Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Neanderthals and the great leap forward

Razib Khan writes:
In the year 2000 I broadly accepted the thesis outlined a few years later in The Dawn of Human Culture. That our species, our humanity, evolved and emerged in rapid sequence, likely due to biological changes of a radical kind, ~50,000 years ago. This is the thesis of the “great leap forward” of behavioral modernity.

Today I have come closer to models proposed by Michael Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition and Terrence Deacon in The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. Rather than a punctuated event, an instance in geological time, humanity as we understand it was a gradual process, driven by general dynamics and evolutionary feedback loops.

The conceit at the heart of Robert J. Sawyer’s often overly preachy Neanderthal Parallax series, that if our own lineage went extinct but theirs did not they would have created a technological civilization, is I think in the main correct. ...

One of the major holy grails I see now and then in human evolutionary genetics is to find “the gene that made us human.” The scramble is definitely on now that more and more whole genome sequences from ancient hominins are coming online. But I don’t think there will be such gene ever found.
The two competing claims are that (1) humans radically advanced biologically 50k years ago; and (2) Neanderthals had what was needed to evolve into a technological civilization.

Why can't these both be true? Maybe Neanderthals had that magic gene or set of genes, and Africans did not, and maybe the Neanderthal-African hybrids of 50k years made that great leap forward only because their inherited those magic Neanderthal genes.

Nobody seems to consider this possibility, and maybe there is some technical reason for rejecting it, but I don't see it. Recent research has shown that Neanderthals were more advanced than anyone thought, and that the biggest human advances came after Neanderthal interbreeding.

Wikipedia says
The Late Upper Paleolithic Model, or Upper Paleolithic Revolution, refers to the idea that, though anatomically modern humans first appear around 150,000 years ago, they were not cognitively or behaviorally "modern" until around 50,000 years ago, leading to their expansion into Europe and Asia.[6][17][18] These authors note that traits used as a metric for behavioral modernity do not appear as a package until around 40–50,000 years ago. Klein (1995) specifically describes evidence of fishing, bone shaped as a tool, hearths, significant artifact diversity, and elaborate graves are all absent before this point.[6] Although assemblages before 50,000 years ago show some diversity the only distinctly modern tool assemblages appear in Europe at 48,000.[17] According to these authors, art only becomes common beyond this switching point, signifying a change from archaic to modern humans.[6] Most researchers argue that a neurological or genetic change, perhaps one enabling complex language such as FOXP2, caused this revolutionary change in our species.[6][18]
That was exactly the time that African interbred with Neanderthals, according to the latest DNA evidence.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Animal fats are good for you

Nutrition advice is usually based on weak evidence or no evidence. In some cases, the evidence points to the opposite of the expert advice. Here is such an example, and the embarrassing study with the best science behind it was not even published for 40 years.

SciAm reports:
Ramsden, of the National Institutes of Health, unearthed raw data from a 40-year-old study, which challenges the dogma that eating vegetable fats instead of animal fats is good for the heart. The study, the largest gold-standard experiment testing that idea, found the opposite, Ramsden and his colleagues reported on Tuesday in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).

Although the study is more than just another entry in the long-running nutrition wars—it is more rigorous than the vast majority of research on the topic—Ramsden makes no claims that it settles the question. Instead, he said, his discovery and analysis of long-lost data underline how the failure to publish the results of clinical trials can undermine truth.

Absent a time machine, it’s impossible to know how publication of the study, conducted in Minnesota from 1968 to 1973, might have influenced dietary advice. But in an accompanying editorial, Lennert Veerman of Australia’s University of Queensland concluded that “the benefits of choosing polyunsaturated fat over saturated fat seem a little less certain than we thought.”

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Immigrant prof wants more immigration

Russian-American law professor Ilya Somin writes in USA Today:
Perhaps the biggest negative impact of immigration restrictions is the enormous economic cost. Restrictions prevent millions of people from freely seeking employment and other opportunities. Economists estimate that abolishing migration restrictions around the world ...
So his idea of "economic cost" means immigrants suffering the cost of not being able to steal your job.
Immigration restrictions also threaten the liberty and property rights of Americans. Most obviously, they curtail American citizens' freedom to associate with immigrants. Jim Crow segregation laws restricted the freedom of association of whites as well as African-Americans.
This is a odd view. If freedom of association is what is most important, then you should be all in favor of whites-only country clubs, and the ability to keep Syrian refugees to move into your neighborhood.
In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security concluded that immigration enforcement requires large-scale use of racial profiling in areas where some two-thirds of the U.S. population lives.
Put another way, failing to enforce immigration law will result in a non-white invasion of much of the nation.

Somin makes it clear that he does not believe in nations, and favor open borders regardless of the effects on crime, social cohesion, and the quality of life.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Looking good there, girl!

Wondering why Fox News fired Bill O'Reilly? The Daily Beast reports:
one of O’Reilly’s heretofore anonymous accusers, Perquita Burgess, who spent several weeks as a clerical temp worker at a desk near The O’Reilly Factor’s offices in 2008 and, according to her account on ABC’s daytime television show, endured relentless sexual and racial harassment from Fox News’s top-rated anchor. ...

But, she continued, “within the first week and a half of me working there, he walked past my desk and he made a grunt noise—like that,” Burgess said, clearing her throat. ...

“Fast forward — maybe after three weeks — we were on the elevator, coming up to our floor. He let me off first, as gentlemen usually do with a woman, and I walked in front him.”

At which point O’Reilly, walking behind her and apparently looking her up and down, exclaimed: “Looking good there, girl!” ...

“It was so important to us that Perquita come out and speak out … and she had this wonderful Twitter history,” said her attorney, Bloom, who was seated in the audience. ...

Burgess, meanwhile, said she felt “triumphant” about O’Reilly’s sacking — prompting applause. “Very cathartic. Very cathartic,” she added.
This is her story after 9 years of trying to think of something to complain about, plus coaching from a lawyer to make it sound as bad as possible for O'Reilly.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Complaint from today's college students

Some black college students wrote this letter:
Free speech, a right many freedom movements have fought for, has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry. Thus, if “our mission is founded upon the discovery of truth,” how does free speech uphold that value? ...

Your statement contains unnuanced views surrounding the academy and a belief in searching for some venerated truth. Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth -- ’the Truth’ -- is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny. The idea that the truth is an entity for which we must search, in matters that endanger our abilities to exist in open spaces, is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples. We, Black students, exist with a myriad of different identities. We are queer, trans, differently-abled, poor/low-income, undocumented, Muslim, first-generation and/or immigrant, and positioned in different spaces across Africa and the African diaspora. ...

Heather Mac Donald is a fascist, a white supremacist, a warhawk, a transphobe, a queerphobe, a classist, and ignorant of interlocking systems of domination that produce the lethal conditions under which oppressed peoples are forced to live.
So if you seek the truth in the Euro-West tradition of the Enlightenment, you may be called a white supremacist.

If these views become more popular, we may see ppl being proud to call themselves white supremacists.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Why scientific literacy does not help the Left

Tim Requarth writes in Slate:
Finally, he asked them about climate change. If the deficit model were correct, Kahan reasoned, then people with increased scientific literacy, regardless of worldview, should agree with scientists that climate change poses a serious risk to humanity.

That’s not what he found. Instead, Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus — in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.

The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone won’t change minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the public might even backfire.
This seems reasonable to me. The risks of climate change are grossly distorted in the popular press. If you don't know much about it, then you are likely to accept the warnings about catastrophic change that get the most press.

After I learned more about the science, I discovered that the leading models only show a 2-3 feet sea level increase over the next century. In terms of economic effects, there is no consensus, and it appears that global warming is doing more good than harm. Those predicting catastrophes of various sorts do not do so purely on the basis on human-induced CO2 emissions, but on dubious feedback effects.

I am not sure many people really believe those catastrophic predictions. If they did, then they would favor: (1) building many new nuclear power plants; (2) stopping all Third World immigration into Europe and N. America; and (3) stopping all aid to Third World development.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Lawsuit to silence Alt-right website

I mentioned this dispute, and now there is a lawsuit:
Andrew Anglin, publisher of far-right site Daily Stormer, has been sued in Federal Court today for $300,000, stemming from his reporting about Tanya Gersh, a Montana real estate agent who he accused of attempting to extort Richard Spencer’s mother into selling a Whitefish, Montana property. In the lawsuit, Anglin is accused of creating a “troll storm” against Gersh that caused her emotional distress and anxiety.

Here is the announcement from the SPLC:
The Southern Poverty Law Center, along with its Montana co-counsel, filed suit in federal court today against the founder of a major neo-Nazi website who orchestrated a harassment campaign that has relentlessly terrorized a Jewish woman and her family with anti-Semitic threats and messages.

The lawsuit describes how Andrew Anglin used his web forum, the Daily Stormer – the leading extremist website in the country – to publish 30 articles urging his followers to launch a “troll storm” against Tanya Gersh, a real estate agent in Whitefish, Montana. Gersh, her husband and 12-year-old son have received more than 700 harassing messages since December.

The intimidation began after Anglin accused Gersh of attempting to extort money from the mother of Richard Spencer.
The SPLC is a very rich organization that operates by intimidating its political enemies into silence.

In Tanya Gersh's complaint, she seems to acknowledge that she started the dispute by pressuring Spencer's mother to sell her property in some sort of extortion scheme to politically attack Spencer.

Maybe I should not say anymore, as I do not want to get sued.

The SPLC's main business seems to be attacking ppl, and causing emotional distress and anxiety, by singling them out for their race, religion, nationality, and politics. However at fault Anglin might be, SPLC is 100x worse.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Women do not sync periods

Cnet reports:
It's one of those weird science "facts" that many people believe without really knowing why, like the myth that swallowed gum stays in your stomach for seven years, or that you'll drown if you swim after eating. It's the idea that women's menstrual cycles will sync up with those of other women they live with or spend a lot of time with.

You've heard that, right? And if you're a woman, maybe you think you've experienced it, in a dorm, sorority house or just a large family.

But a recent study done by Dr. Alexandra Alvergne of the University of Oxford, in conjunction with Clue, a period-tracking app, says this is just as much myth as the gum or swimming ideas.
A lot of ppl really believe that women synchronize cycles, and some studies claim to show it, but they don't get replicated.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Professors favoring the new slave trade

Some big-shot economists have pushed this letter:
The undersigned economists represent a broad swath of political and economic views. Among us are Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of us favor free markets while others have championed for a larger role for government in the economy. But on some issues there is near universal agreement. One such issue concerns the broad economic benefit that immigrants to this country bring.

As Congress and the Administration prepare to revisit our immigration laws, we write to express our broad consensus that immigration is one of America’s significant competitive advantages in the global economy. With the proper and necessary safeguards in place, immigration represents an opportunity rather than a threat to our economy and to American workers.
This is like saying that slavery has economic benefits. Of course it did, and that is why the practice continued for so long, and still does in some countries.

The letter does not say what "the proper and necessary safeguards" are, but they are obviously not in place. It also does not say who benefits from immigration from Moslem-jihadist countries.
Immigration undoubtedly has economic costs as well, particularly for Americans in certain industries and Americans with lower levels of educational attainment. But the benefts that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs, and smart immigration policy could better maximize the benefts of immigration while reducing the costs.
The letter says "undoubtedly", as if the authors are not sure what those costs are. Shouldn't they find out before making pronouncements about them?

Many of the economists signing the letter justify immigration on the basis of the benefits to the immigrants.
We urge Congress to modernize our immigration system in a way that maximizes the opportunity immigration can bring, and reaffirms continuing the rich history of welcoming immigrants to the United States.
Maximize the opportunity for whom? These economists try to make it sound like an objective case for immigration, but it is not. For most Americans, maximizing the immigration opportunity would be reforming the rules and drastically cutting the numbers.

What "reaffirms continuing the rich history"? Current immigration policies, where judges have declared that Moslems have a right to come here, are unprecedented. One could say that American history has been as a predominantly white Christian nation, and affirming that history would restrict immigrants to white Christians of good moral character. While such a position seems extreme, it would be more in line with American values and history than our current policy.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Do you want a lunatic on your plane?

I am surprised so many ppl are excited about this:
Munoz added that when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he “raised his voice and refused to comply”, and each time they asked “he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent”.

He said crew members “were left with no choice but to call Chicago aviation security officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight”, and that at one point the passenger “continued to resist – running back on to the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials”.
Wikipedia has some background:
Voluntary acceptance of being bumped is quite common. Over half a million passengers in the US agreed to be bumped in return for compensation in 2016 but only 8.6% of all denials of boarding that year were involuntary.
So maybe 40k passengers are involuntarily bumped, and one old Vietnamese guy sneaks back on the plane to start a fight. The airline (Republic, under contract to United) calls the cops.

What did anyone expect?

Do you really want lunatics who defy security orders on the plane with you?

According to news reports, all the Chinese ppl think that this guy was reasonable, and was being picked on because he was Asian. I am guessing that someone like this would be dealt with much more harshly in China.

As far as I know, becoming beligerant and getting on a plane over the objections of airline officials always gets you forcibly removed from the plane.

Yes, I know that the airline and police could have handled this differently. But they have a lot to do on a tight schedule, and it is remarkable that there are not more problems like this.

Are the ppl whining about this the same ones as those whining the few dozen gas deaths in Syria?

Update: David Dao's medical license was suspended for trading prescription drugs for secret gay sex.

Saturday, April 08, 2017

Welfare for rich colleges

Thinking of donating to an Ivy League college? Consider this:
1. Ivy League payments and entitlements cost taxpayers $41.59 billion over a six-year period (FY2010-FY2015). This is equivalent to $120,000 in government monies, subsidies, & special tax treatment per undergraduate student, or $6.93 billion per year.

2. The Ivy League was the recipient of $25.73 billion worth of federal payments during this period: contracts ($1.37 billion), grants ($23.9 billion) and direct payments – student assistance ($460 million).

3. In monetary terms, the ‘government contracting’ business of the Ivy League ($25.27 billion – federal contracts and grants) exceeded their educational mission ($22 billion in student tuition) FY2010-FY2015.

4. The eight colleges of the Ivy League received more money ($4.31 billion) – on average – annually from the federal government than sixteen states: see report.

5. The Ivy League endowment funds (2015) exceeded $119 billion, which is equivalent to nearly $2 million per undergraduate student.
Even with all that money, they are easily bribed:
My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their underachieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5m to Harvard University not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school, which at the time accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of 20.) ...

The Harvard Number is the amount of money Harvard would want as a donation for accepting your kid as an undergraduate. It’s not the kind of information they post on their website. You have to ask the right people in the right manner.

He said he just found out that the current Harvard Number — assuming your kid’s application was “competitive” (i.e., there’s some chance your kid would get in even if you didn’t write a check) — is $5 million.

If your kid’s “not competitive,” then it is $10 million.

Friday, April 07, 2017

Apologizes for insufficient white hatred

The NY Times reports:
Pepsi has apologized for a controversial advertisement that borrowed imagery from the Black Lives Matter movement, after a day of intense criticism from people who said it trivialized the widespread protests against the killings of black people by the police.

“Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark and apologize,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday. “We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are pulling the content and halting any further rollout.”

The ad, posted to YouTube on Tuesday, shows attractive young people holding milquetoast signs with nonspecific pleas like “Join the conversation.” The protesters are uniformly smiling, laughing, clapping, hugging and high-fiving.

In the ad’s climactic scene, a police officer accepts a can of Pepsi from Kendall Jenner, a white woman, setting off raucous approval from the protesters and an appreciative grin from the officer.
I watched the ad, and I don't get it. I guess that if Pepsi makes a video about hating white ppl, then it must be more overt about it, and show the white-haters as bitter and angry.

The movie Ghost in the Shell is getting complaints from the white-haters because the star is a non-Asian actress playing a robot with a Japanese brain.


These white-hater stories are getting crazier and crazier.

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Privacy experts owned by Google and FB

The NY Times attacks some Trump policies, and adds:
Broadband companies, privacy experts said, occupy a different position than internet companies. Google and Facebook, they noted, are corporate giants with plenty of market clout. But they are not a fundamental pathway to the internet the way the broadband providers are. And, privacy experts said, there is little or no competition for broadband service in many markets.

“You can live without Google or Facebook,” said Dallas Harris, a legal and policy fellow at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit consumer group. “It’s pretty difficult to walk away from internet service altogether.”
Most consumers can use alternatives like satellite or cellular. They can also mask their activities by using VPNs.

But it is much harder to avoid Google and Facebook spying on you, and selling your info thru ad clicks. Even if you try to avoid Google and Facebook, most of the other sites on the web have Google and Facebook spy buttons on them. And you cannot very well use something like a VPN to hide what you are doing, because Facebook requires your real identity and Google services require your email and your location.

The internet has done well with minimal regulation, and maybe it ought to stay that way. Or maybe some regulations ought to force ISPs to offer basic privacy protections. But I cannot agree with these so-called "privacy experts" who say that Google and Facebook should be allowed to spy on you and sell your info all they want, but other ISPs like phone companies cannot.

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

California overtaken by immigrants

In case you are wondering why American want immigration restrictions, consider this:
California has more immigrants than any other state.

California is home to more than 10 million immigrants — about one in four of the foreign-born population nationwide. In 2015, the most current year of data, 27% of California’s population was foreign born, about twice the US percentage. Foreign-born residents represented more than 30% of the population in eight California counties; in descending order, they are Santa Clara, San Mateo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Imperial, Orange, and Monterey. Half of California children had at least one immigrant parent.

Monday, April 03, 2017

Google and FB lobby for protection

The Google-Facebook lackeys are complaining about Trump:
The decision to bring up the highly contested issue of net neutrality, especially in the same week that Congress voted to get rid of privacy protections for ISPs, would usually be an odd one, but seems to follow the Trump Administration's scorched-earth approach to policy-making. ...

Regardless, the decision to revoke net neutrality has caused immediate reaction. The World Wide Web Foundation (W3C) put out a statement just hours later complaining that the Trump Administration had "promised to drive economic progress for all and defend freedom of speech."

Maintaining net neutrality rules – which make it illegal for companies to discriminate between different types of internet traffic – would "preserve the internet as it should be," as well as "be key to delivering on these promises," the W3C claimed.

It went on: "Congress and the FCC have a choice to make. Keeping net neutrality is a commitment towards offering today's entrepreneurs the same opportunities the founders of Google or Paypal had, ensuring everyone can have a voice online, and guaranteeing that poorer or rural communities can enjoy the same quality of content as wealthy urban dwellers."
No, this is nonsense.

The biggest censors and privacy invaders on the internet are Google and Facebook, and they have been exempt from the privacy and neutrality rules. Why regulate some internet service providers, and not Google or Facebook?

I used to side with the internet privacy advocates, but they have all been co-opted by Google-FB money and propaganda. They seem to have some sort of paranoid hatred of the phone and cable companies, while letting Google and Facebook intrude on us. As a practical matter, it is much easier to hide my activities from the phone and cable companies than from Google and Facebook.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

Kidnapping is rare

Worried about child abductions? Fortunately, they are quite rare:
According to an estimate from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), there were just 105 "stereotypical kidnappings" in America between late 2010 and late 2011, the last period for which we have data. (For reference, there were about 73.9 million children in America that year.) Just 65 of these kidnappings were committed by strangers. Less than half involved the abduction of a child under age 12. Only 14 percent of cases were still open after one week, and 92 percent of victims were recovered or returned alive.

Saturday, April 01, 2017

Judge lets kid use dad's name

UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh comments on a ruling that a child has to keep the name of his father, rather than the mom's ex-husband:
But to the boy — and to most other people who come across him and his mother and his siblings — “Newcomer” is not primarily the last name of the boy’s mother’s ex-husband; it is the last name of the boy’s mother. It makes no sense, I think, to frame the dispute as “the name of a man with whom he has no affiliation” vs. “the father who loves and cares for him.” Rather, the dispute is “the name of the mother who loves and cares for him” vs. “the father who loves and cares for him.” ...

wpReader15: I think your post highlights the problem. Amanda Newcomer and her two other children are as much Newcomers as her ex-husband or ex-husband's paternal grandfather. She is a person with that name, with a family that bears that name. Her son is thus part of that family.

Now he is not part of a patrilineal multigenerational birth-linked family named Newcomer. But why should the court focus on that, rather than on the Newcomer who is actually raising him, and whose Newcomer-named children are being raised with him?
No, the ex-husband was born Newcomer, into a family of Newcomers. The mom was not born a Newcomer, and just assumed that name while married to a Newcomer.

Using the dad's name for the child is a sensible tradition that has gone on for millennia. It helps tie the dad to the child. Using another man's name is not.

Volokh is demonstrating cuck thinking here.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

Here is a NY Times book review of a feminist book denying differences between men and women:
Myths of Sex, Science, and Society
By Cordelia Fine ...

She dissects as she goes, bringing a probing intelligence not only to what we believe about gender, and why it’s often wrong, but also to the history of how we came to think it was so. ...

Again and again, Fine questions the way we think of biological sex “as a fundamental force in development that creates not just two kinds of reproductive system, but two kinds of people.” (Or as she quotes yet another academic: “Psychologically, men and women are almost a different species.”) ...

When she told her young son — who, she notes, “has a strange, unchildlike interest in taxidermy” — that it was time to get the family dog neutered, he excitedly suggested turning the testicles into a key ring.
Is that what happens when a gender-equality pseudo-science academic tries to raise a boy? He celebrates castration? Weird.

Scientifically, the book is nonsense. Sex differences in humans are real. See Cochrane or Coyne for details.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Trump right about Jewish false flag

An Alt-Right (and Nazi troll) site says:
Quick recap:

The Jews began receiving hoax bomb threats in their “Jewish Centers” (which is apparently the same thing as a synagogue) back in January. These continued until earlier this month.
This was connected to ADL and SPLC reports claiming that “hate crimes” were on the rise, due to the candidacy and subsequent election of President Trump.
Also, some cemeteries were vandalized, with no one ever getting caught (one instance was later attributed to the wind).
The media made it a headline story for literally months that a crisis was taking place in America, with white Trump supporters getting ready to begin gassing Jews.
The ADL made all sorts of demands on President Trump, berating and attacking him, claiming he wasn’t doing enough to address the “hate crimes”
The Daily Stormer and David Duke made it clear that we believed that there was almost certainly a Jew behind the attacks. My own reasoning is that you would have to be very smart to make calls untraced for this long, and anyone smart enough to do that would know it would only be good for the Jews. I also reasoned that it confirmed the claims being made by the ADL and the SPLC in a way that was very convenient.
We were attacked by the media and the ADL for this, saying it was despicable that anyone would ever suggest that Jews would hoax hate crimes against themselves.
A black man was arrested for making seven or eight of the calls, and it was determined he was trying to frame his ex-girlfriend as responsible.
Donald Trump, when confronted about the prank calls, asserted that they were probably a false flag.
Donald Trump was attacked by the entire Jewish media and the Jew ADL and SPLC as a pure anti-Semite hater for having dared to suggest that Jews would do a false flag to gain sympathy.
Jews demanded the government give them billions of dollars and create a special taskforce on anti-Semitism.

And then, yesterday, the FBI, having traveled to Israel, caught the perpetrator. An Israeli Jew.
So the Jewish political activists still complain about anti-Semitism:
These were acts of anti-Semitism. ...

On March 1, I penned a column excoriating Donald Trump and other mainstream conservatives for suggesting attacks on Jewish sites — bomb threats, vandalism, and otherwise — were false flag attacks designed to discredit the right. ...

The man who did this was anti-Semitic.
Okay, so the rise in anti-Semitism consists of Jews complaining about what other Jews are doing.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Backward switches down under

I just learned an amazing fact. In Australia and New Zealand, in the southern hemisphere, light switches are wired so that UP = OFF and DOWN = ON!

This is opposite the USA if you consider the orientation relative to gravity, but the directions are consistent if you think of them as being on the opposite side of the world.

I found this explanation:
The direction which represents "on" also varies by country. In the USA and Canada and Mexico and the rest of North America, it is usual for the "on" position of a toggle switch to be "up", whereas in many other countries such as the UK, Ireland, Australia, and in New Zealand it is "down." ... In countries prone to earthquakes, such as Japan, most switches are positioned sideways to prevent the switch from inadvertently being turned on or off by falling objects.
The UK also drives on the wrong side of the road. The explanation for Japan is even weirder. Only the Japanese would have such a goofy and far-fetched concern.

Think about it -- when you turn on your eyesight, do you raise or lower your eyelids? Maybe those Australians think of themselves as walking around upside-down.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Professor is disoriented by Trump

From a kooky leftist psycho analysis professor in a NY Times op-ed:
Now many of us throughout American society at large, after an interminable electoral campaign and transitional phase into the presidency of Donald J. Trump, have experienced a form of disorientation and anxiety ...

But in an important sense, anti-fact campaigns, such as the effort led by archconservatives like the Koch brothers to discredit scientific research on climate change, remained within the register of truth. They were forced to act as if facts and reality were still in place, even if only to subvert them. For example, when they attempted to undermine the findings of legitimate scientists, they often utilized rational arguments concerning certainty, probability and proof. ...

But Donald Trump and his operatives are up to something qualitatively different. Armed with the weaponized resources of social media, Trump has radicalized this strategy in a way that aims to subvert our relation to reality in general. ...

As long as Steve Bannon and his colleagues continue to destabilize our sense of reality, and their opponents fail to recognize how these techniques work, those who oppose him will continue to stumble. ...

On the hopeful side, there has recently been a robust and energetic attempt not only by members of the press, but also of the legal profession and by average citizens to call out and counter Trumpism’s attack on reality. ...

Joel Whitebook is the director of the Psychoanalytic Studies Program at Columbia University. His latest book is “Freud: An Intellectual Biography.”
The Koch brothers are neither archconservatives nor Trump supporters. They are libertarians.

Apparently it really annoys Prof. Whitebook that his political enemies use rational arguments and facts.

You might expect ivy league professors to believe in facts, but Freudian psychoanalysts have their own "relation to reality", and they get very annoyed when anyone subverts it. For Freud, dealing with reality was the exception, as his famous quote "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" indicates.

At least he admits that Trump-haters like himself are suffering "disorientation and anxiety".

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

White hatred on CNN

From a CNN broadcast:
CUOMO: You're entitled to your opinion about all these things obviously. I want to go back at this one more time because it's that Important. A Muslim American, an Italian American, A Christian American, Jewish American, you do realize that they are all equal, all the same thing. We don't need babies from one of those groups more than we need them from another of those groups. Do you agree with me? ...

CUOMO: There are a lot of people teaching hatred in their families who are white, Irish, Italian, who are Muslim. A lot of people preach hate. There's hate in a lot of different groups. I get you have Muslim extremism that there's a concern in this country about it. But I asked you something else. These people are either all equal or they are not in your view. A Muslim American, an Italian American, German American like you and your blood, your roots. They are either all equal or they are not in your mind. What is the answer?
No, they are not "the same thing". No one in any of those groups would say that he is the same as the other groups.

We have different words because they are different. As Cuomo acknowledges, there are different hatreds in different groups.
CUOMO: If you want to apply that kind of thinking to America, it seems like a complete contradiction of what we're all about. This is the melting pot. We are known by those countries as the bastion of diversity. It's an unqualified strength for us.
No, race-mixing and refusing to recognize differences is not what America is about.

Diversity is not an unqualified strength. Ethnic diversity has some advantages, but it also has disadvantages. When he mentions hatreds, he shows that he is not completely blind to those disadvantages. Maybe Cuomo is Nazi.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

The gatekeepers are censors

Here is a misguided leftist fool:
Sunday was the 28th anniversary of the day that 33-year-old Tim Berners-Lee submitted his proposal for the World Wide Web -- and the father of the web published a new letter today about "how the web has evolved, and what we must do to ensure it fulfills his vision of an equalizing platform that benefits all of humanity." ...

Tim Berners-Lee writes: ... We must push back against misinformation by encouraging gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook to continue their efforts to combat the problem, while avoiding the creation of any central bodies to decide what is "true" or not.
No, encouraging gatekeepers means creating central bodies to decide what is true. He contradicts himself.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Irregardless of other people's judgement

The London Daily Mail reports:
Revealed: The five genuine signs of intelligence that people can't fake - so how many do YOU possess? ...

1. You learn from your mistakes ...

5. You don't care what others think

Seriously intelligent people don't consider other people when making decisions.

They don't think about how others will feel as a result of their own actions and do things irregardless of other people's judgement.
Before you tell me that intelligent ppl would know that "irregardless" is not in the dictionary, look it up. Smart ppl do not worry about such trivialities. My dictionary says The Cubs Won the World Series, and 'Irregardless' Is a Word.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Still blaming Ferguson Mo

The NY Times is still printing stories blaming white ppl for Ferguson Mo, and here is the latest:
Instead, Mr. Pollock believes that the new video shows Mr. Brown giving a small bag of marijuana to store employees and receiving cigarillos in return as part of a negotiated deal. Mr. Pollock said Mr. Brown left the cigarillos behind the counter for safekeeping. ...

But Jay Kanzler, a lawyer for the convenience store and its employees, strongly disputes that version of events, and said the new footage is unrelated to Mr. Brown’s later visit to the store.

“There was no transaction,” Mr. Kanzler said. “There was no understanding. No agreement. Those folks didn’t sell him cigarillos for pot. The reason he gave it back is he was walking out the door with unpaid merchandise and they wanted it back.”
Dozens of witnesses, recording, and autopsies proved that Brown was a criminal who tried to kill a cop. Any defense of Brown is just an endorsement of black ppl killing white cops.

Even if Brown were some sort of low-level marijuana dealer, how does that help his case? He robbed a store and tried to kill a cop!

The NY Times and the Obama administration used this story endlessly to incite anti-white-police hatred for its ideological purposes.

Amazon now bans books

Amazon used to carry all books, but not anymore:
The online retailer Amazon has stopped selling three Holocaust-denial books after Jewish groups voiced growing frustration that the website was giving a platform to antisemites.

Amazon has been criticised for years over the revisionist titles for sale on its website, but the recent upsurge in antisemitism across America promoted Robert Rozett, a senior official at Yad Vashem, to write to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos last month calling for immediate action.

On Wednesday morning, the three titles that Mr Rozett had complained about were unavailable for purchase. ...

The titles in question were: Holocaust: The Greatest Lie Ever Told, by Eleanor Wittakers; The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, by Arthur R Butz and Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood.
Amazon has also banned The Bad War: The Truth NEVER Taught About World War II.

I assume that you will still be able to get public domain books like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf.

Maybe Bezos is a Nazi. I very much doubt that he thinks that these books are dangerous. Banning them just sends a message that Jews have the desire and the power to control what you learn and think.

Voltaire is credited (incorrectly) for saying: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize".

Thursday, March 09, 2017

Current knowledge about human evolution

Razib Khan posts
10 things about human evolution (genetics) you should know (simpler)

1) Modern humans stayed in Africa for tens of thousands years of before expanding beyond it. Most of the ancestors of non-African humanity seem to have started expanding rapidly from a small founder group of less than 1,000 people, starting around 50-75 thousand years years ago. African humanity has a more complex pattern. Some groups diverged as early as 200,000 years ago, then mixed back together.

2) Don't think of humanity as a branching tree. Rather think of humanity as groups of streams. Some streams end, many fold back on one another, and some suddenly have massive expansions. Surprisingly, all major human population groups we know today seem to be the product of relatively recent fusions. Even Africa, the source of modern humanity, has seen streams flow back from Eurasia.

3) Many of the characteristics people focus on today are of recent origin. At least as measured in thousands or tens of thousands of years. 8,000 years ago parts of Europe were populated by brown skinned hunter gatherers with blue eyes. Whiter skin is a (relatively) recent development. And the thick straight hair now common among East Asians is recent as well.

4) The genetic variant which helps Tibetans tolerate very high altitudes comes from a human lineage as divergent from modern humans as Neanderthals are. The Denisovans. This illustrates a general trend: we have adaptations from other very diverged human lineages in our genes today. Even if the genetic percentage is small.

5) The transition to agriculture and complex civilization seems correlated with the explosive growth of a few select male Y chromosomes. Think Genghis Khan.

6) It seems unlikely there is one genetic change which made humans humans. This is less certain than 1-5, but I'm pretty sure it's true. Researchers have been looking for this for years and haven't turned up anything definitive. I think the reason is simple enough: many genetic changes came together to make us distinctive.

7) A lot of variation between human groups is not due to novel genes. Rather it comes from increasing the popularity of pre-existing genetic variants. For example, the lightening of skin across parts of Eurasia is due to an increase of genetic variants which are common to many human populations. Height is another example.

8) Cultural flexibility does not means humans are not evolving. On the contrary, strong shifts in cultural norms seem to drive human evolution. Lactase persistence (the ability to drink milk as an adult) is a clear case. But even genetic tolerance to malaria was ultimately driven by human created environmental changes.

9) There are no "most ancient" human group. By definition, we are all equally separated in time from our common ancestors.

10) There are hints of possible new discoveries coming from ancient human DNA. For example there is evidence of humans leaving Africa ~100,000 years ago into Eurasia in both genetic and fossil data. These earlier humans may have been overrun by a later group. But this is hard to determine with the current data. The DNA of current and ancient humans still has many stories to tell.
This may all be consistent with known info, but some of it is phrased strangely.

Sure all humans are equally evolved, if you define the terms so that it has to be that way. Not, if you use some other definition. Eg, some have evolved lactase persistence, and some have not.

Saying "Modern humans stayed in Africa" is contradicted by other items, including (2) recent fusion, (3) recent origin, (4) adaptations from other lineages, etc. The current evidence is that modern humans developed outside of Africa.

Neanderthal ancestors (and hence human ancestors) left Africa a lot more than 100k years ago.

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

Court destroys jury secrecy

The NY Times reports:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that courts must make an exception to the usual rule that jury deliberations are secret when evidence emerges that those discussions were marred by racial or ethnic bias.

“Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision.

The case arose from statements made during jury deliberations in a 2010 sexual assault trial. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” a juror said of the defendant, according to sworn statements from other jurors submitted by defense lawyers after the trial was over.

The juror, identified in court papers as H.C., was a former law enforcement officer.
Maybe Kennedy is a Nazi.

It appears that Kennedy thinks that all Mexicans are rapists, and only govt regulation of private thoughts will allowing the continued importation of Mexican labor to displace Americans. And the so0called liberals on the court agree.

If you are ever on a jury, and you disagree with what the other jurors are doing, just go tell the judge that you think that some of them are racists. Then the judge will have to declare a mistrial, based on this supreme court decision.

If you argue for the guilt of the defendant, don't give any reasons except to parrot what the prosecutor said. Anything else could be considered racist.

Saturday, March 04, 2017

No man would ever babysit

An Australian newspaper op-ed explains:
When our first daughter was born my husband and I made a family rule: no man would ever babysit our children. No exceptions. This includes male relatives and friends and even extracurricular and holiday programs, such as basketball camp, where men can have unrestricted and unsupervised access to children.

Eight years, and another daughter later, we have not wavered on this decision. ...

The blanket rule against allowing our daughters to be in the care of lone male adults means that we do not have to make a moral assessment of every man. My husband and I do not want to delve into the characters of every man that we know and assess whether or not they are potential sexual predators, so we apply our rule to all men to avoid casting aspersions on people. ...

In this context, potentially hurting peoples' feelings is the price my husband and I are prepared to pay.

Kasey Edwards' new book Guilt Trip: My Quest To Leave The Baggage Behind will be released in May 2017.
This is genius. When Pres. Trump announced his travel ban, he should have just announced he was banning all Moslems "to avoid casting aspersions on people."

Maybe school segregationists should have explained that they don't want to assess the character of black ppl, so it would be better to separate them all to avoid casting aspersions.

Sometimes I see arguments that we must submit to the demands of some group, or they will turn into crazy killer. Here is a variant:
Actor Riz Ahmed has warned that a lack of diversity on TV is alienating young people.

Actor and rapper Riz Ahmed has warned that the enduring failure to champion diversity on TV is alienating young people, driving them towards extremism and into the arms of Isis. ...

Ahmed called on the government to act, particularly to overturn the unconscious bias in hiring that was preventing talented people from black, Asian and minority backgrounds rising up the ranks. He said public money should be tied to representation targets for broadcasters to break the cycle of top jobs going mainly to white men.
I thought that the top jobs already went to minorities, namely, Jews. If anything, we should have more top jobs for white Christians and Republicans.

If the Moslems are just one TV show away from joining ISIS, then maybe they are too unstable for top jobs anyway.

Friday, March 03, 2017

Marriage is Dead

Marriage is dead if no one believes in it anymore, and I am afraid the following beliefs may be typical.

Philip Greenspun's Weblog writes:
A middle-aged married father of two, in between his ecstatic praise of Barack Obama and enthusiastic expressions of support of Hillary Clinton, often mentions his passion for gay marriage. Another subject of which this Bay Area dweller is fond is the pernicious influence of Christianity and Judaism on American society. The other day he said that he couldn’t stand conservative Christians for suggesting that Americans were descending into anarchy due to an abandonment of Christian values.

I asked “Without Christian values or similar cultural ones, wouldn’t a man be free to abandon his middle-aged wife and young children in favor of a childless 25-year-old woman?” He replied “If he needs to do that I wouldn’t judge him.” What about the woman who leaves her husband and kids to travel the world in an Eat, Pray, Love-style journey of self-discovery? It turned out that was okay as well.

The conversation reminded me of one that I had recently with a college student (and, of course, therefore at least a moderately outspoken advocate for LGBTQIA rights). His non-working mom, attractive at nearly 50, had sued his high-income father and used the resulting cash to enjoy a sex-and-travel relationship with a man just over 30. The student acknowledged that the divorce had a devastating effect on him and his sibling, ruining their teenage years. However, he said that he thought that his mother was right to break up their home because “people shouldn’t stay married if there is no passion.” I asked “So if a guy is married to a woman who is exhausted from running after kids and thus tends to collapse at night before the question of passion becomes relevant, he should feel free to seek passion with a 22-year-old off craigslist?” The answer turned out to be basically “yes” because in deciding whether or not to stay married there were no important considerations other than the passion currently experienced by one of the married adults.

I’m wondering if the whole gay marriage debate among heterosexuals was the result of the two sides misunderstanding each other’s concept of “marriage.” Marriage under the law of a typical U.S. state is a temporary financial arrangement that can be terminated by either party for any reason (“no fault”; see Real World Divorce). But citizens often invest the term with additional meaning. Perhaps the hetero anti-gay-marriage folks dragged in concepts from religion and ideas that marriage might involve a personal sacrifice? While the hetero pro-gay-marriage folks added in stuff about passion and personal satisfaction? So they ended up talking past each other and, though using the same word, were talking about two different things.
A comment says:
What marriage means to supporters of the right of gays to marry is irrelevant. What matters is what marriage means to the gay people who until recently were prevented by the government from marrying, for no reasons other than religiously motivated ones.
No, it is not irrelevant. The supporters of gay marriage have bullied everyone into abandoning marriage as it has been understood for centuries.

We used to have non-religious advocates of marriage. I happen to think that the best arguments against same-sex marriage were non-religious. But even if marriage is a religiously motivated concept, that does not make it harmful.

It is possible that most of reasons for same-sex marriage and other anti-marriage laws are also religiously motivated. That is, ppl want to strike a blow against Christianity and other traditional religions. How else can you explain so much interest in an issue that affects less than 1% of the population.

My opinions on marriage do not matter. If the dominant opinions in our society favor the view of gays, Eat-Pray-Love, and online arrangement of extramarital affairs or prostitution, then marriage is dead. See this poem, if you are wondering about the Eat-Pray-Love view of marriage.

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Leftists who hate statistical sciences

Jerry Coyne reports:
At any rate, despite his immense contributions in many areas, Galton’s forays into eugenics have led to his current demonization. According to the Evening Standard and the Telegraph, University College students have started a “Galton must fall” campaign, apeing the “Rhodes must fall” campaign at Oxford. Presumably, if examination of Galton’s legacy shows him to have pernicious and influential ideas about selective breeding of humans, his legacy should be effaced. As two students wrote on the UCL History blog:
Francis Galton was beyond any doubt tremendously innovative. Some of his scientific output, especially in the fields of meteorology and statistics, is still valid today. Yet Galton’s legacy can be open to question and debate. His endorsement of selective breeding can arguably be construed as paving the way for the ideology of racial hygiene in Nazi Germany. His pivotal role in the eugenic movement, though firmly rooted in the broader assumptions of his age, shocks many of our contemporaries. Whether or not Galton must fall, we are in no position to judge. But it is our belief that this debate needs to be informed by historical research.
Here is the Cntl-Left at work. If Galton were wrong, they would be content to publish his errors. No, they must censor and ostracize him.

Galton was a scientist. I don't know about his politics, but apparently he had some ideas for improving the human condition. He was scientific and honest and sincere, as far as I know. Blaming him for the Nazis is like blaming Einstein for the Nazis.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Industrialization benefits the Third World

Here is a recent TED Talk:
How do we make sense of today's political divisions? In a wide-ranging conversation full of insight, historian Yuval Harari places our current turmoil in a broader context, against the ongoing disruption of our technology, climate, media — even our notion of what humanity is for. This is the first of a series of TED Dialogues, seeking a thoughtful response to escalating political divisiveness. Make time (just over an hour) for this fascinating discussion between Harari and TED curator Chris Anderson. ...

Harari's previous book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, explores what made homo sapiens the most successful species on the planet. His answer: We are the only animal that can believe in things that exist purely in our imagination, such as gods, states, money, human rights, corporations and other "fictions," and we have developed a unique ability to use these stories to unify and organize groups and ensure cooperation. Sapiens has sold nearly five million copies and been translated into more than 50 languages. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and President Barack Obama have recommended it as a must-read.
At the end, Harari makes an argument that the Third World countries that suffered the most from globalism, imperialism, and industrialism in the last two centuries will also suffer the most from climate change.

His book has an impressively-broad scope, but his conclusions are wacky. Those countries have been huge beneficiaries of industrialization and the carbon-buring western civilization. They have gotten food, medicine, technology, knowledge, peacekeeping, and all sorts of other benefits. How have they suffered?

This talk shows him, as well as TED Talk management, to be extreme leftist globalists. He is an Israeli, which maybe explains some of his political views.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

More wacky psychology research

Here is the latest on cats causing mental illness:
Cats host a parasite called Toxoplasma gondii that other research has linked to various mental illnesses. So, for some time, people have wondered whether cats are unsafe; for example, pregnant women are usually told to stay away from litter boxes. (They should still do this because transmission during pregnancy is very real.) In a study published in the journal Psychological Medicine, researchers looked at data that tracked 5,000 Brits born in the early '90s until they were 18. This included information about whether the kids grew up with cats, or whether there were cats around when the mother was pregnant. After the scientists controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, there was no link between developing psychosis and having owned a cat. The researchers suggest that previous studies that did show a link had relatively small sample sizes. In addition, many of these studies asked people whether they remembered having cats, which is not quite as accurate. That said, it's important to keep in mind that some mental disorders linked to the parasite -- like schizophrenia -- tend to be diagnosed fairly late in life, so only tracking until age 18 might limit the study.
Yes, I would be surprised if cats cause full-blown schizophrenia by age 18. The effects are more subtle than that, and some of them have been proven in animals.

The book Thinking, Fast and Slow is widely considered a masterpiece from one of our greatest living intellectuals. See, for example, very high praise from Harvard Psychology professor Steven Pinker and Liar's Poker author Michael Lewis.

The book is crap, and I have criticized it before on this blog.

Here is another refutation:
In Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” he introduces research on social priming – the idea that subtle cues in the environment may have significant, reliable effects on behaviour. In that book, published in 2011, Kahneman writes “disbelief is not an option” about these results. Since then, the evidence against the reliability of social priming research has been mounting.

In a new analysis, ‘Reconstruction of a Train Wreck: How Priming Research Went off the Rails‘, Ulrich Schimmack, Moritz Heene, and Kamini Kesavan review chapter 4 of Thinking Fast and Slow, picking out the references which provide evidence for social priming and calculating how statistically reliable they:

Their conclusion:
The results are eye-opening and jaw-dropping.  The chapter cites 12 articles and 11 of the 12 articles have an R-Index below 50.  The combined analysis of 31 studies reported in the 12 articles shows 100% significant results with average (median) observed power of 57% and an inflation rate of 43%.  …readers of… “Thinking Fast and Slow” should not consider the presented studies as scientific evidence that subtle cues in their environment can have strong effects on their behavior outside their awareness.
In other words, his work relies on a flawed statistical analysis, and the claimed effects were not replicated in subsequent studies.

Here is a famous psychiatrist, giving his nutty political/academic opinions:
To the Editor:

Fevered media speculation about Donald Trump’s psychological motivations and psychiatric diagnosis has recently encouraged mental health professionals to disregard the usual ethical constraints against diagnosing public figures at a distance. They have sponsored several petitions and a Feb. 14 letter to The New York Times suggesting that Mr. Trump is incapable, on psychiatric grounds, of serving as president.

Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.

Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).

Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.

His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological.

Coronado, Calif.

The writer, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College, was chairman of the task force that wrote the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (D.S.M.-IV).
Maybe Frances should check whether he has one of those mental disorders.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Feminists hate cryptic billboard

Here is a goofy feminist gripe:
Women are planning this weekend to protest a North Carolina billboard with a message they say is a slam on gender equality, according to media reports.

A billboard on a highway between Winston-Salem and Greensboro reads, "Real men provide. Real women appreciate it." It's on Business 40, a heavily traveled commuter stretch of an offshoot of Interstate 40 that runs between the two cities.

Winston-Salem boutique owner Molly Grace said that she sees the sign's message as an attempt to silence women who want to be seen as equals to men.

"It's absolutely, absolutely insulting to single mothers, to women who have careers whether they are small careers or big careers," Grace said.
I am not sure of the point of the billboard, but how is it insulting? Are these feminists saying that men should not provide? Or that women should not appreciate male providers? They are sick.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Name for invasive peoples

Much of the news media refuses to use the term "illegal alien", and saying things like "undocumented immigrant" instead.

Now I learn that ecologists use the terms "alien species" and "invasive species", with the main difference being that the latter term is used to imply harm.

And many ppl argue that illegal aliens are beneficial to the USA, because they supply cheap labor, drive down wages, and support Democrats. And they validate some silly poem about "wretched refuse" ppl.

So maybe we need a term like "invasive peoples" to convey harm. The main objection to illegal aliens is not that they are illegal or that they are alien; it is that they are intruders who are destroying the ecosystem. The term "wretched refuse", which seems popular among pro-immigration folks, seems too pejorative.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

High Noon was a Commie Film

NPR Radio Fresh Air just broadcast an episode on how the 1952 movie High Noon was made by a Communist. He knew the the Commies were evil but refused to testify about them and got a fat financial settlement.

The guest was pushing a book claiming that the movie was some sort of statement about Communism. In his view, the town was a metaphor for Hollywood, and its spineless amoral cowardly residents represent the leftist Jews who run the movie business.

The guest also complains about the Hollywood blacklist and President Trump.

I do not see this movie as creating sympathy for Communists and leftist Jews who refused to testify. I do not get whatever point the guest was making.

NPR says:
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, as anti-communist sentiment gained ground in the United States, paranoia and persecution swept through Hollywood. The House Un-American Activities (HUAC) began interrogating some of the country's most talented filmmakers and actors, accusing them of being communists or communist sympathizers.

Author Glenn Frankel tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that the government was "looking to see or to prove that there had been communist infiltration in Hollywood, that this was part of a mass plot engineered by Moscow to take over our cultural institutions."

Many who appeared before the HUAC were put on a blacklist that made it impossible for them to work in show business. Among the blacklisted was screenwriter Carl Foreman, whose 1952 classic western High Noon is seen as a parable about the toxic political climate of the time.
But as the program explains, Foreman was not blacklisted for appearing before the HUAC. He was blacklisted for being a Communist, for refusing to repudiate Communism, and for cowardly refusing to testify about Communist infiltration of Hollywood.

It may seem paranoid today to suggest that Hollywood filmmakers were communists or communist sympathizers, but this author confirms that Foreman was both. He was a member of the Communist Party, and he went to a lot of trouble to cover up for other Communists who were putting propaganda into films. Apparent Foremen himself was putting propaganda into High Noon, altho his thinking was apparently so twisted that most ppl missed it.

Representation in Hollywood

Ever hear anyone say that blacks are not properly represented in Hollywood? From this chart, it appears that black representation more closely matches the American population than other major groups. The underrepresented groups are Whites and Latinos.

The NY Times had an article complaining that Beyonce had only won 22 Grammys. It is funny how that paper always finds a way to blame white non-Jews for everything.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Are Liberals Helping Trump?

From a NY Times opinion column:
Are Liberals Helping Trump? ...

Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed.

Protests and righteous indignation on social media and in Hollywood may seem to liberals to be about policy and persuasion. But moderate conservatives say they are having the opposite effect, chipping away at their middle ground and pushing them closer to Mr. Trump.

“The name calling from the left is crazy,” said Bryce Youngquist, 34, who works in sales for a tech start-up in Mountain View, Calif., a liberal enclave where admitting you voted for Mr. Trump is a little like saying in the 1950s that you were gay. ...

“The Democratic Party has changed so much that I don’t even recognize it anymore,” she said. “These people are destroying our democracy. They are scarier to me than these Islamic terrorists. I feel absolutely disgusted with them and their antics. It strengthens people’s resolve in wanting to support President Trump. It really does.”
There has been a political re-alignment. The crazy left (aka the Ctrl-Left) is on one side, and Trump is on the other.

The NY Times prints lies about Trump every day.

Pat Buchanan explains some of Trump's enemies:
But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved.

For the deep state is deeply committed to Cold War II.

Hence, suddenly, we read reports of a Russian spy ship off the Connecticut, Delaware and Virginia coasts, of Russian jets buzzing a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, and Russian violations of Reagan’s INF treaty outlawing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

Purpose: Stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, “President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to … return Crimea.”

Is the White House serious?

Putin could no more survive returning Crimea to Ukraine than Bibi Netanyahu could survive giving East Jerusalem back to Jordan.
From another opinion column:
A ton of folks are coming to Kjellberg’s aid after this whole thing, saying that The Journal has blown the whole thing out of proportion. Do you buy that?

Farhad: Well, if by “blown out of proportion” he means they accurately reported that he’s repeatedly invoked Nazi imagery and recently paid some folks to hold up a sign saying “Death to All Jews,” then I guess that’s right!
As I understand it, PewDiePie was paying ppl $5 to make distasteful statements, to see how far they would go. The WSJ is more Fake News. Disney is also pretty disgusting for going along with this.

Yesterday's NY Times editorial argued:
Where could the demonizing and dehumanizing of the foreign born lead but to a whiter America? You have heard the lies ...

Think of the message sent if the “day without immigrants,” in which foreign-born workers stayed home, became a week or a month.
I guess it is saying that a "whiter America" would be the message, and the non-white interests that control the NY Times are against that. They advocate anti-white policies at every opportunity.

Of course these white-haters call Trump and his followers a racist at every opportunity. After his press conference last week, they were all calling him racist for how he offered to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus. Or maybe it was for not recognizing the initials "CBC" in a black reporters question. Or maybe it was for thinking if someone is trying to get him to have a particular kind of meeting, then that someone might want to facilitate the meeting. I am not sure, as they mainly just use name-calling and do not explain themselves.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Why Jews are called Jews

I think that I am understanding the Israel-Arab situation better. The United Nations, Democrat Party, and various others propose a two-state solution. The ppl who live in what would be those two states are against it.

Israel's position is:
So here’s the substance: There are two prerequisites for peace that I laid out two years -- several years ago, and they haven’t changed.

First, the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish state. They have to stop calling for Israel’s destruction. They have to stop educating their people for Israel’s destruction.

Second, in any peace agreement, Israel must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River. ...

Why do - - why are Jews called Jews? Well, the Chinese are called Chinese because they come from China. The Japanese are called Japanese because they come from Japan. Well, Jews are called Jews because they come from Judea. This is our ancestral homeland. Jews are not foreign colonialists in Judea.
The Palestinian Arabs also have two demands: ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and unlimited Arab immigration into Israel.

Israel has repeatedly offered a separate state to the Palestinian Arabs, if it would bring peace, but they have rejected it every time.

In short, the Jews want an ethnic state like China and Japan, and the Palestinian Arabs want to exterminate the Jews.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Unprecedented: ICE nabs illegal alien criminal

The Wash. Post reports:
A hearing in El Paso County in Texas went from ordinary to “unprecedented” last week when half a dozen Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents showed up at a courthouse where an undocumented woman was seeking a protective order against the boyfriend she accused of abusing her.

The woman, a citizen of Mexico who was living in El Paso had been driven to the courthouse by a victim’s advocate from the Center Against Sexual and Family Violence, a shelter for victims of domestic abuse where she had been living.

She left under arrest. ...

The woman had a prior criminal record and had been previously deported, ...

Last fall the undocumented immigrant filed her first of three police reports against her live-in boyfriend, whom she accused of punching, kicking and choking her, and of pulling her hair. A report from December alleged, according to Bernal, that after failing to stab her with a knife, the boyfriend threw the blade at her instead. He missed. ...

The ICE affidavit does not identify from whom they learned of the woman’s undocumented status, but it says the department “received information that an individual who had been previously deported was in the United States.” The information “mentioned” that the woman had filed a protective order against her boyfriend, who, at the time the affidavit was filed, was in custody for forgery of a financial instrument. The affidavit also states the exact time and place of the woman’s court hearing and that she was living at the domestic violence shelter.
Unprecedented? Now that there is a precedent, I hope to see more deportations of ppl like this.a

I hope I don't hear anyone say that she should be allowed to stay because she filed three police reports, or because tax-funded legal aid workers are assisting her.

Even if you want to help this poor woman, there is very little you can do for someone who keeps filing police reports against her boyfriend, but also keeps moving back in with him.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Day without Immigrants

Did we really have a day without immigrants? I don't think that they made their point well enuf. Maybe we need a year without immigrants to make the point.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Rants against virtue signalling

Beau Albrecht writes about virtue signalling:
Following a discussion about the transition of power from the old American elite to what James Burnham called the managerial class, Francis describes the type of world the globalists want:
The culture the managers seek to build places more value on individual achievement and “merit” (defined largely as the ability to acquire and exercise managerial and technical skills) than on family inheritance, on sexual fulfillment than postponement of gratification and the breeding and rearing of children, on social mobility and advancement rather than identification with family, community, race, and nation.

But in addition to the family, the managerial class simply does not need other traditional institutional structures to maintain its power— not the local community, not religion, not traditional cultural and moral codes, not ethnic and racial identities, and not even the nation-state itself. Indeed, such institutions merely get in the way of managerial power. They represent barriers against which the managerial state, corporations, and other mass organizations are always bumping, and the sooner such barriers are leveled, the more reach and power the organizations, and the managerial elites that run them, will acquire.
So this is why they favor rootless cosmopolitanism and anti-family policies. These are goals that they have in common with cultural Marxism, though for their own reasons. This new version of leftist ideology fits their agenda quite well, and (at least in practice) it’s not too concerned with vast extremes of wealth, quite unlike old-school Socialism. So globalist plutocrats naturally latch onto something that lets them feel good about themselves and what they’re doing.
And here is a CH rant on the matter, in his peculiar jargon:
Her husband is nothing more than a plush betablob placeholder to grant legitimacy to his reckless Queen’s rule. He has the look of a man in pain. Physical pain as well as soul pain. His limbic system is constipated with suppressed and compacted emotions; you can tell he’s got something big to shout at the world, but he dare not lest his Queen cast him the icy gaze implying present and future sexlessness.

Christcucks are a scourge on Christianity, the Final Feminization of a once-great religion that is rapidly degenerating into a feelz therapy session for the racially alienated and the egotistically coddled. Jesus would, if he were alive today, lash them and strike them from His kingdom like he did the money-changers from the temple. He would know that Christcuckery isn’t love, but empty virtue signaling and moral posturing, much like the ostentatious shows of religiosity of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned in his day.
That blog CH (aka Roissy, aka Citizen Renegade, aka Heariste) frequently faces censorship demands. Truth hurts.

I am getting more and more contemptuous of those who engage in virtue signalling. Those ppl are nearly always making the world a worse place.

Monday, February 13, 2017

The globalists want a managerial class

Beau Albrecht writes about virtue signalling:
Following a discussion about the transition of power from the old American elite to what James Burnham called the managerial class, Francis describes the type of world the globalists want:
The culture the managers seek to build places more value on individual achievement and “merit” (defined largely as the ability to acquire and exercise managerial and technical skills) than on family inheritance, on sexual fulfillment than postponement of gratification and the breeding and rearing of children, on social mobility and advancement rather than identification with family, community, race, and nation.

But in addition to the family, the managerial class simply does not need other traditional institutional structures to maintain its power— not the local community, not religion, not traditional cultural and moral codes, not ethnic and racial identities, and not even the nation-state itself. Indeed, such institutions merely get in the way of managerial power. They represent barriers against which the managerial state, corporations, and other mass organizations are always bumping, and the sooner such barriers are leveled, the more reach and power the organizations, and the managerial elites that run them, will acquire.
So this is why they favor rootless cosmopolitanism and anti-family policies. These are goals that they have in common with cultural Marxism, though for their own reasons. This new version of leftist ideology fits their agenda quite well, and (at least in practice) it’s not too concerned with vast extremes of wealth, quite unlike old-school Socialism. So globalist plutocrats naturally latch onto something that lets them feel good about themselves and what they’re doing.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Apple wants to censor the news

The London Telegraph reports:
Tim Cook, the boss of Apple, is calling for governments to launch a public information campaign to fight the scourge of fake news, which is “killing people’s minds”.

In an impassioned plea, Mr Cook, boss of the world’s largest company, says that the epidemic of false reports “is a big problem in a lot of the world” and necessitates a crackdown by the authorities and technology firms.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, he calls for a campaign similar to those that changed attitudes on the environment to educate the public on the threat posed by fabricated online stories.

Made-up news reports trying to promote a particular agenda gained huge traction on social media in the US during the election.
NPR radio news quoted this with approval.

Cook and NPR are on the Ctrl-Left, and they want to police the fake news. They are mad that they lost the election, and blame their loss on their failure to control the dissemination of info. Meanwhile, NPR broadcasts Trump-haters doing anti-Trump rants every day.

Monday, February 06, 2017

Psychologists were motivated by anxiety

The LA Times reports:
In Washington, D.C., revelers and protesters are marking the ascendance of a new president and the populist movement he says he has mobilized.

Some 1,600 miles away in San Antonio, thousands of psychologists from around the world are also marking the dawn of the Trump era by focusing their attention on the thought processes that prompt some people to resist and reject science. Matters for which there is a broad scientific consensus — including man-made climate change, the safety of childhood vaccines and Darwin’s theory of evolution — have been attacked as hoaxes and lies by senior members of the new administration.

Psychologists have come up with a name for this trend: the “anti-enlightenment movement.”

To better understand it, these professional observers of human behavior will draw from a recent election campaign in which fake news exploded, conspiracy theories flourished and derision was heaped on elites of all kinds.

“We were motivated by anxiety,” said social psychologist Matthew Hornsey, who organized a symposium on the issue for this weekend’s annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
Is this a joke? Psychologists want to lecture us on scientific thinking and fake news?

Psychology, more than any other field, has been a big source of fake science news. More bogus research comes out of Psychology than anywhere. From the top universities on down, probably half the published papers are completely worthless.

It is also one of the most politicized. There are no social psychologists who are conservatives. I doubt that you could even find 1% of them who would use the term at all. Pretty much all psychologists live in some sort of bubble that is detached from science and reality.

Friday, February 03, 2017

Uber chief is the latest America hater

The Trump presidency has clarified the aims of the Left. The latest company to be exposed as an anti-American evil is Uber.

Here is a silly argument:
According to the Cato Institute, the United States admitted 3,252,493 refugees between 1975 and 2015. Twenty of them were terrorists. This represents some 0.00062 percent of all refugees. Only three attacks carried out by these refugees were successful.

In total, in a span of forty years, “terrorist refugees” have killed three people in the United States.

But what about the attacks in San Bernardino, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Boston Marathon bombings, and 9/11? Are these not “proof” that such a ban is warranted? After all, the individuals responsible for the attacks had some connection to foreign countries.

In reality, the current executive order would have stopped exactly none of these attacks.

The Pulse Nightclub shooter was born in New York and was a U.S. citizen. Of the two San Bernardino shooters, one was born in Chicago. The other, his wife, was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia — neither country is on the “banned” list. The Tsatnaev brothers, responsible for the Boston bombings, were born in Kyrgyzstan. People from Kyrgyzstan aren’t banned under the current executive order. Of the 19 people responsible for hijacking four airplanes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the UAE, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Again, these countries aren’t on the “banned” list. ...

Yes, you are more likely to be killed by a gun-wielding toddler than a terrorist.
So we should let the Moslem refugees in, and jail the toddlers?!

No, this is an argument to extend the ban to other Moslem countries. And to deport the Moslems who are already here.

It is true that the govt can spend 2 years vetting a Moslem refugee, determine that he is not connected to any terror networks, let him become a citizen, and then his kid could become a Moslem terrorist.

Terrorism is just the most obvious problem. These refugees and migrants cause a long list of other problems. Just look at how Uber has exploited immigrants and turned them into America-haters.

White House accused of softcore denial

Deborah Lipstadt writes in Atlantic mag:
I quickly learned that the White House had released a statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day that did not mention Jews or anti-Semitism. Instead it bemoaned the “innocent victims.” ... the White House, by not referring to Jews, was acting in an “inclusive” manner.

The de-Judaization of the Holocaust, as exemplified by the White House statement, is what I term softcore Holocaust denial. ...

Softcore denial uses different tactics but has the same end-goal. (I use hardcore and softcore deliberately because I see denial as a form of historiographic pornography.) ...

What we saw from the White House was classic softcore denial. The Holocaust was de-Judaized. ...

Deborah Lipstadt is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.
I first heard of her when she wrote a book arguing that Holocaust scholars should not debate or try to refute historians with alternative facts.

I guess she gets paid a big salary for sticking to her Holocaust views.

I just post this as info on what a Holocaust denier is. It might be someone who merely used inclusive terms for Holocaust victims.

Here is another Jewish view:
We, Rabbis from across the United States, call on our newly elected officials to keep America’s doors open to refugees.

Faced with the largest refugee crisis in all of human history, the United States must continue to be a safe haven ...
Of course they want to flood America with non-Christians, and keep non-Jews out of Israel. It is amazing how much these ppl hate white Christians.

The NY Times also hates white Christians, and complains:
Mr. Thiel weighed in on the controversy Saturday night, saying through a spokesman that he did not support a religious test for entry into America, “and the administration has not imposed one.” He was the only major figure in Silicon Valley to vocally support the president. ...

About 30,000 people apply for citizenship every year in New Zealand, where the population is less than five million, according to data from the country’s Internal Affairs Department. Only a handful — around one to two dozen a year — are approved for citizenship by the minister of internal affairs under “exceptional” circumstances, the data showed.

Mr. Thiel was one of those. In the application, he noted that he did not fulfill the residency requirements and said that he did not intend to live in the country if he secured citizenship.
Thiel wants to invest money there, but not live there. Who would have a problem with that? The fact that they are so restrictive about immigration makes it a better place to live.