Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Ten Reasons to Look Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, December 05, 2016


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, December 04, 2016

NYT tries to define the Alt-right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, December 02, 2016

Rape is re-defined again

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

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

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

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

Thursday, December 01, 2016

Disavowing the kooks

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

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

Twitter is even threatening to ban the US President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Democrats try to discredit election

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, November 25, 2016

Trump's margin of victory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 24, 2016

Fear of Trump spying on your cellphone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Defining white nationalism

The NY Times explains:
A question has been posed in a puzzled whisper in many of the nation’s living rooms and newsrooms ever since Donald J. Trump’s triumph in this month’s presidential election: What, exactly, is white nationalism? ...

Professor Kaufmann says the terms are not synonyms: White supremacy is based on a racist belief that white people are innately superior to people of other races; white nationalism is about maintaining political and economic dominance, not just a numerical majority or cultural hegemony.

For a long time, he said, white nationalism was less an ideology than the default presumption of American life. Until quite recently, white Americans could easily see the nation as essentially an extension of their own ethnic group.

But the country’s changing demographics, the civil rights movement and a push for multiculturalism in many quarters mean that white Americans are now confronting the prospect of a nation that is no longer built solely around their own identity.
So white nationalism is just the "default presumption" from a few years ago? If so, did we have some vote or collective decision to change it?

Maybe some of these ppl have some sinister beliefs, but the NY Times appears to use the term to include those who have little interest in race, but do not want to flood the USA with Third World immigrants and Islamic terrorists.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The Real War on Science

I have argued on this blog that the Left is much more anti-science than the Right.

John Tierney writes about this in detail:
The Real War on Science
The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress.

My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don’t devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?

My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced?
As he details, the Left has corrupted vital research, but not the Right.

The biggest example 8 years ago was stem cell funding, but Barack Obama's policy was not much different from G.W. Bush's, and little has come of the research. The biggest example now is probably global warming, but that is also well-funded under Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans even fund areas that are overwhelmingly Leftist, and where the research has Leftist conclusions.

Monday, November 21, 2016

Failure of Identity Liberalism

Columbia prof Mark Lilla writes in the NY Times:
It is a truism that America has become a more diverse country. It is also a beautiful thing to watch.
Especially beautiful if you hate white ppl.
Hillary Clinton ... tended on the campaign trail to ... slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.
Mentioning them all no longer works for the Democrats. She loses votes by saying "All lives matter." To get the votes of those who hate whites and Christians, she has to signal that she will appoint ppl who hate them also.
But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them.
But the Democrats have nothing going for them, except hating whites and Christians.

Advertising Age reports:
… It seemed like every ad that Clinton and her allies released in the ensuing months was simply a variation on the theme that Donald Trump is a big jerk. In fact, as recently as Sunday, Clinton’s campaign released a video titled “10 minutes of Donald Trump demeaning, objectifying, and insulting women.”

Whereas Trump’s campaign released dead-simple, exceedingly traditional ads related to Big Issues. In Trump’s first TV commercial of the general election, a narrator declared that “In Hillary Clinton’s America, the system stays rigged against Americans. Syrian refugees flood in. Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line….”
On foreign policy, the Democrats and NeverTrumpers have become the warmongers:
Of all the people in the world, it is nationalists who are now the least inclined to support devastating world wars. It is globalists who want to intervene in Syria, establish no-fly zones, put troops on Russia’s border, encircle China with military bases, and overthrow governments in the name of “democracy.”
That is why President Trump will be much more liked and respected overseas than Barack Obama, or than Hillary Clinton would have been.

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Overturn the international order

Atlantic mag reports on a liberal Trump-hater:
Last week, Thomas Wright, an expert on U.S. foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, made a bold claim on Twitter about the presidential race in the United States. “Pretty clear this is the most important election anywhere in the world since the two German elections of 1932,” he wrote, in reference to the parliamentary elections that ultimately resulted in Adolf Hitler coming to power. “No other election has had the capacity to completely overturn the international order — the global economy, geopolitics, etc.” ...

Wright: Somebody has to do the heavy lifting, so who would do that? People made that argument pretty credibly in the 1990s to mid-2000s about Europe — that Europe could take on a lot of the burden, ...

Europe should do more, but realistically, if the U.S. pulled out of Europe, what’s likely to happen in France, for instance? Is it more likely that France will become very internationalist and liberal, or is it more likely that it will trend to the right and that [National Front leader] Marine Le Pen will have a better chance of being elected — [that France] will have a nationalist government that will look out for itself?
Really? The USA is meddling in Europe in order to deter France from looking out for itself?!

I was all in favor of using NATO to deter a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. But that was during the Cold War and France is currently in a military emergency because it is not nationalist enuf, and it is letting Moslems destroy its nation. Electing Le Pen is probably the best thing that France can do now, and if Trump does something to encourage that, so much the better.

By "international order", I guess he means some sort of New World Order where globalists destroy nations.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Chomsky is in election panic

Noam Chomsky says:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.

Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand. ...

It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.

Similar observations hold for the other huge issue concerning human survival: the threat of nuclear destruction, which has been looming over our heads for 70 years and is now increasing. ...

Turning finally to the question raised, to be precise, it appears that Clinton received a slight majority of the vote. ...

According to current information, Trump broke all records in the support he received from white voters, ...

The Democratic Party abandoned any real concern for working people by the 1970s, and they have therefore been drawn to the ranks of their bitter class enemies, ...
No, Clinton did not get a majority of the vote, and Trump's support from white voters was nothing unusual.

Russia was apparently much more concerned about Clinton starting a nuclear war, than Trump.

If global warming is his big concern, then the best remedy is nuclear power, and Republicans are much more likely to encourage that than Democrats.

If you want to preserve Western Civilization as we know it, then Trump is the only major politician who stands firmly for that.

Here is a liberal who denies the existence of Western Civilization:
The idea that the best of the culture of Greece was passed by way of Rome into western Europe gradually became, in the middle ages, a commonplace. In fact this process had a name. It was called the “translatio studii”: the transfer of learning. And it was an astonishingly persistent idea. More than six centuries later, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the great German philosopher, told the students of the high school he ran in Nuremberg: “The foundation of higher study must be and remain Greek literature in the first place, Roman in the second.”

So from the late middle ages until now, people have thought of the best in the culture of Greece and Rome as a civilisational inheritance, passed on like a precious golden nugget, dug out of the earth by the Greeks, transferred, when the Roman empire conquered them, to Rome. ...

If the notion of Christendom was an artefact of a prolonged military struggle against Muslim forces, our modern concept of western culture largely took its present shape during the cold war. In the chill of battle, we forged a grand narrative about Athenian democracy, the Magna Carta, Copernican revolution, and so on. Plato to Nato. Western culture was, at its core, individualistic and democratic and liberty-minded and tolerant and progressive and rational and scientific. ...

How have we managed to tell ourselves that we are rightful inheritors of Plato, Aquinas, and Kant, when the stuff of our existence is more Beyoncé and Burger King? ...

We live with seven billion fellow humans on a small, warming planet. The cosmopolitan impulse that draws on our common humanity is no longer a luxury; it has become a necessity.
So he is uncomfortable talking about the Greece-Rome-Christendom tradition, and prefers overpopulation and global warming as the cultural ties that bind us together.

This is nutty. Western culture made the world great, and we should keep it.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Trump gained non-white votes

Psychiatrist Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex) writes:
Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. ...

Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. ...

Nor was there some surge in white turnout. ...

I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s “the candidate of the KKK” and “the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement” is made up. ...

I work in mental health. So far I have had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation. ...

Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.

Stop crying wolf. ...

Stop talking about dog whistles. The kabbalistic similarities between “dog-whistling” and “wolf-crying” are too obvious to ignore.

Stop writing articles breathlessly following everything the KKK says. Stop writing several times more articles about the KKK than there are actual Klansmen. ...

Stop saying that being against crime is a dog whistle for racism. Have you ever met a crime victim? They don’t like crime. ...

Stop turning everything into identity politics. The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout “IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!” at everything, and then when the right wing finally says “Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?” you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.

Stop calling Trump voters racist.
Funny. Yes, the Trump-haters suffer from some sort of collective mental illness. The voters wised up to this racist fearmongering by the mainstream press.

The NY Times reports:
An automated army of pro-Donald J. Trump chatbots overwhelmed similar programs supporting Hillary Clinton five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election ...

The role fake news played in the presidential election has become a sore point for the technology industry, particularly Google, Twitter and Facebook. On Monday, Google said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Facebook also updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.

In some cases, the bots would post embarrassing photos, make references to the Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, ...
The Left controls 95% of the news media, but that is not enuf to win a Presidential election this time. So they need greater control, and they are conspiring to censor other views by calling them fake news.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Academic left suffering from paranoia

Texas complexity theorist (and typical Jewish liberal) Scott Aaronson writes:
The entire question might be moot at this point: I’m not certain that the United States will have additional elections, as opposed to Putin-style stamps of approval. But the good news is that, if there are more elections (and no mass expulsions or executions), then the country’s demographics are ultimately on our side.
IOW, unless Donald Trump takes drastic action, the Left will succeed in their plan for White Genocide.
But there’s even a further issue. Namely, while I have trouble predicting exactly what Trump and his cronies will do, I have no trouble whatsoever predicting how the academic left will respond. Namely, as Scott Alexander explained in detail, faced with a complete loss of power over the direction of the country, SJWs will respond by consolidating their power over what they still do control (e.g., academia and various tech organizations), punishing the slightest dissent or heresy with a vehemence that made them look like Care Bears previously. If that’s not what happens, come back here in a few years and tell me I was wrong.
So Clinton and the academic left are nearly pure evil, and he cannot blame Trump for anything, but he still fears Trump.

A reader responds:
Scott, the left has been tormenting you all your life, as you stated right here on this blog. Right now they are rioting and burning things in the city you live in, and making dire death threats in every direction. Meanwhile, I have to wonder if you’ve ever even _met_ a Trump supporter. And yet, you reel in terror before the one but not the other. Why is this?
You can read Scott's response, but he essentially admits that his fear of Trump is completely imaginary. He is just brainwashed to adopt stereotypical Jewish positions even if they are against all of his personal interests.

In spite of Aaronson's outstanding academic credentials, I am convinced that he suffers from a mental disorder. He lives in a pro-Trump state, but all of his colleagues are doctrinaire leftists, and he does not even know any Trump supporters.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Salvaging Western Civilization by peaceful means

The Daily Stormer wrote on election day:
The election today in America is by far the most important in any of our lifetimes. The outcome will determine if Western civilization will be salvaged through peaceful means or if it will descend into a chaotic abyss.

Hillary Clinton is a puppet for the same Jewish interests who have subverted Western civilization through their takeover and manipulation of our financial systems. ...

She will implement policies leading us into a war with Russia while continuing to flood America with an increasing number of third world savages. ...

Contrast Clinton with Donald Trump a billionaire who can’t be bought off by Jewish financial interests. All of his policy proposals if put into practice would give us a chance to restore Western civilization and move things back in a proper direction. ...

Most importantly he wants to end America’s unnecessarily antagonistic foreign policy stance towards Russia. The West has much more in common with Russia than any nation in the Middle East. ...

We are at a tipping point. The greatness of Western civilization has been forever tied to the racial stock of the White Europeans who created it. Anywhere in the world where White Europeans have settled, they have created great societies and civilizations. The on-going racial decline of White European populations brought about through the Jewish promotion of race mixing and mass third world migrations will end Western civilization if it continues.

It is the duty of every American of White European descent to vote for Donald Trump today. He is a symbolic representation of the people who built Western civilization. Hillary Clinton represents the Jewish interests who seek to destroy it.
It is possible that Clinton would have flooded us with Third World immigrants and provoked a war with Russia for reasons that nothing to do with the Jews. And I very much doubt that Trump subscribes to these theories.

But it is clear that Clinton would have been a disaster for Western Civilization. We dodged a bullet.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Calling the President-elect a racist

Politico reports:
For months, every story on the Huffington Post about Trump came with the following note at the bottom of the article.

"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."

A note sent to staff members from Huffpost’s Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim on Tuesday evening said the decision to remove the note was for a “clean slate”.

“The thinking is that (assuming he wins) that he’s now president and we’re going to start with a clean slate,” Grim wrote in the memo, obtained by POLITICO. "If he governs in a racist, misogynistic way, we reserve the right to add it back on. This would be giving respect to the office of the presidency which Trump and his backers never did."
The London Guardian reports:
As Donald Trump's shock election victory reverberated around Silicon Valley late on Tuesday night, some high-profile technologists were already calling for California to secede from the United States. The broader west coast is a stronghold for the Democrats, and significantly more politically progressive and racially diverse than large swathes of central U.S.
WiliLeaks showed that Google was secretly working for the Clinton campaign, and here is a statement from its CEO last year attacking Trump:
I came to the US from India 22 years ago. ...

And it’s not just about opportunity. The open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance of new Americans is one of the country’s greatest strengths and most defining characteristics. And that is no coincidence — America, after all, was and is a country of immigrants. ...

Let’s not let fear defeat our values. We must support Muslim and other minority communities in the US and around the world.
No, America was not, and is not, a country of immigrants. For most of our history, immigrants have been only 10% or so of the population.

Supporting Muslims around the world is not an American value.

His Google view is the opposite of tolerance. He moves to the USA and tries to tell us how to think and who to vote for. His fellow millionaires want to secede because they are intolerant of the American values that elected Trump.

Americans voting for Trump

Yahoo News reports:
Coulter roused support as well as plenty of outrage on Twitter Monday night when she posited, “If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide.” ...

When asked by Isikoff during Yahoo’s election-night coverage to explain the meaning of her tweet, Coulter bemoaned the backlash as “the most amazing display of political correctness.”

“MSNBC and CNN talk about how the Hispanic vote is going, how the black vote is going, how the Muslim vote is going, how the women’s vote is going,” said Coulter. “I comment on a demographic that is so hated that merely stating something, I am called every name in the book. That’s one demographic you can’t even state something about.”
I just wondered why she said "at least 4 grandparents". Are there ppl with 5 grandparents? Maybe if you count step-grandparents, but is that what she meant?

No, she presumably wanted to look at the demographic of Americans with American roots. She is probably right that they overwhelmingly voted for Trump. If she is suggesting that voters with less American roots are less likely to have American interests at heart, she is probably correct.

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Some election thoughts

Nearly all of the mainstream pundits said that (1) Trump does not know what he is doing, and (2) he cannot possibly win. They were all proved wrong.

The mainstream polls were also badly wrong. An AP poll a couple of weeks ago put Clinton ahead by 14 points! That difference cannot be explained by statistical error or ppl changing their minds.

Some pundits and pollsters got it right, and explained why the others were wrong.

Trump's win is an overwhelming mandate for the American ppl.

No one will win the popular vote, as no one got over 50% of it. If the election were based on a plurality of the popular vote, as some ppl urge, there might be fights for weeks.

I am believing more and more in the metaphor of The Matrix, where the authorities are constantly lying to us about how the world works. How else can you explain every authority figure being so out of touch?

Trump needs the Alt Right more than ever, as he will need popular support for his policies. Especially if he goes against entrenched business interests.

A great many supposedly-smart ppl seemed to not understand Trump support at all. How did they ever graduate from college if they are so stupid?

I read many essays, both for and against Trump. The pro-Trump essays were at a much higher intellectual level. The anti-Trump essays consisted mostly of name-calling and incoherent rambling. It was very difficult to find any pro-Clinton essay that made any sense.

I have come to the conclusion that most of the Trump haters, on the Right and the Left, suffer from a mental illness. There is no reasoning with them.

Of course the Left is scared to death that Trump will roll back their agenda. But they rarely admitted it.

We now have a redefined Republican party. Its backbone is the Alt Right, and not Reaganism anymore.

Friday, November 04, 2016

Internet is boon to democracy

Farhad Manjoo writes in the NY Times:
For years, technologists and other utopians have argued that online news would be a boon to democracy. That has not been the case.

More than a decade ago, as a young reporter covering the intersection of technology and politics, I noticed the opposite. The internet was filled with 9/11 truthers, and partisans who believed against all evidence that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry, or that Barack Obama was a foreign-born Muslim. (He was born in Hawaii and is a practicing Christian.)
Funny that he does not mention the partisans who believe that Bush stole the 2000 election. Maybe because the NY Times itself spread that myth.

The argument about Obama was that he was not a natural born citizen, and that Islamic law would consider him a Muslim. Those are both legitimate arguments.

But the bigger point is that Donald Trump is a major Presidential candidate, even tho he is opposed by all of the mainstream news media. His candidacy is only viable because millions of ppl can use the internet to see that the media elites are lying to them about him.

Among voters who are deciding for themselves, Trump is much more popularity. His rallies are huge, while no one likes or trusts Clinton. Trump has been chosen by the people, as the elites would never choose him. The internet has made that possible.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Attacks on the Alt Right

The New Yorker writes
The alt-right has no consistent ideology; it is a label, like “snob” or “hipster,” that is often disavowed by people who exemplify it. The term typically applies to conservatives and reactionaries who are active on the Internet and too anti-establishment to feel at home in the Republican Party. Bizarrely, this category includes the Republican nominee for President.
This is uninformed or crazy. The Left fears and despises Trump and the Alt Right because they do have a coherent ideology.

Just listen to a Trump speech. Or read an Alt Right site like the Gateway Pundit.

The extremist fringe is represented by Richard B. Spencer. See this Mother Jones article trashing him as a hateful racist.

Spencer granted interviews, but there are not any quotes to back up the extremist epithets. He is quoted as saying:
The alt-right is in a way conservatives who don't have anything to conserve anymore

Race is real, race matters, and race is the foundation of identity

I think white identity politics is inevitable. You can't become a minority and not understand yourself as in jeopardy in some way

I think there is something within the European soul that we haven't been able to measure yet and maybe we never will, and that is a Faustian drive or spirit — a drive to explore, a drive to dominate, a drive to live one's life dangerously … a drive to explore outer space and the universe. I think there is something within us that we possess and that only we possess.
If you want more extreme statements, try Daily Stormer. But the mainstream media refuses to mention that site. Perhaps they are afraid of getting trolled.

Mother Jones writes:
Years later, Spencer would through his Radix Journal help spread a metaphor used to explain the jarring experience of waking up to a different worldview. In the 1999 movie The Matrix, the character Morpheus (who is black, incidentally) offers Keanu Reeves a choice between taking a blue pill — "the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe" — or a red pill, which shows "how deep the rabbit hole goes." In the alt-right's telling, the so-called "normies" swallow the blue pill, digesting the fiction of racial equality, while those who get "red pilled" are stripped of the virtual-reality cloak that blinds them, waking up to the shattering realization that liberalism is just a mirage designed to obscure the hard, ugly truths of a world programmed by genetics. "You're destroyed by it," Spencer says, "and put back together again."
The metaphor is more common used to discuss myths about sexual equality.

The simplest and funniest definition of the Alt Right is that it opposes the Ctrl Left.

Update: The NY Times explains:
Pepe the Frog, Nasty Woman, #NeverTrump.

Internet memes, the viral in-jokes of online culture, have emerged as a potent force in the presidential race, serving to build up and tear down candidates. ...

A hashtag that really took off was #AccordingtoPalin, which was just a running joke about remarks that she had made that were very questionable, like, “You can see Russia from Alaska.” ...

Pepe didn’t become political until Donald Trump endorsed it by retweeting a Trump version of the character, which led to a mass influx of pro-Trump Pepes.

You have to consider social media’s political climate leading up to 2016, which has been heavily marked by the gender war and identity politics. These things led to the emergence of a reactionary movement, namely the alt-right, and Trump was kind of the natural poster boy for that.

Pepe plugged into the ideology of the alt-right because it was a reaction against the people they call “normies.” Pepe had been a symbol of the disenfranchised, social outcasts. It was Trump’s natural audience. ...

But the real trigger point that led to mass production of Nazi and other offensive Pepes was after Hillary Clinton released a denouncement of the meme, which is a milestone in meme history.

No meme has ever been denounced by a presidential candidate.
I think what Palin said was actually correct. You know that the Left has lost it when they complain about green frogs on the internet.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Most stereotype are accurate

A new paper claims:
Are stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? We summarize evidence that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable findings in social psychology. We address controversies in this literature, including the long-standing and continuing but unjustified emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy . . .
It is funny how some ppl think that stereotypes must be false.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

The decline of pro football

The Wash. Post reports:
Football, America’s biggest prime-time powerhouse, has been thrust into a crisis this fall, with dwindling ratings sparking questions over whether it can remain a gold mine for television ...

But now, the NFL is seeing its ratings tumble in the same way that the Olympics, awards shows and other live events have, falling more than 10 percent for the first five weeks of the season compared with the first five weeks of last season.
Aren't ppl boycotting the NFL?

Most of the NFL news I hear is peripheral to playing football. It is about air pressure or domestic violence or protesting white cops or some leftist goal. No thanks. I have lost all interest in watching games.

Friday, October 14, 2016

When you're a star they let you do it

It appears that Clinton and her allies will continue to bombard us with dubious allegations until election day. Trump is being asked whether he ever kissed a woman without asking permission first.

Besides just dirty politics, I have another theory for these stories. The core of leftist feminism is to deny human nature.

The video that was most upsetting to Republican cuckservatives revealed two uncomfortable truths: That men lust after beautiful women, and that women make themselves available to alpha men. As Trump said on the video:
And when you're a star they let you do it. ... You can do anything.
Right. Trump did not admit to sexually assaulting women. He said that women around TV star permit flirting and sexually suggestive activity.

Trump may have been exaggerating, I don't know. I doubt that the women will let the stars "do anything".

There are not enuf red pill voters to elect Trump, so he had to apologize. The truth hurts too much for most ppl.

I just heard what may have been the longest interview I have ever heard on NPR Radio news. Some woman claimed that she sat next to Trump on a commercial airplain about 20 years, and he was inappropriate. This was in plain view of other passengers, and none even noticed. She made no complaint, and did not switch to another seat. She thought that it was no big deal at the time. But now she is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, and asked the NY Times to tell her story.

Do you really want to live in a world where men have their careers destroyed from allegations like this?

Update: Here is an example of blue pill cuckservative thinking:
“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.
There are men who will always defend women, no matter how immoral or irresponsible her behavior.

There are also leftists who seek to regulate private personal conversations. To them, we must never express certain opinions, even in private. This thinking has now infected the Republican Party. There can be no freedom until such ppl are purged from the Party.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Trump-haters are nuts

In last night's debate, Donald Trump was asked if he had ever kissed a women without her permission. The moderator implied that Trump had admitted to criminal sexual assault in a leaked video.

So I finally viewed the video. The only thing Trump admits to is once taking a married woman furniture shopping in a very private and crude conversation. And that he is attracted to beautiful women.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Trump-haters suffer from some sort of mental illness. They express shock and outrage, but what did they expect? Are they really as clueless as they appear?

Here is a Slate Star Codex rant against Trump from 2 weeks ago:
The nightmare scenario is that Trump wins, his style of anti-intellectual populism is cemented as Official New Republican Ideology, and every educated person switches to the Democrats.

I’m not 100% this would be bad – maybe educated people who are temperamentally conservative would pull the Democratic Party a little to the right, turning them into a broad moderate coalition which has no problem winning elections and combines the smartest elements of liberal and conservative thought. ...

One more warning for conservatives who still aren’t convinced. If the next generation is radicalized by Trump being a bad president, they’re not just going to lean left. They’re going to lean regressive, totalitarian, super-social-justice left.
If so, here is some of their forbidden language:
1. “Some of my best friends are …”
2. “I know exactly how you feel.”
3. “I don’t think of you as …” ...

16. “I never owned slaves.” ...

32. I don’t care if you are pink, purple or orange, I treat all people the same.”
If "intellectual" means shaming ppl for micro-aggressions, then put me down as anti-intellectual.

Friday, October 07, 2016

Brown Is the New White

A NY Times op-ed brags:
“Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority”

The demographic revolution of the past 50 years has transformed the United States from a predominantly white country into a truly multiracial nation. People of color have grown to 38 percent of the population today from 12 percent in 1966, and that metamorphosis paved the path to electing the first African-American president.

In November, Democrats have the chance to secure a decades-long electoral majority for decades, ...

The target audience for ads, swing voters, is dwindling. A 2015 study by a Michigan State University assistant professor, Corwin Smidt, shows that voters are more polarized than at any time in the past 60 years, and just 5 percent — about six million people in the 2012 electorate — are swing voters. By comparison, the number of eligible minority voters in 2012 who didn’t make it to the polls was more than 25 million. …

In 2016, there’s still time to redirect resources to what we know works: mobilizing voters of color.
I think that is correct. It is hardly worthwhile for the Democrat Party to bother trying to persuade white swing voters. Its policies have been bad for those voters, and it has little to offer.

The Democrat strategy is to just keep flooding the country with non-whites and non-Christians, and sell then with a message of white hatred and identity politics.

Thursday, October 06, 2016

Behavior difference are off the table

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:
But the issue of whether there are genetically-based differences in behavior, physiology, mentation, and other non-physical attributes of populations is simply off the table. It’s not just that we shouldn’t investigate them (for one can make a case that that research might itself have invidious social consequences), but that those differences don’t exist. I’ve even heard people called “racists” by cultural anthropologists — one of the worst fields for ideologically motivated scholarship — simply for suggesting that there might be behavioral genetic differences between human groups. You can discuss the issue, but there’s only one position considered acceptable. ...

When it comes to the sexes, though, it’s a different matter. In the hominin lineage males and females have been coevolving (either cooperatively or antagonistically) for 6 million years or so — ample time for differences in behavior, wants, thought patterns, and so on to evolve, just as morphological differences between men and women have clearly evolved. Do those genetic differences in thought and behavior exist? I suspect they do, at least for traits connected to sexuality and sexual behavior. Just as animals ranging from flies to mammals show consistent (though not universal) patterns of male/female differences in sexual behavior — differences explainable by sexual selection — so I expect the human lineage evolved similar patterns. After all, males are larger and stronger than females, and you have to explain that somehow. How do you do so without explaining evolved differences in behavior — probably based on sexual selection?

Yet the idea that males and females show evolutionary/genetic differences in behavior is also anathema in liberal academia, and for the same reason that population differences are anathema. Such differences, so the thinking goes, would support either racism (on the part of populations) or sexism (on the part of males and females). But of course that thinking is false: we can accept evolved differences without turning them into social policy. And it’s of interest to many evolutionists, including me, to know the extent to which groups and sexes have evolved along divergent pathways.

Still, many feminists, liberals, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists deny any such divergence. Yes, men and women differ in body size, strength, and structure, but there are, so they say, no such differences in the brain and behavior. In all other traits, so the trope goes, men and women are equal.  And given equal interests and talents, then the only thing enforcing anything other than a 50% representation of men and women in professions must be cultural pressures: viz., sexism. Thus, unequal representation in professions is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination.
Remember this whenever you see academic research or opinions on the subject of racism or sexism. Only one view is tolerated, and that view is completely contrary to the facts and common sense.

Sunday, October 02, 2016

Obama to create a new racial category

I have readers who wonder about Jews being classified as non-white. I only say that because so many Jews classify themselves as non-white. Now the Obama administration has endorsed classifying Israeli Jews as non-white:
White House wants to add new racial category for Middle Eastern people

Gregory Korte, USA TODAY 3:24 p.m. EDT October 1, 2016

WASHINGTON — The White House is putting forward a proposal to add a new racial category for people from the Middle East and North Africa under what would be the biggest realignment of federal racial definitions in decades.

If approved, the new designation could appear on census forms in 2020 and could have far-reaching implications for racial identity, anti-discrimination laws and health research.
Seems logical to me, if you are a leftist seeking to exterminate white Christians.
Under the proposal, the new Middle East and North African designation — or MENA, as it's called by population scholars — is broader in concept than Arab (an ethnicity) or Muslim (a religion). It would include anyone from a region of the world stretching from Morocco to Iran, and including Syrian and Coptic Christians, Israeli Jews and other religious minorities.
It would also include ppl who say their ancestors came from there, so that would include most Jews. Many of this new category look white to me, but I guess they can be recruited to the non-white side in the war against whites.

Friday, September 30, 2016

The big election issue

Hillary Clinton bragged in the debate that Alicia Machado is now an American citizen who will vote against Donald Trump.

Yes, that sums it up well enuf for me. She is a good example of someone who should not have been allowed to become a citizen. Trump was right to criticize her.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Choice not triple echo

A reader sent this photoshopped cover of a 1964 book, making it look like an early inspiration for the Alt-Right. Funny.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Rocket scientist from another era

The NY Times reorts:
On July 20, 1969, moments after mission control in Houston had given the Apollo 11 lunar module, Eagle, the O.K. to begin its descent to the moon, a yellow warning light flashed on the cockpit instrument panel.

“Program alarm,” the commander, Neil Armstrong, radioed. “It’s a 1202.”

The alarm appeared to indicate a computer systems overload, raising the specter of a breakdown. With only a few minutes left before touchdown on the moon, Steve Bales, the guidance officer in mission control, had to make a decision: Let the module continue to descend, or abort the mission and send the module rocketing back to the command ship, Columbia.

By intercom, Mr. Bales quickly consulted Jack Garman, a 24-year-old engineer who was overseeing the software support group from a back-room console.

Mr. Garman had painstakingly prepared himself for just this contingency — the possibility of a false alarm.

“So I said,” he remembered, “on this backup room voice loop that no one can hear, ‘As long as it doesn’t reoccur, it’s fine.’”

At 4:18 p.m., with only 30 seconds of fuel remaining for the descent, Mr. Armstrong radioed: “Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

Mr. Garman, whose self-assurance and honed judgment effectively saved mankind’s first lunar landing, died on Tuesday outside Houston. He was 72.
Could this ever happen again? I fear that men like Armstrong and Garman are going extinct.

So what are today's 24-year-olds doing? The Atlantic mag reports:
He told students that one “staggering” statistic stood above the rest. "In 2015, 22 percent of lower-skilled men [those without a college degree] aged 21 to 30 had not worked at all during the prior twelve months,” he said.

"Think about that for a second,” he went on. Twentysomething male high-school grads used to be the most dependable working cohort in America. Today one in five are now essentially idle. ...

So, what are are these young, non-working men doing with their time? Three quarters of their additional leisure time is spent with video games, Hurst’s research has shown. And these young men are happy—or, at least, they self-report higher satisfaction than this age group used to, even when its employment rate was 10 percentage points higher.
Many of these kids are still living with their parents:
Data released recently from the Census Bureau show that 30-year-olds today — as compared to 30-years olds in 1975 — are less likely to have hit many of the milestones that have come to define adulthood. In 1974 three in four 30-year-olds had married, had a child, were not enrolled in school anymore and had lived on their own; in 2015, just one in three could say that....

Millennials are also more likely to be in school in their 30s: 8% were enrolled in school at age 30 in 2015 versus 1% of 30-year-olds in 1975, according to the Census Bureau, which may also delay some of these milestones.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Fired for criticizing BLM

Wonder what it takes to get your career destroyed? For baseball catcher Steve Clevenger, it was these tweets:
“Black people beating whites when a thug got shot holding a gun by a black officer haha shit cracks me up! Keep kneeling for the anthem!

“BLM (Black Lives Matter) is pathetic again! Obama you are pathetic once again! Everyone should be locked behind bars like animals!”

And now his employers want nothing to do with him again.
Okay, I guess MLB baseball is on the side of the cop-killers.

Many genes from out-of-Africa wave

Carl Zimmer reports in the NY Times:
Modern humans evolved in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago. But how did our species go on to populate the rest of the globe?

The question, one of the biggest in studies of human evolution, has intrigued scientists for decades. In a series of extraordinary genetic analyses published on Wednesday, researchers believe they have found an answer.

In the journal Nature, three separate teams of geneticists survey DNA collected from cultures around the globe, many for the first time, and conclude that all non-Africans today trace their ancestry to a single population emerging from Africa between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago.

“I think all three studies are basically saying the same thing,” said Joshua M. Akey of the University of Washington, who wrote a commentary accompanying the new work. “We know there were multiple dispersals out of Africa, but we can trace our ancestry back to a single one.” ...

In the 1980s, a group of paleoanthropologists and geneticists began championing a hypothesis that modern humans emerged only once from Africa, roughly 50,000 years ago. Skeletons and tools discovered at archaeological sites clearly indicated that modern humans lived after that time in Europe, Asia and Australia. ...
I posted before that the Out-of-Africa theory had been falsified, but now I am not so sure.
“The vast majority of their ancestry — if not all of it — is coming from the same out-of-Africa wave as Europeans and Asians,” said Dr. Willerslev.

But on that question, Dr. Metspalu and his colleagues ended up with a somewhat different result.

In Papua New Guinea, Dr. Metspalu and his colleagues found, 98 percent of each person’s DNA can be traced to that single migration from Africa. But the other 2 percent seemed to be much older.

Dr. Metspalu concluded that all people in Papua New Guinea carry a trace of DNA from an earlier wave of Africans who left the continent as long as 140,000 years ago, and then vanished.
As I understand it, the Out-of-Africa theory said that Africans completely displaced others 50k years ago. The previous theory said that humans had multiregional ancestors.

Now we know that Europeans and Asians definitely had ancestors from Neanderthal and other populations that were quite distinct from that out-of-Africa wave.

So maybe the out-of-Africa theory is 98% correct, in terms of nucleotide count. Maybe the multiregional theory is also mostly correct.

I do not trust Zimmer as long as he says things like "Modern humans evolved in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago." No, that theory has also been disproved, as human evolution has been accelerating in the last 10k years. There were no modern humans 200k years ago.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Wishing for a trillion humans

Amazon's Jeff Bezos says, in the newspaper he owns"
“I wish there were a trillion humans in the solar system. Think how cool that would be. You’d have a thousand Einsteins at any given moment — and more. There would be so much dynamism with all of that human intelligence. But you can’t do that with the resources on Earth or the energy on earth. So if you really want to see that kind of dynamic civilization as we expand through the solar system, you have to figure out how to safely move around and use resources that you get in space.”
This is lunacy. We would probably have more Einsteins if we first exterminated 80% of the world population. Not that we need more Einsteins or that we would kill ppl for more Einsteins.

His rockets are great, and may someday be commercially useful for putting satellites in orbit. But colonizing other planets is a sick fantasy.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Do Parents Matter?

An Atlantic mag essay asks:
How Much Do Parents Matter?

“Parents in every culture at a given moment think they’re doing the optimal thing for their kids.” ...

Their response: Parents don’t matter as much as many parents think they do. ...

I’d been working with schizophrenic children, or autistic children, and so on, and the [since-discredited] theory in those days was that these American children who were autistic — their mothers had done that to them. I thought: This is perilous what’s going on with this little child.

I observed a lot more children, and it was the same in every case: that the young mother did not look at the child and did not talk to the child. And yet all around me people were perfectly fine. They were warm, they were humorous, they were engaged. They were not autistic! [I came to] understand that these little children got their socialization and the affection that they needed to grow psychologically from other people. It didn’t have to come from the mother. ...

In general, if you go outside of the Western world, you will find that interdependence is the goal of psychological development rather than independence, which we Westerners emphasize to a huge degree, starting in infancy.
So maybe parenting does not matter in the way that the American textbooks say, but it still matters in other ways. For example, the parents can teach the child to be independent or interdependent.

Here is a recent video interview on Why Spanking Does Not Work | Elizabeth Gershoff and Stefan Molyneux. This claims to be scientific knowledge on parenting, but if you listen carefully, there is nothing scientific at all. There are no controlled studies, so the studies are very limited, and there is no discussion of the limitations. Furthermore, Gershoff seems to make no distinction between research findings and her own personal unsupported opinions. She says that spanking does not work, but her reasoning is mostly ideological, and she cannot cites studies showing that any other method of discipline works any better.

Such is the sad state of parenting research. Experts will claim that a parenting practice damages children while other cultures use the practice all the time with no apparent damage.

Molyneux has posted other interviews on twin studies that show that differences in common parental practices like spanking have no measurable effect on outcomes. And yet he has also posted rants against spanking as being against research. It is also against his philosophical beliefs about an ideal society where no one ever takes an aggressive act against another. He calls it the non-aggression principle.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Not identifying as White

A Jewish journal announces:
Jews will always believe Black Lives matter because Jews do not think of themselves as “White People.” You have but to walk down a street in Tel Aviv to see the multiplicity of Jewish skin colors. You have but to live as a Jew in any time in history, in any country including the United States, to recognize we are not the White People – we were not the White People allowed into certain clubs, schools, neighborhoods for most of American history. We are not the people rallying for “white people’s rights.”
Remember that when you hear Jews badmouth white ppl.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Rejecting Chomsky grammars

SciAm reports:
The idea that we have brains hardwired with a mental template for learning grammar—famously espoused by Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—has dominated linguistics for almost half a century. Recently, though, cognitive scientists and linguists have abandoned Chomsky’s “universal grammar” theory in droves because of new research examining many different languages—and the way young children learn to understand and speak the tongues of their communities. That work fails to support Chomsky’s assertions.

The research suggests a radically different view, in which learning of a child’s first language does not rely on an innate grammar module. Instead the new research shows that young children use various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all—such as the ability to classify the world into categories (people or objects, for instance) and to understand the relations among things. These capabilities, coupled with a unique hu­­­man ability to grasp what others intend to communicate, allow language to happen. The new findings indicate that if researchers truly want to understand how children, and others, learn languages, they need to look outside of Chomsky’s theory for guidance.
This may be true, except that Chomsky's theory was never widely accepted.

My experience is that there is nothing innate about grammars. Kids have no great leaps in ability or understanding, as you might expect if they already had a Chomsky grammar that did not need to be learned. They have to tediously learn ever aspect of grammar one concept at a time.
A key flaw in Chomsky’s theories is that when applied to language learning, they stipulate that young children come equipped with the capacity to form sentences using abstract grammatical rules. (The precise ones depend on which version of the theory is in­­voked.) Yet much research now shows that language acquisition does not take place this way. Rather young children begin by learning simple grammatical patterns; then, gradually, they intuit the rules behind them bit by bit.
Yes, that is my experience.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Math is racist

A new book titled Weapons of Math Destruction has gotten a lot of publicity, and here is a representative excerpt:
Algorithms are being used to determine how much we pay for insurance (more if your credit score is low, even if your driving record is clean), or what the terms of our loans will be, or what kind of political messaging we’ll receive. There are algorithms that find out the weather forecast and only then decide on the work schedule of thousands of people, laying waste to their ability to plan for childcare and schooling, never mind a second job.

Their popularity relies on the notion they are objective, but the algorithms that power the data economy are based on choices made by fallible human beings. And, while some of them were made with good intentions, the algorithms encode human prejudice, misunderstanding, and bias into automatic systems that increasingly manage our lives. Like gods, these mathematical models are opaque, their workings invisible to all but the highest priests in their domain: mathematicians and computer scientists. Their verdicts, even when wrong or harmful, are beyond dispute or appeal. And they tend to punish the poor and the oppressed in our society, while making the rich richer.
No, credit scores do not punish the poor. Lots of poor ppl have higher credit scores than rich ppl. You can get a high credit score by paying your bills, borrowing money, and making the necessary timely payments.

Credits scores allow me and millions of others to easily buy things online, and when traveling. There is no easier alternative. Vendors are eager to sell me things, but just want some assurance that they will get paid.

Math is racist in the same sense that the truth is racist.

This book is leftist nonsense. It does not deserve the good reviews it has. See rare negative review for how bad it is.

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

Colleges against microinvalidations

The NY Times reports:
Some graduates have curtailed donations, and students have suggested that diversity training smacks of some sort of Communist re-education program. ...

Her two-hour presentation on Aug. 27 aimed to help students identify microaggressions and to teach them how to intervene when they observe one. Microaggressions can be verbal, nonverbal or environmental, she said.

“What’s an environmental microaggression?” Ms. Marlowe asked the auditorium of about 525 new students. She gave an example. “On your first day of class, you enter the chemistry building and all of the pictures on the wall are scientists who are white and male,” she said. “If you’re a female, or you just don’t identify as a white male, that space automatically shows that you’re not represented.”

But Ms. Martinez, a sophomore transfer student, also realized that she, too, was guilty of microaggressions, because she frequently uses the phrase “you guys,” she said. “This helped me see that I’m a microaggressor, too.”

The presentation elicited a lively question-and-answer session, during which students asked about the N word, discrimination against white people and men, and the definition of “Asian.”

Ms. Marlowe said she questioned the validity of the concept of reverse racism, arguing that racism is a system in which a dominant race benefits from the oppression of others. ...

A nonverbal microaggression could be when a white woman clutches her purse as a black or Latino person approaches.

Another subset of microaggression is known as the microinvalidation, which includes comments suggesting that race plays a minor role in life’s outcomes, like “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.” ...

But Ms. Martinez, a sophomore transfer student, also realized that she, too, was guilty of microaggressions, because she frequently uses the phrase “you guys,” she said. “This helped me see that I’m a microaggressor, too.” ...

Ms. Marlowe said she questioned the validity of the concept of reverse racism, arguing that racism is a system in which a dominant race benefits from the oppression of others.
Besides blaming white males, a new book blames math and big data for doing objective number crunching:
In a new book, "Weapons of Math Destruction," Cathy O'Neil details all the ways that math is essentially being used for evil (my word, not hers).

From targeted advertising and insurance to education and policing, O'Neil looks at how algorithms and big data are targeting the poor, reinforcing racism and amplifying inequality.

These "WMDs," as she calls them, have three key features: They are opaque, scalable and unfair.
There is a longer review on SciAm. See also her blog, and this book excerpt.

See also this negative review:
The remaining chapters all follow the same pattern. Unbalanced and inaccurate summary of a popular news account, made up facts and distorted quotes, uneven speculation about mathematical models, and strong but unsupported conclusions.

Monday, September 05, 2016

Democrats started the demographic war

(((David Brooks))) of the NY Times writes:
Once, I seem to recall, we had philosophical and ideological differences. Once, politics was a debate between liberals and conservatives, between different views of government, different views on values and America’s role in the world.

But this year, it seems, everything has been stripped down to the bone. Politics is dividing along crude identity lines — along race and class. Are you a native-born white or are you an outsider? Are you one of the people or one of the elites?

Politics is no longer about argument or discussion; it’s about trying to put your opponents into the box of the untouchables.

Donald Trump didn’t invent this game, ...

Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life.
I agree with this. Over the past couple of decades, the Democrat Party has increasing on crude identity politics for votes. They get their votes by identity appeals to non-whites, non-Christians, and low-info voters.

I have posted about this many times, long before Trump announced that he was running for President.

With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democrats do not even hide it anymore. They celebrate blacks killing white cops. Clinton even talks openly about White Genocide, as if it were a good thing.

Clinton did not win the nomination based on her competence, trustworthiness, experience, or policies. She got it by making promises to super-rich donors and to anti-white voters.

One of Clinton's top advisors is Huma Abedin, who is closely associated with Islamic jihad against the West, besides being married to a famous New York Jewish weirdo.

Yes, when Democrats give preference to non-citizens over citizens, they do violence to national life. Their policies are unsustainable.

Where I differ from Brooks and other anti-white-Christian elites is that they regard destroy national identity a good thing, if the country is mostly White Christian.

It only takes one side to start a war. The Democrats started this Demographic war. Trump just happens to be the only Republican willing and able to fight back.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

Trying to shut down trolls

The Wash. Free Beacon reports:
The National Science Foundation is spending roughly half a million dollars to combat “online trolling.”

A joint project by Northwestern and Northeastern universities is examining how to create “trolling-free environments” on the Internet. The researchers define online trolls as those who try to influence public opinion by boosting “misleading” and “inauthentic comments.”
When the authorities are lying to us, there is a fine line between trolling and telling the truth.

The Russian have their own anti-trolling police:
The basis for the prosecution was a particular passage in a pro-Ukrainian-nationalist article that Luzgin reposted:
The Communists and Germany jointly attacked Poland, beginning World War II on September 1, 1939.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, of course, did provide for a partition of Poland between the USSR and Nazi Germany, and the Soviets did indeed invade Poland on Sept. 17, 1939, implementing that partition.
The press reports emphasize
that the blogger was shut down for telling the truth.

Why is that surprising? No one cares about trolls who are telling obvious lies. The authorities are most eager to shut down those telling dangerous or embarrassing truths. It is much more important to censor the truth.

China is always wanting to censor something with the same initials or birth year as Taylor Swift.

If the subject matter is forbidden, then you can bet that there is at least a grain of truth.

Saturday, September 03, 2016

Microsoft owns you 12 hours a day

Here is more evidence that the robots are seizing control:
Note that Windows 10 doesn’t let you configure an Active hours timeframe that’s longer than 12 hours. If you do try that, you’ll get a message telling you that “Active hours can be set between 1 and 12 hours”.
I don't want to pick on Microsoft, as Apple, Facebook, Google, Comcast, and Verizon are worse.

The remarkable thing to me is that no one complains about this stuff anymore. Ppl have gotten used to taking orders from machines. It is just normal to beg permission to use your own desktop computer for 12 hours max, and then be put back at the mercy of autonomous bots that seek to alter your behavior.