Thursday, May 26, 2016

Her hero is a moral philosopher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Thumbs up for Angry Birds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Clinton panders to black killers

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrats are seeking a race war.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Pastor is confused about LGBT

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

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

Medical science says that transgenderism is a mental disorder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, May 22, 2016

AI creates useless class of humans

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

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

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

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Save dogs, not people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Ravens alleged to be mindreaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Trump's consistency and foolish academics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Democrats promote racial murders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, May 16, 2016

Scientists want to de-fund genomic research

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

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

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

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

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Barack and Michelle are trans

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

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

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

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

Saturday, May 14, 2016

When was nationalism invented?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, May 13, 2016

Libertarian ethno-hate of non-Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism was a recent invention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 12, 2016

London proved Trump right

I mentioned that London just elected a Moslem mayor, and he is already threatening terrorism with an anti-Trump rant.
“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”
No, London proved him right. This Moslem mayor is saying that Trump better shut up, or else his terrorist buddies will increase their terrorist murders of civilians.

The mayor is saying that there are two kinds of Moslems -- terrorists, and those who side with terrorists as soon as politicians do not submit to Moslem ideologies.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Vote for Trump in 2016

Here are my main reasons for voting for Donald J. Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Trump favors America First. Hillary is owned by rich globalists.

Hillary is warmonger.

Worse, Hillary seeks to depose friendly governments with Islamic terrorists.

Hillary will not deport any illegal aliens.

Only Trump understands how unlimited immigration will destroy the USA.

Trump is a successful manager, and Hillary is not.

Hillary campaigns by fueling hatred for straight white men.

Trump is hated by traitorous cuckservatives like Jeb Bush.

Trump is feared by rich anti-American globalists like George Soros.

Trump is a leader, a fighter, and an alpha male.

Trump opposes replacing American jobs with foreigners.

Trump is personally well-liked, and Hillary is despised.

Hillary would appoint leftist ideologues to the courts.

Electing Trump is a unique opportunity for anti-globalism.

Only Trump knows how to handle a news media that hates conservatives.

Hillary is a feminist, who does not even show decent respect for her own husband.

Trump has common sense.

Trump has revived excitement among patriotic Americans.

I cannot think of any way in which Hillary would be better. She has been terrible at everything she has ever done.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Avoid Facebook for anything serious

The NY Times reports:
Facebook scrambled on Monday to respond to a new and startling line of attack: accusations of political bias.

The outcry was set off by a report on Monday morning by the website Gizmodo, which said that Facebook’s team in charge of the site’s “trending” list had intentionally suppressed articles from conservative news sources. The social network uses the trending feature to indicate the most popular news articles of the day to users.
Why is this startling? There have been many reports of left-wing bias at Facebook and Twitter.

Zuckerberg is an anti-American who uses his influence to replace American jobs with foreigners. He does not personally suffer the consequences of illegal aliens. He lives in a gated community and Facebook has disclosed that it spends $5M a year on his personal security.

Never press a "like" button. It just turns on Facebook spying and spamming.

Liberal NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof writes:
Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

George Yancey, a sociology professor, says he has faced many problems in life because he is black, “but inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”
Think about that next time you hear some professor make some silly rant against Republicans. He probably knows more Marxists than Republicans.

An example is the Princeton professor and partisan hack Paul Krugman. His main economic advice is for countries to always borrow as much money as they can, and to pay it out in welfare benefits. He seems to have some economic theory that such spending will boost the economy. It is nonsense, of course. So now he is upset with Trump for proposing to reduce the national debt:
Truly, Donald Trump knows nothing. He is more ignorant about policy than you can possibly imagine, even when you take into account the fact that he is more ignorant than you can possibly imagine. But his ignorance isn’t as unique as it may seem: In many ways, he’s just doing a clumsy job of channeling nonsense widely popular in his party, and to some extent in the chattering classes more generally. ...

The Trump solution would, among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply. ...

He really is frighteningly uninformed; worse, he doesn’t appear to know what he doesn’t know. The point, instead, is that his blithe lack of knowledge largely follows from the know-nothing attitudes of the party he now leads.

Oh, and just for the record: No, it’s not the same on the other side of the aisle. You may dislike Hillary Clinton, you may disagree sharply with her policies, but she and the people around her do know their facts. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance.
I doubt that Krugman has any understanding of why Trump is popular.

Sunday, May 08, 2016

London gets Moslem mayor

I do not know much about British politics, but I bet that the white Christians are happy to vote for a Moslem, and claim that they should not discriminate. And the Moslem voters all voted for the Moslem to be mayor of London.

White Christians are the least racist people in the world, by far. They will readily accept all races, religions, nationalities, gender preferences, and whatever. No one else thinks that way.

I thought that it was illegal for Catholics to hold high political office in Britain. Didn't a recent Prime Minister wait until he was out of office to convert to Catholicism? Maybe Moslems are now more acceptable than Catholics.

Doesn't Britain still have an official state religion?

I don't know, but my hunch is that we are headed for another world war. The Moslems will attempt to take over Europe, once they think that they are critical mass. The Europeans will eventually get fed up with their leaders betraying them, and find that drastic action is needed to reverse the damage. It will be ugly.

Saturday, May 07, 2016

Continued false attacks on Joe Paterno

The NY Times continues to harp on the Jerry Sandusky story, and to blame the victims for keeping the story in the news:
Unfortunately, it often seems the Paternos and their supporters are interested only in writing and talking and tweeting about Paterno’s mistreatment; about the N.C.A.A.’s overreach in its investigation; about how Paterno’s statue should return to its former home outside Beaver Stadium.

It’s yet another tragedy that the victims have to keep hearing all this. For them, this case already will live on and on, in their minds and memories, for the remainder of their lives.

So, no, they can’t rest either.
No, the NY Times is keeping this in the news, repeating false accusations, and blaming everyone else.

The article claims:
Who can know for sure? Joe Paterno can’t tell us. What we do know is that Sandusky did terrible things to children, and even after hearing that Sandusky was discovered in the shower with a boy of about 10, Paterno didn’t call the police. He didn’t seek to have Sandusky barred from Penn State’s athletic facilities, or apparently even question his assistant about what he had been told, even though the two men had been colleagues for decades.
No, all of that is false. There is no proof that anyone ever told Paterno that Sandusky did terrible things to children, but just an allegation of one guy who changed his story several times and is using the allegation to sue for $4M.

The experts in child abuse nearly all agree that it would have been completely inappropriate for someone like Paterno to conduct his own investigation. They say that the responsibility is with the witnesses to report first-hand knowledge to the police or CPS. By all accounts, Paterno never witnessed anything, and never discouraged witnesses to report what they saw.

This whole story was a phony as the Duke lacrosse scandal. The publicity about both were almost entirely political and non-factual.

The NY Times now claims that Paterno might have heard a bad rumor about Sandusky back in 1976. Are you kidding? These NY Times editors and reporters are really sick. I agree with Trump's suggestion to bring back the Paterno statue.

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Love Trump, not Clinton

CNN reports on Hillary Clinton claiming to have a campaign strategy against Donald Trump:
"I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, which first aired on "The Lead."
That will appeal to all the radical feminists who believe that men should be muzzled and kept on a short leash, or confined to an Indian reservation.

For everyone else, Hillary Clinton is the wicked witch of the east. She has demonstrated incompetence at everything she has ever done, and sold out to America's enemies.

Here is another dopey Hillary Clinton quote:
“Not everything is about an economic theory, right?” Clinton said, kicking off a long, interactive riff with the crowd at a union hall this afternoon.

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow — and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will — would that end racism?”

“No!” the audience yelled back.

Clinton continued to list scenarios, asking: “Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”
No, she is owned by the big banks, and her only hope of getting elected is to pander to low info voters who hate straight white males.

Now that Trump is locking up the Republican nomination, we are going to see Democrats and cuckservatives unleash their hatreds as never before. In various ways, they will show how they hate whites, hate Christians, hate America, hate the middle class, etc.

Trump is the best political candidate since Ronald Reagan. This election is going to be fun.

Update: I listened to NPR radio this morning, and every single guest was a Trump-hater. Why is my tax money supporting people who are trying to destroy America?

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Using foreigners to replace American jobs

In a discussion of Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina favoring using foreigners to replace American jobs, a cuck comments:
I don't think racism has anything to do with it, but I don't know why Americans deserve good jobs more than anyone else. If someone needs the work and they can do it as well as me, I don't care if they are from another planet. ...

I am sure it sucks to experience a diminishing job market and standard of living but why are Americans more deserving, divine right or something? I don't buy the argument that "we" built this economy unless you mean humans. I think we just need to learn to live with less. You can get a lot of nutrition by licking slime off rocks and there is enough slime here for everyone. (joke stolen from simpsons)
Fools like him are being manipulated to sell out our national interest.

Another says:
From where most of us on the altright stand, Cruz looks like The Establishment Candidate: strong defense, protection of corporate interests, and nominal attention to irrelevant social issues. The GOP likes him because he will not rock the boat, and they can keep playing Little Red Riding Hood to the big bad wolf of the Democrats. That way, the donations can continue to roll in and yet they do not have to take any risky stances. Everyone in Washington is keeping everyone else there employed, and the consequences to America and her people are entirely irrelevant.
They don't like Cruz that much, as Boehner says that he is Lucifer in the flesh. But many of them would rather lose with Cruz, than let Trump re-align the political parties according to nationalism versus globalism.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

White guilt and African population

ReturnOfKings writes:
3 Reasons I Will Never Apologize For Being White
1. I’m the descendant of victims myself because many of my ancestors were from oppressed ethnic and religious groups
2. Minorities and other non-whites frequently treated and still treat each other far worse than white people did
3. White-majority countries make the humanitarian world go round
Today's whites are taught to feel guilty about being white. Even Bill Maher mocks today's white-hating leftists.

Or that all have equal value:
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty.
The Gates foundation has been boosting African population growth, and now SciAm reports:
For years the prevailing projections put Africa's population at around two billion in 2100. Those models assumed that fertility rates would fall fairly rapidly and consistently. Instead the rates have dropped slowly and only in fits and starts. The United Nations now forecasts three billion to 6.1 billion people—staggering numbers. Even conservative estimates, from places such as the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, now see Africa at 2.6 billion. The U.N. has in recent years continually raised its midline projection for 2100 world population, from 9.1 billion in a 2004 estimate to 11.2 billion today. Almost all of the unanticipated increase comes from Africa.
Their solution is educating women to not have kids, and plan that is in alignment with their feminist politics:
African women with no education have, on average, 5.4 children, according to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Women who have completed primary school have, on average, 4.3 children. A big drop, to 2.7, correlates with completion of secondary school. For those who go on to college, fertility is 2.2. ...

The empowerment of women needs no demographic justification. But it happens that women who can raise their sights high and manage their own lives also decide—and manage—to have fewer children and to have them later in life. Even if population growth did not matter, the future of Africa and the world would be better if every African girl and woman were healthy and educated and free to reach for her own ambitious dreams, to safely refuse unwanted male attention, and to have a child only when and with whom she chooses.
This is not going to work. We are going to have famines, wars, migrant crises, and refugees on a massive scale. Bill Gates will be remembered as the man who helped enable gigantic human catastrophes

If all lives have equal value, then the value of my life (relative to the world) is going down as the world is being re-populated with Africans and Asians.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Time mag tries to explain white nationalism

Time magazine has a big article on How Donald Trump's campaign brought white nationalists out of the shadows. It is filled with terms like "extremist", "far right", "supremacist", "racist", and "bigot" at every opportunity.

The curious thing is what it does not say. It does not accuse Trump of any of those things, and it does not give examples of any of his supporters expressing any of those extremist or hateful views. It is just name-calling.

So why would white nationalists be excited about Trump if he is not one of them?

The defining issue of this political year is globalism versus nationalism. The establishment Democrats and Republicans stand for destroying the American middle class by equalizing it with Third World workers, for waging perpetual overseas wars, and for keeping us in debt. That is profitable for the wealthy elites and political donors.

Trump and Sanders reject this. Trump, in particular, wants to make America great again. The white nationalists just think that it is obvious that we are going to need white people to make America great.

The internationalist business and financial interests are much more interested in global development, because that increases the supply of people who can be put into debt buying their products, and then controlled for the benefit of the wealthy elites.

Trump's big accomplishment is to put forward the idea that an American President should put America first, and advance the interests of American. And for that, he is hated by the leftists and the cucks.

Monday, April 18, 2016

The cancer of human history

Radio Derb said:
Here's the thing. Fifty years ago next fall, back in 1967, the lefty magazine Partisan Review published an essay titled "What's Happening in America" by Susan Sontag. Ms Sontag told us that, quote:
The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.
Susan Sontag was white, and that essay is a landmark in the history of white ethnomasochism. A lot of people at the time were shocked by it; but Ms Sontag had lit such a candle as, by God's grace in America, shall never be put out.

White self-hatred is now the conventional wisdom. The media promote it in a thousand ways.
Derbyshire's following program says he heard from listeners who pointed out that Sontag was Jewish. He defended calling her white, by saying that Jews cannot be blamed for white ethno-masochism. He says that he is anti-anti-white, and criticizes those who vilify whites.

He points out that there are plenty of white non-Jews who have enacted anti-white policies, and since whites outnumber Jews by a wide margin, whites would have little excuse for letting Jews trick them into destroying themselves.

He calls himself the "dissident right", but says that the term "alt right" has gotten more popular.

All that may be true, but if Sontag identified as Jewish and not white, then her anti-white rants are not examples of white ethnomasochism. She was just an example of one ethnic group hating another.

Many Jews identify as non-white, and work to undermine whites.

There are also self-hating Jews, but that is another story.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Bernie Sanders' guiding principle

CNN reports:
Though raised Jewish, Sanders says that he is "not particularly religious," nor is he a member of any congregation or synagogue. "I am not actively involved in organized religion," he has told reporters.

But at a CNN town hall in New Hampshire in February, Sanders seemed to contradict himself.

"It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely," said the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate.

"You know, everyone practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings."

So what gives? Is Bernie Sanders religious or not?
The confusion here is that Judaism is not a religion like Christianity. It is an ethnic identification that he was born with, and a set of political ideologies.

Sanders is a leftist authoritarian. There is a long tradition of Jews being leftist authoritarians, and of despising Christian culture and values.

So maybe Sanders does not believe in God, or participate in the sorts of things that Christians recognize as religious. But he is very much in the Jewish tradition of leftist authoritarian anti-American ideologies, and this tradition if obviously very important to him.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Facebook's new world order

NPR Radio reports:
Mark Zuckerberg has laid out a 10-year master plan for Facebook. It's bold. It's savvy. And it glosses over a key detail: the dark side of making the world more connected.

At F8, the company mega-conference in San Francisco, the 31-year-old CEO delivered a keynote address in which, he said, over the next decade he plans to build a suite of products — each with a billion or more users — that together will serve one humble goal: "Give everyone in the world the power to share anything they want with anyone."

It's a mouthful. And they're not empty words.
His goal is to integrate the American middle class with Third World poor people. He is a cuck. We should start calling him Cuckerberg, and resist his evil plans.

Fortune mag reports:
Donald Trump’s campaign staff have criticized Facebook fb supremo Mark Zuckerberg after he took a thinly veiled swipe at their candidate over his politics of fear.

“I think I’ll take Mark Zuckerberg seriously when he gives up all of his private security, moves out of his posh neighborhood and comes live in a modest neighborhood near a border town, and then I’m sure his attitude would change,” Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson told CNBC.

Zuckerberg this week used a keynote address at Facebook’s F8 developer conference to decry current political rhetoric against immigration and globalization. He called for politicians to have “the courage to see that the path forward is to bring people together, not push people apart, to connect more, not less.”
Meanwhile Trump called for returning the Joe Paterno statue. Good for Trump. Paterno was very unfairly maligned.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Rich men live longer

NPR radio reports:
The study, published in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, bolsters what was already well known — the poor tend to have shorter lifespans than those with more money. ...

"There are vast gaps in life expectancy between the richest and poorest Americans," Chetty said. "Men in the top 1 percent distribution level live about 15 years longer than men in the bottom 1 percent on the income distribution in the United States.

"To give you a sense of the magnitude, men in the bottom 1 percent have life expectancy comparable to the average life expectancy in Pakistan or Sudan."

And where life spans are concerned, the rich are getting richer.
This is good and expected news. If a man works hard all his life to make a lot of money, then he should be able to use that money to improve his health and longevity. If not, why would he work so hard?

But the study does not actually show that money buys a better health outcome. It just finds a correlation. It is entirely possible that the men are getting rich because they are healthier, and the money itself is not improving their lifespans at all.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

PZ Myers denies human evolution

A common premise of the Left is that all people are inherently the same, and equal, and conforming to the same ideals. Here is an example.

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist and popular blogger PZ Myers writes:
Modern humans emerged out of Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years. They were slightly smaller (and smaller brained) than the robust humans living in Asia and Europe, but they did bring about some advances in technology and swept over the world…and were adept at learning new skills. Again, we’ll say for the sake of argument, they represented a clear adaptive advantage to greater intelligence, even though there is no biological basis for assuming they were more intelligent, or that it was their intelligence that allowed them to displace other human groups. (I suspect that more complex social structures and language, which are obviously a product of the brain, are more responsible than IQ).

But here’s the thing: those early modern humans were pretty much indistinguishable from us today. They were about the same size, looked about the same, had the same capabilities we do now. If we used a time machine to go back and kidnap a Cro Magnon baby, bring her to our time and raise her in an ordinary American home, she’d probably grow up to play video games, shop at the mall, get a college degree, and land a job at an investment bank, and do just fine. Most of the evolving humanity has done since seems to be focused on their immune system and adaptations to agriculture and urban living.

One has to wonder, if IQ is such a great boon to humanity, why hasn’t the biological basis for it shown much improvement in the last 100,000 years?
Not only are we all the same, we are all the same as some Africans over 100k years ago!

This is a denial of human evolution, because it would mean that humans have not evolved over that time. He concedes some evolution, but insists that they are for unimportant traits.

He also denies twin studies, and denies that the concept of intelligence is meaningful. See this rebuttal.

In short, he is a cuck.

The NY Times reports:
The term cuckold traditionally refers to the husband of an adulteress, but Dr. Larmuseau and other researchers focus on those cases that produce a child, which scientists politely call “extra-pair paternity.”

Until the 20th century, it was difficult to prove that a particular man was the biological father of a particular child.

In 1304 a British husband went to court to dispute the paternity of his wife’s child, born while he was abroad for three years. Despite the obvious logistical challenges, the court rejected the husband’s objection.

“The privity between a man and his wife cannot be known,” the judge ruled.

Modern biology lifted the veil from this mystery, albeit slowly. In the early 1900s, researchers discovered that people have distinct blood types inherited from their parents.

In a 1943 lawsuit, Charlie Chaplin relied on blood-type testing to prove that he was not the father of the actress Joan Barry’s child. (The court refused to accept the evidence and forced Chaplin to pay child support anyway.) ...

Comparing the chromosomes of living related [Belgian] men, Dr. Larmuseau and his colleagues came up with a cuckoldry rate of less than 1 percent. Similar studies have generally produced the same low results in such countries as Spain, Italy and Germany, as well as agricultural villages in Mali.
They were looking at an era when marriage meant something, and adulterers were social outcasts. It is a different world today.

1% sounds low, but it means that you probably know someone who has told you about his father, not realizing that his father is not his father. Just in the last week, the current Archbishop of Canterbury announced that a DNA test determined that his father was the man that he always thought.

This does not count step-fathers, who know that they are rearing someone else's kids. And with the institution of marriage crumbling and women getting increasing sexual freedoms, more and more kids are disconnected from their dads.

That is no big deal if we are all the same as African cave-men anyway, right?

Update: Here is a colloquial definition of cuck. Here is an explanation of why Myers is wrong about IQ.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Sick perverts become college role models

I mentioned that I subscribe to the Princeton Alumni Weekly, and I give an example of the garbage it prints:
Eleven years ago, Jay Ladin *00 was a popular professor at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women in New York, a published poet, and a father of three. Ladin also was in constant agony over the thought of continuing to live as a man. ...

The struggle continued for another four decades, even as Ladin married, earned a Ph.D. in American literature at Princeton, and built a career as a teacher and writer. Throughout, Ladin fought — and sometimes succumbed to — the impulse to dress as a woman and seek out women for close friendships. Being a man was a performance. ...

Today, Jay is Joy. After going through a wrenching divorce and putting her job at Yeshiva — an Orthodox Jewish university — in jeopardy, Ladin is living as a woman, an “incredible miracle, something I never thought would happen,” she says. By sharing her story, she also has become an inspirational figure to LGBT Jews who are struggling to reconcile their religious faith with their identities. ...

(Ladin declines to say whether she has had gender reassignment surgery: “Part of dealing with transgender people as people is giving them privacy, and in our culture, we don’t generally discuss our genitals in public.”) ...

Transgender people pose a problem for Orthodox Judaism, Ladin says, because gender is central to so many of its rituals — men and women sit separately in synagogue, for example. ...

When it became clear that Ladin would live as a woman, her wife was distraught. “You’ve destroyed four lives to walk around in a dress,” Ladin recalls her saying.

“My wife saw me as choosing self-mutilation over her, over the life we had painstakingly built up since we were teenagers, over our future, over our past, over the well-being of our children,” Ladin writes. ...

Ladin is remarried — to Liz Denlinger, a curator at the New York Public Library — and continues to split her time between Manhattan and Massachusetts, where her children live, though her relationship with them is strained. “Two of my children have stopped talking to me. I’m down to one, my 12-year-old daughter,” who still calls her Daddy, she says. The fissure with her other children, now 16 and 21, is “unbearably painful.”
He is obviously suffering from a mental illness, and expects society to indulge his sick fantasies. He tries to use the Jewish religion to justify his perversions.

He is man with a fetish for cross-dressing. He fathered 3 kids, still has his male genitals, and is in a sexual relationship with a woman.

Parents sometimes think that sending their kids to a conservative private religious college will shelter them from role models who are openly promoting sick behavior. Nope.

The Princeton Alumni Weekly was originally an alumni magazine that came out weekly. Now it is neither. It is produced by the university public-relations staff about once a month, and it is primarily a fund-raising publication.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Hastert was a victim, not a money launderer

It appears to me that federal prosecutors have a lot of excess time on their hands, as they keep prosecuting people for things that do not seem criminal.

AP reports:
Prosecutors say when they questioned Hastert about his large cash withdrawals he told them he was being extorted by someone making a false claim of sex abuse.

In the court filing, prosecutors say Hastert agreed to let investigators record phone conversations he had with the man who later became known as "Individual A."

Prosecutors say "Individual A's tone and comments" during the conversations "were inconsistent with someone committing extortion." They say he didn't seem angry when Hastert told him he was having trouble getting money.

Agents then questioned Individual A, who told them about abuse that occurred when he was 14.

Hastert has pleaded guilty to violating banking laws.
He has never been charged with sex abuse, or even accused of it in a civil suit. So we should assume that he is innocent of that, as I assume that people are innocent until proven guilty.

So what was Hastert's crime? The heart of the charge is that Hastert described Individual A to federal agents in terms that seemed inconsistent to the agents' interpretation of "Individual A's tone and comments" on the wiretaps.

Another AP story has more details:
Hastert made 15 withdrawals of $50,000 — for a total of $750,000 — from 2010 to 2012. It's what he did next that made his actions a crime. After learning withdrawals over $10,000 are flagged, he withdrew cash in smaller increments, taking out $952,000 from 2012 to 2014.

The case had been shrouded in secrecy since Hastert was indicted in May 2015. Prosecutors only confirmed at a March hearing that sex-abuse claims were at its core.

Hastert's fear, prosecutors said Friday, was that if he didn't pay Individual A "it would increase the chance that other former students he molested would tell their stories." Burdge had already confronted Hastert at her brother's funeral and he could see "she had been deeply affected by what defendant did to her brother, and she was likely to tell her story publicly if anyone would listen."

Court records say Hastert managed to pay $1.7 million to Individual A — handing it over in lump sums of $100,000 cash — starting in 2010. The payments stopped late in 2014 after FBI agents questioned Hastert about his cash withdrawals. Prosecutors said Friday that it was a bank compliance officer who spotted the huge withdrawals.
If all this is true, then Hastert was a victim of extortion, and Individual A should be charged with a crime, not Hastert.

The feds knew about the cash withdrawals, and knew that Hastert was buying Individual A's silence, so what is Hastert's crime?

Even assuming that Hastert behaved inappropriately, and that he would be embarrrassed by a public revelation, it does not follow that he committed a crime. In Individual A believes that he was harmed, then he could sue for damages. But it is a crime for Individual A to extort money for silence, even if there was a crime.
The filing recommends that a federal judge sentence Hastert to up to six months in prison for violating banking laws as he sought to pay one of his victims, identified in court documents as "Individual A," to ensure the person kept quiet. The sex-abuse allegations date to Hastert's time at Yorkville High School in the Chicago suburb of Yorkville from 1965 to 1981.
Six months for this? And the feds continue to protect the extortionist by concealing his name.

Individual A's name should be revealed in an extortion indictment. He could have made a police complaint 35 years ago. He could have sued. He could have gone public with his story when Hastert was Speaker of the House, and destroyed his career. All of those things might be defensible. But collecting a million dollars in secret cash transaction 40 years later after threatening to go public? Indefensible.

You might say that if Hastert is a child molester, then he deserves whatever he gets. I disagree.

First of all, we don't know that he was a molester. Only that he is privately and anonymously accused of doing something inappropriate.

Secondly, is that really how child molestation should be handled? That molestation victims can just wait 40 years for the perp to get rich on his reputation, and then extort suitcases full of cash under threats to destroy that reputation?

Just think about that. It is impossible for Hastert today to prove that nothing bad happened 40 years ago. It is his word against the accusers. Admittedly, Hastert looks bad by making the payoffs, but maybe he or someone else in that position might just make the payoff rather than face an ugly fight over false accusations.

Saturday, April 09, 2016

Colleges bigoted against male personalities

Colleges claim that they are committed to diversity and inclusiveness, but it is still fashionable to badmouth whites, males, Christians, straights, and conservatives.

Autism spectrum is peculiar in that it is defined to include people with a psychological disorder as well as people with certain masculine personality characteristics.

Tyler Cowen writes:
Thinking back on history, maybe you've wondered how it was that American colleges and universities could ever have contributed to racist discourse. But Princeton and many other institutions kept out Jews, and "academic" defenses of slavery, segregation, and eugenics were commonplace until broader social changes rendered such views unacceptable.

The sad truth is that dehumanizing ideologies are still with us in the modern university, although they take very different forms. Prime examples include the unacceptable ways we sometimes talk and think about the autism spectrum.

A few years ago, Michael L. Ganz, who teaches at the Harvard School of Public Health, published an essay titled "Costs of Autism in the United States." Nowhere in the essay does he consider whether autistic people have brought benefits to the human race. Can you imagine a comparable essay titled: "Costs of Native Americans"? Ganz might think that autism is strictly a disease, but he never mentions or rebuts the fact that a great number of autistics reject this view and find it insulting. ...

Autism is often described as a disease or a plague, but when it comes to the American college or university, autism is often a competitive advantage rather than a problem to be solved. One reason American academe is so strong is because it mobilizes the strengths and talents of people on the autistic spectrum so effectively. In spite of some of the harmful rhetoric, the on-the-ground reality is that autistics have been very good for colleges, and colleges have been very good for autistics. ...

We're also learning that a lot of the stereotypes about autistics are false or at least misleading. It's been suggested, for instance, that autistics don't care much about other people, or that autistics lack genuine emotions or are incapable of empathy. The more likely truth is that autistics and nonautistics do not always understand each other very well. It's odd that the people who make this charge so often, in the very act of doing so, fail to show much empathy for autistics or to recognize their rich emotional lives. Even when the cognitive capabilities of autistics are recognized — most commonly in the cases of savants — it is too often accompanied by a clich├ęd and inaccurate picture of a cold, robotic, or less than human personality.
Yes, the nonautistics often say that the autistics have various deficiencies in understanding other people, and in the process the nonautistics show that they do not understand autistics.

I do think that the over-emotional and empathic nonautistics would be considered a disease or a plague if they were in the minority.

Thursday, April 07, 2016

Princeton stands only for diversity and inclusiveness

Princeton University has announced that it has completed its re-assessment of Woodrow Wilson, as demanded by black student protesters who occupied administration offices.

Glenn Beck has made a strong case that Wilson was the worse President of the 20th century, so I thought that the re-assessment would consider some of the reasons that conservatives have always hated him.

Wilson brought us the income tax, the Federal Reserve Bank, and World War I. He said "The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible."

I get the alumni magazine, but had not noticed this:
the high aims expressed in his memorable phrase, ‘Princeton in the Nation’s Service.’” That phrase is preserved today as part of Princeton’s informal motto, which was amended in 1996 to “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of All Nations.
The new mantras are diversity and inclusiveness, and this is no longer good enuf.
We propose modifying Princeton’s informal motto to “Princeton in the Nation’s Service and the Service of Humanity.” We do so for two compelling reasons. One is that it captures Princeton’s mission to serve the public good through teaching, research, and service that make a positive difference in the lives of people in this country and throughout the world. But it also permits the University to recast the front campus plaque, allowing it to reflect both the timehonored aspiration stated by Woodrow Wilson and the forward-looking aspiration stated by Justice Sotomayor. The new plaque would contextualize the legacy of Woodrow Wilson; it would allow us to contemporize his expression of Princeton’s commitment to service by linking it to our embrace of the coeducational, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, diverse and inclusive composition and ideals of our community today. ...

Contextualization is imperative. ...

We end this report where we began, by reaffirming our insistence that Princeton be a diverse, inclusive, and welcoming community for students, faculty, staff, alumni, and visitors from all backgrounds and perspectives.
Princeton is still one of the most elitist universities in the world, accepting only about 5% of applicants. It also has one of the largest endowments, and can afford to give free tuition to all students with just the interest, if it wanted to. And it does not believe in political diversity, as its only complaints about Wilson are that he was not leftist enuf.

Monday, April 04, 2016

National wealth does not come from consumer spending

I talked to a millennial about economics, and she said that she was taught that consumer demand drove the economy. She said that most of the GDP was consumer spending, and the best thing the govt can do is to stimulate consumer spending by increasing the minimum wage, providing welfare benefits, and making it easier to borrow money. The worst thing was for people to save money, because that is what caused the Great Depression. Immigration is also good for the economy because it increases consumption.

Is this really what is taught in schools today?

The only reason consumer spending is most of GDP is because GDP is defined to exclude other types of spending.

You create wealth for yourself by saving money, not spending it. Debt turns people into wage slaves.

When the govt borrows money and gives it to consumers to spend, the net effect is that our nation is poorer.

Wealth can be created by hard work, inventions, advancing technology, and capital investment. It is not created by consumer spending.

This girl also told me that she was taking a class in Psychology/Sociology. I asked her what she was learning, and she spend ten minutes telling me stories that blamed white Christian society for all sorts of supposed ills. I finally told her that she is being brainwashed into feeling guilty about being white. She said, "I already feel guilty about being white."

Soon she will have a 6-figure student debt. When she gets married, they will get a big mortgage and decide that they cannot afford kids. They will have to work all the time to make payments on their debts. But somehow they will think that immigrants spending welfare checks in keeping our economy going.

The millennial generation has been duped.

Saturday, April 02, 2016

Scientific elites hate democracy

The subscribers to the UK Nature magazine are overwhelmingly scientists dependent on govt funding, and so they have leftist leanings. They are baffled by Donald Trump. It published an essay :
The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington DC last month was one of the best I’ve witnessed in more than 20 years of regular attendance. The policy sessions were packed and genuinely stimulating. I met tons of smart, influential people I hadn’t seen for ages, and we all enjoyed a good chinwag about how better to engage with the public — the meeting’s theme for 2016.

The only trouble was what was going on outside the hotel — in the United States and the world at large.

In fact, the AAAS meeting took place in a sort of semi-conscious never-never land. The science-policy crowd talked a great game even as the pillars of the republic crashed noisily down around their heads.

Supporters or representatives of Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee for this November’s US presidential election, his extremely conservative rival Ted Cruz, or even Bernie Sanders, the Democrat insurgent, were simply not involved in these discussions. They never are. Senior scientists are instead inextricably linked to the centrist, free-market political establishment that has tended to rule, but which is now falling dangerously from public favour.

It is not just in the United States that this consensus — and perhaps democracy itself — is in danger.
He is saying that the scientific elite are ignorant of political views outside their own group. They are disturbed by the rise of Trump. They think that he threatens democracy because the people support him, and not the consensus of the scientific elites anymore.

Think about this the next time you hear that some Nobel prize winner endorsed some political candidate. These endorsements are based on contempt for the middle class and their wishes.

Friday, April 01, 2016

More crazy attacks on Trump

The attacks on Donald Trump are getting crazier and crazier.

He is asked a hypothetical question about if abortion is outlawed, would the lawbreakers be punished? He said that there would have to be some sort of penalty for doing something illegal.

Isn't that the definition of illegal?

Some reporter goes after Trump in a crowded room, gets pulled away, and files criminal charges? I watched the video. It shows a couple of hundred people milling around, and none of them showed any indication that anything irregular went on.

I got some comments complaining that Trump does not understand or respect the law. A law professor wrote a whole book on The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Trump is on the right side of all those issue, while the Democrats are wrong.

Breitbart has a long article on the alt-right, which has become a small faction of Trump supporters. Curiously, it does not mention the site claiming to be the world's most visited alt-right website.

Hobbit not destroying religion after all

The Guardian reports:
First reported in 2004, and officially named Homo floresiensis, the fossilised remains of the hobbit-like hominins were unearthed in the Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. Just over a metre tall, the long-lost species had elongated feet and a brain the size of a grapefruit.

The original studies of the remains and the deposits around them suggested the creatures could have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. But new research now overturns that idea, proposing instead that our long-footed cousins disappeared at least 50,000 years ago - and hints that humans might have played a role in their demise. ...

Writing in the journal Nature, the international team of scientists have revealed that new excavations and analysis at Liang Bua date the Homo floresiensis remains to between 100,000 and 60,000 years ago, meaning that the species disappeared much earlier than previously thought.
This is quite a let-down. Here is what the UK BBC said in 2004:
Anthropologist Desmond Morris suggested the discovery of a human Hobbit on Flores would force many religions to examine their basic beliefs. The suggestion provoked quite a reaction.

"The existence of 'Mini-Man' should destroy religion," claims Desmond Morris.

I can't help thinking we've been here before. Indeed, Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, still cannot understand why religion survived Darwin.
They only ever found one skull and a few other bones. There are many controversies over the interpretation of those bones.

So you should unlearn whatever you were told about Flores Man.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Recognize cuck as a useful insult

A wacky political site writes:
Then in 2015, something happened. A term was birthed from the alternative right to describe precisely this dysfunctional breed of rightist: “cuckservative,” a seemingly right-leaning politician or personality who sees fascism as the greatest threat to the West, is willing to flood his country with millions of Third Worlders in the name of free-market capitalism, and is always ready to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen to defend the violently anti-Western, socialist theocracy of Israel. The word, of course, was absolutely devastating. It was so powerful that cuckservative websites devoted time and effort to writing articles condemning the word, ironically using the cuckiest logic possible and only proving the alternative right correct. The term even made its way into the mainstream media, eventually getting onto MSNBC and Real Time with Bill Maher. Even now, using the word will get one banned from National Review’s comment section.

“Cuck” works for the same reason that “racist” works: it is an irrational word that cannot be deconstructed with reasoning. Just as “racist” hits rightists hard because it attempts to psychopathologize the healthy preference for our own race, “cuck” is devastating to leftists because they are being described as the most humiliating kind of man possible, one who gets aroused by letting another man — or other men — have sex with his wife. Leftists and conservatives are not literally cuckolds, they are simply traitors. ...

The word is now everywhere. Everyone from communists to liberals to mainstream conservatives are being called cucks, on and offline. Politicians and everyday people are cucks, the wealthy and the lower-class alike… and they have no defense against it. ...

It’s time the right go on the attack. Recognize “cuck” for how powerful, funny, and effective it is at hitting the enemy in his gut, and keep using it and keep spreading it. Also recognize that it’s a nasty and immature word, and relish that. The more offended the left is, the better.
I think that he is onto something. Consider the latest from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg:
The Facebook founder said atrocities in Belgium, Pakistan and Turkey were all designed to sow seeds of hatred between different communities.

He said: "Each of these attacks were carried out with a goal to spread fear and distrust, and turn members of a community against each other."

The "only sustainable way to fight back" against the sickening attacks is to "create a world" where everyone "feels cared for and loved", he added.
He is just a cuck. He should just be insulted as someone with some sort of perverted mental illness.

Third World immigration to the USA is profitable for Facebook, and so political instability elsewhere. Most of those Syrian migrants have smart phones, and use Facebook. So maybe Zuckerberg is just doing what is profitable. But in case he believes the crap he recites, he should be called a cuck.

The above political site just got a lot of publicity, such as this NY Times story, when the notorious internet troll Weev distributed a flyer to some colleges. Here are the details. Weev was once prosecuted before on bogus charges, and was acquitted on appeal.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Bilingual education is harmful

I know English-speaking parents who goto great trouble and expense to create a bilingual environment for their kids, or to send the kids to an expensive private school that teaches a foreign language. If pressed, some of them will quote research showing that knowing foreign languages makes one smarter.

All of that is bogus.

Here is the current research:
But a growing number of psychologists say that this mountain of evidence is actually a house of cards, built upon flimsy foundations. According to Kenneth Paap, a psychologist at San Francisco State University and the most prominent of the critics, bilingual advantages in executive function “either do not exist or are restricted to very specific and undetermined circumstances.”

Paap started looking into bilingualism in 2009, having spent 30 years studying the psychology of language. He began by trying to replicate some seminal experiments, including a classic 2004 paper by Bialystok involving the Simon task. ...

“It was a really exciting finding and one that I thought would be easy to study with my students,” says Paap. “But we just couldn’t replicate any of the effects.” After years of struggling, he published his results in 2013: three studies, 280 local college students, four tests of mental control including the Simon task, and no sign of a bilingual advantage.“That broke the dam,” he says. “Others started submitting negative results and getting their articles published.”
In some areas, bilingual education appears to be a plot to teach Mexican-Americans Spanish instead of English in schools, in order to keep them as an unassimilated worker class.

Ron Unz has worked for English in the schools.

Even rich educated SWPL often have all sorts of misguided beliefs in language education.

If you don't speak English, there are plenty of good reasons to learn English, as it has become the world's standard language. But there is no measurable value to learning any other language.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Trump says America Comes First

The media elites and Trump haters argue that the more Moslems commit terrorist acts against the West, the more the West should allow them to immigrate. Otherwise the Moslems might get the impression that we do not like them and their terrorist religion.

Here is an example of this thinking:
Right after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, Donald Trump did something bizarre. He spoke the truth. Appearing on Fox and Friends, the GOP presidential frontrunner declared that, “This all happened because frankly there is no assimilation.” ...

Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adopt American customs.” …

Banning Muslim immigration would almost certainly undermine this.
Following this logic, instead of fighting World War II, we should have invited a lot of Nazis and Japs to live in the USA. Or during the Cold War, we should have invited a lot of commies in.

Actually, we did take a lot of people from communist countries during the Cold War, but they all hated communism, so it did nothing to make the true commies like us.

Of the Moslems who immigrate to the USA, probably only 20% believe in violent jihadism against infidels.

Importing Moslem jihadists in the hopes that they will like us more is just crazy. There are over a billion Moslems in the world, and no matter how many we take, there will be a billion more who will be annoyed that we did not take them also. And no matter how well we screen them, we will be bringing in thousands of terrorists. There is no good payoff from such a strategy.

Today's top NY Times headline is: In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First.

The shocking part of this is that it is big news that an American presidential candidate wants to put America first. Isn't that an essential requirement for the job? Why would anyone vote for a presidential candidate who did not put America first?

That is the essence of why I support Trump, and why I am not fazed by all the attacks on him. Any presidential consideration of American policy should be based on how it helps Americans. Not on whether it causes people on the other side of the world to like us more. Those people will hate us anyway.

Trump is the only one who stands for America first. The mainstream media and the Democrat Party are dominated by traitors who seek to undermine America. The more that they say it is wrong to put America first, the more they identify themselves as traitors.

Friday, March 25, 2016

More hysterical attacks on Trump

I follow several mainstream news media sources, and their all regularly publish irrational tirades against Donald Ttump. Here is one from David Brooks of the NY Times:
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.

Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy. ...

He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants. ...

In some rare cases, political victors do not deserve our respect. George Wallace won elections, but to endorse those outcomes would be a moral failure.

And so it is with Trump.

History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times.
He then goes on to give an Old Testament biblical argument against Trump.

Brooks is supposedly the conservative columnist at the NY Times, but he voted for Barack Obama in 2008. He is also Jewish and has a son serving in the Israeli army.

Apparently Trump trying to make America great again is deeply unsettling to his religious and ideological prejudices.

Here is an explanation for Brooks misunderstand Trump.

Brooks admits that he misunderstood Trump, but that is not all that is going on. The most venomous Trump hatred is nearly all coming from Jewish columnists and pundits. Some of it comes from supposedly conservative sources, such as the neo-conservatives and National Review.

I think that it is pretty clear that there is religious hatred for Trump. The Jews and Moslems are openly declaring a culture war against America as we know it.

It is not that Trump is anti-Jewish. He is the most pro-Jewish presidential candidate in decades. See this Jewish article for proof.

The attacks on Trump are hysterical and nonsensical. He is not childish and insecure, and that should be obvious. Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest candidate for President.

You know that they are no argument when they compare Trump to Hitler. Hitler was a socialist and a warmonger. Bernie Sanders is the socialist in the race, and Clinton is the warmonger. They are more like Hitler.

Someone sent me this page of Hitler quotes. I do not see any similarity to Trump. According to those quotes, Nazism was a reaction to Jewish Communism, which was a major threat to Germany at the time. If you do not want another Hitler, then you should be on the lookout for movements like Jewish Communism.

I also found this video of Why the Jewish Elite Hates Donald Trump. This seems like excessive criticism of the Jews to me, but educate yourself. Learn both sides of the story, because the political battle lines are being drawn.

Note that it is the Jewish elites who hate Trump. Trump and the others spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's conference (AIPAC). The Jewish elites apologized, while Trump earned the most enthusiastic response of any speaker. My guess is that Trump will win more Jewish votes in November than previous Republican candidates.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Is empathy an essential virtue?

I have become convinced that high empathy is a mental illness that prevents people from making rational decisions. It should be avoided in people with high-responsibility jobs.

The NY Times reports:
Is empathy an essential virtue for a presidential candidate?

The conventional wisdom is that a good candidate must be able to feel your pain. Bill Clinton was hailed by pundits as a virtuoso of empathy, ...

But there are a couple of problems with the conventional wisdom. To begin with, it’s not clear that empathy actually matters much to voters.

In the Republican primaries, Donald J. Trump, who brags that he’s so rich he feels no pain at all, has trounced Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who emphasized his family’s financial struggles, and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, known for comforting rally attendees with hugs.

Some political scientists say that empathy is not a crucial factor in presidential races, noting that personality traits don’t correlate well with the results on Election Day. A candidate often wins despite an opponent who receives higher marks in polls asking how much each “cares about the needs and problems of people like you.” ...

“If I want to do terrible things to a group, one tried-and-true way is to arouse empathy for victims of that group,” Dr. Bloom said in an interview. “Often the argument for war is rooted in empathy for victims of the enemy.”
Like altruism, empathy is fine in small doses. But there are people with pathological altruism who are making the world a worse place.

People argue, for example, that judges should have empathy so that they will side with the less powerful party in court. If that were true, then judges would always rule against landlords in eviction cases.

Maybe Rubio had financial troubles because he is financially incompetent.

It is very difficult for a non-schizophrenic to empathize with a schizophrenic, or a non-alcoholic to empathize with an alcoholic. Perhaps there is some advantage for clinical psychologists to have their own psychological disorders, so that they can better empathize with their patients. But that is unproven.

But why would you want a President or anyone else to have empathy? It is better to have someone who thinks rationally, than to have someone who is driven by involuntary emotions.