Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Psychology textbooks filled with errors

I have posted many times about bogus psychology research, and this article shows that the textbooks are bad:
Psychology is mired in a replication crisis: Many famous, established findings that experts had assumed to be robust have, in the light shed by newer and bigger and more sophisticated follow-up studies, been revealed as rather flimsy. But what about the very basic, Psych 101 stuff taught in introductory textbooks? That stuff’s all on safe ground, right?

Maybe not. In a paper published last month in Current Psychology by Christopher Ferguson of Stetson University and Jeffrey Brown and Amanda Torres of Texas A&M, the authors evaluated a bunch of psychology textbooks to see how rigorously they covered a bunch of controversial or frequently misrepresented subjects. The results weren’t great.
For another example of bad research, implicit bias studies are flawed. These supposedly show that ppl are racist, but they don't work.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Facebook can spy on your messages

Ars Technica reports:
The Guardian roiled security professionals everywhere on Friday when it published an article claiming a backdoor in Facebook's WhatsApp messaging service allows attackers to intercept and read encrypted messages. It's not a backdoor — at least as that term is defined by most security experts. ...

Critics of Friday's Guardian post, and most encryption practitioners, argue such behavior is common in encryption apps and often a necessary requirement. Among other things, it lets existing WhatsApp users who buy a new phone continue an ongoing conversation thread.
No. I am an encryption practitioner, and such behavior is neither common nor necessary.

Since Facebook refuses to fix this problem, it should not be promising "end-to-end encryption". Facebook has engineered in a system for spying on messages.

Facebook/WhatsApp argue that their system is more convenient than true end-to-end encryption. That may be. It may also turn out to be useful for law enforcement to track possible terrorists or child molesters. Most users do not need to be concerned about this vulnerability. They are happy to give up some privacy in order to get some free services. But I would not recommend the system for high-security messages.

Update: Bruce Schneier concludes:
How serious this is depends on your threat model. If you are worried about the US government -- or any other government that can pressure Facebook -- snooping on your messages, then this is a small vulnerability. If not, then it's nothing to worry about.
It is a little strange that Facebook/Whatsapp refuses to fix it.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Trump as a kind of steppingstone

NPR Radio celebrates the decline of the Alt-right:
"I see Donald Trump as a kind of steppingstone. He is a step in the right direction in terms of understanding America and history and the world in essentially racial terms," Taylor says.

But white nationalist enthusiasm for Trump has fallen off substantially. Since the election, the so-called alt-right has splintered, and the movement now looks a lot less potent than it once appeared. ...

"I think it's good to be the person talked about, even when it's negative," Spencer tells NPR. "Our ideas are entering the discourse." ...

A movement that sprang from obscurity with Trump's election seems to be dropping back into the shadows even before Trump takes power.
This is wishful thinking. The Alt right got the most publicity when Hillary Clinton gave a speech denouncing it, and when she called the Trump voters deplorable.

Trump's election has redefined the Alt right to be what his administration is doing. Sure, there are factions who are trying to steer him in other directions, and fringe players who troll the press. Milo is probably the biggest trolls. These factions did not agree before Trump, and they will not agree now either.

They agreed that Trump is far better than Hillary Clinton, and so did millions of others.

The Alt-right will always have fringe groups trolling the Democrats, and the Democrats will be calling them deplorable. The possible new DNC leader says:
Top Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) told his party on Friday that Donald Trump has brought “white supremacy” back to the White House.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Trying to abolish marriage licenses

Some marriage law reformers announce:
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (Jan. 11, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Indiana House would end government licensing of marriages in the state, effectively nullifying in practice both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.

Rep. Jim Lucas introduced House Bill 1163 (HB1163) on Jan. 9. The legislation would eliminate three marriage requirements currently in place in the state.

That individuals obtain a marriage license before getting married
That the marriage be solemnized by an individual specified by state law
That the marriage license be filed with a circuit court clerk and the state department of health.

The bill instead “provides for marriage by marriage contract by any two individuals who are competent to contract in Indiana or otherwise permitted to marry in Indiana.”
There are a lot of ppl who foolishly say that disputes over marriage policy can be dodged by govt getting out of the marriage business.

No chance. A lot of states already has common law marriage, so having marriages without govt-issued licenses is nothing new. The article gives the impression that the law would be a return to practice in previous centuries, but that is not true either. The Catholic Church has required marriage ceremonies for 800 years.

The govt has taken over a long list of marriage issues, such as this:
A man in Oklahoma is hoping to change the law after he has to continue to pay child support for a baby that is not his, according to our affiliate KOTV.

When Thomas’ high school girlfriend got pregnant, he married her. Five months later she had a little boy and he believed he had a son, but their marriage fell apart.

Thomas decided to take a paternity test when the boy was three years old.

“It comes back zero percent. I was in my office and I saw that. I should’ve expected it but I didn’t and it hit me. I’m telling my co-worker how shocked I am that someone could do this to someone,” he said.

The judge ordered Thomas to take another DNA test and he got the same result. The judge first ruled that Thomas was off the hook financially, but then reversed the decision because Oklahoma law says men must question paternity within two years of the child’s birth.

Thomas said that he had no reason to question it before he did, but, because he missed the deadline, the judge ordered him to pay around $500 a month in child support and nearly $15,000 in back support – for a child that is not his.
Oklahoma has common law marriage, but this problem is independent of that.

There have been many changes to marriage law, and they are nearly all to increase state control over families. Same-sex marriage is just one of those changes.

Update: It is divorce season.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Europeans want Asimov's laws of robots

Some Europeans are panicking about robots:
To combat the robot revolution, the European Parliament's legal affairs committee has proposed that robots be equipped with emergency "kill switches" to prevent them from causing excessive damage. Legislators have also suggested that robots be insured and even be made to pay taxes. "A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics," said Mady Delvaux, the parliamentarian who authored the proposal. "To ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework." CNNMoney reports:

The proposal calls for a new charter on robotics that would give engineers guidance on how to design ethical and safe machines. For example, designers should include "kill switches" so that robots can be turned off in emergencies. They must also make sure that robots can be reprogrammed if their software doesn't work as designed. The proposal states that designers, producers and operators of robots should generally be governed by the "laws of robotics" described by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. The proposal also says that robots should always be identifiable as mechanical creations. That will help prevent humans from developing emotional attachments. "You always have to tell people that robot is not a human and a robot will never be a human," said Delvaux. "You must never think that a robot is a human and that he loves you."
I used to agree with some of this, but now I think that it is naive.

We will have robots doing functions so critical that no one will dare turn them off. We will also have robots with software derived from AI learning, and no one understand how it works or how to fix it to correct the behavior.

There will also be human-like robots, and ppl will want robots to love them.

Google and Microsoft now have natural language translation systems that are derived from so much data that no one really understands them. Microsoft even has real-time Skype translation. It is possible that these could become essential parts of the infrastructure of our civilization. It is also possible that translation quirks result in some ppl getting killed. Asking Google or Microsoft to fix those quirks might be hopeless.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Neanderthals were humans and ancestors

I posted before Neanderthals belonged to the human species. Now the NY Times Magazine has a long article on Neanderthals Were People, Too
But Neanderthals weren’t the slow-witted louts we’ve imagined them to be — not just a bunch of Neanderthals. As a review of findings published last year put it, they were actually “very similar” to their contemporary Homo sapiens in Africa, in terms of “standard markers of modern cognitive and behavioral capacities.” We’ve always classified Neanderthals, technically, as human — part of the genus Homo. But it turns out they also did the stuff that, you know, makes us human.

Neanderthals buried their dead. They made jewelry and specialized tools. They made ocher and other pigments, perhaps to paint their faces or bodies — evidence of a “symbolically mediated worldview,” as archaeologists call it. Their tracheal anatomy suggests that they were capable of language and probably had high-pitched, raspy voices, like Julia Child. They manufactured glue from birch bark, which required heating the bark to at least 644 degrees Fahrenheit — a feat scientists find difficult to duplicate without a ceramic container. In Gibraltar, there’s evidence that Neanderthals extracted the feathers of certain birds — only dark feathers — possibly for aesthetic or ceremonial purposes. And while Neanderthals were once presumed to be crude scavengers, we now know they exploited the different terrains on which they lived. They took down dangerous game, including an extinct species of rhinoceros. Some ate seals and other marine mammals. Some ate shellfish. Some ate chamomile. (They had regional cuisines.) They used toothpicks.

Wearing feathers, eating seals — maybe none of this sounds particularly impressive. But it’s what our human ancestors were capable of back then too, and scientists have always considered such behavioral flexibility and complexity as signs of our specialness. When it came to Neanderthals, though, many researchers literally couldn’t see the evidence sitting in front of them.
The author of this article is still infected with this ignorant anti-Neanderthal bias. It refers to "our human ancestors" to mean non-Neanderthals.

The fact is that DNA tests of the last 5-10 years have proved that Neanderthals were ancestors to the vast majority of non-Africans today. They had large brains, and now archaeological evidence shows that they were behaviorally very similar to other human ancestors.

There is every reason to call Neanderthals our human ancestors. They were humans and ancestors (to all but sub-saharans).

30 years ago, textbooks said:

(1) Neanderthals were very primitive and sub-human.
(2) Neanderthals went extinct, with no extant DNA.
(3) A wave of anatomically modern African migrants 70-100k years ago are our sole ancestors.
(4) Humans have not evolved since that wave.

These are all now known to be completely false.
Some of this is documented in this 2016 PNAS article, Neandertals revised, which also says:
However, from the hundreds of thousands of years in which Neandertals and their African near-modern contemporaries littered their landscapes with all kinds of artifacts, nothing has been retrieved that is in any way comparable to the visual representations (“art”) and the general increase in diversity in material culture we see from around 40 ka onward. These developments coincided with a significant range expansion of modern humans, for the first time in human history colonizing the arctic parts of the Old World (121, 122), as well as moving into Sahul (123), crossing a major biogeographical boundary that had prevented hominin eastward migration for more than a million years.
The date "40 ka" (40,000 years ago) is crucial because that is the time that Africans migrated into Europe and the time that Neanderthals got wiped out. The obvious explanations are that the African killed off the Neanderthals, or out-competed them for resources, or spread disease. Whatever the explanation, it appears that interbreeding resulted in humans that were capable of much more advanced art and travel than either the Neanderthals or African migrants by themselves.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Lame report on Russia

The Obama administration just released this report:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency. ...

RT's criticism of the US election was the latest facet of its broader and longer-standing anti-US messaging likely aimed at undermining viewers' trust in US democratic procedures and undercutting US criticism of Russia's political system. RT Editor in Chief Margarita Simonyan recently declared that the United States itself lacks democracy and that it has "no moral right to teach the rest of the world" (Kommersant, 6 November). ...

RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US financial collapse (RT, 31 October, 4 November).
Are we supposed to be impressed by this?

Of course Putin does not like Hillary Clinton. She was a warmonger who was threatening war on multiple fronts, economic sanctions against Russia, and NATO troops on Russia's borders.

But Obama has our spy agencies tell us that Russian TV badmouths us? I have heard worse stuff about the USA from the Democrat Party.

These are spy agencies that were not smart enuf to know that Trump might win the election, and now they are 70-90% certain that the Russians do not like Clinton?!

Now we are told that the classified version of the report has some dirt on Trump, but no one can verify any of it. This is really lame. I think that Obama just wants to undermine Trump.

I watched the Meryl Streep rant againt Trump that got so much publicity. She first says that she has lost her mind, and so she has to read from notes. Then she says that Hollywood is the most vilified segment of American society right now. After mentioning a couple of blacks and an Israeli, she says that all the nicest ppl are Canadian. Then she attacks Trump for imitating a disabled reporter. Finally she says that we need a press that will tell the truth.

Yes, she has lost her mind. If you think that you saw Trump imitating a disabled reporter, then go watch the video of the reporter, and tell me if you see any similarities. And watch also the videos of Trump criticizing others who have been badmouthing him. Then you will see that the press has been lying to you.

Or maybe Streep is a closet Nazi. When ppl say that Canadians are the nicest, it is just a polite way of saying that white ppl are nicer than blacks and Jews. When ppl blame Trump for how he waves his arms when he criticizes others, they are just saying that they have no substantive criticisms of him. Obviously Streep could not openly be a Nazi or a Trump supporter and get Hollywood jobs, but maybe this is as close as she can get.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Bogus theories of attachment and spanking

The NY Times reports:
It’s called attachment theory, and there’s growing consensus about its capacity to explain and improve how we function in relationships.

Conceived more than 50 years ago by the British psychoanalyst John Bowlby and scientifically validated by an American developmental psychologist, Mary S. Ainsworth, attachment theory is now having a breakout moment, applied everywhere from inner-city preschools to executive coaching programs. Experts in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, sociology and education say the theory’s underlying assumption — that the quality of our early attachments profoundly influences how we behave as adults — has special resonance in an era when people seem more attached to their smartphones than to one another.
Many psychologists say attachment theory as the most scientific thing in all psychology, but it is more like voodoo. See criticisms here and here.
The main idea of Bowlby's attachment theory can be summed up by the following, "...observation of how a very young child behaves towards his mother, both in her presence and especially in her absence, can contribute greatly to our understanding of personality development. When removed from the mother by strangers, young children respond usually with great intensity; and after reunion with her, anxiety or else unusual detachment" (Bowlby, 1969, p. 3).
That is an easy experiment that is supposed to have great significance, but 50 years of research has not proved much. The observations are supposed to have broad policy implications, but none have verified.

Furthermore, there is no proof of the nuture assumption that parents influence the personality of their kids.

But beliefs persist:
A new law in France bans spanking of children, making it the 52nd country to prohibit the practice. ...

A growing body of research suggests that spanking poses risks to children. A 2016 analysis of more than 50 years of research found that children who are spanked are more likely to defy their parents, develop mental health problems and show antisocial behavior and aggression.

Most countries in Europe now ban spanking, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland and the Czech Republic, the Telegraph said. The United States allows spanking.
Yes, and ppl who take aspirin are more likely to have headaches.

Correlation is not causation. Perhaps the defiance and anti-social behavior is causing the kids to get spanked. There are no good studies showing that any other method of discipline works better than spanking.

The anti-spanking zealots say that it is unethical to do a scientific study on spanking because it is unethical to ever hit a child. But there are twin studies, and they do not show any harm to spanking.

Of course most parents believe that they are profoundly influence their kids, and they may be right, but currently there is very little science to back up those beliefs.

Stefan Molyneux (Freedomain Radio) has another anti-spanking video to brag about the new French law. His position is that spanking violates his philosophical "non-aggression principle", as it is contrary to his utopian ideals of everyone of all ages living in peace and harmony thru rational judgment and mutual consent.

While he wants spanking to be illegal, he refuses to express an opinion on what the penalty should be. That is not the job of a philosopher like him, he says. He can say what is moral and what is not, but he is not concerned with the consequences.

Eg, if a 5yo kid wants to run out into the street, the parent is supposed to be persuasive enuf to non-violently explain the matter to the kid. I think that Molyneux's wife is some sort of psychotherapist, and psychotherapists say nonsense like that.

I like Molyneux's podcasts, but he is way off the deep end with this one. We live in a world where civilization depends on the use of force, and kids need to be prepared for the real world, not Molyneux's hypothetical philosophers libertarian paradise. And psychotherapists tend to make the worst parents.

Monday, January 09, 2017

$237M for phony recovered memories

AP reports:
It’s called attachment theory, and there’s growing consensus about its capacity to explain and improve how we function in relationships.

Conceived more than 50 years ago by the British psychoanalyst John Bowlby and scientifically validated by an American developmental psychologist, Mary S. Ainsworth, attachment theory is now having a breakout moment, applied everywhere from inner-city preschools to executive coaching programs. Experts in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, sociology and education say the theory’s underlying assumption — that the quality of our early attachments profoundly influences how we behave as adults — has special resonance in an era when people seem more attached to their smartphones than to one another.
AP reports:
Penn State's costs related to the Jerry Sandusky scandal are approaching a quarter-billion dollars and growing, five years after the former assistant football coach's arrest on child molestation charges.

The scandal's overall cost to the school has reached at least $237 million, including a recent $12 million verdict in the whistleblower and defamation case brought by former assistant coach Mike McQueary, whose testimony helped convict Sandusky in 2012.

The university has settled with 33 people over allegations they were sexually abused by Sandusky, and has made total payments to them of $93 million.
All that, and no physical or contemporaneous evidence that Sandusky ever abused anyone. McQueary is probably the biggest villain here, as he is the only one who certainly did bad things, and he got $12M.

Just ask yourself -- with that much money changing hands, shouldn't there be some critical assessment? Why does everyone so blindly believe the recovered memories of ppl who collecting millions of dollars for telling fanciful stories of implausible events that supposedly happened many years earlier?

I think that the public has been conned, as the public has been in other child abuse scandals.

Sunday, January 08, 2017

They live

Wired mag reports:
Late Tuesday night, writer-director John Carpenter — the man behind such late-night-cable classics as Halloween, The Thing, and Escape from New York — sent out a jarring, seemingly random tweet about one of the best-known entries in his decades-long filmography: They Live, the cult sci-fi conspiracy thriller about a working-class drifter (played by wrestling icon “Rowdy” Roddy Piper) whose discovery of a pair of special sunglasses leads to the revelation that Los Angeles — and possibly the world — is under the control of blister-faced, poorly wigged aliens. ...

In recent years, They Live has in recent years become a meme-muse for online neo-nazis, some of whom have adopted the film’s messages about media manipulation and secret powers, and used them for their own anti-Zionist propaganda ... more importantly, the fact that such an interpretations makes no sense ...
Really? If the interpretations make no sense, why are you writing an article about it?

Why would neo-nazis put out anti-Zionist propaganda? I thought that they would be happy to have all the Jews live in Israel.

Maybe Wired is neo-nazi, and it is deliberately vague so that you will go read a neo-nazi. One says:
THEY LIVE is about yuppies and unrestrained capitalism. It has nothing to do with Jewish control of the world, which is slander and a lie.

— John Carpenter (@TheHorrorMaster) January 4, 2017

One of the major themes presented in “They Live” is how an alien race took over our systems by pretending to be humans. Specifically, the film focuses in on how they took control over banks, big business and media. Sound familiar? This is what Jews have done to the West. They have masqueraded as a member of our own people and have exploited our trusting nature to subvert our societies.

Quite honestly it does not matter what Carpenter’s original intention for “They Live” was. Art takes on a life of its own through the people who experience it. There are obvious similarities between the aliens depicted in the film and Jews in real life. To pretend that this connection doesn’t exist is to deny reality.

If you watch “They Live” and look at the aliens as Jews, the movie can be perceived as a documentary on Jewish power.
Or it can be perceived as about the elites who use mass media to manipulate the public.

In the movie, the aliens are most fearful of anyone who might see them for what they are.

Friday, January 06, 2017

School choice is a parental right

Reason blogger Robby Soave writes:
A recent New York Times story that slams the free market approach to education policy is rife with inaccuracies. Amazingly, the author of the piece misrepresents the very data she is using to build her erroneous case against school choice.

"Free Market for Education? Economists Generally Don't Buy It," claims Susan Dynarski, a professor of education, public policy, and economics at the University of Michigan, in The Times. This is a betrayal of expectations, according to Dynarski, because economists generally understand that free markets produce better outcomes than central planners (much to the chagrin of education professors). Economists are usually the ones calling for less regulation and more unrestricted capitalism; if they're super conflicted about markets in education, that would be a serious indictment of the school choice approach.
He is right that the NY Times is lying about the data, but I have a different point. It gives the impression that most economists are against school choice, but only about 5% are against it.

Both sides are a little sloppy about what is meant by terms like "better outcomes" and "higher quality". They act as if there is some agreement about what is better.

If there were agreement about what is better, then we could require the public schools to do that. But there is no such consensus. For example, some say teaching English is paramount while others are more concerned with LGBT bathrooms.

Free markets in things like cars give better outcomes partially because competition forces higher quality cars, but also because diverse cars are better able to meet the demands of consumers.

Supposed you asked: Would consumers be better served by having a choice of cars to buy?

Most everyone would say yes, because having a choice is better than not having a choice.

So why would anyone say that choice leads to a worse outcome? Presumably they think worse schools will somehow trick students into going there. Or maybe they don't like the costs of competition, such as undermining teachers unions. For example, the Democrat Party gets a lot of support from public school teachers unions, so it is against anything that the teachers unions don't like.

Is there a concern that ppl will choose worse schools? If so, then how is it that economists or other do-gooders know better than the parents?

This goes right to the heart of the merits of school choice. The best argument for school choice is not that charter school students will have better test scores or other objectively-defined advantages.

The better argument is that parents should have the right and authority to decide what is best for them and their kids. One school might suit the needs of a particular child better. Choice also makes the school more accountable to the parents, so they can switch to another school if something is unsatisfactory.

Leftists generally believe that families should not have that sort of autonomy, and that the schools should be used to indoctrinate the next generation and absorb them into the collective. So leftists hate school choice.

Discussion of charter school test scores is a smoke screen. Likewise with homeschooler test scores. I guess some parent homeschool their kids in the hope of getting higher test scores. but most have other reasons, and those parents should have the right to base their own decisions on their own judgments and priorities.

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Trolling is a good thing

In 2016, I changed my mind about trolling. I now think that it is a good thing.

If the Ctrl-Left is trying to limit what you can say, then the proper response is to say whatever offends them the most. Trying to be nice and to avoid all their supposed micro-aggressions is foolishness.

Our computer systems are made more secure by hackers trying to punch holes in them. Spammers can be annoying too, but these are part of the costs of a free society. Tools should be available to block the stuff you do not want, but there is no need to censor it from everyone.

Every since Trump was elected, the mainstream news media and lizard ppl have been complaining that hackers, leakers, and trollers might have had some influence. If so, so much the better.

If the lizard ppl get their way, you will get your news on Facebook, with the unapproved stories being blocked. We need trollers to make such censorship impractical.

Monday, January 02, 2017

One button mouse is bad design

NPR Radio reports:
Design Thinking Could Help Those Who Want To Get Unstuck
Listen · 6:46
6:46 Download

January 2, 20175:04 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
Shankar Vedantam

Psychologists and self help gurus have advice for people who feel stuck. If you're looking for new ways to reboot your life as you enter the new year, you could also turn to the tech world.
This is a regular source of dubious research. Today's story brags about the "design thinking" that convinced Apple to use a 1-button mouse, instead of 2 buttons.

No, that was bad design, it came from a bad design ideology. Apple is all about constraining the user. Another company would have just make both kinds of mouse, and let the user decide. Or make the 2-button mouse, and let the user use just one, if he wants.

Simplicity is good, but the 1-button mouse is not simple. To make the Mac work with it, Apple had to introduce double-clicking, triple-clicking, and shift-clicking. Furthermore, it had to add a bunch of other shift keys to the keyboard with goofy symbols on them. I have a keyboard with the usual "Ctrl" and "Alt", but Apple maps these in inconsistent ways, so I have to guess which one will work.

Apple seems to realize that the 2-button mouse is better, as the system lets you use such a mouse. But Apple won't admit. It goes against their religion to do what the customer wants.

For another example of how NPR Hidden Brain distorts the research, see this.

Sunday, January 01, 2017

Dylann Roof fires his attorneys

The NY Times reports:
“I want state that I am morally opposed to psychology,” wrote the young white supremacist who would murder nine black worshipers at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, S.C., in June 2015. “It is a Jewish invention, and does nothing but invent diseases and tell people they have problems when they dont.” ...

“I will not be calling mental health experts or presenting mental health evidence,” he wrote to Judge Richard M. Gergel of Federal District Court on Dec. 16, a day after a jury took only two hours to find him guilty of 33 counts, including hate crimes resulting in death, obstruction of religion and firearms violations. ...

Mr. Bruck and his team have argued in court filings that Mr. Roof, a ninth-grade dropout, “has no right to represent himself in a capital trial, and even less so at the penalty phase.” But in the 41 years since the Supreme Court recognized a Sixth Amendment right of self-representation for criminal defendants, in Faretta v. California, the court has never specifically narrowed that holding for death penalty trials, despite their complexity.
This makes sense to me. With his attorneys arguing, he is 99% likely to get the death penalty. If he argues the penalty phase himself, he is no going to change that probability much.

He apparently committed this horrible crime to make some sort of statement, and he was willing to die for it. However misguided his thinking, he would probably rather explain himself in court than have some lawyer say he was crazy. Besides, he gets a lot of free appeals if he is on death row, and he throws a monkey wrench into the process by forcing lawyers and judges to spend years discussing his motives.

What I learned in 2016

A year ago, I posted:
I should post every year what I have learned in the year. Here is where I have changed my mind in 2015. ...

More than ever, the USA is ruled by elites who are selling out the interests of the American people. It appears that Donald J. Trump is the only one who can save us. ...

Six months ago I thought that Donald Trump was a buffoon. Now I think that he is a genius.
In 2016, this became conventional wisdom.

A lot of ppl complained about political polarization during the G.W. Bush era. But the Trump v Clinton election was Good v Evil. The efforts of the lizard ppl to elect Clinton exceeded my expectations, and so did the free citizens who voted for BREXIT and Trump.

I am not saying that everyone who voted for Clinton is evil. Most of them are just stupid, misinformed, or brainwashed. They are unwitting tools of the lizard ppl.

Saturday, December 31, 2016


I learned a new word, bulverism:
But this method also reminds me of something else. This is Christopher Hitchens:

“I think Hannah Arendt said that one of the great achievements of Stalinism was to replace all discussion involving arguments and evidence with the question of motive. If someone were to say, for example, that there are many people in the Soviet Union who don’t have enough to eat, it might make sense for them to respond, “It’s not our fault, it was the weather, a bad harvest or something.” Instead it’s always, “Why is this person saying this, and why are they saying it in such and such a magazine? It must be that this is part of a plan.” ...

The Bulverist assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Many times I have pointed out some fact, only to have someone attack me with some strange and false theory about my motivations.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Montana religious dispute escalates

I mentioned coverage of a Montana dispute, and now it is getting more attention:
The Whitefish, Montana, Police Department says it is aware of the white supremacist website “The Daily Stormer” and its call for an upcoming “armed march” through the city of Whitefish, CBS affiliate KXLH reports.

Top elected officials in Montana issued a joint statement Tuesday condemning “attacks on our religious freedom manifesting in a group of anti-Semites,” CBS affiliate KPAX reports.

“Rest assured, any demonstration or threat of intimidation against any Montanan’s religious liberty will not be tolerated. It takes all Montanans working together to eradicate religious intolerance,” the statement reads.
Religious freedom? Liberty?

One side has Jews who hate Christians, and the other has Christians who hate Jews. So I guess you could say both sides are showing religious intolerance. But who is doing the intimidating? The Daily Stormer says:
The lawmakers did not make specific reference to the group or realtor Tanya Gersh, who was serving as operating “street boss” running an extortion conspiracy targeting the mother of a perceived political opponent of international Jewry. Gersh threatened Sherry Spencer, mother of Richard Spencer, with a protest that she claimed would drive down the value of her property in Whitefish if she did not sell the property, denounce her son and make a “donation” to local human rights groups.

Gersh had provided Spencer with a pre-written apology/confession, which they asked her to read to the community. This practice is also popular among ISIS, which usually requires public execution victims to read aloud a scripted apology/confession before death.
It posts a copy of the confession, and it appears to be criminal extortion from the Jewish side.

The news stories do not mention that. They probably would mention it, if they could prove that the scripted confession demand were fake.

The Daily Stormer site is a little extreme, and says:
In a related development, while the international Jewish media has taken interest in our Whitefish march – dubbed the “March on Whitefish” – so have nationalist groups across the country. So far, it looks like we will have representatives from at least three European nations marching with us in January, a sign of increasing global white racial solidarity against the international Jewish agenda to exterminate the white race through programs of mass immigration, feminism and the promotion of homosexuality.
I will be interested to see whether there are any neutral news stories about this dispute.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Robots are taking our jobs

Jobs will be disappearing:
Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania has warned that all the developed nations on earth will see job loss rates of up to 47 per cent within the next 25 years.

The statistic is based on a recent Oxford University study and includes blue and white collar jobs. So far, the loss has been restricted to the blue collar variety, particularly in manufacturing so no one has cared that much as this has been happening since the 1960s.

The new trend is not creating new jobs either. By 2034, just a few decades, mid-level jobs will be by and large obsolete.

So far the benefits have only gone to the ultra-wealthy, the top 1 per cent. This coming technological revolution is set to wipe out what looks to be the entire middle class.
By contrast, this TED Talk assures us that new jobs will be created somehow:
Here's a paradox you don't hear much about: despite a century of creating machines to do our work for us, the proportion of adults in the US with a job has consistently gone up for the past 125 years. Why hasn't human labor become redundant and our skills obsolete? In this talk about the future of work, economist David Autor addresses the question of why there are still so many jobs and comes up with a surprising, hopeful answer.
When farms were automatics, ppl moved to factories, and when they were automated, they moved to office work. What is next?

Sure, there will be work, like giving baths to elderly ppl. But I think that the first article is right that the good jobs will be disappearing, not increasing.

What are the policy implications? It seems to be that we need to reduce our population.

Besides robots taking our jobs, a few experts say marriage will be legal between humans and robots by 2050.

Monday, December 26, 2016

A volcano killed the Neanderthals

I did not know that there was a good theory that a volcano wiped out the Neanderthals:
The Phlegraean Fields (Italian: Campi Flegrei) are a series of craters and volcanic areas located near Naples, Italy. ... There’s even archaeological evidence suggesting that a Phlegraean eruption some 37,000 to 39,000 years ago was so massive, it may have killed large segments of the extant Neanderthal population, either directly or by causing a volcanic winter. Now, the massive supervolcano is showing signs of awakening.
I did not know this. All the popular science articles say that the Neanderthals went extinct because they were out-competed by the superior African hominids, who are usually called "modern" and just like today's humans.

No, the African hominids were not modern, and Neanderthals did not go extinct.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

White Guy Resolutions 2017

The MTV's "White Guy Resolutions 2017" can still be viewed here.

It is giving me a resolution: Call out anti-white-male hatred when I see it.

Somehow MTV thought that it was acceptable to celebrate the killing of white cops, and to other denigrate whites, men, and the USA.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Hockey Stick Mann maintains libel lawsuit

Jonathan H. Adler writes:
Simberg and Steyn authored a pair of blog posts alleging that Penn State University had failed to adequately investigate the alleged misconduct of climatologist Michael Mann that may have been revealed by the release of the “ClimateGate” e-mails. The posts were colorful and rude, accusing Mann of “molesting” data to produce the infamous “hockey stick” graph and comparing Penn State’s investigation of his alleged improprieties to its inquiry into the child-molestation accusations against Jerry Sandusky. ...

Simberg and Steyn authored a pair of blog posts alleging that Penn State University had failed to adequately investigate the alleged misconduct of climatologist Michael Mann that may have been revealed by the release of the “ClimateGate” e-mails. The posts were colorful and rude, accusing Mann of “molesting” data to produce the infamous “hockey stick” graph and comparing Penn State’s investigation of his alleged improprieties to its inquiry into the child-molestation accusations against Jerry Sandusky. ...

In refusing to dismiss claims against Steyn and Simberg, the D.C. Court of Appeals placed tremendous weight on the fact that Penn State and other institutions investigated Mann and did not find evidence of academic misconduct. Yet it is the alleged inadequacy of Penn State’s investigation that was the focus of the very posts at issue. Indeed, this was the whole point of the Sandusky comparison. ...

Because the university and other investigations failed to find evidence of scientific misconduct on Mann’s part, the court declared that claims Mann engaged in such action were “definitively discredited.”
So since Penn State also failed to find evidence against Sandusky, then no one else should blame him either?!

I posted the opinion that Sandusky is innocent of the more serious accusations against him, and that his accusers were lying for their own financial benefit. His biggest accuser got millions of dollars. But does this case mean that I can get sued for expressing my opinion?

Friday, December 23, 2016

Name-calling leftist professor attacks alt-right

Brian Leiter is a law professor, over-opinionated philosophy blogger, and typical Jewish leftist, and he has spent the last year calling Donald Trump a Nazi. He says that he is in favor of academic freedom, but he tries to shame any right-wing professors with name-calling. He writes:
All of which brings us to "Charles Martel," the pseudonym of one of the "philosophy" bloggers at what I jokingly called awhile back "Stormfront for philosophers," except I'm beginning to wonder if it is a joke. ... These are not philosophers "on the right," these are NeoNazi morons.
Here is the essay he attacks:
A key thesis of the alt-right, as some contributors here have discussed, is that race is a real feature of the human person ...

Next comes the following claim by the alt-righter: these biological facts about one’s race go on to influence, outright determine, or, more poetically, flavor the sort of civilization that a race will establish. ...

it is not implausible at all to suggest that Western civilization — by which we mean European civilization — can only be fully and genuinely carried on by people of European biological stock (just as, say, Jewish civilization can only be genuinely or fully carried on by people of Jewish stock).
If Martel is wrong, where is the rebuttal?

No, the ctrl-left just wants to silence with name-calling. He is just a hater of white Christian civilization.

Update: BTW, I do agree with Donald Trump that the USA should have vetoed the UN resolution condemning Israel. The West Bank settlements do not violate any international law. I would think that Jews should be calling Barack Obama the Nazi, since he is the one who is saying that Jews should not live in certain places.

SciAm offended by scientific evidence

Leftist and Skeptic Michael Shermer writes in SciAm:
Yet a new study published in the fall issue of the nonpeer-reviewed journal The New Atlantis by Johns Hopkins University's Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh on “Sexuality and Gender” claims that “our scientific knowledge in this area remains unsettled,” that there is no “scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property,” and that no one is “born that way.” ...

Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart articulated the logic this way: “While it is true that the seed of original sin carries with it every type of deviation, aberration, perversion, and wrongdoing, the homosexual cannot claim to have been born that way any more than the drunkard, gambler, killer, etc.”
Shermer is very much offended by this, and cites others who say there is evidence for moderate genetic influences, and that this evidence is greater than that for the most commonly hypothesized social causes.

Okay fine, but isn't that also true for the drunkard, gambler, killer, etc.? And how does this refute the above Mayer-McHugh claims? Don't all the studies imply that no one is "born that way", but rather the product of various social and nonsocial causes?

The peer-reviewed gay research overwhelmingly supports the ideology that ppl should be able to choose their genders, but not their sexual orientations. Shermer admits that publications on this subject are tainted by "the possibility of motivated reasoning and the confirmation bias".

Shermer also makes this argument:
When did you choose to become straight?

Say what?

By demographic distribution (about 95 percent of the population identifies as heterosexual), the majority of you reading this column are straight. You no more chose this sexual orientation than gays or lesbians choose theirs.
This is a poor argument. If you ask straights this question, many of them will vividly recall the moment that they decided in favor of heterosexuality.

The academics would do this study if they thought that it would help their cause.

I don't know why Shermer calls himself a skeptic, because he uncritical accepts pseudoscience all the time.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Blaming all hatred on Trump

The NY Times reports:
This Week in Hate tracks hate crimes and harassment around the country since the election of Donald Trump. ...

On Friday, a post on the anti-Semitic website the Daily Stormer called for a “troll storm” against Jewish people in Whitefish, Mont., where Sherry Spencer, the mother of the white nationalist leader Richard Spencer, owns a building. The post’s author, apparently reacting to calls for Ms. Spencer to sell the building, published pictures of Whitefish residents, including a child, with Star of David symbols and the German word for “Jew.”
If you want both sides of the story, see Sherry Spencer and Daily Stormer. She posts some evidence that she is the victim here.

This appears to be some sort of rural conflict between a left-wing Jewish group that hates Christians, and a right-wing group that hates Jews. The NY Times takes the side of the Jewish leftist Christian-haters, and blames it all on Trump.

Speaking of hating Jews, a Si Valley paper reports:
Google says it is “thinking deeply” about improving its search results after learning that Holocaust deniers and others were successful in making their links rise to the top. ...

In the U.S. and the United Kingdom, those searching for “Did the Holocaust happen?” received a top result linking to a website with the headline, “Top Ten Reasons why the Holocaust didn’t happen.” The site is run by Stormfront, a neo-Nazi white supremacist group.
The Jewish groups should just rebut the reasons, instead of trying to censor them.

Update: Most of these Trump hate stories have turned out to be hoaxes. In other words, fake news from Trump haters.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Neanderthals belonged to the human species

Here is a new BBC interview about the story of human evolution:
It’s been roughly 200,000 years since the first anatomically modern humans, our species Homo sapiens, arose in Africa, and since then we’ve pretty much got everywhere. Our amazing story is written into our genes, mixed up with genes of the other early humans - such as Neanderthals - that we met and mated with along the way. This genetic journey is the subject of a new book - A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived - by writer, broadcaster and geneticist Adam Rutherford.
No, Rutherford tells a different story. He says that the African hominids and Neanderthals belonged to the same species.

So maybe modern humans originated in Europe, as a result of Neanderthal-African interbreeding and subsequent evolution.

He also says that "we are no more or less evolved than any other organism on Earth." [at 6:02]

Yes, I think that we are more evolved than sharks, cockroaches, and termites. Leftists like to deny that any person or animal is better than any other, but this is ridiculous. A typical dictionary definition for evolve is "to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state". Yes, we are better, more complex, and more advanced.

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne complains about this statement:
the theory of evolution represents a philosophical worldview: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.”
Yes, evolutionists denying human evolution is ideological, while Christianity and other religions teach that humans are better than animals.

Meanwhile, I guess it has suddenly become acceptable to compare the President to a monkey again.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Disagreeing with Trump to placate academia

Here is an NY Times Sunday Opinion:
That is the opening for those of us who disagree with Mr. Trump. It’s now our job to argue constantly that what voters did in elevating this man to the White House constitutes the greatest assault on our own people in a generation, and to offer another option. ...

... anxiety from a shrinking white majority ... doesn’t have to be our destiny.

Mr. Trump’s victory must make all Americans acknowledge that the choice of embracing or rejecting multiculturalism is not abstract. I know this better than most, because I’ve followed both paths. It is the choice of embracing or rejecting our own people.

R. Derek Black is a graduate student in history, focusing on the early Middle Ages.
Is this guy a Nazi? He is credited with popularizing the meme, “Stop White Genocide”.

My guess is that he realized that he will never get a Medieval History PhD unless he repudiates use of terms like White Genocide. So he writes this essay in coded language.

The NY Times would only publish this essay if he denounces Trump and nationalists. So he does that, and slips in phrases like "greatest assault on our own people" and "choice of embracing or rejecting our own people."

I think that we are being trolled again.

This next quote sounds like more trolling, but I don't think it is.

(((Donna Zuckerberg))), brother to the famous leftist Jewish Facebook founder, :
A specter is haunting the Internet?—?the specter of the “alt-right.” ...

The Alt-Right is hungry to learn more about the ancient world. It believes that the classics are integral to education. It is utterly convinced that classical antiquity is relevant to the world we live in today, a comfort to classicists who have spent decades worrying that the field may be sliding into irrelevance in the eyes of the public.

The next four years are going to be a very difficult time for many people. But if we’re not careful, it could be a dangerously easy time for those who study ancient Greece and Rome. Classics, supported by the worst men on the Internet, could experience a renaissance and be propelled to a position of ultimate prestige within the humanities during the Trump administration, as it was in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Classics made great again.

This is my call to arms for all classicists. ...

When you hear someone — be they a student, a colleague, or an amateur — say that they are interested in Classics because of “the Greek miracle” or because Classics is “the foundation of Western civilization and culture,” challenge that viewpoint respectfully but forcefully. Engage them on their assumed definitions of “foundation,” “Western,” “civilization,” and “culture.” Point out that such ideas are a slippery slope to white supremacy. Seek better reasons for studying Classics. ...

As the Alt-Right becomes more vocal and normalized, we may face pressure to frame our research and teaching in a way that will appeal to this new audience of Classics enthusiasts. Resist that pressure.
So I guess studying the Classics or praising Western Civilization is just code for Nazi white supremacy. And hating Trump is just code for wanting to tear down Western Civilization.

Update: If you think that academic freedom would allow the grad student to have any political opinions he wants, see this persecution of a philosophy PhD who supposedly has some views that gotten him called a neo-Nazi. He denies it, but here is how his views have been reported:
But a sampling of his recent public comments suggest, at least, a highly Indo-Eurocentric worldview and an antipathy toward Islam. He is Iranian-American. ...

He also described the “political ideologies of liberalism, democracy and universal human rights” as “ill conceived” and “bankrupt.”

Regarding Islam, he said that “Nearly everything allegedly glorious about Islam was parasitically appropriated by Arabs and Turks for the Caucasian civilizations of greater Iran. Moreover, this parasitic appropriation of a mutilated Iranian civilization took place in the wake of a murderous campaign of rape, plunder and destruction that can only be described as history’s first and greatest white genocide.”
Apparently he needs to start badmouthing white ppl if he wants a career in academia.

Are his statements about Islam and Iran true or not? It is difficult to find out, if addressing the issue gets PhD philosophers ostracized as neo-Nazis.

Update: Donna posts a Jezebel rant against the Alt right:
In this fight, the alt-right has found a useful ally in the Red Pill community, which is also invested in portraying itself as the inheritors of the Western tradition. The alt-right is, in fact, quite small: ...

I’ve been lurking on various Red Pill sites for over a year now to do research for a book about how these men talk about ancient Greece and Rome. (Which they do, much more than one might expect. They are especially obsessed with the concept of Stoicism.) In that time, I’ve been an almost-daily visitor to the r/theredpill and r/mensrights subreddits, along with A Voice For Men, Return of Kings, and the personal blogs of some of the men one might call “thought leaders” in the community. When I started my research, none of these sites explicitly identified as alt-right — but gradually, over the course of the constantly worsening nightmare that has been 2016, most of them have aligned themselves with the movement to varying degrees.
The article calls "Nazi" 22 times.

To these white civilization haters, the nightmare of 2016 was that they were unable to destroy Donald Trump by calling him a Nazi.

Besides the Nazi name-calling, her biggest complaint is that the Alt Right is a new coalition of diverse ideologies that have come together to stop the Leftist destruction of Western Civilization, and they have gained enuf power to elect Trump:
The only way to understand the alt-right is to stopping thinking of it as a single monolithic entity and realize that it is a fragile coalition of hateful ideologies, of deplorable men using the internet to perform white masculinity by playacting as Nazis to feed on our fear.
She needed to be trolled. Her book should be amusing.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

The ideological opposition to biological truth

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:
One distressing characteristic of the Left, at least as far as science is concerned, is to let our ideology trump scientific data; that is, some of us ignore biological data when it’s inimical to our political preferences. This plays out in several ways: the insistence that race doesn’t exist (and before you accuse me of saying that races do exist, read about what I’ve written here before: the issue is complex), that there are no evolutionarily-based innate (e.g., genetically based) behavioral or psychological differences between ethnic groups, and that there are no such differences, either, between males and females within humans.

These claims are based not on biological data, but on ideological fears of the Left: if we admit of such differences, it could foster racism and sexism.  Thus. any group differences we do observe, whether they reside in psychology, physiology, or morphology, are to be explained on first principle as resulting from culture rather than genes. (I do of course recognize that culture can interact with genes to produce behaviors.) This ideological blinkering leads to the conclusion that when we see a difference in performance between groups and genders, the obvious explanation is culture and oppression, and the remedy is equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Yet in areas like most sports, where everyone agrees that males are on average larger and stronger than females, it’s clear that the behavioral differences (i.e., performance) result from biological differences that are surely based on evolution (see below). In sports like track and field or judo, nobody would think of making males compete with females. ...

Thus, to claim, as does P.Z. Myers in a new post, that higher testosterone levels in males have minimal influence on their aggressiveness compared to the effects of culture, is a claim based not on data—which show that he’s wrong—but on ideology.
Yes, Coyne is right. Leftists nearly always deny biological truth.

Update: Coyne responds to feminist criticism, and promises another response.

Update: Here is Coyne, The evolution of sexual dimorphism in humans: Part 2.

Update: Here is a comment:
Its high time we declared there are two major ideological enemies of evolutionary biology, and Right-wing/creationism is now less dangerous than the Leftist/feminist one.

The ways they will get their Leftist ideologies past science is by
1. pushing postmodernist poisons – truth does not exist, science is white male whatever, facts are oppressive.
2. calling scientists who are looking at evidence, data and facts from the point of view of truth and intellectual honesty as racist, sexist, bigoted etc to silence them.
3. insist any criticism of THEIR theories is hate, harassment and, ironically, “ideology”.

Monday, December 12, 2016

How Europeans became suited for democracy

I previously argued that the Catholic Church banning cousin marriage greatly helped to civilize Europe. Now here is some supporting research:
countries with strong extended families as characterized by a high level of cousin marriages exhibit a weak rule of law and are more likely autocratic. ...

These findings point to a causal effect of marriage patterns on the proper functioning of formal institutions and democracy. The study further suggests that the Churches’ marriage rules – by destroying extended kin-groups – led Europe on its special path of institutional and democratic development.
Europeans became more individualistic, but I do not know if it is genetic or cultural.

Human evolution is tricky to measure in modern times. John Hawks reports:
One of the most obvious cases of recent human evolution is the increasing frequency with which individuals don’t develop third molars, what is called “M3 agenesis”. This condition is when the third molars, or wisdom teeth, don’t form at all – the individual never developed them. ...

So M3 agenesis is a fascinating example of recent biological change in human populations, and we know very little about how and why it has changed.
So we do not know for sure whether this is evolution is action.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Liberal woman rants about men

The NY Times has an essay on What Women Really Think of Men:
“Trump is a narcissist,” a middle-aged white woman in East Stroudsburg, Pa., told me in the early evening on Election Day. “I know,” she added, “because my husband is one, too.” She said she disliked both candidates, but she voted for Mr. Trump. ...

Barack Obama, who identifies as a feminist, even recently reflected on his own shortcomings as a husband at home: “I can look back now and see that, while I helped out, it was usually on my schedule and on my terms. The burden disproportionately and unfairly fell on Michelle.” Men taking responsibility, even retrospectively, is what it’s going to take for us to believe another world is possible, one in which we don’t romanticize female superiority to let men off the hook. ...

Irin Carmon is the co-author, with Shana Knizhnik, of “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
This is female thinking.

A man might say that someone is a narcissist based on the symptoms and the diagnostic criteria. A woman will call someone a narcissist as a way of griping about her own husband. She probably only calls her husband a narcissist because some friend of hers called someone else a narcissist.

And then there is the belief that no man is ever good enuf. The man could be the President of the USA, but if he let running the country take priority over assisting his wife with child care, then he is not taking responsibility enuf.

The article has several examples of Trump voters who accept human nature, as opposed to others who are living in some fantasy world where women are more like men and men are more like women.

Yes, there is some truth to that. If you think that the President of the USA should be apologizing for his wife doing child care, then you might not be a Trump voter.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

No Dutch free speech on immigration

Free speech law prof (and immigrant) E. Volokh reports:
“Should there be more or fewer immigrants from Muslim countries to the U.S.?” ...

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has just been criminally convicted for asking this very question in the Netherlands, with regard to Moroccan immigrants, and suggesting that the answer should be “fewer.” ...

This means that, according to the Dutch government, Dutch citizens aren’t allowed to forthrightly debate the matter, and to question egalitarian doctrine on the subject.
This is the Ctrl-left at work. Maybe most Dutch ppl want fewer Moroccan immigrants, but saying so is against the law.

One comment that is still legal in the USA:
The fewer the better. Zero is optimum. Their holy book is a war manual.
Here is another:
Once liberals take over the Supreme Court, this will eventually be coming to America.
Fortunately, Donald Trump has delayed the liberal takeover.

In the USA, it is common to hear the opinion that the radically increased non-white immigration is a good thing. It is Democrat Party policy. But as a practical matter, no reputable person is allowed to say that it is a bad thing. Any such person would be called a Nazi and a white supremacist, and be forced to apologize. He would not even be allowed to sell peanuts at the ball park.

Speaking of whites, an Atlantic mag article says:
So, are Jews white? “There’s really no conclusion except that it’s complicated,” said Goldstein.
And other questions about Jewish identity are complicated also.

Jews can identify any way they want. I just want to point out that when Jews attack white culture, they do not necessarily identify as white. They are just one group badmouthing another group.

Friday, December 09, 2016

The plan to invade California

Brenda Walker writes on VDARE:
In 1997, Presidente Ernesto Zedillo proclaimed to the National Council of La Raza in Chicago, “I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.”

Mexican American Legal Defense Fund founder Mario Obledo stated in 1998, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. Every constitutional office in California is going to be held by Hispanics in the next 20 years.” People who don’t like such demographic changes “should go back to Europe.” (Incidentally, Mr. Obledo was also the California Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Gov. Jerry Brown during his first reign.)

A Zogby poll in 2002 found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico,” as indicated in the photo below.
Another 20 year invasion plan was detailed in a 2006 New Yorker article:
Al Qaeda’s twenty-year plan began on September 11th, with a stage that Hussein calls “The Awakening.” ...

The third stage, “Arising and Standing Up,” will last from 2007 to 2010. Al Qaeda’s focus will be on Syria and Turkey, but it will also begin to directly confront Israel, in order to gain more credibility among the Muslim population.

In the fourth stage, lasting until 2013, Al Qaeda will bring about the demise of Arab governments. ...

Then an Islamic caliphate can be declared, inaugurating the fifth stage of Al Qaeda’s grand plan, which will last until 2016. “At this stage, the Western fist in the Arab region will loosen, and Israel will not be able to carry out preĆ«mptive or precautionary strikes,” Hussein writes. “The international balance will change.” Al Qaeda and the Islamist movement will attract powerful new economic allies, such as China, and Europe will fall into disunity.

The sixth phase will be a period of “total confrontation.” The now established caliphate will form an Islamic Army and will instigate a worldwide fight between the “believers” and the “non-believers.” Hussein proclaims, “The world will realize the meaning of real terrorism.” By 2020, “definitive victory” will have been achieved. Victory, according to the Al Qaeda ideologues, means that “falsehood will come to an end. . . . The Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness.”
I guess most ppl did not believe these plans at the time, but the plans have been prophet. American policy has assisted these policies in every way. We have invited the invaders, and deposed the secular Arab leaders, just as in the plan.

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Ten Reasons to Look Forward

Progress: Ten Reasons to Look Forward to the Future is a new book making the case:
Drawing on a variety of social science data, Norberg points to ten ways the world has progressed over the last three centuries:

• Food is plentiful and cheap.
• Clean water and good sanitation are increasingly available.
• Life expectancy is longer.
• Poverty has fallen dramatically.
• War and violence blight fewer lives.
• Increasing wealth has benefited the environment.
• Literacy is widespread.
• People are increasingly free of arbitrary authority.
• Equality is increasingly experienced and demanded.
Some of these are overstated. (Not sure why only 9 ways are listed.)

The last two seem dubious. Ronald Reagan’s famous 1961 lament for lost American freedoms was: “We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free”.

It sure seems to me that we are more and more bound by arbitrary authority, and that the American middle class is being split into rich and poor classes.

Here is an example, from the day's news:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Web giants YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft will step up efforts to remove extremist content from their websites by creating a common database.

The companies will share 'hashes' - unique digital fingerprints they automatically assign to videos or photos - of extremist content they have removed from their websites to enable their peers to identify the same content on their platforms.
This seems like censorship from an arbitrary authority to me, and coordinated censorship of this sort did not exist before now.

A few years ago ppl could buy medical services and send a kid to college, without supplying income tax returns.

From today's NY Times:
The real economy more than doubled in size; ...

Yet for half of all Americans, their share of the total economic pie has shrunk significantly, new research has found.

This group — the approximately 117 million adults stuck on the lower half of the income ladder — “has been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s,” the team of economists found. “Even after taxes and transfers, there has been close to zero growth for working-age adults in the bottom 50 percent.”
I am not even sure that equality is increasingly demanded. I think that ppl are more accepting of economic inequality.

Monday, December 05, 2016


The Hawaiian Libertarian writes:
The more you "take the red pill" and see how far the rabbit hole goes, the higher up you climb the allegorical pyramid of "illuminated" knowledge that enables you to literally and metaphysically SEE the satanic paradigm that rules this world. ...

Most of the poisonous fruits that will destroy us, are hidden in plain site and we are too blinded to see, because we've been imbibing of these fruits of deceit and deception for our entire lives. ...

This of course, is the sick, twisted stuff of nightmares that finally got some serious exposure with the revelations from WikiLeaks that we now know of as "Pizza Gate."
I haven't followed PizzaGate. It seems too bizarre and sick to be true. I think that someone is trolling us. If so, it is brilliant. If any of it is true, then the rabbit hole goes deeper than I thought.

I used to think that stories like this could not be true, or the mainstream news media would have reported it, and govt prosecutors would have acted. I don't believe that anymore.

The NY Times reports:
what is being called Pizzagate, an online conspiracy theory asserting, with no evidence, that the restaurant is somehow tied to a child abuse ring. ...

The misinformation campaign about Comet began when the email account of John D. Podesta, an aide to Hillary Clinton, was hacked and his emails were published by WikiLeaks during the presidential campaign. Days before the election, users on the online message board 4chan noticed that one of Mr. Podesta’s leaked emails contained communications with James Alefantis, Comet’s owner, discussing a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton.
It is funny how leftists use the term "no evidence" to imply that something is false. It just tells me that someone is wearing blinders.

There is some intriguing evidence. It is weak, circumstantial, and implausible, unless you happen to believe that prominent Democrats are possessed by the Devil. Podesta does have some weird stuff in his house, and was invited to a Satanic ritual. Or so the story says.

Sunday, December 04, 2016

NYT tries to define the Alt-right

The leftist news media does not know what to do with the Alt-right. They alternate between treating it as a handful of fringe radical and claiming that it is widespread and dangerous.

The NY Times prints its latest spin:
But since then, and certainly since the National Policy Institute event, alt-right has come more and more to mean white nationalist. ...

For example, the alt-right has an environmentalist component, centered on a neo-pagan group called the Wolves of Vinland. The Norwegian heavy-metal musician Varg Vikernes, after serving 16 years for murder, has an alt-right blog ...

At the National Policy Institute conference, the writer F. Roger Devlin gave a talk on why young Norwegian women in Groruddalen, outside Oslo, preferred dating Somali and Pakistani gang members to ethnic Norwegian boys-next-door. ...

Likewise, the common alt-right slur “cuckservative,” a portmanteau combining cuckold and conservative, is not just a colorful way of saying that establishment conservatives have been unmanly. According to Matthew Tait, a young ex-member of the far-right British National Party, the metaphor has a precise ornithological meaning. Like the reed-warbler hatching eggs that a cuckoo (from which the word “cuckold” comes) has dropped into its nest, cuckservatives are raising the offspring of their foes. One can apply the metaphor equally to progressive ideas or to the children of the foreign-born. ...

Last month, several alt-right writers, including Mr. Spencer, had their accounts suspended by Twitter. Mr. Spencer says he appreciates the “frenetic energy” of trolling but doesn’t do it himself. ...

The alt-right is small. It may remain so. And yet, while small, it is part of something this election showed to be much bigger: the emergence of white people, who evidently feel their identity is under attack, as a “minority”-style political bloc.
They are under attack, if their Twitter accounts are being suspended.

Ppl on the alt-right will continue to say outrageous things because that is what they have to do to get their points across and to push back against the censors.

Ppl on the ctrl-left will continue to try to shame them into silence because that is how they control the political discussion.

Friday, December 02, 2016

Rape is re-defined again

Law professor E. Volokh reports:
From the Clark University Dean of Students office: ...

Examples of some coercive statements include: “If you love me you would have sex with me.”, “If you don’t have sex with me I will find someone who will.”, and “I’m not sure I can be with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with me.” Coercive statements are often part of many campus acquaintance rapes. Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault.
Some comments:
It gets worse: According to the U.S. Department of Justice (, sexual assault is defined as "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the EXPLICIT consent of the recipient." ...

For a long time, a feminist goal has been to keep expanding the definition of rape until every man is a criminal. This is just the latest. Someday it will be rape if a man refuses to be castrated.
I am not the language police. I am just informing my readers about usage of the term. When you hear that someone committed rape, it might have been something that used to be called consensual sexual relations.

Speaking of colleges teaching nutty stuff, check out the Ohio State social justice class that helped radicalize the Moslem Somali refugee who went berserk stabbing ppl.

Thursday, December 01, 2016

Disavowing the kooks

I get most of my news from the Leftist mainstream media, and now they talk about white supremacists a lot, and urge Trump to disavow them again.

Censorship and controlling the parameters of discussion are tools of the Ctrl-left. They try to shame anyone who says anything politically incorrect.

Twitter is even threatening to ban the US President.

To combat this, the Alt-right does a lot of trolling.

As an example, a Trump supporter recently used the German/Nazi word lugenpresse for "lying press". Republicans are being asked to disavow him and everyone else who uses the word.

It is foolish to let the Ctrl-left control your language, or who you associate with.

A good example of trolling is this anonymous London Guardian article:
‘Alt-right’ online poison nearly turned me into a racist ...

About a week before the US election, I heard one of these YouTubers use the phrase “red-pilled” – a term from the film The Matrix – in reference to people being awakened to the truth about the world and SJWs. Suddenly I thought: “This is exactly like a cult. What am I doing? I’m turning into an arsehole.”

I unsubscribed and unfollowed from everything, and told myself outright: “You’re becoming a racist. What you’re doing is turning you into a terrible, hateful person.” Until that moment I hadn’t even realised that “alt-right” was what I was becoming; I just thought I was a more open-minded person for tolerating these views.

It would take every swearword under the sun to describe how I now feel about tolerating such content and gradually accepting it as truth. I’ve spent every day since feeling shameful for being so blind and so easily coerced.

US election day rolled around, and I was filled with dread. Trump’s win felt like EU referendum morning all over again – magnified by a hundred. Although I never shared any of this rubbish with anybody, I feel partly responsible. It’s clear this terrible ideology has now gone mainstream.
The Guardian does not admit that it has been trolled, but it was apparently written by Godfrey Elfwick.

To get an Alt-right opinion published, he had to pretend to be an SJW denouncing the Alt-right.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Democrats try to discredit election

This ad does not offend me, but what do you expect from ppl recruited from such an ad?

For what Hamilton really said, see Hamilton Denounces Jefferson for Putting Immigrants on the Path to Citizenship or Alexander Hamilton, Immigration Skeptic.

The NY Times reports:
Nearly three weeks after Election Day, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said on Saturday that it would participate in a recount process in Wisconsin incited by a third-party candidate and would join any potential recounts in two other closely contested states, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

The Clinton campaign held out little hope of success in any of the three states, and said it had seen no “actionable evidence” of vote hacking that might taint the results or otherwise provide new grounds for challenging Donald J. Trump’s victory. ...

In Wisconsin, Mr. Trump leads by 22,177 votes. In Michigan, he has a lead of 10,704 votes, and in Pennsylvania, his advantage is 70,638 votes.
Not surprising, but remember this the next time you hear from all those creeps in the mainstream news media who were saying that Trump was a threat to democracy for refusing to concede the election.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Trump's margin of victory

I posted this in 2004:
To measure how close an election was, I believe the best way is to look at how many votes a loser needed to have won in order to change the outcome. The closest elections in my lifetime were 2000, 1976, 1960, and 1968. (Data from this article.)

Gore could have won in 2000 with about 500 more votes in Florida.

Ford would have won in 1976 with about 18k more votes in Ohio and Hawaii.

Nixon would have won in 1960 with about 60k more votes in Illinois and Texas.

Humphrey would have won in 1968 with about 106k more votes in New Jersey, Missouri, and New Hampshire, assuming Democratic control of the House.
So how close was the election this time? The NY Times reports:
As of Wednesday, Mr. Trump’s lead in Michigan had shrunk to 10,704 votes, or 0.2 percent, according to the National Popular Vote Tracker maintained by the Cook Political Report.

Mr. Trump’s lead in Wisconsin has narrowed to 22,525 votes, or 0.8 percent. In Pennsylvania, his lead slightly grew on Wednesday, to 70,010, or 1.2 percent.
So by this measure, Trump won by about 100k votes. This was about the same as Nixon's margin in 1968, and about a third of Obama's margin in 2012.

Update: This NY Times story on Election Facts says that the margin was 12882 (MI) + 24081 (WI) + 65690 (PA) = 102653, with Trump'a margin in Florida being +112,911, and a few votes still being counted.

But the story is misleading by saying:
Hillary Clinton definitely won the popular vote, and that lead is only going to grow. ...

Yes, the polls were off, but not in extraordinary ways.
No, Clinton did not win the popular vote, but only got a plurality of the popular votes.

The AP poll reported that Clinton led by 17 percentage points. The Princeton Election Consortium said that she had a greater than 99 percent chance of winning. She barely campaigned in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania because pollsters had assured her that she had huge leads there. Many experts complained that Nate Silver was giving too much encouragement to the Trumpsters, but even he gave Clinton a 95% chance at one point.

The NY Times says that these errors are balanced by the fact that Clinton did better than expected in some blue states. Maybe so, but the election was played out in the battleground states, and most of the polls were very badly wrong there. (A couple of polls, like IBD, did well.)

Update: This says that the margin is 80k, as of Dec. 2.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Fear of Trump spying on your cellphone

Crytography advocate and professor Susan Landau writes:
We have elected a President who does not believe in the First Amendment protections of a free press and who urged the hacking of his opponent's email, including by Russia. Our President-elect has also repeatedly said that he will throw his opponent in jail over issues that the FBI Director, after a long investigation, determined did not present evidence of criminal activity. We are in unchartered territory. We have a president-elect who does not appear to respect the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Those who disagree with President-elect Trump feel threatened not just by the policies he espouses, but by the hatred and dictatorial stances he has been supporting. ...

There is a risk that President-elect Trump means what he says. Given the President-elect's authoritarian statements, I no longer feel confident that the surveillance of journalists, the political opposition, or of protesters will not occur in this country. The President-elect has explicitly said that he wished he had the power to hack into the accounts of his political enemies.

Protecting the privacy of speech is crucial for preserving our democracy. We live at a time when tracking an individual — a journalist, a member of the political opposition, a citizen engaged in peaceful protest — or listening to their communications is far easier than at any time in human history.
I am inclined to agree with her about ppl having rights to private communication, but she seems to suffer from some delusions. Almost everything she says about Trump is wrong.

The chief threats to privacy come from the leftists at Google and Facebook. Trump supporters are being shut down while Trump-haters are not. The leftists currently complain about "fake news" and use that as an excuse to censor news.

Her complaints are hollow. She does not say what is so terrible about listening to communications of citizens engaged in peaceful protests. I would think that such citizens would want to be heard!

In some ways we have less privacy today, but in others we have more. It is easier than ever to organize a peaceful protest, and such protests are not inhibited by govt spying.

This recent TED talk got 700k views:
The smartphone you use reflects more than just personal taste ... it could determine how closely you can be tracked, too. Privacy expert and TED Fellow Christopher Soghoian details a glaring difference between the encryption used on Apple and Android devices and urges us to pay attention to a growing digital security divide. "If the only people who can protect themselves from the gaze of the government are the rich and powerful, that's a problem," he says. "It's not just a cybersecurity problem — it's a civil rights problem."
This whole thing is strangely misguided.

First, there is no significant security difference between Apple and Android phones. Apple famously refused to cooperate with an FBI investigation of a Moslem terrorist, but the FBI used an off-the-shelf tool to get into the phone anyway.

Second, the rich have better house, cars, lifestyles, and everything else, so why shouldn't they have better phones also? Ppl should be able to pay more for a better phone.

Third, the major privacy invasions come from Facebook and other leftist companies, not FBI investigations of Moslem terrorists. Why do these supposed civil rights advocates devote so much energy to defending Moslem terrorists when Facebook is spying on a billion ppl.

Landau obviously suffers from Trump derangement syndrome. Both have some leftist blind spots about what privacy is.