Bulverism

I learned a new word, bulverism:

But this method also reminds me of something else. This is Christopher Hitchens:

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

The Bulverist assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.

Many times I have pointed out some fact, only to have someone attack me with some strange and false theory about my motivations.

Montana religious dispute escalates

I mentioned coverage of a Montana dispute, and now it is getting more attention:

The Whitefish, Montana, Police Department says it is aware of the white supremacist website “The Daily Stormer” and its call for an upcoming “armed march” through the city of Whitefish, CBS affiliate KXLH reports.

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

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

Religious freedom? Liberty?

One side has Jews who hate Christians, and the other has Christians who hate Jews. So I guess you could say both sides are showing religious intolerance. But who is doing the intimidating? The Daily Stormer says:

The lawmakers did not make specific reference to the group or realtor Tanya Gersh, who was serving as operating “street boss” running an extortion conspiracy targeting the mother of a perceived political opponent of international Jewry. Gersh threatened Sherry Spencer, mother of Richard Spencer, with a protest that she claimed would drive down the value of her property in Whitefish if she did not sell the property, denounce her son and make a “donation” to local human rights groups.

Gersh had provided Spencer with a pre-written apology/confession, which they asked her to read to the community. This practice is also popular among ISIS, which usually requires public execution victims to read aloud a scripted apology/confession before death.

It posts a copy of the confession, and it appears to be criminal extortion from the Jewish side.

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

The Daily Stormer site is a little extreme, and says:

In a related development, while the international Jewish media has taken interest in our Whitefish march – dubbed the “March on Whitefish” – so have nationalist groups across the country. So far, it looks like we will have representatives from at least three European nations marching with us in January, a sign of increasing global white racial solidarity against the international Jewish agenda to exterminate the white race through programs of mass immigration, feminism and the promotion of homosexuality.

I will be interested to see whether there are any neutral news stories about this dispute.

Robots are taking our jobs

Jobs will be disappearing:

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

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

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

So far the benefits have only gone to the ultra-wealthy, the top 1 per cent. This coming technological revolution is set to wipe out what looks to be the entire middle class.

By contrast, this TED Talk assures us that new jobs will be created somehow:

Here's a paradox you don't hear much about: despite a century of creating machines to do our work for us, the proportion of adults in the US with a job has consistently gone up for the past 125 years. Why hasn't human labor become redundant and our skills obsolete? In this talk about the future of work, economist David Autor addresses the question of why there are still so many jobs and comes up with a surprising, hopeful answer.

When farms were automatics, ppl moved to factories, and when they were automated, they moved to office work. What is next?

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

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

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

A volcano killed the Neanderthals

I did not know that there was a good theory that a volcano wiped out the Neanderthals:

The Phlegraean Fields (Italian: Campi Flegrei) are a series of craters and volcanic areas located near Naples, Italy. ... There’s even archaeological evidence suggesting that a Phlegraean eruption some 37,000 to 39,000 years ago was so massive, it may have killed large segments of the extant Neanderthal population, either directly or by causing a volcanic winter. Now, the massive supervolcano is showing signs of awakening.

I did not know this. All the popular science articles say that the Neanderthals went extinct because they were out-competed by the superior African hominids, who are usually called "modern" and just like today's humans.

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

White Guy Resolutions 2017

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

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

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

Hockey Stick Mann maintains libel lawsuit

Jonathan H. Adler writes:

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

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

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

Because the university and other investigations failed to find evidence of scientific misconduct on Mann’s part, the court declared that claims Mann engaged in such action were “definitively discredited.”

So since Penn State also failed to find evidence against Sandusky, then no one else should blame him either?!

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

Name-calling leftist professor attacks alt-right

Brian Leiter is a law professor, over-opinionated philosophy blogger, and typical Jewish leftist, and he has spent the last year calling Donald Trump a Nazi. He says that he is in favor of academic freedom, but he tries to shame any right-wing professors with name-calling. He writes:

All of which brings us to "Charles Martel," the pseudonym of one of the "philosophy" bloggers at what I jokingly called awhile back "Stormfront for philosophers," except I'm beginning to wonder if it is a joke. ... These are not philosophers "on the right," these are NeoNazi morons.

Here is the essay he attacks:

A key thesis of the alt-right, as some contributors here have discussed, is that race is a real feature of the human person ...

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

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

If Martel is wrong, where is the rebuttal?

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

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

SciAm offended by scientific evidence

Leftist and Skeptic Michael Shermer writes in SciAm:

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

Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart articulated the logic this way: “While it is true that the seed of original sin carries with it every type of deviation, aberration, perversion, and wrongdoing, the homosexual cannot claim to have been born that way any more than the drunkard, gambler, killer, etc.”

Shermer is very much offended by this, and cites others who say there is evidence for moderate genetic influences, and that this evidence is greater than that for the most commonly hypothesized social causes.

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

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

Shermer also makes this argument:

When did you choose to become straight?

Say what?

By demographic distribution (about 95 percent of the population identifies as heterosexual), the majority of you reading this column are straight. You no more chose this sexual orientation than gays or lesbians choose theirs.

This is a poor argument. If you ask straights this question, many of them will vividly recall the moment that they decided in favor of heterosexuality.

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

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

Blaming all hatred on Trump

The NY Times reports:

This Week in Hate tracks hate crimes and harassment around the country since the election of Donald Trump. ...

On Friday, a post on the anti-Semitic website the Daily Stormer called for a “troll storm” against Jewish people in Whitefish, Mont., where Sherry Spencer, the mother of the white nationalist leader Richard Spencer, owns a building. The post’s author, apparently reacting to calls for Ms. Spencer to sell the building, published pictures of Whitefish residents, including a child, with Star of David symbols and the German word for “Jew.”

If you want both sides of the story, see Sherry Spencer and Daily Stormer. She posts some evidence that she is the victim here.

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

Speaking of hating Jews, a Si Valley paper reports:

Google says it is “thinking deeply” about improving its search results after learning that Holocaust deniers and others were successful in making their links rise to the top. ...

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

The Jewish groups should just rebut the reasons, instead of trying to censor them.

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

Neanderthals belonged to the human species

Here is a new BBC interview about the story of human evolution:

It’s been roughly 200,000 years since the first anatomically modern humans, our species Homo sapiens, arose in Africa, and since then we’ve pretty much got everywhere. Our amazing story is written into our genes, mixed up with genes of the other early humans - such as Neanderthals - that we met and mated with along the way. This genetic journey is the subject of a new book - A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived - by writer, broadcaster and geneticist Adam Rutherford.

No, Rutherford tells a different story. He says that the African hominids and Neanderthals belonged to the same species.

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

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

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

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne complains about this statement:

the theory of evolution represents a philosophical worldview: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.”

Yes, evolutionists denying human evolution is ideological, while Christianity and other religions teach that humans are better than animals.

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

Disagreeing with Trump to placate academia

Here is an NY Times Sunday Opinion:

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

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

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

R. Derek Black is a graduate student in history, focusing on the early Middle Ages.

Is this guy a Nazi? He is credited with popularizing the meme, “Stop White Genocide”.

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

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

I think that we are being trolled again.

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

(((Donna Zuckerberg))), brother to the famous leftist Jewish Facebook founder, :

A specter is haunting the Internet?—?the specter of the “alt-right.” ...

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

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

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

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

As the Alt-Right becomes more vocal and normalized, we may face pressure to frame our research and teaching in a way that will appeal to this new audience of Classics enthusiasts. Resist that pressure.

So I guess studying the Classics or praising Western Civilization is just code for Nazi white supremacy. And hating Trump is just code for wanting to tear down Western Civilization.

Update: If you think that academic freedom would allow the grad student to have any political opinions he wants, see this persecution of a philosophy PhD who supposedly has some views that gotten him called a neo-Nazi. He denies it, but here is how his views have been reported:

But a sampling of his recent public comments suggest, at least, a highly Indo-Eurocentric worldview and an antipathy toward Islam. He is Iranian-American. ...

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

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

Apparently he needs to start badmouthing white ppl if he wants a career in academia.

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

Update: Donna posts a Jezebel rant against the Alt right:

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

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

The article calls "Nazi" 22 times.

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

Besides the Nazi name-calling, her biggest complaint is that the Alt Right is a new coalition of diverse ideologies that have come together to stop the Leftist destruction of Western Civilization, and they have gained enuf power to elect Trump:

The only way to understand the alt-right is to stopping thinking of it as a single monolithic entity and realize that it is a fragile coalition of hateful ideologies, of deplorable men using the internet to perform white masculinity by playacting as Nazis to feed on our fear.

She needed to be trolled. Her book should be amusing.

The ideological opposition to biological truth

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:

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

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

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

Yes, Coyne is right. Leftists nearly always deny biological truth.

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

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

Update: Here is a comment:

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

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

How Europeans became suited for democracy

I previously argued that the Catholic Church banning cousin marriage greatly helped to civilize Europe. Now here is some supporting research:

countries with strong extended families as characterized by a high level of cousin marriages exhibit a weak rule of law and are more likely autocratic. ...

These findings point to a causal effect of marriage patterns on the proper functioning of formal institutions and democracy. The study further suggests that the Churches’ marriage rules – by destroying extended kin-groups – led Europe on its special path of institutional and democratic development.

Europeans became more individualistic, but I do not know if it is genetic or cultural.

Human evolution is tricky to measure in modern times. John Hawks reports:

One of the most obvious cases of recent human evolution is the increasing frequency with which individuals don’t develop third molars, what is called “M3 agenesis”. This condition is when the third molars, or wisdom teeth, don’t form at all – the individual never developed them. ...

So M3 agenesis is a fascinating example of recent biological change in human populations, and we know very little about how and why it has changed.

So we do not know for sure whether this is evolution is action.

Liberal woman rants about men

The NY Times has an essay on What Women Really Think of Men:

“Trump is a narcissist,” a middle-aged white woman in East Stroudsburg, Pa., told me in the early evening on Election Day. “I know,” she added, “because my husband is one, too.” She said she disliked both candidates, but she voted for Mr. Trump. ...

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

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

This is female thinking.

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

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

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

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

No Dutch free speech on immigration

Free speech law prof (and immigrant) E. Volokh reports:

“Should there be more or fewer immigrants from Muslim countries to the U.S.?” ...

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

This means that, according to the Dutch government, Dutch citizens aren’t allowed to forthrightly debate the matter, and to question egalitarian doctrine on the subject.

This is the Ctrl-left at work. Maybe most Dutch ppl want fewer Moroccan immigrants, but saying so is against the law.

One comment that is still legal in the USA:

The fewer the better. Zero is optimum. Their holy book is a war manual.

Here is another:

Once liberals take over the Supreme Court, this will eventually be coming to America.

Fortunately, Donald Trump has delayed the liberal takeover.

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

Speaking of whites, an Atlantic mag article says:

So, are Jews white? “There’s really no conclusion except that it’s complicated,” said Goldstein.

And other questions about Jewish identity are complicated also.

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

The plan to invade California

Brenda Walker writes on VDARE:

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

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

A Zogby poll in 2002 found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico,” as indicated in the photo below.

Another 20 year invasion plan was detailed in a 2006 New Yorker article:

Al Qaeda’s twenty-year plan began on September 11th, with a stage that Hussein calls “The Awakening.” ...

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

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

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

The sixth phase will be a period of “total confrontation.” The now established caliphate will form an Islamic Army and will instigate a worldwide fight between the “believers” and the “non-believers.” Hussein proclaims, “The world will realize the meaning of real terrorism.” By 2020, “definitive victory” will have been achieved. Victory, according to the Al Qaeda ideologues, means that “falsehood will come to an end. . . . The Islamic state will lead the human race once again to the shore of safety and the oasis of happiness.”

I guess most ppl did not believe these plans at the time, but the plans have been prophet. American policy has assisted these policies in every way. We have invited the invaders, and deposed the secular Arab leaders, just as in the plan.

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.

Pizzagate

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.

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.

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 (https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault), 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.