Friday, November 24, 2017

Chinese lawyer whines that USA does not need him

A Chinese lawyer writes an NY Times op-ed:
After earning law degrees in China and at Oxford, after having worked in Hong Kong as a lawyer at a top international firm, after coming to United States three years ago for an M.B.A. and graduating and joining a start-up, I was given just 60 days to leave the country. I have 17 days left. ...

Many of my fellow international students are in situations similar to mine. ...

My two requests for evidence asked me to prove my job was a “specialty occupation” ...
The Trump administration is right to demand such evidence. This guy is just a lawyer with an MBA degree. Any job he can do would be better filled by an American. We have many thousands, if not millions, of Americans available to do that job. Letting him stay would put an American out of work.
Rather, I’m frustrated, because I know I’m part of a pattern: America is losing many very skilled workers because of its anti-immigrant sentiment, and while this is a disappointing blow to me and my classmates, it will also be a blow to the United States’ competitiveness in the global economy. ...

As I make plans to go back to China, I find myself wondering: If I am not qualified to stay in the United States, then who is?
A lot of Americans are better qualified. We don't need him. Many millions are more desirable than him.

He blames this on "anti-immigrant sentiment", but H-1B is a guest worker program, not an immigration program. Even if he got the visa, he would not be an immigrant. He would merely be a Chinese lawyer who is displacing an American worker for 3 years.

This guy is a creep, and I am glad he is going. He acts as if America owes him something. China does not allow immigrants from America, so why should we allow Chinese immigrants? We have an excess of lawyers and MBA graduates already.

Update: Here is an essay explaining the H-1B human trafficking.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Jewish paper rationalizes anti-Christian hatred

A Jewish Trump-hater editor for the NY Times reports:
Last week, voters in Alabama — rocked, befuddled or riled by allegations that Mr. Moore, the Republican nominee for the Senate, sexually assaulted teenage girls — were treated to an electronic “robocall” that intoned, or really whined:
I’m a reporter for The Washington Post calling to find out if anyone at this address is a female between the ages of 54 to 57 years old, willing to make damaging remarks about candidate Roy Moore ...
The anti-Semitism of the alt-right, the newest manifestation of bigotry that combines age-old hatred with internet-era technological savvy, biting wit and a self-conscious sense of irony, shows no more logical consistency than the anti-Semitism of the past.
There really is a Jewish effort to dig up dirt on Roy Moore, and to destroy him.
The 684 anti-Semitic hate crimes were more than the rest of the religiously motivated crimes of bias and bigotry combined.
The article does not mention that many of those supposed hate crimes have turned out to be Jewish hoaxes, or the result of natural causes.
Leaving aside the low esteem that many Alabamians hold the national media in, no mainstream outlet is paying women for dirt on Mr. Moore, and no one is promising to publish half-baked uncorroborated allegations.
Oh yes they are.

The NY Times and Wash. Post have now published dozens of stories with half-baked uncorroborated allegations against Roy Moore. Most of them do not even mention the fact that the most serious allegation has been proved to be a forgery.

There is a hatred of Roy Moore that is far beyond disagreement with his politics. And the campaign against him is being led by Jews. Among public opinions I've seen, Jews seem to be almost universally against him. He is openly Christian, and they are obviously anti-Christian bigots. If someone calls them on their obvious anti-Christian hatred, then they cry anti-Semitism.

Moralizing about private lives of others

I used to often hear complaints about how the religious right was moralizing about the private romantic lives of others, and how they should just mind their own business.

Who says that now?

I should keep a list of all those denouncing non-criminal, personal, consensual behavior based only on uncorroborated raw allegations years afterwards. They obviously do not believe ppl are innocent until proven guilty, or that they have a right to private romantic lives.

They also have sever misunderstandings about how human memory works, and whether accusers can have bad motives.

The accusers and the accused are mostly left-wing Jewish feminist Democrats, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

This is a witch-hunt. The Salem witch prosecutors probably had more incriminating evidence against their targets.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

How Mike Pence has avoided scandal

Six months ago, the Wash. Post published this article mocking Mike Pence:
The Billy Graham Rule was soon adopted by evangelical pastors and business executives. Men in positions of influence wanted to “flee from sexual immorality” and be “above reproach” (both biblical commands), as well as abstain from “every appearance of evil.” ...

The article cites a 2002 interview with Vice President Pence — who has called himself an “evangelical Catholic” — saying that he “never eats alone with a woman other than his wife,” and that he doesn’t attend events serving alcohol unless she is with him as well. ...

The Billy Graham Rule also denies the reality of LGBT people. As a friend pointed out to me: Should a bisexual person refuse to ever be alone with anyone, full stop? ...

In this conversation, we also have to keep in mind the fact that Pence is the vice president of the United States. He is not a pastor and does not act in that capacity. How on earth can he be expected to represent half the country if he won’t eat at the same table as us?
About once a day, some well known Jewish leftist feminist Democrat has had his career sabotage by ridiculous allegations from women, published in newspapers like the Wash. Post.

I don't think anyone is making fun of Pence today. He looks like a genius.

Meanwhile, Judge Roy Moore's chief accuser has finally given a public interview, and she now tells a different story about how she met Moore. She also admits that she agreed to tell her story contingent on it being part of a coordinated attack on Moore.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Stop immigration to cut carbon emissions

Here is some green research from a few months ago:
The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions.

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found. ...

The researchers found that government advice in the US, Canada, EU and Australia rarely mentioned the high impact actions, with only the EU citing eating less meat and only Australia citing living without a car. None mentioned having one fewer child. In an analysis of school textbooks on Canada only 4% of the recommendations were high impact.

Chris Goodall, an author on low carbon living and energy, said: “The paper usefully reminds us what matters in the fight against global warming. But in some ways it will just reinforce the suspicion of the political right that the threat of climate change is simply a cover for reducing people’s freedom to live as they want.
This research was also chicken to give the high-impact advice.

The paper measured results in tons of CO2 emissions per year, and found that per capita averages in developed countries was much greater than for other countries. So the most effective thing is to keep Third World migrants and refugees out of developed countries.

But none of the textbooks or govt guides mentioned that option.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Fired for including white men

Apple fires its black female diversity chief:
Denise Young Smith, who was named Apple’s vice president of diversity and inclusion in May, is “stepping down” after saying white people can be diverse last month.

During a summit in Colombia, Young Smith, a black woman, claimed she likes to focus “on everyone” and that “diversity goes beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation.”

“There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation,” Young Smith declared, sparking controversy. “Diversity is the human experience… I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”

Young Smith later apologized, claiming her comments “were not representative of how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it.”
Obviously, "inclusion" does not mean including white men.

It is more and more apparently that diversity just means hating white men.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Dunham backstabs her accused friend

Does anyone believe ppl are innocent until proven guilty? Can't someone at least defend a friend?

Apparently not, among creepy Jewish left-wing feminists:
"I now understand that it was absolutely the wrong time to come forward with such a statement and I am so sorry."

Lena Dunham has apologized for comments she made supporting Girls writer Murray Miller, who has been accused of sexually assaulting actress Aurora Perrineau.

On Friday, after the claims against Miller were made public, Dunham took to Twitter to support Miller on behalf of herself and Girls executive producer Jenni Konner, ...
The witch-hunt continues. She was defending a Jewish producer accused of raping a 17yo non-Jewish actress. Dunham had previously said:
While our first instinct is to listen to every woman’s story, our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3 percent of assault cases that are misreported every year,” the statement added. … We stand by Murray and this is all we’ll be saying about this issue.
No doubt she will continue to express dopey opinions about this.

Michigan shared parenting

A Michigan lawyer writes:
Michigan House Bill 4691 would mandate shared custody of children in divorce cases with few exceptions. ...

This bill also presupposes that all parents are able to get along well enough to co-parent their children and that conflicts in a shared custody situation will be at a minimum. Most people divorce because they can’t get along and concur on parenting issues.
No, very few get divorced because of an inability to cooperate on parenting issues.
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has come out against the recent legislative movement toward mandated shared custody in Michigan and other states,
Yeah, the divorce lawyers want to make money over custody disputes, instead of having custody rights codified by law.
Child custody arrangements should take into account the child’s best interest, first and foremost and forever. This bill does not.
The term "child’s best interest" is a euphemism for lawyers and judges overriding the wishes of the parents.
If we truly want to do something to encourage parents spending more time with their children -- as proponents of this bill claim is their goal-- we should eliminate any relationship between parenting time and money.

Currently in Michigan, the number of overnights a parent has with his or her children, very much drives the amount of child support paid. That is the worst legislation ever passed. It discourages parents who receive child support payments to be agreeable to their children spending more time with the other parent as it would diminish that support.
He finally writes something sensible. Not everyone knows this, but the laws in all 50 states create extreme financial incentive against sharing custody. The mom can get a whole lot more money by refusing to let the dad see the kids. That is what "child support" is all about, as it is currently implemented.
Parents should be encouraged to have their children spend time with both parents without a financial penalty or reward linked to it.
That is what a shared custody bill should do. Then there would be no reason to fight over custody or support in most cases, and divorce lawyers would not have much to do.
With the Child Custody Act of 1970, we have 47 years of case law giving judges guidance over a variety of child-related issues. To scrap that would an egregious error.

Each divorce is different and it is a mistake to mandate a cookie-cutter decision without careful consideration into the nuances of each family situation. Again, it is the child in child custody cases whose needs should be the priority, not a parent’s.
He is just saying that judges and lawyers should run the lives of kids, not their parents. We have 47 years of a system that is worse that what we had before.

A right-wing philosopher argues:
Parental rights and authority have been under scrutiny from some lefty liberals and and socialists recently (here’s an example). The concern is usually grounded in “children’s rights” and their autonomy, though there is also attention paid toward critiquing the basis for parental authority. I used to think parental authority is a given, but it seems as though “the left” is willing to challenge any traditional source of authority that is not the state itself. Conservatives should always pay close attention to philosophies and ideologies that dissolve or undermine non-state authorities, such as the family or religious institutions, because that is a mechanism on which totalitarianism depends. The idea is to slowly eliminate the authority of and allegiance to non-state institutions.

Consider this. Just a few days ago, the democratic socialist government of Alberta legislated that schools cannot inform parents whether their child is a member of the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance. It’s called Bill 24. The justification for this law, so far as I have heard, is that such information “outs” a child to his parents, which therefore can violate his privacy or is too great a risk for his safety. ...

Caring of children requires choosing particular goods and ends for children. But who gets to make those decisions? Plausibly, it’s either the parents or the state. If the state chooses for children, then parents would serve as mere bodily donors and custodians for the state. But that is perverse: The parent-child relationship is naturally much deeper and more intimate than that, as I argued earlier. Hence, it is not the state should choose, but the parents. Yet, if it is the parents who should choose, then they need a great deal of space to exercise their choices in accordance to their conscience, particularly within matters of education, sexuality and morality, for each is deeply consequential to the child’s identity, good and life trajectory. In fact, aside from providing the necessities of life, it is hard to think of a contribution more important to the life and good of a child than those aforementioned things.
Yes, right-wingers favor family autonomy, while left-wingers, lawyers, and judges seek to let the state make decisions for children.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Planned software obsolescence is not a myth

The NY Times reports:
The phenomenon of perceived slowdowns is so widespread that many believe tech companies intentionally cripple smartphones and computers to ensure that people buy new ones every few years. Conspiracy theorists call it planned obsolescence.

That’s a myth. While slowdowns happen, they take place for a far less nefarious reason. That reason is a software upgrade.

“There’s no incentive for operating system companies to create planned obsolescence,” said Greg Raiz, a former program manager for Microsoft who worked on Windows XP. “It’s software, and software has various degrees of production bugs and unintended things that happen.”
That guy is lying. The companies certainly have an incentive to induce customers to upgrade to the latest version. Microsoft is notorious for planting logic bombs in Windows 7 and 8 to trick users into upgrading to Windows 10.
Here’s what happens: When tech giants like Apple, Microsoft and Google introduce new hardware, they often release upgrades for their operating systems. For example, a few days before the iPhone 8 shipped in September, Apple released iOS 11 as a free software update for iPhones, including the four-year-old iPhone 5S.

The technical process of upgrading from an old operating system to a new one — migrating your files, apps and settings along the way — is extremely complicated. So when you install a brand-new operating system on an older device, problems may occur that make everything from opening the camera to browsing the web feel sluggish. ...

The good news is that because tech companies are not intentionally neutering your devices, there are remedies ...
This article is contradicting itself. Now it acknowledges that these companies do make software changes that slow down your device, and these changes are timed to coincide with the availability of upgrades that the company wants you to get.

The catch seems to be the word "intentionally". And maybe the word "nefarious".

The companies are certainly intentional about their upgrade policies. They are certainly intentional about writing bigger and slower software on the assumption that you will be buying devices with more memory and faster chips. They are certainly intentional about adopting business strategies that make more money for the company. So how is this different from the "conspiracy theory"?

I guess the Microsoft guy is trying to say that they don't deliberately put in bugs for the explicit purpose of annoying users. Instead the bugs just occur naturally in all the software they write, and they are most conscientious about fixing the bugs in the latest and best-selling products. The "planned obsolescence" is not from deliberately planted bugs, but from bugs that occurred naturally and deliberately not fixed because they were assigned low priority.

This seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Anglin defends Roy Moore, is censored

The Atlantic mag has an expose of Andrew Anglin:
“I am not actually a ‘Neo-Nazi White Supremacist,’ nor do I know what that is,” he wrote in mid-September. He claimed that his violent rhetoric was never sincere but simply a way to mock those who slap a Nazi label on anyone who “stands up for white people’s rights” or “refuses to believe the stupid lies about Hitler” or rejects the “alleged Holocaust” narrative. Anglin now shared what he said had been his true editorial approach all along: “Ironic Nazism disguised as real Nazism disguised as ironic Nazism.”

Five days later, he posted about “the world being ruled either by reptiles from another dimension or some other type of reptilian or insectoid race of aliens.” Where the irony started and stopped was hard to know. ...

At times while tracking Anglin, I couldn’t help but feel that he was a method actor so committed and demented, on such a long and heavy trip, that he’d permanently lost himself in his role. ...

Who was he if not the king of the Nazi trolls?
He is indeed the king of the Nazi trolls. His Daily Stormer site is back up, but it is regularly shut down and can be hard to find sometimes.

It is clear that Anglin is not really a Nazi, but believes that he would be called a Nazi anyway, so he embraces the term for rhetorical purposes. It is also clear that he does not believe that his political enemies should be allowed to define the boundaries of acceptable discussion.

He is sometimes accused of making violent threats, such as this:
Like many young men on the extreme right, Anglin hadn’t just given up on the idea of the United States as a liberal democracy. He wanted to burn it to the ground. “There is rapidly approaching a time when in every White Western city, corpses will be stacked in the streets as high as men can stack them,” he wrote. “And you are either going to be stacking or getting stacked.”
This is exaggerated, but I do not take it as a threat. If trends continue, I do believe that we are headed for race and religion wars. Open discussion of the issues might be the best way to avoid war.

To give a flavor of Anglin's posts, here is a current rant:
So the situation is, Roy Moore got his money in order by the time he was 32, then he went cruising for a teenage virgin wife. He was doing interviews with these women.

This isn’t weird.

So then they throw in this 14-year-old who says he grabbed her by the pussy, then add some other lying whore.

And based on the accusation alone, all of these cuckolds come out and say he needs to drop out.

Could anything be more obvious than this?

The one guy who is standing up to the establishment just happens to also be the one guy who is a sexual deviant?

What the hell are the chances of that, statistically?

CROWN PRINCE CUCK Paul Ryan of course rushed out right with KING CUCK Mitch McConnell to condemn. ...

I don’t care if this man was fondling jailbait. No one cares about that. What we care about is the fact that our country is being destroyed, and that Roy Moore is set to be the first guy in decades in the Senate that is going to stand up for us. Period.

And he is going to win.

And then revenge begins.
You might not agree with him, but he is posting worthwhile opinions. His site is probably the most censored site in the history of the internet, among sites being censored for political opinions.

Update: Anglin responds. Funny, as usual.
The piece is written by an obsessive failure at life named Luke O’Brien who spent this year tracking and harassing my family and people I went to high school with. I’ve previously published some of the threats, though most of them were over the phone. What he would say is “if you don’t talk to me, you’re protecting him and that makes you part of the story.” That is a threat of defamation.

He had a vendetta against me because when he was writing an article on the Alt-Right for Huffing Post, I published emails where he faked statements from the FBI, which was presumably illegal. ...

Obviously, the article is a product of the Jew editors. The Atlantic is an entirely Jewish publication.

The Editor-in-Chief, Jeffery Goldberg, even does Atlantic events in a synagogue.
The article does everything to try to make Anglin look bad, but some of it is so over-the-top ridiculous that it give the impression that The Atlantic has been trolled. The reader will be impressed that Anglin is important enough to be the cover story.

Update: See also Heartiste, who notes that Anglin is blamed for dumping a girlfriend in high school, when everyone said that the girl was a slut.

Ideological opposition to spanking reports:
Spanking — usually defined as hitting a child on the buttocks with an open hand — is a common form of discipline still used on children worldwide. However, to date, spanking has been banned in 53 countries and states globally.

The use of spanking has been hotly debated over the last several decades. Supporters state that it is safe, necessary and effective; opponents argue that spanking is harmful to children and violates their human rights to protection.

As two scholars with extensive research experience and clinical insight in the field of child maltreatment, and with specific expertise related to spanking, we would like to move beyond this debate.

The research clearly shows that spanking is related to an increased likelihood of many poor health, social and developmental outcomes. These poor outcomes include mental health problems, substance use, suicide attempts and physical health conditions along with developmental, behavioural, social and cognitive problems.

Equally important, there are no research studies showing that spanking is beneficial for children.

Those who say spanking is safe for a child if done in a specific way are, it would seem, simply expressing opinions. And these opinions are not supported by scientific evidence. ...

An updated meta-analysis was most recently published in 2016. This reviewed and analysed 75 studies from the previous 13 years, concluding that there was no evidence that spanking improved child behaviour and that spanking was associated with an increased risk of 13 detrimental outcomes. ...

Evidence from over 20 years of research consistently indicates the harms of spanking. There is also increasing global recognition of the rights of children to protection and dignity, as inscribed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in targets within the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to eliminate violence.

Taken together, these tell us that spanking should never be used on children or adolescents of any age.
This is another example where the supposed scientific consensus is wacky.

Perusing these articles, I find:

The anti-spanking studies are just correlations, and cannot distinguish between spanking causing bad behavior and bad behavior causing spanking.

The papers are written by zealots who mainly oppose spanking for ideological reasons.

The studies fail to show that any other method of discipline works better.

Saying that spanking does not cure bad behavior is a bit like saying that dieting does not cure obesity. Yes, studies show that most diets fail, and most attempts at behavior modification also fail.

It is nutty to say that spanking never is beneficial, or that it never improves child behavior. There are probably 100 million parents who say otherwise.

Monday, November 13, 2017

White self hatred is sick

This billboard got taken down, because of complaints from some white guy.

I am just wondering why he or anyone else would be offended. Why would he care? Does he think that white self hatred is normal? Does he want to promote white self hatred? Weird.

On the subject of offensive messages, the latest NY Times allegation of sexual misconduct is:
Ellen Page has become one of the latest actors to share her story of sexual harassment, accusing the director and producer Brett Ratner of suggesting crudely that another woman have sex with Ms. Page “to make her realize she’s gay.”
Ms. Page, 30, known for films including “Juno,” “Inception” and “To Rome With Love,” said in a Facebook post on Friday that when Mr. Ratner made his comment, she was 18 and had not yet come out as a lesbian. She came out in 2014.
So 12 years ago, some guy made a private comment that some lesbian actress might be a lesbian. I think that she was already playing roles suited for lesbians. That's all. He did not touch her or proposition her. Why would anyone care about this?

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Romney cucks out again

Here is the attack on Roy Moore:
Three other women said Moore asked them out on dates as teenagers but did not allege forced sexual contact.

Moore and his campaign denied the allegations.
What did Romney say?

In a tweet Friday, Romney said the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is “for criminal convictions, not elections.”

“I believe Leigh Corfman,” Romney said. “Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.” ...

“He should immediately step aside and allow the people of Alabama to elect a candidate they can be proud of,” McCain said.
The chief accuser says that she went out on a date with Moore 40 years, and he touched her clothes inappropriately.

Romney and McCain get creepier every day.

First, very few ppl can remember an incident accurately from 40 years ago. They often think that they can, but science shows that human memory does not work that well.

Second, it is not possible to read an account and decide whether it is credible. Again, experiments show that humans get fooled easily. She could have made it up, or heard it somewhere, or presented a composite of awkward dates she experienced. All of these sound the same as a truthful account.

Third, do you really want a society where lives can be ruined and political battles reversed because of some 40-year-old accusation of some rude behavior?

We are living in another Salem-type witch-hunt hysteria. The sharks smell the blood in the water, and have ruined Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Kevin Spacey, and others. In some cases, the accusations are trivial even if true. In most cases, the allegations were many years in the past, and unverifiable. There is a reason that we have a statute of limitations.

Consider Louis C.K. He apparently sometimes asked women on dates if he could masturbate in front of them. If she said no, then he didn't do it.

If you think that such behavior is intrinsically immoral or sinful, then you will disapprove of Louis C.K. But the big majority of his critics have no such beliefs, and advocate for rights to unusual sexual practices between consenting adults. If so, then it is should always be acceptable to ask consent for some sexual practice.

Louis CK issued an apology statement:
The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.
This is like a beautiful woman seducing a man, and then saying that she wielded her power irresponsibly.

Perhaps we are headed to a day when consensual relations are forbidden if the woman admires the man, or if the man thinks the woman is beautiful.

Thursday, November 09, 2017

Genius sperm bank

My local NPR Radio station seems to mainly complain about Pres. Trump, and about various allegations of sexual harassment. Last Sunday it replayed this eugenics program, as described by Jewish SJWs.

The program never explains that the sperm bank operated just like all the other sperm banks today operate.

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Year 2100 demographics

Those who worry about predictions for the year 2100 fall into two camps: concern over CO2 and population. The latter say this is “the world’s most important graph.”

American Renaissance,asks:
We asked our contributors to answer the following questions: “What should the white West do about this prediction, and what will we do about it?”
The chart show moderate increases for Europe and N. America, but these increases are likely to be entirely non-white.

I think that whites will do nothing about it, until it is clear that they are about to be enslaved. Then they will resist, and a world-wide racial and religious war will result. It will be ugly.

What should the white West do? Something to avoid war, of course, and also to avoid enslavement.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Jews did not invent modernity

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a 2011 post in The Atlantic:
It's become clear to me that the Fox commentator Glenn Beck has something of a Jewish problem. Actually, he has something of a modernity problem, and people with modernity problems tend to have problems with Jews, who more or less invented modernity (Einstein, Marx, Freud, Franz Boas, etc.)

... This is a post about Beck's recent naming of nine people -- eight of them Jews -- as enemies of America and humanity. ...

It is fair to ask if Beck knows that these people are Jewish (It is not widely-known that Rendell is Jewish, I think).
Really? Jews invented modernity? Notably Einstein, Marx, Freud, Boas?

Einstein is famous for inventing relativity, refusing to accept quantum mechanics, and being a commie fellow traveler. He did not really invent relativity, as I have detailed elsewhere. Relativity was invented by Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, and Minkowski.

Marx is famous for inspiring Communism, Freud for the symbolic interpretation of dreams and other bogus pseudoscience, and Boas for cultural relativism.

Wikipedia defines:
Modernity is a term of art used in the humanities and social sciences to designate both a historical period (the modern era), as well as the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in post-medieval Europe and have developed since, in various ways and at various times, around the world. While it includes a wide range of interrelated historical processes and cultural phenomena (from fashion to modern warfare), it can also refer to the subjective or existential experience of the conditions they produce, and their ongoing impact on human culture, institutions, and politics (Berman 2010, 15–36).

As a historical category, modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition; the prioritization of individualism, freedom and formal equality; faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress and human perfectibility; rationalization and professionalization; a movement from feudalism (or agrarianism) toward capitalism and the market economy; industrialization, urbanization and secularization; the development of the nation-state and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy, public education, modern bureaucracy) and forms of surveillance (Foucault 1995, 170–77).
The article does mention Marx and Freud, but says very little of Jews.

There are many Jews with great accomplishments, but Goldberg holds out the charlatans for praise.

Here is a reference to Einstein on the recent SNL TV show:
After a long grimace, Mr. David said, “I don’t like it when Jews are in the headlines for notorious reasons. I want, ‘Einstein Discovers the Theory of Relativity.’ ‘Salk Cures Polio.’ What I don’t want? ‘Weinstein Took It Out.’”
Those names look as if they rhyme, but they are usually pronounced Ine-stine and Wine-steen. Apparently Jews really need to believe that Einstein discovered relativity.

Monday, November 06, 2017

Jewish shrink favors moms

James Taranto writes a WSJ book review:
Motherhood used to be as American as apple pie. Nowadays it can be as antagonistic as American politics. Ask Erica Komisar.

Ms. Komisar, 53, is a Jewish psychoanalyst who lives and practices on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. ...

The premise of Ms. Komisar’s book—backed by research in psychology, neuroscience and epigenetics—is that “mothers are biologically necessary for babies,” and not only for the obvious reasons of pregnancy and birth. “Babies are much more neurologically fragile than we’ve ever understood,” Ms. Komisar says. She cites the view of one neuroscientist, Nim Tottenham of Columbia University, “that babies are born without a central nervous system” and “mothers are the central nervous system to babies,” especially for the first nine months after birth.

What does that mean? “Every time a mother comforts a baby in distress, she’s actually regulating that baby’s emotions from the outside in. After three years, the baby internalizes that ability to regulate their emotions, but not until then.” For that reason, mothers “need to be there as much as possible, both physically and emotionally, for children in the first 1,000 days.” ...

Women produce more oxytocin than men do, which answers the obvious question of why fathers aren’t as well-suited as mothers for this sort of “sensitive, empathetic nurturing.” ...

Whereas a mother of a crying baby will “lean into the pain and say, ‘Oh, honey!’ ” a father is more apt to tell the child: “C’mon, you’re OK. Brush yourself off; let’s go back to play.” Children, especially boys, need that paternal nurturing to learn to control their aggression and become self-sufficient. But during the first stages of childhood, motherly love is more vital.
Jewish women are famous for being feminists, but that does not mean that they favor equality between moms and dads. In Israel, moms get custody of small children.

The book claims to be relying on scientific data, but according to the National Parents Organization, she is wrong:
“Women produce more oxytocin than men do.” Really? Actually, no they don’t. See here (Medical Express, 4/20/16) and here (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014).
Taranto explains that her view is resisted by some liberals:
When she was shopping for a literary agent, she tells me, “a number of the agents said, ‘No, we couldn’t touch that. That would make women feel guilty.’ ” Another time she was rejected for a speaking gig at a health conference. She quotes the head of the host institution as telling her: “You are going to make women feel badly. How dare you?”

In Ms. Komisar’s view, guilt isn’t necessarily bad. “My best patient is a patient who comes to me feeling guilty,” she says. “Women who feel guilty — it’s a ‘signal’ feeling, that something’s wrong, that they’re in conflict. If they go talk to a therapist or deal with the conflict head-on, they often make different choices and better choices.”
Now there is the view of a pseudo-scientific Jewish psychoanalyst. Jews very much believe in using guilt and psychotherapy to control people. They act as if everyone has the same weirdo anxieties that they do.

I can believe that there are natural differences between moms and dads, and how they relate to kids. I can also believe care from natural parents jointly is better than the alternatives. But I don't think that we have any proof that mom-care is better than dad-care. In fact, I suspect that day-care is better than care from a single mom. Mom-care works best when it is under the direction and authority of the dad.

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Marriage may not improve life

Glenn T. Stanton writes in The Federalist:
A consistent and irrefutable mountain of research has shown, reaching back to the 1970s and beyond, that marriage strongly boosts every important measure of well-being for children, women, and men. Pick any measure you can imagine: overall physical and mental health, income, savings, employment, educational success, general life contentment and happiness, sexual satisfaction, even recovery from serious disease, healthy diet and exercise. Married people rate markedly and consistently better in each of these, and so many more, compared to their single, divorced, and cohabiting peers. Thus, marriage is an essential active ingredient in improving one’s overall life prospects, regardless of class, race, or educational status. ...

Marriage generates wealth largely because marriage molds men into producers, providers, and savers. Singleness and cohabiting don’t. Nobel-winning economist George Akerlof, in a prominent lecture more than a decade ago, explained the pro-social and market influence of marriage upon men and fathers: “Married men are more attached to the labor force, they have less substance abuse, they commit less crime, are less likely to become the victims of crime, have better health, and are less accident prone.”

Akerlof explains this is because “men settle down when they get married and if they fail to get married, they fail to settle down.” This is precisely why every insurance company offers lower premiums on health and auto insurance to married men. ...

Working for healthy, well-formed, enduring marriages is one of the most effective ways we can do the work of social justice.
This might be correct, but I doubt it. Correlation is not causation.

Women would rather marry a man who is healthy, successful, rich, and who scores high on all those measures. As long as the man scores high, the women want to stay married to such men also. Men also want to marry women who are healthy and happy. So of course marriage will be correlated with all those things.

There are men who have decided that if they don't have a wife and family to support, they only need to work two days a week. These men will score lower on measures of income, but they also have much higher leisure time and may be leading happier and more satisfying lives.

Saying that a man will become richer by getting married is dubious. There are some careers where a man can focus on a high-status job much better if his wife is taking care of personal matters at home, so he will work harder and get promoted more. But there are probably just as many examples of men who are impoverished by marriage, because the wife spends too much money or she sues him for divorce.

The article mentions declines in marriage rates, but marriage law and incentives have also changed dramatically in the last few decades. It can now be more profitable to avoid marriage, for a lot of different reasons. Any "mountain of research" should address those matters.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

It's Okay to be White

This phrase is the latest controversy on college campuses. Apparently it is being interpreted as a statement of white supremacy, and anyone who sees this anywhere should call the police immediately.

Compare to Black Lives Matter, or other expressions of ethnic pride.

Update: From the white-haters at Harvard:
More than a dozen handmade stickers reading “It’s okay to be white” surfaced around Harvard Square Wednesday, prompting Cambridge officials to remove them and a Harvard Law School Dean to denounce the signs as “provocations intended to divide us.” …

“It seems likely that these anonymous postings, made in the middle of the night, were provocations intended to divide us from one another,” Law School Dean of Students Marcia L. Sells wrote in an email sent to Law students Wednesday after the stickers were spotted at Wasserstein and Hastings Halls.

“HLS will not let that happen here. We live, work, teach, and learn together in a community that is stronger, better, and deeper because of our diversity and because we encourage open, respectful, and constructive discourse,” Sells wrote.
And the Wash. Post reports:
Posters proclaiming “IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE” have been appearing on college campuses and on city streets across the country this week, prompted by an anonymous chat-room comment that suggested the message would feed social unrest and sway white Americans to far-right ideologies.
If it is no longer socially acceptable to say that it is okay to be white, then I expect some white ppl to take this as a direct threat to their identity.

I have heard ppl say that they don't like blacks or members of various other ethnic groups, but I've never heard anyone say that it is not okay to be black, or not acceptable to say it is okay to be black, or similar statements for any other ethnic group. Apparently only whites are hated so much that their existence and identity is not okay.
The factual basis for claims that white Americans are collectively suffering is difficult to find. On average, they continue to enjoy better income, personal wealth reserves, health, health care, housing, schools than any other group.
The paper is not looking very hard.. A number of groups do better than whites by those measures, such as Jews, Indian-Americans, and Chinese-Americans.

Regardless, it is okey to be white no matter how whites compare to other groups. Any attempt to say otherwise should be confronted in the strongest ways. I hope students continue to post these signs until they are accepted.

Update: The U. of Toronto says in an official statement:
Messages like this are antithetical to the University’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion,”

Friday, November 03, 2017

Muslim defends Allahu akbar

Wajahat Ali writes in the NY Times:
Allahu akbar. It’s Arabic for “God is greatest.” Muslims, an eccentric tribe with over a billion members, say it several times in our five daily prayers. ... I say “Allahu akbar” out loud more than 100 times a day.
It also means "Allah is greater than the Christian God" and "Kill the infidels".
I dropped it in a conference room at the State Department, where I’d been invited to address a packed room of government employees about the power of storytelling. Specifically, I expressed my continuing gratitude for the election of Barack Obama, whom, in a joking nod to the Islamophobic paranoia that surrounded him, I called “our first Muslim American president,” adding “Allahu akbar!”
Many Muslims consider Obama to be Muslim because he has a Muslim name, he had a Muslim father and step-father, his early upbringing was Muslim, and he continues to speak favorably about Islam.
terrorists like ISIS and Al Qaeda and their sympathizers, who represent a tiny fraction of Muslims
The terrorists are a tiny fraction of Muslims, but the sympathizers are a large fraction. Maybe even a majority, depending on how poll questions are asked.

This essay is presented as from one of the good Muslims, who doesn't go around killing ppl. But sure enuf, he launches into a tirade on how he hates Donald Trump and other white ppl.
The attack had similarities to the one that took place in Charlottesville, Va., in August, when a neo-Nazi, James Alex Fields, rammed his car into a crowd of people who were protesting against a rally staged by white nationalists, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 19 people. President Trump defended his initial response blaming violence on “many sides,” saying, “It takes a little while to get the facts.” That caution doesn’t seem to be applied when the suspects have been described by witnesses as “Middle Eastern” — and definitely not when they’ve said, “Allahu akbar.”
The facts are now in, and Trump was 100% correct.
If only the hurricane that devastated Puerto Rico, leaving American citizens in desperate need of power, food or water, could have yelled, “Allahu akbar,” triggering that kind of tough response. Perhaps our president would have been able to see the storm as evil. Perhaps he would have been energized by a “them versus us” rage to insist on swift action to repair the damage.
This is a revealing analogy. Muslims don't believe in free will, and see terrorists killing infidels as an inevitable course of events like hurricanes. We should just accept it, and praise Allah.
I took my children trick-or-treating in the Virginia suburbs. We walked the streets with friendly, diverse neighbors and hordes of happy kids wearing costumes and clutching bags filled with fattening goodies. My 3-year-old was a pirate and my 1-year-old was Supergirl. We all shared smiles and candies with strangers, with open hearts, without fear. Allahu akbar. God is greatest.
So from his point of view, there is no need to kill infidels. Americans will peacefully submit to a slow Muslim takeover.

After Muslim terrorist attacks, we are always told that most Muslims are not terrorists, with examples like this guy. However, it seems clear to me that this guy believes in the Islamic subjugation of infidels by any means necessary.

A highly rated comment says:
The guy who drove this truck no more represents Islam than the torturers of the Inquisition represent Christianity.
Is he really comparing to something 500 years ago? I guess you have to go back 500 years to find Christians behaving as badly as Muslims. But of course the Inquisition torturers were not as bad as today's Muslims. Christians did not go around randomly killing innocent ppl in the name of God.

Thursday, November 02, 2017

Net neutrality will not help artists

A NY Times op-ed argues:
Whenever anyone wants to see her set, boom! It’s right there on the internet. Anyone — her friends, bookers, fellow comedians or maybe just millions of strangers — can search for it or stumble upon it. ...

Issa Rae started the web series “The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl” on YouTube in 2011. Thanks in large part to its success, six years later, her comedy series, “Insecure,” is set to air for a third season on HBO. It’s hard to imagine this happening in a world without net neutrality. ...

Thanks to our current net neutrality rules, when people like this take their genius beyond Twitter, to the rest of the internet, they don’t have to worry about whether it’s in a pay-to-play internet “fast lane” that makes access to certain types of content easier. They’re in the same lane as everyone else, because net neutrality means there can be only one lane.
The trouble with this argument is that Google, YouTube, and Twitter have lobbied to exempt themselves from the net neutrality rules. Those companies can censor whomever they want, based on their business plan or political views or incompetence, and they do.

Google, Apple, etc. want themselves to be at the master control switches that determine what you can see on the internet, and net neutrality is just a scheme to lock in their power. The rules say that those companies can apply whatever content favoritism they please, and no other companies can interfere with the choices that Google and Apple are dictating on us.

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Can civilization be transmitted

Jan Sobieski IV criticizes this view:
As Samuel Francis proclaimed at the first American Renaissance conference in 1994 in Atlanta:
…The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people. If the people or race that created and sustained the civilization of the West should die, then the civilization also will die.
So, it’s not enough to say whites built Western civilization in the sense that a long time ago whites started Western civilization — that the West originates with white people — even though many Alt-Righties imprecisely articulate their view as such. Rather, for the Alt-Right, whites perpetuate, maintain, and define Western civilization. They’re necessary, but more importantly, essential to it.
I am not sure that the Alt Right is making that argument.

But is the argument true?

It seems to me that Western Civilization could be transmitted to the Japanese, but then it wouldn't really be Western Civilization. It would become a Japanese civilization. How different would it be? That is hard to say.

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Canada undergoing population replacement

Martin Collacott writes in the Vancouver Sun paper:
According to University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be “visible minorities” within two decades and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.

Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.

Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.

While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population. Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie. The cost is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually. Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.

Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however. We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population. ...

If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.

Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.

And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of wilful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.
Vancouver will be 70% non-white in only 20 years.

So if Canadians don't want it, what are they willing to do about it? Other countries would fight a bloody war before they would let something like this happen to themselves.

Friday, October 27, 2017

How New Atheism has failed

Scott Alexander writes:
The Baffler publishes a long article against “idiot” New Atheists. It’s interesting only in the context of so many similar articles, and an inability to imagine the opposite opinion showing up in an equally fashionable publication. ...

The New Atheists accomplished the seemingly impossible task of alienating a society that agreed with them about everything. The Baffler-journalists of the world don’t believe in God. They don’t disagree that religion contributes to homophobia, transphobia, and the election of some awful politicians – and these issues have only grown more visible in the decade or so since New Atheism’s apogee. And yet in the bubble where nobody believes in God and everyone worries full-time about sexual minorities and Trump, you get less grief for being a Catholic than a Dawkins fan. ...

This is 90% of popular intellectual culture these days: progressives regurgitating progressivism to other progressives for nothing but the warm glow of being told “Yup, that was some good progressiving there”. Conservatives make fun of this incessantly, and they are right to do so. But for some reason, in the case of New Atheism and only in the case of New Atheism, Progressivism itself suddenly turned and said “Hey, you’re just repeating our own platitudes back to us!” And New Atheism, caught flat-footed, mouth open wide: “But…but..we thought we were supposed to…we thought…”.
There are several problems here.

The leaders of the New Atheists are all creeps, and their groups are dysfunctional. Just read about some of the controversies at their meetings.

The atheists attack Islam, but their appeal is largely to Christian-haters who like the fact that Islam undermines Christianity.

They barely talk about God at all, but try to use their nominal atheism to pretend to have rational thinking underlying their weirdo political views.

Atheism has become identified with leftist politics. I don't know whether the New Atheist leaders intended that, or if leftists hijacked the movement.

For all these reasons, and probably others, atheism has fallen out of favor.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

What destroys civilizations

Relampago Furioso writes:
In 1934, Oxford-educated anthropologist J.D. Unwin published Sex and Culture, a scientific study of 6 civilizations and 80 tribes covering a span of 5,000 years of human history. He warned of the consequences of completely abandoning restraints on female sexuality.
These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.
This dire warning came a full 30 years before the CIA funded Gloria Steinem and her Ms. Magazine. Any policymaker educated in anthropology would have known of Unwin’s groundbreaking revelation. This knowledge was ripe for the picking for those who wanted to break down Western society and redesign it as a New World Order collective in which the state was at the center of family. This of course means men have effectively become enemies of the state.

Aldous Huxley thought highly of Unwin’s ideas. He wrote:
Unwin’s conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.
In layman’s terms, Huxley warned us human society would regress rather than progress if women were allowed to become degenerate whores and their uncontrolled hypergamous instincts allowed the Pareto Principle to return – a world in which 20% of men dominate the sexuality of 80% of women. The rest of men go without until sex and companionship until they Go Galt and tear the system down.
I don't know whether this is right or not, but is anyone even considering these issues? It appears to be a flaw of modern liberal democracy that policies can lead to the destruction of society, and no mechanism is in place to consider the consequences. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church might have filled this role, but not anymore.

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Evolutionist complains about "cheap white eggs"

Professor Nathan Lents specializes in human evolutionary biology, and wrote 2 years ago:
The podcast is about Tal and Amir, two gay men from Israel who have a baby, actually three babies (!), through IVF with surrogacy. ...

The phrase “cheap white eggs” gets more sinister the longer you think about it. First, it implies that white eggs, and thus white people, are a premium. It also reveals that, although there is a desire for thrift, racial preferences trumps all. These aren’t ‘white cheap eggs,’ they are ‘cheap white eggs.’ The baby had to be white. Preferably cheap, but definitely white. ...

The scrutiny of the egg donor brings the story face-to-face with one of the most thorny ethical issues in reproductive medicine today: designer babies. Our society is inching closer and closer to the days when technology may allow us to select and edit the physical and even mental characteristics of our children.

The only discussion of this that we got was one question, “And why do you want your children to be tall?” Amir responds, “Well because it’s just easier!” The story then moves on. ...

However, if you don’t see the white supremacy built into the phrase “cheap white eggs,” which drew laughs from all involved in this story,” I suspect the whole thrust of my take on this story will be lost on you so maybe just move on.
Lents is mixed up. The phrase “cheap white eggs” implies that white eggs are cheap, not that they are a premium or supreme. If they were premium, they would be premium white eggs.

No, I don’t see the white supremacy built into the phrase “cheap white eggs”. Maybe "expensive white eggs" would suggest white supremacy, but being cheap does not mean supreme.

If anything, the story suggests Jewish supremacy. They live in a country that encourages Jewish immigration, Jewish culture, Jewish education, Jewish settlements, and Jewish couples having Jewish babies. The Jewish authorities have no interest in creating some sort of racial equality with non-Jews.

It is very strange for him to complain about white supremacy, when whites have very little to do with the story. It is about gay Israeli Jews making Jewish babies by exploiting non-Jews in other countries. Lents also complains that the Jews did not consider other options, that they cheat the non-Jewish women out of money, and that the podcast did not fully explore the human side. But the show explicitly explains that the gay couple spent several years trying all the options, and it goes to a lot of trouble to interview the parties involved .

Lents has written a book about how humans are just like animals. So surely he understands Jewish evolutionary strategies. Being gay would appear to be a poor strategy, but apparently the couple has 3 kids anyway.

Monday, October 23, 2017

Denial of race is leftist ideological

Massimo Pigliucci is a philosophy professor, and writes a lot on pseudoscience and related subjects. He posts:
Research on the genetics of skin color differences deals yet another blow to the idea that races are real.
I replied:
The genetics article is only a blow to the straw man idea that race is synonymous with skin color. The prevailing view for centuries has been that skin color is just one of many racial differences, and that view is not at all threatened by the new research. On the contrary, the research helps explain how skin color got coupled to race.
He responded:
What would be the “prevailing view for centuries” of the biology of race? Because my understanding as a biologist is that the prevailing view is that races do not exist. They are, literally, skin deep.
I posted the following reply, with references to back up what I wrote, but Pigliucci promptly deleted it:
Today's prevailing scientific view is that races do exist. For $200, you can get a DNA test if you are not sure of your race. Here are some modern explanations, from different political viewpoints:
On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism
More on biology and race
The Biological Reality of Race
Race is not just skin color
Why race as a biological construct matters
Richard Dawkins accepts the usefulness of race

For history, see Wikipedia: Historical race concepts.
For an example of earlier thinking, see the biology textbook used in the 1925 Scopes Trial: "The Races of Man. - At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest race type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

While you may disagree with some of this, no one says that race is only skin deep.
He has now closed comments without mine, so I am posting it here.

He did allow this comment, referring to his own paper on the subject:
Note that the Pigliucci and Kaplan paper states that part of the reason for arguing that races don’t exist is political/ideological: “Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races.”

The paper then starts: “It has become commonplace to claim that, insofar as “race” is a biological concept, there are no human races. This claim, while widely defended, is misguided.”
Note that the paper is unable to show that the race concept is wrong; only that it is political "misguided" because leftists do not approve of some of the implications.

Pigliucci responds:
Please do not patronize me. I have given you plenty of arguments over the years, on a variety of subjects. Never made a dent. And now you perversely insist in using my own paper to make an argument that is either irrelevant or entirely at odds with what Kaplan and I wrote. Enjoy yourself, I will not take part.
Pigliucci won't even defend his own paper!

His arguments don't make a dent because they are contrary to modern science on almost every front, and they are illogical political opinions.

The denial of biological human races is entirely based on leftist politics and ideology. The deniers make silly arguments that do not even make any sense.

Pigliucci is of course a typical academic Trump-hater who complains about Republicans being anti-science. However he is much more anti-science than those he attacks.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

The sins of Harvey Weinstein

I hate to pile on Harvey Weinstein, but we need to learn the right lessons from his collapse:
The real reason he’s a scumbag

Weinstein is a feminist, a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and the financial force behind the recent date-rape hysteria documentary The Hunting Ground. On the surface, that seems ironic, but there actually isn’t a contradiction in a male feminist being a “predator” at the same time he works to alienate women from men as a whole. ...

Weinstein’s deep hatred for the West can be seen in all of his films, including Django Unchained, the anti-Catholic Philomena and the anti-Christian Mary Magdalene, due out in 2018.

In the respected Jewish arts-and-culture publication Tablet Magazine, Mark Oppenheimer  surmised that Weinstein was motivated by a desire for revenge on “gentile” society. “It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women — Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc. — was a gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy of having risen above his outer-borough, bridge-and-tunnel Semitic origins.”
This is how Jews run Hollywood. They are at war with white Christian America.

I am reluctant to pile on, because I think that he is probably innocent of the criminal accusations, as they seem bogus:
Among those accusing him of rape is Asia Argento, who enjoyed success in the late ’90s and early 2000s. After the rape, “She said that she had consensual sexual relations with him multiple times over the course of the next five years, though she described the encounters as one-sided and ‘onanistic.’ Years later, when she was a single mother dealing with child care, Weinstein offered to pay for a nanny. She said that she felt ‘obliged’ to submit to his sexual advances. Argento said that she knew this contact would be used to attack the credibility of her allegation.”
These women prostitutes to me. First they sleep with Weinstein to advance their careers. Then they take cash for sexual services. Then, when it appears that he will be paying out million dollar settlements, they suddenly present stories from many years ago to get more money.

So why are they suddenly turning on him now? Because his power has declined a lot:
During his up years, Weinstein really seemed to understand Briffault’s Law. English anthropologist Robert Briffault (1876-1948) wrote that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” ...

By 2016, Hollywood had started to notice that Weinstein’s ability to deliver had faded. His films were bombing. No Oscars had been awarded to any actress since Lawrence. As Briffault’s Law deftly puts it: “Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him.”
It sure is funny how fast a man can fall so far. A couple of years ago, he had a lot more power, and his Hollywood and media friends covered up for him.

The other big sexual harassment story is Bill O'Reilly. The NY Times now reports that he paid $32M to Lis Wiehl for a "nonconsensual sexual relationship" and sending gay porn, over a period of 15 years. Wiehl graduated from Harvard Law School, and was threatening to sue him. He paid off previous settlements for various rude and flirtatious remarks, such as calling a black woman employee "hot chocolate".

A lot of ppl also dislike O'Reilly for various reasons, especially at the NY Times.

It is hard for me to believe that Wiehl had a 15-year nonconsensual sexual relationship with O'Reilly, or that anything happened that would justify $32M. It appears to me that Wiehl was extorting money out of her, because O'Reilly desperately needed her compliance so that he could renew his contract. The whole thing stinks.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

China policy may have averted 1 billion people

AAAS Science Mag reports:
A new study of China’s one-child policy is roiling demography, sparking calls for the field’s leading journal to withdraw the paper. The controversy has ignited a debate over scholarly values in a discipline that some say often prioritizes reducing population growth above all else.

Chinese officials have long claimed that the one-child policy — in place from 1980 to 2016 — averted some 400 million births, which they say aided global environmental efforts. Scholars, in turn, have contested that number as flawed. But in a paper published in the journal Demography in August, Daniel Goodkind — an analyst at the U.S. Census Bureau in Suitland, Maryland, who published as an independent researcher — argues that the figure may, in fact, have merit.

By extrapolating from countries that experienced more moderate fertility decline, Goodkind contends that birth-planning policies implemented after 1970 avoided adding between 360 million and 520 million people to China’s population. Because the momentum from that decline will continue into later generations, he suggests, the total avoided population could approach 1 billion by 2060. Some scholars worry such estimates could be used to justify, ex post facto, the policy’s existence, and feel that Goodkind’s criticisms of previous work fall outside the bounds of scholarly decorum.

“For the top journal to publish that paper was quite something,” says Nancy Riley, a demographer ...

Beginning in 2000, an international group of researchers appealed to the Chinese government to relax birth-planning regulations. At the heart of their argument was empirical research debunking the claim of 400 million averted births.
In other words, many researchers are saying that scientific publications should be manipulated to conform to political goals.

There are various political and moral arguments for and against the China 1-child policy. I am not sure what my position on that would have been. But it is a little crazy to say that data and analysis should only be published if it supports one side of the argument.

Friday, October 20, 2017

Who is afraid of Richard Spencer?

Why is anyone afraid of Richard B. Spencer?

I have watched several of his Youtube videos. He does not express radical opinions or make strong arguments. Mostly he makes general and oblique comments about current political events and what he considers the Alt Right movement. He occasionally says he prefers ppl of similar ethnicity to himself, but that is true about most of the world.

What he does do is trigger hatred of white ppl. Spencer does not advocate white supremacy, but the protesters against must give many observers a better argument for white supremacy than anything Spencer would say anyway. The protesters seem like lunatics, fascists, criminals, and undesirables. Spencer seems calm and rational by comparison.

A Martian might conclude that folks like Spencer should be running the country, while the protesters should not be allowed to vote.

I think that the protesters would be much better off ignoring Spencer. Nobody would have heard of him, if it were not for these protests.

Update: Gateway Pundit claims Spencer is a Deep State plant.
It is clear to anyone with in IQ above room temperature, that, if you are on the right, and you are going to an event organized by Richard Spencer, Jason Kessler, Mike Enoch, or Eli Mosley, you are, what Spencer’s hero Lenin called, a “useful idiot”. You are going to be photographed, documented, and you are going to have an FBI file labeled “Domestic Terrorist” on it for the rest of your life.

Father's nightmare in divorce court

Wonder what family court is like? Paul Schwennesen tells his story, and how fathers are mistreated.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

CNBC says future holds racial doom

Here is another forbidden truth. CNBC announces:
Market doomsayer Marc "Dr. Doom" Faber has launched a racially charged diatribe in his latest newsletter, alleging that the U.S. is great primarily because it is ruled by white people.

The eccentric Gloom, Boom & Doom report author, who often speaks on CNBC and other financial media, generally forecasting some type of market downturn, focused his latest comments on the racial conflicts happening around the country.

(A CNBC spokesperson said it will not book him in the future.)

"And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority," he wrote.

"I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out."
I assume that if CNBC thought that he was wrong, then it would just have another guest to prove him wrong. Not that it would have to do anything, as he did not make the controversial comments on the air.

The guy apparently thinks that racial conflict is increasing, and is bad for the future of America. I guess he is not allowed to say that anymore.

Zimbabwe is a country that went from white rule to black rule, and then to chaos.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Why environmentalists avoid population issues

Overpopulation is at the root of most, if not all, environmental problems, from global warming to pollution. Any honest environmentalist would devote most of his efforts to reducing population and immigration.

But the vocal environmentalists are on the Left, and one of them explains:
I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.
Since you asked (many times).
Updated by David Sep 26, 2017

I thought I would explain, once and for all, why I hardly ever talk about population, and why I’m unlikely to in the future. …

When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern … let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over “population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings. …

History is replete with examples, but perhaps the most germane recent episode was less than 20 years ago, at the Sierra Club, which was riven by divisions over immigration. ..

These members advocated sharply restricting immigration, saying the US should be reducing rather than increasing its population. …
The article goes on to say that it is more politically acceptable to advocate educating Third World girls so that they won't want to have babies. Or to attack wealthy inequality, as it is popular to blame wealth ppl for everything.

Monday, October 16, 2017

California bans animal breeding for pets

UPI reports:
California becomes first state to require stores sell only rescue animals

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation into law this week that requires pet stores in the state to exclusively sell rescue dogs, cats and rabbits.

Assembly Bill 485, the Pet Rescue and Adoption Act, requires all dogs, cats, and rabbits offered for retail sale in California to be obtained from animal shelters or non-profit rescue organizations. ...

The bill received widespread support from rescue organizations, but was opposed by groups that included the American Kennel Club and California Retailers Association. ...

Assembly Bill 485 unanimously passed the California state senate in September and will go into effect Jan. 1, 2019.
I did not know that there was even any such thing as rescue rabbits.

Now if you buy a dog, you might have to get a pit bull that survived criminal dog fights. I am told that pits bulls are the most common breed in shelters today.

I guess animal breeding is not illegal yet, and you may be able to buy directly from a breeder.

In a few years, California will ban the breeding of humans. If you want a child, you will have to adopt a rescue child from some place like Guatemala or Somalia.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Democracy will be toast

Vox reports:
Is American democracy in decline? Should we be worried?

On October 6, some of America’s top political scientists gathered at Yale University to answer these questions. And nearly everyone agreed: American democracy is eroding on multiple fronts — socially, culturally, and economically.

The scholars pointed to breakdowns in social cohesion (meaning citizens are more fragmented than ever), the rise of tribalism, the erosion of democratic norms such as a commitment to rule of law, and a loss of faith in the electoral and economic systems as clear signs of democratic erosion. ...

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard University, summed it up well: “If current trends continue for another 20 or 30 years, democracy will be toast.”
This is a consequence of leftist identity politics and immigration.

Nobody believes in world democracy. Democracy only makes sense if you believe that your fellow man has similar interests. If we are going to admit millions of folks with completely different values, then they will eventually vote to destroy the USA as we know it. It does not make sense to let them all out-vote us.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

How Israeli law mistreats dads

Ever wonder what the Jewish concept of marriage is?

Jews are only 2% of the USA population, but they are 3 out of the 5 supreme court votes to redefine marriage, and also very big in the psychology and lawyer groups that influence family law. And of course Hollywood characters like Harvey Weinstein control how marriage is portrayed in movies and TV. Most ppl assume that Jews have essentially the same Judeo-Christian values as other Americans, but it is not true.

The National Parents Organization reports:
If you think fathers in the U.S. have it tough, you’re right, but nowhere near as tough as do Israeli dads.

I’ve written a fair amount about the horror show that is the family court system in Israel. They make no pretense of fairness or doing what’s best for kids. In Israel, children of divorce get essentially no relationship with their fathers until they’re seven. The meager visitation periods are carried out at supervised locations only. If a father needs to travel abroad, even for a brief period, he has to post a bond in the amount of 100% of the child support he’s required to pay for all the years he’s required to pay it. Feminist organizations oppose every effort to improve children’s relationships with their fathers, even minor ones. As far as I can tell, that opposition is invariably successful.

Now we know why (Israel National News, 10/11/17).
The Knesset's Special Committee for the Rights of the Child will hold a meeting on alienating chil dren from their parents - but will only invite women's organizations to take part.
Yes, the Knesset has decided to gather information about parental alienation, but will get it only from women’s groups. No fathers or fathers’ groups were invited. Say, I wonder how balanced those hearings will be.

Here in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and the like, feminist groups have routinely claimed that parental alienation doesn’t exist, that the very concept is nothing more than a sneaky move by fathers’ organizations to shanghai children from “protective” mothers who, naturally, are entitled to have the kids, no questions asked. ...

Anti-father bigotry doesn’t get much clearer than what the gender feminists are doing on this issue in Israel and the linked-to article is admirably blunt about the fact.
Most alienated parents are fathers, since mothers automatically receive custody of all children under age six. If even one child is under six years of age, the mother will receive automatic custody of all the siblings in case of divorce.
The latter is a fact I’d not previously known. The Tender Years Doctrine doesn’t only mean that kids under seven automatically live with Mom, but that all their siblings do too, irrespective of age. So the TYD in fact intrudes on all father-child relationships, not just those of kids under seven.
Meanwhile, until the divorce agreements are final, the non-custodial parent meets their children for one hour once a week at a supervised "contact center" only. Finalizing the divorce agreements can sometimes take years, during which time the children are unable to have a healthy relationship with their non-custodial parent (usually the father).
Yes, Israeli courts encourage mothers to drag out the divorce process. Since they have the children until the final order is signed (and in the case of kids under seven, afterward as well), mothers can easily degrade the father-child relationship during the divorce process. During that time, parental alienation is easy to achieve should Mom so desire. Plus,
In addition, mothers are told by their lawyers to lie and claim that their partners hit them or harmed the children.
I don't object to a Jewish country applying Jewish law to marriage, or a Moslem country applying Moslem law.

But I do object to Jews having any say over marriage law for American non-Jews.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Badmouthing colonialism

I posted arguments for colonialism, and here is a rebuttal:
Gilley says he is simply asking for an unbiased assessment of the facts, that he just wants us to take off our ideological blinders and examine colonialism from an empirical perspective. But this is not what he has done. Instead, in his presentation of colonialism’s record, Gilley has deliberately excluded mention of every single atrocity committed by a colonial power. Instead of evaluating the colonial record empirically, he has distorted that record, concealing evidence of gross crimes against humanity. The result is not only unscholarly, but is morally tantamount to Holocaust denial.

First, Gilley says he is making a “case for colonialism,” to rescue Western colonial history’s “bad name.” But he restricts his examination to “the early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries.” He does so because if he were to include the first 300 years of Western colonialism (i.e. the majority), it would be almost impossible to mount any kind of case that the endeavor benefited indigenous populations. ...

Next, Gilley’s method of defending colonialism is through “cost-benefit analysis,” in which the harms of colonialism are weighed against the “improvements in living conditions” and better governance. ... We should observe here that this is a terrible way of evaluating colonialism. It is favored by colonialism’s apologists because it means that truly unspeakable harms can simply be “outweighed” and thereby trivialized.
It seems completely reasonable to me that arguments for present-day colonialism would be based on an examination of more recent colonialism, and to look at the costs and benefits.

Saying "morally tantamount to Holocaust denial" is especially strange. Obviously the author has some sort of emotional or religious hatred of white ppl, and badmouthing colonialism is sacred to him.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Self-hating white people

I was perusing a diversity page of a politically correct site, and to my surprise it had a link for white culture! It was the Center for the Study of White American Culture.

But it turns out that they don't believe in white culture at all. The Center promotes inter-racial marriage, and "decentering whiteness" so that white ppl can learn to be dominated by other races.

The White American Culture site has not been updated in a few years, so maybe the entity is dead.

It defines:
Race - a specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using "white" as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power.
This is nutty. In my experience, non-whites are much more race-conscious than whites.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Low IQ kids get spanked more

The libertarian site is "ANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET", and is also anti-spanking:
The duo studied samples of 806 children ages two to four and 704 children ages five to nine and then retested both groups four years later. The IQs of children between the ages of two and four who were not spanked ranked five points higher compared to those who were spanked in their same age group. Children who were five to nine years old that were not spanked were 2.8 points higher in IQ four years later compared to their spanked counterparts. ...

A study published in the Journal of Family Psychology by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan claims that children who get spanked are more likely to “defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties.“
These were not controlled studies. We know that IQ and personality disorders are largely inborn. All these studies show is that low-IQ misbehaving kids get spanked more. Black kids get spanked the most.

The researchers and the libertarians reverse the causality here, and conclude that spanking causes low IQ and bad behavior. Similar reasoning would conclude that spanking causes black skin.

The dishonesty of these folks is apparent from their refusal to even mention the possibility of reversed causality. The anti-spanking research and advocacy is driven by unscientific beliefs about nonviolence and child rights.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Amnesty International Nazis

Amnesty International describes its mission:

Discrimination strikes at the very heart of being human. It is treating someone differently simply because of who they are or what they believe.

We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, sex, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,health or other status. Yet all too often we hear heart-breaking stories of people who suffer cruelty simply for belonging to a “different” group from those in power.

Amnesty’s work is rooted in the principle of non-discrimination.
Based on this, it should stick up for neo-nazis and white nationalists. They are often mistreated for who they are and what they believe.

You might argue that AI is not intending to support groups that hate other groups, but I think they do have that intention. The statement seems worded to include Moslems who believe in killing infidels. AI itself would not agree with killing infidels, but it also seems to support Moslems having that belief.

Monday, October 09, 2017

Censorship on Columbus Day

Want proof that colonialism was a good thing?

I mentioned that Colonialism article might be censored, and now it has happened:
A controversial essay that offered a defense of colonialism and led to a revolt at Third World Quarterly has been withdrawn due to “serious and credible threats of personal violence” to the journal’s editor, according to a notice posted by the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis.

The essay, “The Case for Colonialism,” was withdrawn at the request of the journal’s editor, Shahid Qadir, ...
If you have not read the arguments in favor of colonialism, then you do not have an informed opinion on the subject. Now the anti-white thugs will prevent any honest scholarly discussion.

For now, you can find the (pdf) article here.

More and more, celebrations of Columbus Day have been replaced with complaints about Columbus committing genocide against indigenous ppl. Only obscure blogs like Rightly Considered do anonymous philosophers deny that it was genocide.
Most people know that the Aztecs were conquered by Cortez. But how many people know that the Aztecs were an aggressive empire that was at war with other Mesoamerican states? ... Cortez only conquered the far superior Aztec numbers because Tlaxcala and the Totonacs considered the Spanish useful allies to curb the great threat of the Aztecs coming from Tenochtitlan. ...

Although not allies like the Tlaxacallans, the Tarascans also accepted Spanish sovereignty and likewise were exempt from the brutal suppression that the Spaniard inflicted upon the Mesoamerican states they defeated in war. The diverse histories of the Aztecs, Tarascans, and Tlaxacallans make the imposition of a single narrative in Mesoamerica inaccurate or misleading. And certainly the treatment of the latter two cannot be understood as a genocide. ...

Spain does not represent all colonial powers. English and French models were quite different in their approach to the Americas. The French got along famously with the Indians they encountered. The British treated the Indians as sovereign polities and negotiated and made trade agreements and alliances with them.
All this talk of genocide by white-haters is just going to encourage more talk of White Genocide. Currently white countries are being invaded by non-whites from the Third World.

Update: AP reports:
President Donald Trump is proclaiming Monday as Columbus Day — without any of his predecessor's qualms.

The president's proclamation Friday directs the U.S. to celebrate his discovery of the Americas, noting "the permanent arrival of Europeans ... was a transformative event that undeniably and fundamentally changed the course of human history and set the stage for the development of our great Nation."

Trump's proclamation only praises Columbus, Spain and the explorer's native Italy.

It contrasts with President Barack Obama's document almost exactly a year earlier. Obama's proclamation acknowledged Columbus' spirit of exploration. But he said the nation should "also acknowledge the pain and suffering reflected in the stories of Native Americans who had long resided on this land prior to the arrival of European newcomers."
Trump is right here. Columbus's discovery was maybe the most important and positive transformative events in all of human history. That is why Columbus Day is celebrated.