Recognize cuck as a useful insult

A wacky political site writes:

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

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

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

It’s time the right go on the attack. Recognize “cuck” for how powerful, funny, and effective it is at hitting the enemy in his gut, and keep using it and keep spreading it. Also recognize that it’s a nasty and immature word, and relish that. The more offended the left is, the better.

I think that he is onto something. Consider the latest from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg:

The Facebook founder said atrocities in Belgium, Pakistan and Turkey were all designed to sow seeds of hatred between different communities.

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

The "only sustainable way to fight back" against the sickening attacks is to "create a world" where everyone "feels cared for and loved", he added.

He is just a cuck. He should just be insulted as someone with some sort of perverted mental illness.

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

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

Bilingual education is harmful

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

All of that is bogus.

Here is the current research:

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

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

“It was a really exciting finding and one that I thought would be easy to study with my students,” says Paap. “But we just couldn’t replicate any of the effects.” After years of struggling, he published his results in 2013: three studies, 280 local college students, four tests of mental control including the Simon task, and no sign of a bilingual advantage.“That broke the dam,” he says. “Others started submitting negative results and getting their articles published.”

In some areas, bilingual education appears to be a plot to teach Mexican-Americans Spanish instead of English in schools, in order to keep them as an unassimilated worker class.

Ron Unz has worked for English in the schools.

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

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

Trump says America Comes First

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

Here is an example of this thinking:

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

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

Banning Muslim immigration would almost certainly undermine this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More hysterical attacks on Trump

I follow several mainstream news media sources, and their all regularly publish irrational tirades against Donald Ttump. Here is one from David Brooks of the NY Times:

Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.

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

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

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

And so it is with Trump.

History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times.

He then goes on to give an Old Testament biblical argument against Trump.

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

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

Here is an explanation for Brooks misunderstand Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is empathy an essential virtue?

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

The NY Times reports:

Is empathy an essential virtue for a presidential candidate?

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

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

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

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

“If I want to do terrible things to a group, one tried-and-true way is to arouse empathy for victims of that group,” Dr. Bloom said in an interview. “Often the argument for war is rooted in empathy for victims of the enemy.”

Like altruism, empathy is fine in small doses. But there are people with pathological altruism who are making the world a worse place.

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

Maybe Rubio had financial troubles because he is financially incompetent.

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

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

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

NPR radio broadcast this interview, a couple of weeks ago:

In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, by a vote of 8 to 1, to uphold a state's right to forcibly sterilize a person considered unfit to procreate. The case, known as Buck v. Bell, centered on a young woman named Carrie Buck, whom the state of Virginia had deemed to be "feebleminded."

Author Adam Cohen tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that Buck v. Bell was considered a victory for America's eugenics movement, an early 20th century school of thought that emphasized biological determinism and actively sought to "breed out" traits that were considered undesirable.

"There were all kinds of categories of people who were deemed to be unfit [to procreate]," Cohen says. "The eugenicists looked at evolution and survival of the fittest, as Darwin was describing it, and they believed 'We can help nature along, if we just plan who reproduces and who doesn't reproduce.' "

All told, as many as 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century. The victims of state-mandated sterilization included people like Buck who had been labeled "mentally deficient," as well as those who who were deaf, blind and diseased. Minorities, poor people and "promiscuous" women were often targeted.

Cohen's new book about the Buck case, Imbeciles, takes its name from the terms eugenicists used to categorize the "feebleminded." In it, he revisits the Buck v. Bell ruling and explores the connection between the American eugenics movement and the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

Cohen notes that the instinct to "demonize" people who are different is still prevalent in the U.S. today, particularly in the debate over immigration. ...

Adam Cohen is a former member of The New York Times editorial board and former senior writer for Time magazine.

Here is the logic.

Eugenics was popular a century ago. Some of the science was inaccurate.

Buck v Bell said that the sterilization law had the constitutionally required due process. Many consider the decision embarrassing.

The 1924 immigration law had restrictions based on nationality, and eugenic arguments were used to support the law.

Nazi Germany also had eugenic laws, and may have gotten some inspiration from the USA.

With more lax immigration, maybe Anne Frank would have immigrated to the USA, and then she would not have died in a concentration camp.

Therefore we should open up our borders and let in more Third World immigrants today, and not discuss the eugenic effects.

Here is Buck v Bell:

In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and, if they exist, they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

We still have compulsory vaccination, and California just passed the most coercive vaccination law in American history.

The Cohen logic has many flaws at every step.

Just ask yourself: Would the USA be a better or worse place, if the 1924 Act were not repealed in 1965?

When a young woman with mental problems repeatedly has illegitimate kids, and cannot care for them, then what do you suggest?

Forced vaccination or sterilization is depriving citizens of rights, but limits on immigration do not.

Gross and Cohen are Jewish, and love to make these Holocaust arguments. But when it comes to eugenics, the argument is always that Jews should practice eugenics, and non-Jews should not. And when it comes to immigration, the argument is always that Israel should restrict immigration to Jews, and that other countries should adopt immigration policies that destroy their ethnic identities.

Only some races are modern humans

I complained that the NY Times was using the term "modern human" to mean ancient African. Now it has reversed itself, and its writer Carl Zimmer's latest article says Africans do not qualify as modern:

The ancestors of modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and another extinct line of humans known as the Denisovans at least four times in the course of prehistory, according to an analysis of global genomes published Thursday in the journal Science.

The interbreeding may have given modern humans genes that bolstered immunity to pathogens, the authors concluded. ...

The researchers found that all of the non-Africans in their study had Neanderthal DNA, while the Africans had very little or none. That finding supported previous studies.

But when Dr. Akey and his colleagues compared DNA from modern Europeans, East Asians and Melanesians, they found that each population carried its own distinctive mix of Neanderthal genes.

The best explanation for these patterns, the scientists concluded, was that the ancestors of modern humans acquired Neanderthal DNA on three occasions.

The first encounter happened when the common ancestor of all non-Africans interbred with Neanderthals.

Here the term "modern human" means non-African. Ie, it means a European or Asian of today.

It is only the non-Africans who have Neanderthal DNA, so only they have ancestors who were either Neanderthal or hominids who interbred with Neanderthals.

Those Neanderthals and other hominids were descended from Africans, but did not go back to Africa.

There used to be a consensus that there were three major races of humans: Caucasians, Orientals, and Negroes. Sometimes Pacific islanders and Amerindians are added. Now, no one wants to use these terms anymore, and leftist scientists and professors like Massimo Pigliucci deny that there is any such thing as race.

However the above research requires dividing humans into races, as the divisions are written into our DNA.

My guess is that Zimmer is trying to be politically correct and avoid race by using the term "modern human". But when he uses the term to mean a subset of the major races to the exclusion of other humans, he is being extremely inflammatory.

Or maybe he is just trying to copy the research paper, which starts:

Although Neandertal sequences that persist in the genomes of modern humans have been identified in Eurasians, ...

What it means is: Although Neandertal sequences have been identified to persist in the genomes of Eurasians, ...

Those sequences have not been found in Africans.

(There are rare exceptions to these generalities, of course. White South Africans presumably have the Neanderhal genes.)

Razib Khan also thinks it is strange for Zimmer to call the Neanderthals "hominims", rather than humans. This has been a point of contention between evolutionists and creationists. The mainstream evolutionists have usually said that the Neanderthals were not human, and were wiped out by humans. The creationists usually said the Neanderthals were humans. Khan argues that now that we know that today's Europeans are descended from Neanderthals (and others), then the Neanderthals are human under any reasonable definition.

Update: Massimo Pigliucci responds by repeating his denial of human races.

The return of shaming culture

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:+

Last year, Andy Crouch published an essay in Christianity Today that takes us toward an answer.

Crouch starts with the distinction the anthropologist Ruth Benedict popularized, between a guilt culture and a shame culture. In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad.

Crouch argues that the omnipresence of social media has created a new sort of shame culture. The world of Facebook, Instagram and the rest is a world of constant display and observation. The desire to be embraced and praised by the community is intense. People dread being exiled and condemned. Moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion.

Crouch's essay says:

I’ve come to eavesdrop on this missions conversation because I suspect that honor and shame are becoming dominant forces in the American context. ...

The idea of “shame cultures” originated with anthropologists. During World War II, Columbia University anthropologist Ruth Benedict was trying to make sense of the cultural patterns of the Japanese. Her 1946 book, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, popularized the idea that Japan was a “shame culture,” in which morality was governed by “external sanctions for good behavior.” In other words, you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you. By contrast, in a guilt culture such as the West, you know you are good or bad because of an “internalized conviction of sin” — by how you feel about your behavior and choices.

The essay is also here.

Western civilization (Europe and USA) is a guilt culture, while the rest of the world has shame cultures. Guilt culture was a great advance of Judeo-Christian society, and is better than shame cultures.

Guilt culture allows for individualism, for forgiveness, and for the teachings of moral leaders, while shame is subject to the whims of the mob.

Yes, we are shifting to a shame culture, as a result of immigration, leftist influence, feminism, and social media.

As I write this, NPR has some feminist guests who are trying to tell us how to think about some shaming incident.

Donald Trump seems like an anachronism, because he refuses to yield to leftist shaming.

Hazards of an autism cure

A NY Times essay claims that being cured of autism ruined his life:

Before the T.M.S., I had fantasized that the emotional cues I was missing in my autism would bring me closer to people. The reality was very different. The signals I now picked up about what my fellow humans were feeling overwhelmed me. They seemed scared, alarmed, worried and even greedy. The beauty I envisioned was nowhere to be found.

Seeing emotion didn’t make my life happy. It scared me, as the fear I felt in others took hold in me, too. As exciting as my new sensory ability was, it cost me customers at work, when I felt them looking at me with contempt. It spoiled friendships when I saw teasing in a different and nastier light. It even ruined memories when I realized that people I remembered as funny were really making fun of me.

And the hardest thing: It cost me a marriage.

Medical experts say that this is no cure for autism, so I am skeptical of this. But he does have a point.

Being sensitive to the feelings of others is not necessarily a good thing. Much human suffering is traceable to internalizing the perceived feelings of others. In women, especially.

If most people were insensitive to the unverbalized emotions and feelings of others, then the sensitive ones would be considered to have a mental disorder.

I tried to listen to Sam Harris's podcast interview of Omer Aziz, and Harris says:

Everyone on the Left is pretending to be a mindreader.

This was the only Harris statement I agreed with.

To prove the point, Harris is a Leftist, and he spends much of the podcast (the first half, at least) pretending to be a mindreader. He constantly makes ad hominem attacks against was Aziz is supposedly thinking.

Today's Trump hater

My local newspaper just published this letter:

We now represent the largest voting bloc, and we will vote. Independents, who despise Hillary, will vote. And we will win. Krauthammer’s accusation that Trump is a victim is dangerous. Trump is literally spewing hate speech from his orange baloney lips. Peaceful protesters are being attacked, and he is encouraging the violence. Trump has gone from an entertaining spectacle to a serious cause for concern. Anyone who defends him or blames his opponents is supporting him and should be silenced.

— Erik F. Eriksen, Santa Cruz

Krauthammer is another Trump hater, but this guy says he must be silenced also for criticizing protesters.

Note the reasoning here. The letter does not present any substantive argument. The author just declares himself to be on the side of the good-guy majority, and wants to silence the opposition. And also silence anyone who defends, sympathizes, or associates with the opposition.

(The author appears to be no relation to Erick Erickson, another Trump hater.)

Africa theory proved wrong again

Ars Technica reports:

You've probably heard the story about how Neanderthals were living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years, when suddenly a bunch of Homo sapiens came pouring out of Africa about 70 thousand years ago. 30 thousand years later, pretty much all the Neanderthals were dead. Many anthropologists believe that Homo sapiens killed off our large-browed cousins in a quest to dominate the Eurasian continent. But over the past 10 years, that view has changed radically thanks to new techniques for sequencing ancient DNA.

Now, two new studies make it even less likely that modern humans killed off the Neanderthals. Instead, we interbred with them at least three separate times, and our ancestors were likely sharing tools with them half a million years ago. ...

In other words, modern humans didn't sweep out of Africa, killing everything in their paths. They settled down with the locals, many different times. Evolutionary biologist Carles Laleuza-Fox, who was not involved in the study, told the New York Times' Carl Zimmer, "This is yet another genetic nail in the coffin of our over-simplistic models of human evolution."

So all the textbooks that say that modern humans emerged from Africa are wrong.

When will the textbooks be corrected? Not for decades, I suspect. Just last month the NY Times was still referring to ancient Africans as "modern humans".

The problem was not over-simplification. Before the Out-of-Africa theory became popular about 30 years ago, the consensus was the multi-regional theory that is now considered more accurate. Neanderthals were considered primitive humans, like the popular image of a cave man.

The Out-of-Africa theory was promoted by leftist anthropologists who wanted to make a statement about the equality of all people, and to credit Africa for creating humanity. In the textbooks and popular press, they said that all of human evolution took place in Africa, that modern humans emerged there about 100k years ago, that they spread to the whole planet displacing other hominids, and that there has been no human evolution since.

All of this has been proved false.

Someone is probably going to tell me that this was all a Jewish plot. What would the purpose be -- to convince non-Jews not to have any ethnic pride in their heritage? So then Jews can retain their ethnic pride and use it to their advantage?

I don't know about that, as I don't even know whether the leaders of the Out-of-Africa movement were Jewish. Regardless, it is strange how this theory was pushed on academia and the public, without any hard evidence that it was better than the previous theory.

Obama nominates a Harvard Jewish judge

I posted yesterday about the theory that Jews vote Democrat because they are underdogs, and today the Jerusalem Post reports:

Merrick Garland emotionally recalls Jewish roots in accepting Supreme Court nomination

If confirmed, Garland would be the fourth Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court. New Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland credited his Jewish grandparents, who he said fled to the US from anti-Semitism in Russia, for putting him in position to be nominated.

“My family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. My grandparents left the Pale of Settlement at the border of western Russia and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s, fleeing anti-Semitism and hoping to make a better life for their children in America,” he said, choking up Wednesday morning in the White House Rose Garden as he accepted President Barack Obama’s nomination.

Born to a Jewish mother and a Protestant father, Garland was raised as a Jew. ...

Garland is a graduate of Harvard Law School and clerked for US Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. In 1987, he married fellow Harvard graduate Lynn Rosenman in a Jewish ceremony at the Harvard Club in New York. Rosenman’s grandfather, Samuel Rosenman of New York, was a state Supreme Court justice and a special counsel to two presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

If confirmed, Garland would be the fourth Jewish justice on the nation’s highest court, which is comprised entirely of Jews and Catholics. The three current Jewish members are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elana Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

Here are my observations.

Garland comes from a high-status and high-privilege background, and is not an underdog.

Jews are not underdogs, as they are gaining control of our most powerful institutions.

Barack Obama would never have appointed a white Christian male. The reason is not that whites are privileged, because he is perfectly happy appointing a privileged Harvard grad, while all the other justices came from Harvard or Yale.

Democrats count on the courts to do their dirty work for them. Hillary Clinton recently announced that she is in favor of the death penalty, but she would breathe of sigh of relief, if the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

Obama and Clinton are liberals, but not Jews. So why the eagerness to appoint Jews to the Supreme Court? Why do they need 4 out of 9 to be Jewish, when Jews are only 2% of the population?

An anonymous comment says:

Jews have been causing trouble in Europe for at least two thousand years. I would hardly regard them as the scapegoats of tyrants, more the root cause of discontent in Europe and also worldwide. They have been deported from more nations than any other immigrant group. When many different peoples all end up reacting similarly to one group, one does not blame every other group as being tyrannical or evil. One sees the truth that the problem is with that one group that so many different peoples ended up disliking. Jews are genetically inclined to treat other Jews as family rather than simply other members of a racial or ethnic group. This means they act nepotistically wherever they go. The best way for them to hide their behaviour is to shout the loudest for equality but hypocritically never ever applying it to themselves. They are biological warfare on the peace of nations.

I found this timeline of two millennia of Christendom persecution of Jews, including deportations. Many of these items are just statements of theological differences, or discouraging intermarriage. Jewish groups also state theological differences, and discourage intermarriage. For the most part, Christendom tolerated the continued presence of Jews and allowed them to live under their own laws.

I do not really have any quarrel with Jews pursuing their ethnic interests. Most ethnic groups do, except for white Christians. But why are non-Jewish Democrats so eager to appoint Jews? Couldn't Obama better pursue his ethnic interests by appointing an African-American?

My guess is that Obama does not really relate to African-Americans that much, and that his interest in undermining white Christianity is much greater. And appointing Jews to the Supreme Court is the most reliable way.

Update: The Univ. of California Board of Regents has just declared:

Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California ...

I guess this is an example of Jews demanded equality of others (calling it non-discrimination) while they would never accept it for themselves. If no one is allowed to criticize Zionism, then no one should be allowed to criticize White Nationalism either, or any other nationalist movement.

Update: California slightly modified the language.

Political Stupidity of the Jews

Joseph Epstein writes in the WSJ:

The Political Stupidity of the Jews Revisited
Why do so many of my fellow Jews stay in the Democratic Party’s pocket? ...

The best face that can be put on this unwillingness, bordering on a genetic-inability, of Jews to vote Republican is that Jewishness, if not Judaism, has at its center a hatred of injustice and a concomitant yearning for equality. All this, presumably, has been ingrained in Jews by their own long history as the scapegoats of tyrants. Being underdogs, the Jews ipso facto are themselves for underdogs. Republicans, traditionally, have been top dogs. Don’t, something in most Jews tells them, go there.

No, the Republicans are not the top dogs, and Jews are not underdogs.

Today's super-rich are disproportionally Jewish and Democrat. And Jews do not yearn for equality.

Whatever the reasons, Jews are just one of many demographic groups that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Other non-Christians vote Democrat, including Moslems and atheists. So do blacks, and other non-whites. So do government workers, and low-information voters. So do single moms on welfare. So do America-haters and other fringe groups.

The Democrat Party has become the party of identity politics. The main thing holding them together is their promise to undermine WASPs and traditional American culture.

The Left has declared a culture war on Americanism, and the various ethnic groups are choosing sides.

Democrats want a race war

The NY Times published 100s of stories implying that white Ferguson cops go around killing innocent black kids, and inciting hatred of whites. Now it writes:

The anger from both sides was so raw, they concluded — from supporters of Donald J. Trump who are terrified they are losing their country and from protesters who fear he is leading the nation down a dark road of hate — that a dreaded moment was starting to look inevitable. “I don’t see where that anger goes,” the historian Heather Cox Richardson predicted a few weeks ago, “except into violence.”

This weekend it finally arrived.

The violence is coming entire from those who hate white Christians. The Democrat presidential candidates have based their candidacies on white hate and anti-white policies.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are doing everything to excuse black criminals killing white cops.

The Democrats wants a race war. Trump does not, but he cannot allow criminals and thugs to shut down his campaign.

Only haters compare Trump to Hitler

Dilbert writes:

Can we agree that calling the candidate with German ancestry “Hitler” is racist? It sure feels that way to me. I’m about half German, same as Trump. And it feels like a racial insult to me.

I’m not easily offended, but I don’t see any other way to interpret the incessant Hitler analogies directed at Trump. If he were female and Asian – with exactly the same policies – would we be comparing him to Hitler every five seconds?

I don’t think so.

Dilbert understates the matter.

Trump is nothing like Hitler. Hitler was primarily a socialist, and Trump is the opposite. Hitler hated the Jews, and Trump is very closely aligned with Jews. Hitler was a warmonger, and Trump opposes the Obama-Clinton foreign wars.

I believe that the hysterical anti-Trump Hitler-crying activists are part of a plan to commit White Genocide, and they believe that Trump is their main obstacle.

Trump-hating thugs have just sabotaged a Chicago rally.

I saw Geraldo Rivera (aka Gerry Rivers) go into a big anti-Trump rant, say that he saw David Duke at a cross-buring rally 40 years ago, and so Duke is just like Hitler or ISIS. And Trump did not sufficient condemn Duke.

Maybe Rivera knows Duke better than I do, but has Duke publicly beheaded anyone? Has he committed any crimes? If not, how is he like ISIS?

I assume that Rivera is either an evil white-Christian-hater, or he has a mental illness.

Germany bans pork sausages:

An increasing number of public canteens, child daycare centres and schools have stopped serving sausages, bacon and ham over religious considerations.

Now members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party are fighting to keep pork on the menu, insisting the consumption of pork is part of German culture.

Banning pork sausages is part of subjugating the German people, and Trump would fight such nonsense.

Sailer writes:

American elections had become highly predictable exercises in demographic identity politics. As the late Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore once said:

In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

Since identity changes only in slow, predictable patterns, elections have been relatively easy to forecast.

Republicans have become the Christian party, and diversity + proximity = war.

As the Democrats pander to the underclass/criminal class, you might get the impression that non-whites are in prison because of discrimination. But no one will discuss what causes crime:

Most of the evidence about the causes of crime overlooks genetic transmission. Yet, some research has found that once you account for genetic influences on self-control, previously identified social transmission effects (read: parenting) on the child’s self-control become unstable. In other words, when you control for genetic transmission (the alternative explanation that most criminologists overlook), the effect of parenting on self-control diminishes or goes away entirely.

Consider another type of parenting effect — one that shows up in the news frequently — spanking. Not long ago, we examined the relationship between spanking and behavioral problems in children. Once we controlled for genetic transmission, there was no spanking effect in the way that most scholars think about spanking effects. Put another way, our evidence did not support the conclusion that spanking causes behavioral problems in the sense that most psychologists would argue.

The conundrum of heritability transcends parenting.

Most human behaviors are heritable.

The Wachowski brothers were considered great geniuses after they made the first Matrix movie, but then the sequels were strange stories about killing off all the white people, and now this:

Four years after "Matrix" filmmaker Lana Wachowski revealed she was transgender, her sibling and filmmaking partner, formerly known as Andy Wachowski, has also come out as transgender, and her name is Lilly, according to a statement posted Tuesday on the websites of the Windy City Times and advocacy group GLAAD.

I am assuming that they have some sort of mental illness.

Update: The lead news story this morning was the disruption of Trump's Chicago rally. This is the logical consequence of the Democrat Party teaching voters to hate white Christian males. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly make excuses for black and Moslem killers, and campaign based on identity politics.

Democrats blame white privilege

Here is the latest Democrat race-pandering:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agreed tonight that, as white people, they have “racial blind spots” preventing them from appreciating the struggles minorities encounter.

“Being a white person in the United States of America, I know that I have never had the experience that so many people in this audience have had,” Clinton said. “I think it’s incumbent upon me and what I have been trying to talk about is to urge white people about what it is like to have ‘the talk’ with your kids, scared that yours or daughters even could get in trouble for no good reason whatsoever, like Sandra Bland and end up dead in a jail in Texas.”

“That is what I will try to do to deal with what I know is the racism that stalking our country,” she said.

“When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto and to be poor,” Sanders said. ”You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or get dragged out of a car. I believe as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear: We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system.”

Sandra Bland was mostly at fault for her troubles. She picked a fight with a cop, and hanged herself in jail.

Yes, white people know what it is like to be poor, live in a ghetto, and get hassled by cops.

The Democrat Party policy is to stir up non-whites into hating white, and to count on liberal white guilt to take it without saying anything.

A vote for Sanders or Clinton is a vote for a race war.

NPR finally explains Trump support

After 6 months of attacking Donald Trump, NPR radio finally had a couple of guests yesterday supporting him. Here is one:

MARTIN: You think Donald Trump can actually fulfill his promise to deport 11 million illegal immigrants?

REID: I don't know. I think that it's unfair to ask him all the details about it. But the fact that somebody says - I will do it if I get in office. I'll find the people to help me, and I will build a wall. All those things can be done if we have the resolve to do it. And if we don't have the resolve to do it, let's just fold our tent and forget that we're a country and become a Greece.

MARTIN: How are you making the case to your friends and family who are still not sold on Donald Trump as the guy who should be the Republican nominee?

REID: Exactly the way I'm making it to you now, and I'm not convincing all of them. But I feel very confident that I'm correct. I will tell you this, though. Trump is redefining the Republican Party. And for conservatives like me, once this thing is redefined, we may not be so happy with it. I'm not sure of that. I'm very - a strong - a social conservative. I don't believe Trump is. But social conservatism can be put on hold for four years. Doing something about illegal immigration, security of our country, building up our military, doing something about our national debt and the jobs - that can't wait. Otherwise, nothing else matters.

Tbat's right. Social conservatives want a socially conservative culture, and that will not be possible if the USA is flooded with immigrants who are opposed to the concept.

The Left is out to destroy America as we know it. Maybe Trump cannot stop them, but at least he promises to put up a fight.

NPR also found a black Trump supporter:

Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, recently endorsed Donald Trump. NPR's Rachel Martin speaks to him about why. ...

MARTIN: Most recently, he found himself in a situation during a TV interview where he did not explicitly denounce support from David Duke who's the former grand wizard of the KKK.

EVERS: Right.

MARTIN: It took him some time. Eventually, Trump did unequivocally denounce him and his support. How did you see all of that unfold? How did that sit with you as a longtime civil rights activist?

EVERS: It didn't bother me at all because he's running for president of the United States - the president of everybody, including the David Dukes. And I have no problem with it, frankly, because David's just one man. He's out there by himself. And most people now have gotten away from that. Look how far we've come since Medgar's death 50-something years ago. So you know, we have to stop living in the past and live in the present and the future.

MARTIN: Do you think he is a unifier?

EVERS: I hope so. Is President Obama a unifier? Will Hillary Clinton be a unifier?

MARTIN: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - you don't see them as having that capacity?

EVERS: What I'm saying is that - I'm saying - did they unify? They tried. I know President Obama tried, but he couldn't.

MARTIN: May I ask - did you vote for Barack Obama?

EVERS: Oh, yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. ... I want him [President Trump] to be president of all the people equally. That's all I want everybody to do.

The Jewish race-baiting leftists hate David Duke. I don't think blacks care. The KKK is just a footnote in their history books, and as Evers says, we have to stop living in the past.

The President should not go around unequivocally denouncing anyone. As far as I know, Duke has not been convicted of any crime and does not advocate any crime or violence. He is just a citizen with a point of view. He advocates for the ethnic group that he identifies with, but so do millions of others.

Update: This morning NPR had a story on Teamsters supporting Trump. It said that some Teamster members are supporting Sanders or Kasich.

More bad arguments for privacy

Bruce Schneier argues:

The FBI wants the ability to bypass encryption in the course of criminal investigations. This is known as a "backdoor," because it's a way at the encrypted information that bypasses the normal encryption mechanisms. I am sympathetic to such claims, but as a technologist I can tell you that there is no way to give the FBI that capability without weakening the encryption against all adversaries. This is crucial to understand. I can't build an access technology that only works with proper legal authorization, or only for people with a particular citizenship or the proper morality. The technology just doesn't work that way.

If a backdoor exists, then anyone can exploit it. All it takes is knowledge of the backdoor and the capability to exploit it. And while it might temporarily be a secret, it's a fragile secret. Backdoors are how everyone attacks computer systems.

This means that if the FBI can eavesdrop on your conversations or get into your computers without your consent, so can cybercriminals. So can the Chinese. So can terrorists.

I am sympathetic to his privacy goals, but sooner or later the public is going to figure out this argument is incorrect. Backdoor technology is feasible.

The SSL/TLS protocol that everyone uses for secure web pages has backdoors. There are about 150 root certificates with super-secret keys in private hands. If a bad guy got access to one of these and intercepted web traffic, then he could subvert the system.

The system depends on the holders of these super-secret keys keeping them secret. No, they cannot be guessed and they are extremely difficult to steal. Some bad certificates have been issued, but the system works pretty well.

The US Govt can and does keep some military secrets very well.

Nate Cardoza, a staff attorney for the EFF, said on NPR Radio Ashbrook On Point:

Every computer scientist, every mathematician, every cryptographyer that has looked at the question has said: You cannot give the FBI what it is asking for here without endangering the security of all of us.

No, this is false.

Apple's main argument against the current subpoena is that it would be burdensome to assign a programmer to spend a couple of weeks supplying what the FBI wants. (Apple also argues that it has a free speech right to not comply with federal regulations, but I cannot see a court accepting that.)

Once Apple customizes its unlock program for the FBI, Apple complains that it will have no good argument against future subpoenas. That is, the work will have already been done, and so Apple cannot claim that it is burdensome.

Apple has a crappy argument. It makes about $200B a year on iphones, so I don't see how it can be burdensome to spend a couple of programmer-weeks to comply with the FBI. It is spending millions on lawyers and public relations on this issue.

I am all for individual privacy rights. But Apple is anti-privacy, and is fighting this on the basis of maximizing its profits. Apple has conned the public on this issue, and conned the leftist privacy groups as well.

Famous Israeli crypto expert Adi Shamir sides with the FBI over Apple.

I do not think that the govt should force any backdoors, but when companies like Apple put backdoors in for business reasons, they should comply with govt warrants.

Stanford crypto boys get Turing Award

The NY Times reports:

Mr. Diffie would spend the next several years pursuing that challenge and in 1976, with Martin E. Hellman, an electrical engineer at Stanford, invented “public-key cryptography,” a technique that would two decades later make possible the commercial World Wide Web.

On Tuesday, the Association for Computing Machinery announced that the two men have won this year’s Turing Award. The award is frequently described as the Nobel Prize for the computing world and since 2014, it has included a $1 million cash award, after Google quadrupled its size.

Some later developments by MIT professors (RSA) got a Turing Award in 2002.

It is strange for the ACM to omit credit to their Stanford colleague, Ralph Merkle. Merkle independently invented public key cryptography and submitted it to an ACM journal, but the journal refused to publish it for several years.

I happened to get the inside story on this, when Merkle and were on opposite sides of a lawsuit. I read all of his rejection letters. One letter criticized him for not having any references to previous work in the field. He wrote back that there had been no work in the field because he was solving a problem that no one had ever considered before.

One referee report said that he had a simple advance in computational complexity, but that he should omit all the fluff about computer security.

That fluff about computer security is the basis of most computer connections today.

The MIT/RSA work seems to be more famous, and got the Turing prize 13 years earlier. But the Stanford-Diffie-Hellman-Merkle work was earlier, more fundamental, and had all the essential ideas for SSL/TLS secure computer connections.

Considering that the ACM cheated Merkle out of credit by rejecting his brilliant paper, it should have made up for it by making him a co-winner of the Turing Award.

Trying to bring the West to a halt

Salon republished this article a couple of months ago:

The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe.

The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now. And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era. Beneath the sound and fury generated by GOP presidential candidates, Fox News, website trolls, police unions and others, white people are becoming aware as never before of past and present racism.

Admittedly, this encouraging development is hardly the dominant view. To the contrary, given the possibility that Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson or one of their ilk might become president, white supremacist ideology seems to be digging in harder than ever.

I don’t take this lightly. Once upon a time I foolishly thought that there was no way that Ronald Reagan could get elected president. Lesson learned. ...

The mother of all grand bargains is the U.S. Constitution which accommodated slavery in several ways, including the notorious three-fifths clause.

This is the mindset of the anti-white Left. It is not just that they hate white men, as many of them are white men themselves. Note that the article expresses horror at the possibility of any Republican, whether he be white, Hispanic, or black.

They hate the Western Civilization that the white man has created.

The leftists believe that they have the upper hand now, with Barack Obama being President, Europe being overrun with Moslem migrants, and until recently, there appeared to be no political will to stop unlimited Third World immigration. The Left also controls the major news media and Hollywood.

Note how the Left complains endlessly about anyone not following the leftist narrative, such as Fox News.

They also hate Reagan for defeating Communism, and they hate the US Constitution.

If you accept my premise that the Left is trying to start a race/culture war, then here is the first question you should ask to evaluate any politician: If the race war comes, on which side will he fight?

I stumbled across a library book titled The History of White People. Not just "a history", but an authorative "the history". I checked it out, thinking that I would learn something about white people.

No, the book was written by some black woman professor, and she denies that there is any such thing as a history of white people. She says that no one ever thought that there were any racial differences until the 18th, and that science has since shown that there is no such as race.

The book is filled with footnotes and endnotes, but with nothing to back up her main claims. Occasionally she says that someone made a racial claim and then someone else published a paper questioning it, trying to give you the impression that the claim was disproved. But of course it was not.

Trump does not unequivocally condemn

The Left is still attacking Donald Trump for not saying yes to this question:

Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other White Supremacists in this election?

Only a horrible person would demand a Yes answer.

From what I can see, David Duke has not endorsed Donald Trump, and is not a White Supremacist. Check out his web site for details. He does say “Jews are taking over America”, but he denies that whites, Jews, or any other ethnic group should have supremacy.

The term "White Supremacist" appears to be used exclusively by white-haters for purposes of derogatory name-calling.

But regardless of Duke's views, it is completely unreasonable to expect a politician to unequivocally condemn anyone, or to refuse votes from anyone. God judges, not political candidates. Politicians accept votes from anyone, and have no control over the views of their voters.

This was like asking Barack Obama, when he was a candidate: "Do you unequivocally condemn Rev. Wright and all the other niggers who hate white America?" Obama refused to condemn Rev. Wright.

Now the black Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has praised Trump, and Trump has no control over that either

It is a characteristic of the Left that it seeks to suppress alternative views, and shaming anyone who even tries to listen to balanced opinions on a subject. Right-wingers are perfectly happy exposing the views of their opponents, and explaining why they are wrong.

The Left consists of haters who want to unequivocally condemn their enemies, and others using guilt-by-association.

As I write this, Michael Medved is highly praising Stephen Colbert's attack on Trump's answer.

Trump's answer was completely reasonable. He said that he did not know enuf about Duke to unequivocally condemn him, and that he would have to see the list of other groups before condemning them either.

Medved is Jewish and complained that the Democrats will call Trump anti-semitic, even tho he is the most pro-Jewish presidential candidate in decades. Duke is extremely critical of Jews.

Medved should understand the media better than this. Colbert has lousy ratings with his stupid political antics.

It is not that complicated.

Trump is running for President, while the liberal news media, super-rich, and elite power brokers hate him for his pro-America and populist stances. The only way he can get his message out is to stay in the public eye.

So about once a week he says something provocative, and baits the press into making a big story out of it. Every time his enemies gleefully announce that they finally have the weapon they need to destroy him. They publicize Trump in an attempt to destroy him, but in the end, it turns out that what Trump said was completely reasonable.

The first couple of times this happened, I thought that it was dumb luck. But now Trump has been doing this over and over for 6 months. Trump is out-smarting all of his enemies.

Trump is a genius, and he is the best Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.

Update: A comment questioned me saying that Trump is pro-Jewish. See this Jewish article for proof.