoning to evaluate public policy. And these libertarians also have a good reason to oppose at least actual immigration restrictions. The same arguments that justify free trade apply to immigration. More immigration increases the division of labor and immigrants help generate more wealth.

I always thought that libertarianism was all about rights, but I only recently learned that is not the case. Many adopt utilitarianism. Under their theory, if you buy a toy for your child, but then encounter another child who would get more happiness from the toy, then you are morally bound to give the toy to the other child. The idea is to do whatever most increases the total happiness of the world.

So, if individuals have rights to private property, then we should reject the view that the United States is the collective property of its government or citizens.

A nation or a corporation is not just the sum of its individuals. Similar reasoning would reject that Microsoft or General Motors could own anything. We could never have modern civilization if such reasoning prevailed.

Maybe you’re concerned that immigration will change the national culture in bad ways. Immigrants bring new and occasionally upsetting cultural norms and customs with them. But you lack a right to freeze cultural change. ... Sure, immigration brings about cultural change. Deal with it. ... As an aside, I’m more worried about my fellow citizens [link to Donald Trump] destroying valuable institutions — not immigrants!

Libertarianism is apparently some sort of suicide pact. Even if immigration destroy the nation, the Libertarians will say "deal with it" and refuse to do anything.

The primary concern of most American Libertarians is dope-smoking. They want to sit back, and let America be invaded by immigrants who are not libertarians at all. They do not even believe in most of the freedoms that Americans take for granted.

Google is censoring Gab.ai

This is weird:

The tech industry’s opposition to a proposed bill is causing Google and other big companies to be lumped in with sex traffickers, such as in this headline on a New York Times column earlier this month: “Google and Sex Traffickers Like Backpage.com.”

Facebook, Twitter and other companies also oppose the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017, which would update the 1990s-era Communications Decency Act to hold website operators such as Backpage accountable for enabling sex trafficking.

I don't believe that Backpage promotes child sex trafficking. I just don't see any proof of it. So this probably is a bad law.

But Google, Facebook, and Twitter are on the forefront of censoring right-wing opinions on the internet. They are currently conspiring to shut down Gab:

The social media service Gab, which bills itself as Twitter for the alt-right, is on the verge of being booted from the internet.

Andrew Torba, CEO of the company, posted on Monday that “Gab's domain registrar has given us 5 days to transfer our domain or they will seize it.” ...

Prior to the suit, Google had suspended Gab from its Google Play app store in August. Google said it removed Gab because of its insufficient “level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people.” The company said the app violates the store’s terms of service.

Gab is just a forum, where ppl express opinion. Violent threats are not permitted. Some advocate limiting immigration, but that is considered hate speech.

Meawhilte, Google is hosting much more offensive content, like this YouTube video: XXXTENTACION - Look At Me!.

Google and Facebook are also in trouble for posting Islamic terrorist propaganda.

So Google and Facebook say that child sex trafficking and Islamic terrorism info are just fine, but political opinions against immigration have to be banned! Those companies must really be run by some sick creeps.

Bring back Western Colonization

Bruce Gilley writes a paywalled article, The case for colonialism:

For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch.

If this wrong, you might expect scholarly articles rebutting it. Instead, the leftists want to censor it:

Now several petitions are circulating (here and here) to ask for the retraction of this article, and an apology from the editors. Together, the petitions garnered around 16,000 signatures. The editor of Current Affairs, Nathan J. Robinson, went as far as to say that the article was “morally tantamount to Holocaust denial”, because it does not mention any “colonial atrocities” (although it does refer to at least one book about such atrocities).

These articles explain that most of the world would rather live under the authority of white ppl. Maybe a new colonization would improve the Third World enuf that the citizens are less eager to move to white countries.

Migrants who hate whites

Suketu Mehta writes in Foreign Policy mag:

The West is being destroyed, not by migrants but by the fear of migrants. ...

Driven by this fear, voters are electing, in country after country, leaders who are doing incalculable long-term damage: Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Andrzej Duda and his Law and Justice party in Poland. It was fear of migrants that led British voters to vote for Brexit, the biggest own goal in the country’s history. ...

It shows that when countries safeguard the rights of their minorities, they also safeguard, as a happy side effect, the rights of their majorities. The obverse is also true: When they don’t safeguard the rights of their minorities, every other citizen’s rights are in peril. ...

It is every migrant’s dream to see the tables turned, to see long lines of Americans and Britons in front of the Bangladeshi or Mexican or Nigerian Embassy, begging for a residence visa.

He makes it pretty clear that he hates the West, that he hate White Christian culture, and that he is all in favor of migrants trying to destroy white culture.

It is not true that attempts to safeguard minorities have safeguarded the rights of others. On the contrary, those attempts have led to the most serious infringements on free speech and a lot of other rights. The migrants have lowered the quality of life in most places.

Here is another view:

Universalist Whites of the West will need to destroy the Globohomo propaganda hate machine, AND they will need the help, in interbred blood or electoral power, of their clannish White brethren to prevent the West from driving off the cliff. Trump has channeled both forces, but he can’t do it alone. He needs his people to keep him honest.

And another:

The mainstream media failed to see the rise of Donald Trump in 2016. Now it’s overlooking another grassroots movement that may soon be of equal significance — the growing number of liberals “taking the red pill.” People of all ages and ethnicities are posting YouTube videos describing “red pill moments” — personal awakenings that have caused them to reject leftist narratives imbibed since childhood from friends, teachers, and the news and entertainment media.

You might say that those who take the red pill have been “triggered.” But instead of seeking out “safe spaces,” they’re doing the opposite, posting monologues throwing off the shackles of political correctness.

Their videos can feature the kind of subversiveness that was once a hallmark of the left—before the movement lost its sense of humor.

Today's kids get a lot of brainwashing. Some of them eventually come to a realization that they have been lied to all their lives.

Global warming on Harris podcast

I tried to listen to this podcast:

Waking Up with Sam Harris #95 - What You Need to Know About Climate Change (with Joseph Romm)

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Joseph Romm about how the climate is changing and how we know that human behavior is the primary cause. They discuss why small changes in temperature matter so much, the threats of sea-level rise and desertification, the best and worst case scenarios, the Paris Climate Agreement, the politics surrounding climate science, and many other topics.

Joseph Romm is one of the country’s leading communicators on climate science and solutions. He was Chief Science Advisor for “Years of Living Dangerously,” which won the 2014 Emmy Award for Outstanding Nonfiction Series. He is the founding editor of Climate Progress, which Tom Friedman of the New York Times called “the indispensable blog.” In 2009, Time named him one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and Rolling Stone put him on its list of 100 “people who are reinventing America.” Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in low-carbon technology development and deployment. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He is the author of Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know.

I expected to hear a good description of what is known about climate. Instead I got an unconvincing polemic.

He kept arguing that we should go along with the 97% of climate scientists. He also claimed a consensus that Trump was unfit to be President.

He kept mixing scientific and political arguments. He refused to admit weaknesses in the science or data.

A revealing point is when Harris asks why it is so important to say that humans caused the warming of the last 50 years or so. After all, if green energy is going to save millions or billions of lives, then why would we care whether it is a response to a human-induced crisis?

Romm was adamant that the humans must be blamed. Otherwise, he says that you could never convince ppl of the urgency of the action needed.

This view seems to be common, but it is hard for me to take anyone seriously who says that. Are they more interested in making things better in the future, or making moral judgments about the past? If they are really interested in the future, then it shouldn't matter how we got here.

But when they get all moralistic about the past, then they appear to be Gaia Earth Goddess worshippers whose main goal seems to be remedy some ecological injustice.

I wonder if Romm convinces anyone. He is supposed to be an expert in communicating climate science, but he seems terrible at it. I don't think that I learned any science at all.

At the end, Harris asks this question, from Scott Adams: "How much subjectivity is involved in the climate science as you move from the measuring devices to the climate models?" Instead of answering the question, Romm went into a rant about how stupid Adams is, and saying that models are used throughout science.

Adams is not a scientist, but he used to do financial modeling, and those models were very subjective. Saying that models are used throughout science tells him nothing, as models are also used throughout finance. They still can be subjective.

Obviously Romm does not want to admit the subjectivity of the models.

Zuckerberg writes hate book, alleges harassment

Donna Zuckerberg wrote some articles attacking the Alt-Right, including racial attacks, and now complains about online harassment.

I wonder how many of these harassment stories are hoaxes.

Candace Owens has a theory that much of it comes from leftist feminist sock-puppets. Most of the anti-semitic incidents in the news have turned out to be Jewish hoaxes. Neo-Nazi and KKK incidents have also turned out to be leftist hoaxes.

Zuckerberg is about to publish a Jewish feminist book on "dead white males". How would she like it if a neo-Nazi published a book on "dead Jewish females"? My guess is that her brother would ban any mention of it on Facebook.

Chinese have term for White Left

The Chinese have a word for the political views that seem to dominate the American news media and Democrat party:

The curious rise of the ‘white left’ as a Chinese internet insult ...

If you look at any thread about Trump, Islam or immigration on a Chinese social media platform these days, it’s impossible to avoid encountering the term baizuo (白左), or literally, the ‘white left’. It first emerged about two years ago, and yet has quickly become one of the most popular derogatory descriptions for Chinese netizens to discredit their opponents in online debates.

So what does ‘white left’ mean in the Chinese context, and what’s behind the rise of its (negative) popularity? ...

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

Apart from some anti-hegemonic sentiments, the connotations of ‘white left’ in the Chinese context clearly resemble terms such as ‘regressive liberals’ or ‘libtards’ in the United States. In a way the demonization of the ‘white left’ in Chinese social media may also reflect the resurgence of right-wing populism globally.

The rest of the world (outside Europe and the USA) must think that it is very strange to tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism.

The atheist community is dying

I have sometimes mocked leftist-atheist-evolutionists here, but the whole movement is crumbling, according to its more prominent blogger, PZ Myers:

The skeptic-atheist community broke apart when Cultural Marxism was introduced into it e.g. third wave feminism, identity politics, intersectionality. New rules for behavior and speech were introduced. This ideology even demonised the most prominent and influential atheists like Dakwins or Harris as bigoted, racist, islamophobic white males.

As a counter movement, many skeptics became fiercely anti-SJW. There the division took place.

The “Cultural Marxist” remark gives it away. This is one of those pseudoscientifically racist people who whines about white genocide. ...

One flashpoint where the differences crystallized: Rebecca Watson and Elevatorgate. You remember that — when Watson, in response to a late-night suggestion in an elevator said “Guys, don’t do that”, and ...

Now I think that Myers and many of the skeptic-atheist-humanist community have some sort of mental illness. They get trapped by crazy issues like elevatorgate, and reading their rants makes you wonder how they ever cope with ordinary life.

Elevatorgate was some story about how some guy supposedly made some mildly flirtatious comment in ordinary conversation, and some feminist wanted to make an issue out of it. All the atheist communities then spent about a year arguing about it.

Big NPR story is a Jewish cartoon

NPR Radio reports:

In Israel, a lot of people are talking about a Facebook post. It was put up by Yair Netanyahu, the son of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Over the weekend, the 26-year-old posted a cartoon bashing his father's adversaries. That cartoon was swiftly criticized for containing anti-Semitic imagery. The post was shared by former KKK leader David Duke. It was also praised by the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer. Netanyahu's son, we should say, did take down the post. But the prime minister has declined to comment on it. ...

Well, if you can picture it, it's a row of characters. And each one dangles a kind of fishing rod in front of the next. And it seems to depict who controls the world. So the liberal, American, Jewish philanthropist George Soros is the master manipulator in the cartoon.

You can see the cartoon here.

So why is this news? Because no one is supposed to suggest that rich liberal Jews control some politicians? Because no one is supposed to get agreement from some guy who dressed up in a KKK outfit 40 years ago?

What I get out of this is that some Jewish-influenced news media do not want anyone to suggest that liberal Jews control the world, and if someone does, then the Jews will destroy him.

After a;;. a;; the other ethnic groups get mocked in political cartoons without such controversy.

Race is real, racism is not

A reader sends this essay:

Racism Is Real. Race Is Not. ...

What justifies the continued use of racial classification? Nothing, or so I argue in Replacing Race, an open-access article published recently in the philosophy journal Ergo.

I argue that there are no races, only racialised groups – groups that have been misunderstood as biological races. ...

This is not merely an opinion. From a scientific perspective, the best candidate for a synonym for “race” is “subspecies” (the classification level below “species” in biology). When scientists apply the standard criteria to determine whether there are subspecies/races in humans, none are found. In chimpanzees yes, but in humans no.

Racial classification is unscientific. ...

“Race” is not needed for purposes of social justice. ...

The ConversationWe need to be talking about racism, racialisation, and racialised groups, not “race”.

Here is what a leftist evolutionist says, while also giving a partial defense of a Marxist denial of race:

Edwards asked “Can individual humans be assigned to races from genetic data?”, or, alternatively, “Can human races be diagnosed (in the taxonomic sense of subspecies)?” The answer is yes, they can. ...

Lewontin and Edwards agree on the moral equality of human beings; Edwards just doesn’t want that moral equality to depend on any contingent facts of genetic similarity. Lewontin wouldn’t want it to, either, but sees the high genetic similarity among human races (genetic similarity is much lower among races in some other species) as empirical reinforcement for his moral conclusion.

I think the problem here is that the much-hated Richard Spencer gives an argument:

Race is real.
Race matters.
He prefers to live in a white ethnostate.

These leftists do not want to deal with the rest of his argument, so they just try to cut it off at the start, and pretend race is not real.

So race is real, according to science, popular culture, and common sense. But what about the other half of the claim in the above paper, and "racism is real"? No support is offered for that conclusion at all.

I have come to the conclusion that racism is not real. There is no generally accepted definition of it. Some say that reciting demographic or scientific facts about racial groups is racist, and some don't. Some say that failing to affirmatively equalize all groups in society is racist, some don't. Some say it is racist for races to live separately, some say it is racist for them to live together. Some say that it is racist to say "black lives matter", while others say that it is racist to say "all lives matter".

In most cases, "racist" is just a meaningless epithet, like "jerk" or "nazi". Nobody says it as part of an intellectual conversation. Racism does not exist, except for name-calling.

Anglin debates Vox Day

Two of the most deplorable of the deplorables on the Alt-Right are Vox Day and Andrew Anglin, and now they had a public debate! You can find links to the video here and
here.

I haven't watched it yet, but this should be enlightening. They both have coherent worldviews, and they brilliantly expose what is wrong with today's leftists. They both have millions of internet followers, and they are fearless about saying something politically incorrect.

For their opinions, Anglin is being unpersoned, and I would not be surprised if Vox Day is also.

It turns out that they have some sharp disagreements about where our society should be headed. Both of them are so far outside the mainstream that these differences are of mainly academic interest. Neither is going to get his way anyway.

If you need trigger warnings, these guys are offensive sometimes. But if you do not hear their views or other Alt-Right views, then you are being brainwashed.

More Twitter and YouTube bans

A PJ Media column reports:

Twitter has banned writer Elizabeth Johnston, who writes at "The Activist Mommy," for her war of words with Teen Vogue editor Phillip Picardi

Not only has Twitter banned her, but YouTube will not allow her video commentaries to be monetized. While Johnston's posts and views are controversial to some, none of what she has to say is new. Her views on homosexuality come from the best-selling book in the world — the Bible. The tweet that got her booted was a little salty and perhaps not the best tactic to use for persuasion, but it wasn't any more obscene than the Teen Vogue article.

She was criticizing a Teen Vogue article on anal sex.

Twitter and Google are enemies of free speech. Same with Facebook and Apple.

The white Christian minority

AP reports:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The share of Americans who identify as white and Christian has dropped below 50 percent, a transformation fueled by immigration and by growing numbers of people who reject organized religion altogether, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

Christians overall remain a large majority in the U.S., at nearly 70 percent of Americans. However, white Christians, once predominant in the country's religious life, now comprise only 43 percent of the population, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, a polling organization based in Washington. Four decades ago, about eight in 10 Americans were white Christians.

This trend sometimes goes under the name White Genocide.

Most of the white Christians are older, so the trend is more pronounced if you look at younger ppl. We have policies to import millions of non-whites and non-Christians, and most of those coming are young and reproducing more rapidly. In a few years, white Christians will be an even smaller minority. They are already a smaller minority in California.

The non-whites and non-Christians mostly think that this trend is a good thing, and they support the policies that diminish the white Christian share of the population.

Many white Christians have somehow been convinced that they must never speak against this trend, because that would make them bigots. So they strangely celebrate their own demise.

Hard to communicate accross IQ gap

Neuroskeptic says this is an oversimplification:

Let’s say high IQ is a blessing which comes with a terrible price. And each and every person with reading east from 135 has paid that price.

HIgh IQ persons usually have also extremely vivid and wide spectrum of emotions and emotional life, and when they are happy, they are in rapture, and when they are unhappy, it is sheer emotional hell. The IQ is a great enabler, and it unfortunately also enables to experience unhappiness in much deeper and profound way than anyone with mediocre IQ would.

The concept of communication range was established by Leta Hollingworth. It is +/- 2 standard deviations (roughly 30 points) up or down on one’s own IQ. It denotes the range where meaningful interaction (communication, discussion, conversation and socializing) is possible. If the IQ difference between two persons is more than 30 points, the communication breaks up. The higher IQ person will look like an incomprehensible nerd and the lower IQ as a moronic dullard – and they will not find anything common.

There do not seem to be any hard studies proving this, but there is some truth to it.

I can talk to a small child that might have 80 less IQ points, but I do not attempt to have an intelligent conversation. If I attempt an intelligent conversation with an adult with 30 less IQ points, then inevitably he or she will make some completely false inference from something I said, and I have to spend most of my time explaining what I think should be obvious to a 10-year-old, and it seems unlikely that the person is getting anything else right either.

At the other end, dumb ppl normally do not realize how much smarter other ppl are.

As an example, look at how much time President Trump has to spend explaining points when ppl misquote or misinterpret him. It is as if he is 30 IQ points smarter than anyone at CNN or the NY Times. It is hard to believe everyone in the news media is really that stupid. Maybe they were not always that stupid, but learned to dumb down in order to relate to their low IQ viewers and readers.

The Less Wrong community is convinced that in a couple of decades, AI super-intelligent robots will pass up human intelligence by 30 IQ points or so, and thus we could lose our ability to communicate effectively with them. They do not want to slow down AI research, so they want us humans to up our game, and learn to behave more logically so that we can coexist with the super-intelligent robots.

The coming food shortage

The NY Post reports:

The world could be facing a food shortage in just 10 years, according to an agricultural data technology company.

Gro Intelligence founder and chief executive Sara Menker says previous calculations about food supply have focused on mass and weight, not nutritional value — and this is where things become problematic.

Previously the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization has predicted that the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion by 2050 and the world needs to produce 70 percent more food to feed all these extra people.

But at a TEDGlobal event Arusha, Tanzania, Menker said if you look at the nutritional value of current food production instead, global food security is more tenuous than originally thought.

According to Quartz, Menker believes the year 2023 will be the crossover point when we will no longer be able to produce enough food to feed a growing population.

She has estimated that by 2027, there could be a 214 trillion-calorie deficit, which is the equivalent of 379 million Big Macs.

Demand will be driven by population and economic growth in China, India and African countries.

If this is correct, then soon we will all be expected to make sacrifices in order to subsidize runaway population growth in China, India, and Africa.

It makes more sense to isolate those countries. Stop sending them food and technology, and stop allowing them to export their population problems. They will eventually learn to solve their own problems.

Autism is term for white male brain

I found this 2008 post:

Is autism the symptom of an "extreme white brain"?

In several previous posts, I've discussed Simon Baron-Cohen's theory of autism as a symptom of an "extreme male brain" (e.g. "Stereotypes and facts", 9/24/2006), and also Mary Bucholtz's hypothesis that nerdity is defined by "hyperwhite" behavior (e.g. "Language and identity", 7/29/2007). I'm ashamed to say that it never seriously occurred to me to cross-pollinate these two theories, until (for serendipitous reasons) I recently read YW Wang et al. "The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy: Development, validation, and reliability", Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2): 221-234, 2003. ...

To avoid misunderstanding, let me be explicit: Despite the humorous question in the title, I'm not suggesting that there are innate racial differences in empathy, nor that autism is caused by excessively caucasian genetics.

Yes, a liberal academic does not dare suggest those things. But forget about what is innate or genetic.

The cited research appears to show that some of the traits which define autism are also personality characteristics that are correlated both with being white and male.

You might want to consider this if your white male kid gets diagnosed as autistic by some non-white female psychologist. Maybe she is just applying a group prejudice.

Feminism is a fitness test

Karen Straughan comments on a Jordan Peterson video:

Feminism in the west is one giant, society wide shit test that western men have collectively failed, over and over and over again. For those unfamiliar with Pick Up Artist parlance, a shit test is believed to be: A manufactured grievance a woman uses to test the mettle, competence and confidence of her mate. It is an intentional provocation accompanied by an implicit and subconscious desire that the man put his foot down, set reasonable boundaries and demonstrate that he will not be bullied, nagged, shamed or guilted into submission. Its purpose is to confirm for her that he is capable of doing what needs to be done to provide for and protect her and her children. The subconscious thought process is, "If he can't stand up to _me,_ how will he be able to deal with the cavemen down the valley who keep us up all night revving their motorcycles, let alone help bring down a mastodon or fend off the sabre toothed tigers?" According to PUAs, the worst thing a man can do when his woman is shit testing him is assume the grievance is genuine and cave in to her. Despite her seeming demand that he submit, if he does, she will lose respect for him, and once she loses respect for him she will believe that she's with a man who is not worthy of her, which in turn makes her angry and resentful of him. She will then escalate the tests, each grievance becoming more and more outrageous and irrational in a desperate bid for him to finally draw a line and say, "this far, no further." I have to admit, as I have in the past, that the last 50 years or so of feminism in the west have followed this pattern. :/

That is a good theory, and I take this reasoning further. Those who tear down statues are just testing us to see if we have a culture that we will defend. Moslems are testing us to see if we are willing to defend religious values.

If your church is unable to proudly and forcefully say that it is better than Islam, then what good is it?

When a thug tries to kill a cop, are you willing to stick up for the cop?

Do you want a President who backs down just because someone misquotes him, calls him mean names, or makes fun of his wife's shoes?

Donald Trump is unusual, as a politician, because he passes all these fitness tests. Most others cannot stand up to the simplest attacks, and therefore lose respect because they probably cannot stand up to a more serious enemy.

For the most part, modern liberalism is failing the fitness tests. So are cuckservatives.

Chemicals Turn Xenophobes Into Migrant-Lovers

Here is something I learned from a Google-censored site:

Jews Planning to Put Chemicals in the Water Which Turn Xenophobes Into Migrant-Lovers

This time they’re not planning to turn the frogs gay.

In the paper that is being referenced here they claim that in addition to being accepting of their own ethnic displacement people doped with oxytocin increased donations to migrants by 74%.

This sounds like hate-inspired fake news, but it cites its source, and the paper was indeed published in PNAS, one of the top scientific journals in the USA. The published paper says:

Significance
In the midst of rapid globalization, the peaceful coexistence of cultures requires a deeper understanding of the forces that compel prosocial behavior and thwart xenophobia. Yet, the conditions promoting such outgroup-directed altruism have not been determined. Here we report the results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment showing that enhanced activity of the oxytocin system paired with charitable social cues can help counter the effects of xenophobia by fostering altruism toward refugees. These findings suggest that the combination of oxytocin and peer-derived altruistic norms reduces outgroup rejection even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals, and thereby would be expected to increase the ease by which people adapt to rapidly changing social ecosystems.

The paper actually cites the Bible for justification!

The biblical parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–16:17) describes an ethical maxim of helping strangers who have fallen in need. As such, it not only captures the essence of altruistic behavior by emphasizing the personal costs of selflessness toward others but also represents a formidable example that norm-enforced altruistic cooperation is by no means limited to the ingroup, but can even extend to outgroup members in ways neither precisely understood nor systematically researched. Here, we hypothesize that normative incentives co-occurring with enhanced activity of the OXT system exert a motivational force for inducing altruism toward strangers even in the most selfish and xenophobic individuals.

I wonder if the authors even read the Bible passasge, as the description and citation are inaccurate. After saying "Love your neighbor as yourself", the parable seeks to answer "And who is my neighbor?". Jesus says that the non-Jew who helps the traveler is more of a neighbor than the Jews who refused to help.

The paper is all about drugging ppl to help non-neighbors, and the Bible parable does not support that at all.

Google is censoring Daily Stormer criticism of this research. If you are willing to let Google censor ideas from what you read, then maybe you would be willing to let the authorities drug you to change your beliefs towards alien invaders, and also to make you donate towards leftist goals.

Robots will take our jobs

The Economist mag is a big fan of automating jobs, and reports:

Fears about the impact of technology on jobs have resurfaced periodically ever since. The latest bout of anxiety concerns the arrival of artificial intelligence (AI). Once again, however, technology is creating demand for work. ...

These numbers are likely to rise. One reason is increasing demand for “content moderation”. A new law in Germany will require social media to remove any content that is illegal in the country, such as Holocaust denial, within 24 hours or face hefty fines. Facebook has announced that it will increase the number of its moderators globally, from 4,500 to 7,500.

Wow, this is what we are going to be doing when the robots take our jobs? We will work to deny free speech, so that the authorities can perpetuate Jewish myths?

The Jewish Holocaust is not a myth, but this law protects various myths.

The Laws against Holocaust denial are not limited to denying historical facts:

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people")[31][32] is a concept in German criminal law that bans incitement to hatred against segments of the population. It often applies to (though not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a outlaws various symbols of "unconstitutional organisations", such as the Swastika and the SS runes.

I think that most of the prosecutions are to ppl who accept the basic facts of the Jewish Holocaust, but who have denied some story in a way that offends Jews.

This censorship will not work, of course. Ppl eventually figure out that authorities are most eager to censor truths, not falsehoods.

Robots and AI will take our jobs. A couple of centuries ago, most workers were farm workers. Farm automation killed those jobs, and ppl became factory workers. After more automation, they became office workers. What is next? We will not have an economy of workers doing Jewish censorship.

Google censors again

Google is becoming the world's worst censor, and here is the latest story:

On Tuesday evening, Google sent a conservative website an ultimatum: remove one of your articles, or lose the ability to make ad revenue on your website. The website was strong-armed into removing the content, and then warned that the page was "just an example and that the same violations may exist on other pages of this website."

The offending article is gone, but I managed to find a copy:

The media has demonstrated an unwillingness to cover the alt-right fairly. As much as one may disagree with some alt-right figures, that is not a license to lie about or misrepresent their individual political goals.

There are some figures on the alt-right, such as Richard Spencer, who has declared a white ethnostate to be his very clear and well-defined political goal.

And yet there are many others on the alt-right who have no clue about NPI and no idea who Spencer is. Many young people, especially young men, have flocked to the alt-right because of its universal rejection of feminism and PC culture and strong embrace of masculinity and tradition.

White men in this country are tired of being blamed for every failure and hardship experienced by women and minorities. Does this make them alt-right? Not necessarily, but possibly. Does it make them a white supremacist or a white nationalist? Certainly not.

Understanding and acknowledging the differences between race realism, white nationalism, and white supremacy is essential to understanding or fairly covering the alt-right, and unless the media does so, they will continue to set their credibility ablaze.

What is so offensive about this? It doesn't express any opinions at all, except to urge the media to distinguish some political players.

Google is truly evil if it is going to censor pages like this.

Some will say that this is not true censorship, because Google is not a govt agent. However it is squarely within the dictionary definition, and Google has more monopoly power than most governments anyway.

Perhaps some Google bot automatically searched for all articles advocating a white ethnostate, and picked this article without understanding that this article just references the idea without endorsing it. It is more likely that Google wants to censor all articles mentioning a white ethnostate, whether they are for or against it. If so, then Google could be soon banning this blog. I better be careful what I say.

Update: Here is another Google censorship story. Google also got fired James Damore, and got someone at a thinktank fired, all for expressing mainstream opinions. And here is more Google censorhip.

Things will get uglier

NY Times columnist David Brooks explains that Republicans have been able to avoid identity politics in the past, but not any more:

Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.

I think this part of his analysis is right. The Democrat Party has been the party of identity politics and group hatred, not the Republicans. But the identity warriors on the left have gotten so aggressive that it is hard to sit on the fence anymore. You are either for or against white genocide.

White supremacy used to evoke images of wealthy white plantation owners and black slaves. But the folks who are called white supremacists today are not wealthy and do not want to enslave anyone. They merely want to put some limits on anti-white hatred.

Brooks is a Jewish Trump-hater. His nastiest comments are about white Christians like Trump. He has chosen a side in this war, and he is just another identity warrior.

The coming ethnic wars

The Charlottesville chant that everyone denounced was "You will not replace us."

Perhaps this is the sort of displacement that they were seeking to avoid:

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has reportedly said that all locals accused of killing white former commercial farmers during the country's controversial reform programme are immune to prosecution.

According to News Day, Mugabe said this while addressing thousands who thronged the National Heroes Acre to mark this year's Heroes Day.

"Yes, we have those (white farmers) who were killed when they resisted. We will never prosecute those who killed them. I ask: Why we should arrest them?," Mugabe was quoted as saying.

The report said that at least 12 white commercial farmers were killed by suspected Zanu-PF activists during the fast-tracked agrarian reforms that were masterminded by Mugabe's administration in 2000.

Thousands of white commercial farmers and their employees were also displaced and left without sources of income

According to the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union, more than 4000 white farmers were affected by the often violent farm invasions.

We cannot even watch the movie Gone With The Wind in a movie theater anymore.

Google YouTube is trying to discourage viewing some interesting social science videos, such as How Women Dismantle NATIONS * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS and Race Differences in Intelligence.

I think that we are headed for ethnic wars. I hope that I am wrong, but if trends continue, things will get ugly. Whites will not wait for the day when the law allows stealing their land and killing them.

In a couple of years, some European country is going to decide that importing Moslems was all a big mistake, and try to deport them all. This will cause other nations to take sides on the matter. It could lead to World War III.

Again, I hope I am wrong, but I do not see this coming to a peaceful conclusion.

Stormfront shut down

The Google censors are now going after social science lectures with uncomfortable facts.

The internet domain censors have shut down another political site:

Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.

The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported. ...

The Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin, wrote on article Aug. 12 mocking a woman killed hours earlier while protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, 32-year-old Heather Heyer. The Stormer was subsequently booted by domain registrars GoDaddy and Google, and attempted to relaunch at more than a half-dozen address this week before relegating itself to the so-called dark web where it’s subject to less restrictions.

Stormfront has a white supremacist reputation, but it was really just a message board where anyone could freely post whatever messages he wanted. Yes, there were a lot of racially offensive messages, but as far as I know there was nothing illegal and all opinions were allowed.

It is a little disturbing to see a lively debate on whether Jews do more harm than good, but do you believe in free speech or not?

I think that I once posted some comments on that site, on a matter that had nothing to do with race. To me, it was just another discussion site and I appreciated the fact that a free-wheeling unmoderated discussion was allowed. With the site now done, I guess my comments are gone also. What is the justification for that?

I don't think that this censorship is going to work. A lot of ppl who never heard of these sites are going to conclude that the sites must be telling the truth. The authoritarians are usually only interested in censoring the truth, as the truth is dangerous. Nobody cares about nonsense sites.

If the Google and ICANN censors get away with this, they will not stop there. They keep going until they censor all the pro-conservative, pro-Trump, and pro-Christian sites, until somebody stops them.

Update: A free speech site reports:

While identity politics has taken the mass media echo chamber by storm, the vast majority of Americans are opposed to adopting “hate speech” punishments like that of Germany – and are willing to die to protect their freedom of speech, according to new polling data from Rasmussen Reports.

The polling by Rasmussen Reports, conducted by telephone and online, found that an astonishing 85% of American adults believe the right to free speech takes precedence over protecting people from hateful words. In fact, out of those surveyed, only 8% thought that ensuring people aren’t offended was more important that unadulterated free speech.

Perhaps more importantly, 73% of Americans agreed with Voltaire’s famous quote — “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” — and believe that the right to free speech is so important that they would be willing to die to defend a person’s free speech rights.

This is reassuring, but Si Valley is at war with it:

As of this writing, numerous right-wing websites and personalities have been banned from PayPal, Twitter, Paypal, Stripe, Facebook, Instagram, Mailchimp, Soundcloud, Uber, and countless other platforms. To make matters worse, domain registrars and website maintenance companies such as CloudFlare and GoDaddy have no-platformed The Daily Stormer, keeping the site offline since Sunday. ...

By now it’s clear that every corporation in Silicon Valley hates you and your ideas. They will demonetize you, demotivate you from using their sites, and then finally deplatform you, all to preserve a cherished agenda which is having a mighty hard time standing up to the truth.

I expect that soon mainstream Trump-supporting sites will be hassled by these Si Valley companies.

Joining the Alt-Right

Matt Lewis writes:

Libertarianism has an alt-right problem. Many prominent leaders of the alt-right have, at some point, identified as libertarian. I am curious as to… why? ...

It is also true that many of today’s alt-righters are disaffected conservatives. ...

Over at HotAir, Taylor Millard says that conservatives and libertarians need to purge white supremacists. If they are smart, they will follow his advice.

Libertarianism used to be about freedom. Now they want to purge ppl with different opinions?

What have libertarians accomplished in recent decades? The Alt-Right has elected Donald Trump while libertarians have been cucked.

Save the Daily Stormer

For the first time in the history of the internet, the leading providers have conspired to shut down a site purely for its political content. The has lost its domain. It appears to be temporarily available here.

Some pirate sites and other illegal sites have been shut down, but this is just a guy expressing political opinions. He does not advocate anything illegal.

One hate site bragged that "the Daily Stormer is now the top hate site in America."

If this can be shut down, what will be next?

The Daily Stormer was not just testing free speech rights. It was funny. It had biting criticisms of the Left. It had a lot of interesting news and commentary. It links to its sources, so you can check the accuracy yourself.

The site was called "neo-Nazi", but that is a little misleading. The guy who ran it said that he would be called a Nazi anyway, so he would rather embrace the term than waste time and energy arguing about some stupid name-calling.

He also trolls a lot. He says silly things for purposes of satire or being provocative. He says things that many will find offensive.

For example, Anglin might link to some CNN stories that dishonestly and unfairly attack Pres. Trump, and then point out that the management, producers, and on-air personalities are left-wing Jewish Democrats who are ideologically opposed to Trump.

Saying this is considered anti-Semitic. So he accepts being anti-Semitic. Maybe it is offensive, but it is also useful to know that CNN is promoting a particular set of views from a small segment of the population.

I am not endorsing Naziism or national socialism or anything like that. I don't even know how Naziism would apply to the world today. But I read a lot of sources, and I do not agree with most of them. I like to read diverse opinions.

In many ways, the NY Times is more offensive than the Daily Stormer. It attacks Trump as sharply and as unfairly as the Daily Stormer. The difference is largely a matter of style.

I hope the Daily Stormer returns, both for the sake of free speech on the internet, and because it is an amusing and thought-provoking site.

I am also disturbed that PayPal has cut off VDARE, and that Apple has banned Gab. PayPal, Apple, and Google should be seen as the enemies of basic freedoms everywhere.

Politics triggering cognitive dissonance

Scott Adams (aka Dilbert) writes:

A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it. The Salem Witch Trials are the best-known example of mass hysteria. The McMartin Pre-School case and the Tulip Bulb hysteria are others. The dotcom bubble probably qualifies. We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.

We are witnessing mass hysteria about Charlottesville. Example:

President Donald Trump is accusing Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of telling a “disgusting lie” by saying Trump drew a “moral equivalency” between white supremacists and those who protested them in Charlottesville.

On Wednesday, as Fox News writes, Graham said Trump “took a step backward by again suggesting there is moral equivalency between the white supremacist neo-Nazis and KKK members who attended the Charlottesville rally and people like Ms. Heyer.” Heather Heyer was killed when a car drove into a crowd of counter-protesters at the rally on Aug. 12. Trump has blamed “both sides” for the violence.

Yes, it is a disgusting lie, and the press has been saying it in various ways for a week.

GoDaddy and Google have attempted to censor sites criticizing Miss Heyer. Why? Of all the views to censor, why this? Was she trying to start a riot or something?

Authorities primarily seek to censor the truth, so I can only assume that she was doing something really bad.

And why is it that CNN, NY Times, NPR, Democrat politicians, and other Trump haters are so eager to equate Nazis, KKK, Heyer, and statue-destroyers? I think that they take down these statues because they are trying to start a race war.

A Trump-hater site concedes that Trump told the truth about Charlottesville:

Our media have a problem: they are essentially incapable of covering Donald Trump with anything less than full-on deranged hysteria.

I do not say this as an excess of rhetoric or op-ed theatrics. It is a very real, very pressing problem, only getting worse, and it poses a significant danger to the social fabric of the United States. Twenty-first century American media has the ability to shape our discourse and shift our public consciousness, and it is abusing that power in the worst ways possible. This is likely a bigger problem than any of us realizes.

They are a little late to notice. The press has been lying about Trump for 2 years now, even when his words are so readily available.

What It Means To Be Alt-Right

Richard B. Spencer has posted The Charlottesville Statement

What It Means To Be Alt-Right -- A meta-political manifesto for the Alt-Right movement.

1. Race is real. Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity. ... Racially or ethnically defined states are legitimate and necessary.

I am not sure Spencer gets to define the Alt-Right, as many in the movement reject him, such as this philosopher.

Saying "race matters" seems to inflame ppl, but it is a simple statement of fact for most of the world. Race matters in China, India, Europe, and everywhere else. Our most prestigious colleges teach courses on how race matters.

Most of the countries of the world are organized around some dominant ethnic identity.

5. White America

The founding population of the United States was primarily Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. By the Great War, a coherent American nation emerged that was European and Christian. Other races inhabited the continent and were often set in conflict or subservience to Whites. Whites alone defined America as a European society and political order.

The "Great War" means World War I, 1914-18.

Some may feel left out by this statement, but I am neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant myself, and I see it as a simple statement of fact.

6. Europe

Europe is our common home, and our ancestors’ bone and blood lie in its soil.

European unity emerged at critical points in history, but so did fragmentation, rivalry, and betrayal. As brother nations, Europeans have competed with one another, and even hated and killed one another. We can no longer afford the luxury of intra-racial squabbling. “Brothers wars” gain us nothing, and directly lead to our collective downfall. Europeans must come together as a family.

I am not sure why Americans should care if Europe is united or not.

7. Family

The family — a man and woman in a loving relationship that produces offspring — is an essential, indispensable foundation for a healthy and functioning society.

8. Human Nature

Man is not a blank slate on which to be written, nor was he born a guileless, noble savage. Human nature — the reality of race, sex, heritability, and innate endowments — is the most powerful force shaping individuals, families, societies, and nations.

9. Women and Sex

Women, as mothers and caregivers, are key to the future of our race and civilization. We oppose feminism, deviancy, the futile denial of biological reality, and everything destructive to healthy relations between men and women.

I can agree with this. I do not read this as saying women must be mothers and caregivers.

14. The Left

Leftism is an ideology of death and must be confronted and defeated. “Losing gracefully” will eventuate in the destruction of our people and civilization.

This is why they support Pres. Trump. Trump is doing what must be done to confront the Left, while most other Republicans are willing to lose gracefully. If it were not for Trump, the Left would be winning. However much the Alt-Right might seem goofy, the Ctrl-Left is much crazier.

As much as Spencer thinks that he can define the term Alt-Right, it is really more identified with how Trump and his supporters confront the Left.

As I write this, I see that Spencer is being censored at Texas A&M. He seems to just want to express his opinions peacefully. Pres. Trump is one of the few public figures who is willing to blame leftist rioters for the violent confrontations.

Why hospitals overbill for services

I always assumed that medical providers over-bill for services because they want to get the maximum insurance reimbursement, and it is too hard to keep track of insurance payment schedules. That's what they have told me, anyway.

This comment says that there are other reasons:

Marking down hospital bills is known as “claims repricing”. It exists because gigantic unpaid bills are profitable to several groups in unexpected ways. Here’s a doctor (who owns a hospital) explaining it.

Basically, when a bill of $558 is marked down to $89 (-$469):

– Hospitals claim a $469 “accounting loss” to maintain their fiction of being a non-profit tax-exempt org (while paying directors multi-million$ salaries).

– Hospitals get a partial rebate on “losses” from Washington via Medicare/Medicaid payments (the bigger the loss, the more they profit!).

– Insurers back-charge large policy holders 35% of the $469 “savings” they “negotiate” (much more profitable than just charging a % on top of what they pay out, which most people presume how insurers work).

– Lawyers seek hospitals with the biggest sticker prices when suing for damages, because the amount awarded is independent of what their client ends up paying.

Wow, I did not know this. If this is right, then you are doing the provider a favor when you refuse to pay an inflated bill.

Democrats pander to identity politics

Julian Assange writes:

“What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics. Whites are still over 60% of the voting population. As long as Democrats pander to identity politics the GOP will be able to herd whites into supporting it. It seems too late for the Democrats to disengage with identity politics. So GOP will continue to market itself (sotto voce) as the party of whites. Democrats will be out of most offices until whites lose their majority. That won’t be for decades. Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized electoral politics.”

He also quotes the long-time Singapore Prime Minister:

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..

I think this is mostly correct. The Democrats have bet everything on mobilizing non-white and non-Christian identity politics to get elected. They apparently expected the white Christians to commit cultural suicide, or to swamp them with other ethnic groups imported from elsewhere. They seemed to truly believe that we had reached a point where white Christians would never elect a Republican President again.

As Democrats pander to identity politics, I expect more and more white Christians to come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is trying to destroy them.

Everyone misreads a public text

NY Times columnist (and Jewish Trump hater) David Brooks writes:

The first actor is James Damore, who wrote the memo. In it, he was trying to explain why 80 percent of Google’s tech employees are male. He agreed that there are large cultural biases but also pointed to a genetic component.

Actually the memo does not mention this 80% of Google, nor does it mention a genetic component.

Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, “For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate.”

The memo cites the research.

He [Google CEO Sundar Pichai] fired Damore and wrote, “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.”

That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo. Damore wrote nothing like that about his Google colleagues. ...

As Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic, “I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.”

Maybe the last time Pres. Trump tweeted?

Almost every Trump-hater mischaracterizes what he said, even tho the accurate sources are readily available to everyone.

Another example is the US Intelligence Community report on Russian influence. All the mainstream media reported that this said that 17 intelligence agencies unequivocally concluded that Putin manipulated the US election. In fact the main conclusion was that 2 agencies had high confidence that the Kremlin attempted some influence, mostly in the form of anti-American propaganda on the RT channel. It specifically denies that it has any certainty, or that Russia had any influence over the election, or that there is agreement in the intelligence community. Apparently 1 agency thought that Russia wanted to put out anti-Clinton messages, but did not think that Trump would win and was not trying to help him.

And most of the attacks on Trump are based on hearsay and anonymous sources. If the press cannot get the public documents right, I certainly cannot trust it with anonymous sources telling implausible stories.

So why do some many ppl, from Trump-haters to CEOs to CNN to the Ctrl-Left get these things wrong? It appears that either they are very stupid, or very dishonest, or they are wearing ideological blinders or some sort. Or some combination. The best term for these ppl is Fake News.

Humans cannot detect emotion well

Nautilus reports:

The traditional foundation of emotional intelligence rests on two common-sense assumptions. The first is that it’s possible to detect the emotions of other people accurately. That is, the human face and body are said to broadcast happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and other emotions, and if you observe closely enough, you can read these emotions like words on a page. The second assumption is that emotions are automatically triggered by events in the world, and you can learn to control them through rationality. This idea is one of the most cherished beliefs in Western civilization. For example, in many legal systems, there’s a distinction between a crime of passion, where your emotions allegedly hijacked your good sense, and a premeditated crime that involved rational planning. In economics, nearly every popular model of investor behavior separates emotion and cognition.

These two core assumptions are strongly appealing and match our daily experiences. Nevertheless, neither one stands up to scientific scrutiny in the age of neuroscience. ...

Let’s begin with the assumption that you can detect emotion in another person accurately. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough. A glance at someone’s face and body language reveals what the person is feeling, right? Haven’t we been told that a smile tells one story whereas a scowl tells another? Raised arms and a puffed up chest supposedly display pride, while a drooping posture supposedly declares that someone is sad.

The big problem with this assumption is that in real life, faces and bodies don’t move in this cartoonish fashion. People who are happy sometimes smile and sometimes don’t. Sometimes they even cry when they’re happy (say, at a wedding) and smile when they’re sad (when missing a beloved aunt who passed away). Likewise, a scowling person might be angry or just thinking hard, or even have a case of indigestion. In fact, there isn’t a single emotion that has one specific, consistent expression.

Numerous scientific studies have confirmed these observations. When we place electrodes on people’s faces to record their muscle movements, we see that they move in different ways, not one consistent way, when their owners feel the same emotion. ...

Books and articles on emotional intelligence claim that your brain has an inner core that you inherited from reptiles, wrapped in a wild, emotional layer that you inherited from mammals, all enrobed in — and controlled by — a logical layer that is uniquely human. This three-layer view, called the triune brain, has been popular since the 1950s but has no basis in reality. Brains did not evolve in layers.

I think that this is correct. But why do most ppl think that they can read someone's emotions and feelings? I have met ppl who claim that they are very good at it, when they have no evidence of any ability at all.

Google chose a side in the culture war

The NY Times reports that Trump supporters are being driven out of Si Valley and this:

For alt-right activists, who occupy the rightmost flanks of a powerful conservative internet subculture, Google’s response to Mr. Damore’s memo was low-hanging fruit for mockery. But there is another reason that the alt-right’s opposition campaign appeared so quickly, with such well-practiced maneuvers.

For the last several months, far-right activists have mounted an aggressive political campaign against some of Silicon Valley’s biggest players. Extending their attacks beyond social networks like Facebook and Twitter, tech’s typical free-speech battlegrounds, they have accused a long list of companies, including Airbnb, PayPal and Patreon, of censoring right-wing views, and have pledged to expose Silicon Valley for what they say is a pervasive, industrywide liberal bias. ...

It’s unlikely that any alt-right protest will make a dent in the bottom lines of multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley behemoths. But by forcing these companies to take sides in an emerging culture war, these activists have already achieved a kind of perverse goal. They have found a new punching bag, and they have proved that in the hyper-polarized Trump era, there is no such thing as neutrality.

This last paragraph is very strange. Nothing in the article suggests that the alt-right wanted Google or any other Si Valley company to take sides in the culture war, or that Google wants to be neutral. Google has aligned itself with the Ctrl-Left. I am sure that the Alt-Right would prefer that Google remained neutral, so that all opinions are available on YouTube.

Google claims to promote diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance. But it, and other tech companies, have declared war on Republicans, Alt-Right, and anyone else opposed to their Ctrl-Left agenda.

Five laws of behavioral genetics

J-Man writes:

The five laws of behavioral genetics are:

All human behavioral traits are heritable
The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.
A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.
A typical human behavioral trait is associated with very many genetic variants, each of which accounts for a very small percentage of the behavioral variability.
All phenotypic relationships are to some degree genetically mediated or confounded.

All this means that genes account for much more human behavior than most ppl realize, and family environment counts for less.

J-Man would say that obesity is mostly genetic partially because of genes that control fitness and exercise, but mostly because of genes that control behavior like laziness and overeating. You have some theoretical ability to increase exercise, lower consumption, and lose weight, but if your innate personality traits keep you from sticking to a diet, they you will not take advantage of that ability.

He is a determinist, but that doesn't follow from those laws, as those heritable traits are only 40-80% inherited. Some ppl might alter their behavior enuf to live a longer and healthier life, but it is a small percentage and may not be significant in research studies.

How Google is evil to fire Damore

The NY Times reports on Google firing James Damore for his opinions in an internal memo:

In a companywide email, Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of the memo had violated the company’s code of conduct and crossed the line “by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

The memo put the company in a bind. On one hand, Google has long promoted a culture of openness, with employees allowed to question senior executives and even mock its strategy in internal forums. However, Google, like many other technology firms, is dealing with criticism that it has not done enough to hire and promote women and minorities.

One female Google engineer posted on Twitter upon reading the memo that she would consider leaving the company unless the human resources department took action.

Wow, this confirms “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”, as described in the memo, as well as the leftist-victim-censorship mentality.

Here is a representative point from the memo:

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to: ...

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

If Google had followed his advice, then it would be better able to reason about the facts. Instead, it apparently caved in to over-emotional leftist females demanding that the guy be fired. The CEO presumably thought that he was empathizing with the females, as he came back from his overseas vacation to fire him.

It is hard to believe that this is the same company that once had a motto of "Don't be evil", and whose CEO Eric Schmidt was quoted as saying:

Google is run by three computer scientists. We’re going to make all the mistakes computer scientists running a company would make. But one of the mistakes we’re not going to make is the mistake non-scientists make. We’re going to make mistakes based on facts and data and analysis.

No, Google has no facts or analysis that Damore is wrong about anything.

Google is not really that big a believer in diversity. Yahoo has brought in females to a greater extent, and Google has profited greatly from Yahoo's poor management.

It should be obvious that Damore was fired for telling the truth. If Damore were wrong, then the company would just rebut what he said. But instead the company has just denounced him without denying anything in his memo. It merely said things like "we cannot allow stereotyping".

Google makes about $80B a year on stereotyping. That is, it spies on you, uses stereotypes to develop a profile on you, and then sells ads based on that profile. It also makes about $10B a year from other services. So I guess it is a little sensitive about stereotyping.

The memo with links has now been posted at diversitymemo.com/. Google was a big political supporter of the Obama administration, until the Obama DoJ sued Google for sex discrimination against women. Breitbart has documented Google witchhunts against employees with non-conforming views. CNBC says it may have been illegal for Google to fire Damore, as he as a right to express his political opinions and communicate with fellow employees about improving working conditions.

How Jewish scientism leads to Leftism

Physicist Coel writes:

Alex Rosenberg’s An Atheist’s Guide to Reality is the most radically scientistic book that I’ve read. ...

Rosenberg argues — and I entirely agree — that our moral senses are part of our human nature. We have a “core morality” programmed into us by evolution to enable us to interact socially and so exploit a cooperative evolutionary niche. Of course evolution doesn’t care about the morality itself, it only cares (metaphorically “cares” of course) about what leads to us leaving more descendants. It follows that (page 286): “there are no facts of the matter about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad”. But it also follows, since humans are highly similar genetically, that “most people naturally buy into the same core morality that makes us tolerably nice to each other”. ...

But then comes the argument where I part company with Rosenberg.

But when you combine core morality with scientism, you get some serious consequences, especially for politics. In particular, you get a fairly left-wing agenda.

Rosenberg’s argument is based on determinism. None of us have “free will” in the dualistic, contra-causal sense, we are all products of the past and of our environment. Whether we were born into a rich family or a poor one, whether we are born with genes that make us talented or not, whether we grow up in an environment that helps us prosper, are all things that we could not choose. Whether we are a millionaire at age 30, or whether we are stuck in a minimum-wage job, is thus largely a lottery of birth.

I assume that Alexander Rosenberg is Jewish, and that he sees Jewish morality as being just a rationalization for whatever evolutionary strategy helps Jews to collectively exploit an evolutionary niche. And his belief in science and science alone leads him to atheism and determinism. He combines all this to become a hard-core leftist/Marxist, as if it is a logical consequence of his other beliefs.

There are many errors here. The absurdity should be obvious to anyone who believes in Christian free will. Rather than list them, I just want to point out this view. Many other prominent Jewish atheist intellectuals hold similar views, such as Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne.

Many of these atheists claim to be extremely rational and knowledgeable about science. But then they tell you to believe in whatever evolution has trained you to believe in! And if you did, you would not believe in either determinism or leftism.

Google dissenter exposes Leftism

A Google employee has posted a rant against the company's leftism:

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. ...

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

He makes many good points, but I don't see why he is happy to have leftist scientists with their leftist biases.

Google's official response shows that it is wearing leftist ideological blinders.

Moralizing diversity is disgusting. Google is a business, and it needs to justify its policies on business terms, not by shaming and censoring. Jordan Peterson expressed from views similar to the above rant, and Google shut down his account last week with no explanation. It was only reinstated after some public pressure. Some think that he became politically incorrect for refusing to use genderless pronouns, but Google won't say.

A large part of Google's success can be traced to Yahoo failing:

As a former employee of Yahoo!, I can say with absolute conviction that the majority of the problems with the company stemmed from too many women being involved in the first place. When I started in 1999, it was mostly guys. By the time I left last year, it seemed like it was easily 75 percent women. No matter what job or position they were doing, they either were out on maternity leave half the time or just getting back therefrom. It was the most frustrating thing in the world to try to work with.

Have you ever gone to a meeting with six women and yourself as the only guy? You might as well not even turn up; nothing is going to get done, anyway. It’s just going to be an hour spent on irrelevant, tangential nonsense with no decision reached at the end.

Yahoo still have some good products, but it has sadly declined under female leadership.

The environmental cost of dogs and cats

The LA Times reports:

You’ve heard about the carbon footprint, but what about the carbon paw-print? According to a new study, U.S. cats’ and dogs’ eating patterns have as big an effect as driving 13.6 million cars for a year. ...

Cats’ and dogs’ overall caloric consumption was about 19% that of humans in the U.S.

“Just to put that in context, that’s about the same amount of calories that the country of France consumes and so that whet my appetite a little bit,” Orkin said. ...

Notably, dogs and cats actually consumed about 33% of the animal-derived calories that humans did, perhaps because their diets are generally more meat-heavy than ours, Orkin said. On the other end, they also produce about 30% of the feces that humans do (and much of that gets thrown in the trash in plastic bags, instead of treated the way that human waste is).

In short, Orkin concluded, American dogs and cats eat enough animal product to account for about 64 million tons of methane and nitrous oxide, two other powerful greenhouse gases. That’s about the same impact on our warming climate as driving 13.6 million cars for a year.

Save the planet. Kill all the dogs and cats.