Things will get uglier

NY Times columnist David Brooks explains that Republicans have been able to avoid identity politics in the past, but not any more:

Each individual Republican is now compelled to embrace this garbage or not. The choice is unavoidable, and white resentment is bound to define Republicanism more and more in the months ahead. It’s what Trump cares about. The identity warriors on the left will deface statues or whatever and set up mutually beneficial confrontations with the identity warriors on the right. Things will get uglier.

I think this part of his analysis is right. The Democrat Party has been the party of identity politics and group hatred, not the Republicans. But the identity warriors on the left have gotten so aggressive that it is hard to sit on the fence anymore. You are either for or against white genocide.

White supremacy used to evoke images of wealthy white plantation owners and black slaves. But the folks who are called white supremacists today are not wealthy and do not want to enslave anyone. They merely want to put some limits on anti-white hatred.

Brooks is a Jewish Trump-hater. His nastiest comments are about white Christians like Trump. He has chosen a side in this war, and he is just another identity warrior.

The coming ethnic wars

The Charlottesville chant that everyone denounced was "You will not replace us."

Perhaps this is the sort of displacement that they were seeking to avoid:

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has reportedly said that all locals accused of killing white former commercial farmers during the country's controversial reform programme are immune to prosecution.

According to News Day, Mugabe said this while addressing thousands who thronged the National Heroes Acre to mark this year's Heroes Day.

"Yes, we have those (white farmers) who were killed when they resisted. We will never prosecute those who killed them. I ask: Why we should arrest them?," Mugabe was quoted as saying.

The report said that at least 12 white commercial farmers were killed by suspected Zanu-PF activists during the fast-tracked agrarian reforms that were masterminded by Mugabe's administration in 2000.

Thousands of white commercial farmers and their employees were also displaced and left without sources of income

According to the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union, more than 4000 white farmers were affected by the often violent farm invasions.

We cannot even watch the movie Gone With The Wind in a movie theater anymore.

Google YouTube is trying to discourage viewing some interesting social science videos, such as How Women Dismantle NATIONS * / & other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS and Race Differences in Intelligence.

I think that we are headed for ethnic wars. I hope that I am wrong, but if trends continue, things will get ugly. Whites will not wait for the day when the law allows stealing their land and killing them.

In a couple of years, some European country is going to decide that importing Moslems was all a big mistake, and try to deport them all. This will cause other nations to take sides on the matter. It could lead to World War III.

Again, I hope I am wrong, but I do not see this coming to a peaceful conclusion.

Stormfront shut down

The Google censors are now going after social science lectures with uncomfortable facts.

The internet domain censors have shut down another political site:

Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.

The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported. ...

The Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin, wrote on article Aug. 12 mocking a woman killed hours earlier while protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, 32-year-old Heather Heyer. The Stormer was subsequently booted by domain registrars GoDaddy and Google, and attempted to relaunch at more than a half-dozen address this week before relegating itself to the so-called dark web where it’s subject to less restrictions.

Stormfront has a white supremacist reputation, but it was really just a message board where anyone could freely post whatever messages he wanted. Yes, there were a lot of racially offensive messages, but as far as I know there was nothing illegal and all opinions were allowed.

It is a little disturbing to see a lively debate on whether Jews do more harm than good, but do you believe in free speech or not?

I think that I once posted some comments on that site, on a matter that had nothing to do with race. To me, it was just another discussion site and I appreciated the fact that a free-wheeling unmoderated discussion was allowed. With the site now done, I guess my comments are gone also. What is the justification for that?

I don't think that this censorship is going to work. A lot of ppl who never heard of these sites are going to conclude that the sites must be telling the truth. The authoritarians are usually only interested in censoring the truth, as the truth is dangerous. Nobody cares about nonsense sites.

If the Google and ICANN censors get away with this, they will not stop there. They keep going until they censor all the pro-conservative, pro-Trump, and pro-Christian sites, until somebody stops them.

Update: A free speech site reports:

While identity politics has taken the mass media echo chamber by storm, the vast majority of Americans are opposed to adopting “hate speech” punishments like that of Germany – and are willing to die to protect their freedom of speech, according to new polling data from Rasmussen Reports.

The polling by Rasmussen Reports, conducted by telephone and online, found that an astonishing 85% of American adults believe the right to free speech takes precedence over protecting people from hateful words. In fact, out of those surveyed, only 8% thought that ensuring people aren’t offended was more important that unadulterated free speech.

Perhaps more importantly, 73% of Americans agreed with Voltaire’s famous quote — “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” — and believe that the right to free speech is so important that they would be willing to die to defend a person’s free speech rights.

This is reassuring, but Si Valley is at war with it:

As of this writing, numerous right-wing websites and personalities have been banned from PayPal, Twitter, Paypal, Stripe, Facebook, Instagram, Mailchimp, Soundcloud, Uber, and countless other platforms. To make matters worse, domain registrars and website maintenance companies such as CloudFlare and GoDaddy have no-platformed The Daily Stormer, keeping the site offline since Sunday. ...

By now it’s clear that every corporation in Silicon Valley hates you and your ideas. They will demonetize you, demotivate you from using their sites, and then finally deplatform you, all to preserve a cherished agenda which is having a mighty hard time standing up to the truth.

I expect that soon mainstream Trump-supporting sites will be hassled by these Si Valley companies.

Joining the Alt-Right

Matt Lewis writes:

Libertarianism has an alt-right problem. Many prominent leaders of the alt-right have, at some point, identified as libertarian. I am curious as to… why? ...

It is also true that many of today’s alt-righters are disaffected conservatives. ...

Over at HotAir, Taylor Millard says that conservatives and libertarians need to purge white supremacists. If they are smart, they will follow his advice.

Libertarianism used to be about freedom. Now they want to purge ppl with different opinions?

What have libertarians accomplished in recent decades? The Alt-Right has elected Donald Trump while libertarians have been cucked.

Save the Daily Stormer

For the first time in the history of the internet, the leading providers have conspired to shut down a site purely for its political content. The has lost its domain. It appears to be temporarily available here.

Some pirate sites and other illegal sites have been shut down, but this is just a guy expressing political opinions. He does not advocate anything illegal.

One hate site bragged that "the Daily Stormer is now the top hate site in America."

If this can be shut down, what will be next?

The Daily Stormer was not just testing free speech rights. It was funny. It had biting criticisms of the Left. It had a lot of interesting news and commentary. It links to its sources, so you can check the accuracy yourself.

The site was called "neo-Nazi", but that is a little misleading. The guy who ran it said that he would be called a Nazi anyway, so he would rather embrace the term than waste time and energy arguing about some stupid name-calling.

He also trolls a lot. He says silly things for purposes of satire or being provocative. He says things that many will find offensive.

For example, Anglin might link to some CNN stories that dishonestly and unfairly attack Pres. Trump, and then point out that the management, producers, and on-air personalities are left-wing Jewish Democrats who are ideologically opposed to Trump.

Saying this is considered anti-Semitic. So he accepts being anti-Semitic. Maybe it is offensive, but it is also useful to know that CNN is promoting a particular set of views from a small segment of the population.

I am not endorsing Naziism or national socialism or anything like that. I don't even know how Naziism would apply to the world today. But I read a lot of sources, and I do not agree with most of them. I like to read diverse opinions.

In many ways, the NY Times is more offensive than the Daily Stormer. It attacks Trump as sharply and as unfairly as the Daily Stormer. The difference is largely a matter of style.

I hope the Daily Stormer returns, both for the sake of free speech on the internet, and because it is an amusing and thought-provoking site.

I am also disturbed that PayPal has cut off VDARE, and that Apple has banned Gab. PayPal, Apple, and Google should be seen as the enemies of basic freedoms everywhere.

Politics triggering cognitive dissonance

Scott Adams (aka Dilbert) writes:

A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it. The Salem Witch Trials are the best-known example of mass hysteria. The McMartin Pre-School case and the Tulip Bulb hysteria are others. The dotcom bubble probably qualifies. We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.

We are witnessing mass hysteria about Charlottesville. Example:

President Donald Trump is accusing Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of telling a “disgusting lie” by saying Trump drew a “moral equivalency” between white supremacists and those who protested them in Charlottesville.

On Wednesday, as Fox News writes, Graham said Trump “took a step backward by again suggesting there is moral equivalency between the white supremacist neo-Nazis and KKK members who attended the Charlottesville rally and people like Ms. Heyer.” Heather Heyer was killed when a car drove into a crowd of counter-protesters at the rally on Aug. 12. Trump has blamed “both sides” for the violence.

Yes, it is a disgusting lie, and the press has been saying it in various ways for a week.

GoDaddy and Google have attempted to censor sites criticizing Miss Heyer. Why? Of all the views to censor, why this? Was she trying to start a riot or something?

Authorities primarily seek to censor the truth, so I can only assume that she was doing something really bad.

And why is it that CNN, NY Times, NPR, Democrat politicians, and other Trump haters are so eager to equate Nazis, KKK, Heyer, and statue-destroyers? I think that they take down these statues because they are trying to start a race war.

A Trump-hater site concedes that Trump told the truth about Charlottesville:

Our media have a problem: they are essentially incapable of covering Donald Trump with anything less than full-on deranged hysteria.

I do not say this as an excess of rhetoric or op-ed theatrics. It is a very real, very pressing problem, only getting worse, and it poses a significant danger to the social fabric of the United States. Twenty-first century American media has the ability to shape our discourse and shift our public consciousness, and it is abusing that power in the worst ways possible. This is likely a bigger problem than any of us realizes.

They are a little late to notice. The press has been lying about Trump for 2 years now, even when his words are so readily available.

What It Means To Be Alt-Right

Richard B. Spencer has posted The Charlottesville Statement

What It Means To Be Alt-Right -- A meta-political manifesto for the Alt-Right movement.

1. Race is real. Race matters. Race is the foundation of identity. ... Racially or ethnically defined states are legitimate and necessary.

I am not sure Spencer gets to define the Alt-Right, as many in the movement reject him, such as this philosopher.

Saying "race matters" seems to inflame ppl, but it is a simple statement of fact for most of the world. Race matters in China, India, Europe, and everywhere else. Our most prestigious colleges teach courses on how race matters.

Most of the countries of the world are organized around some dominant ethnic identity.

5. White America

The founding population of the United States was primarily Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. By the Great War, a coherent American nation emerged that was European and Christian. Other races inhabited the continent and were often set in conflict or subservience to Whites. Whites alone defined America as a European society and political order.

The "Great War" means World War I, 1914-18.

Some may feel left out by this statement, but I am neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant myself, and I see it as a simple statement of fact.

6. Europe

Europe is our common home, and our ancestors’ bone and blood lie in its soil.

European unity emerged at critical points in history, but so did fragmentation, rivalry, and betrayal. As brother nations, Europeans have competed with one another, and even hated and killed one another. We can no longer afford the luxury of intra-racial squabbling. “Brothers wars” gain us nothing, and directly lead to our collective downfall. Europeans must come together as a family.

I am not sure why Americans should care if Europe is united or not.

7. Family

The family — a man and woman in a loving relationship that produces offspring — is an essential, indispensable foundation for a healthy and functioning society.

8. Human Nature

Man is not a blank slate on which to be written, nor was he born a guileless, noble savage. Human nature — the reality of race, sex, heritability, and innate endowments — is the most powerful force shaping individuals, families, societies, and nations.

9. Women and Sex

Women, as mothers and caregivers, are key to the future of our race and civilization. We oppose feminism, deviancy, the futile denial of biological reality, and everything destructive to healthy relations between men and women.

I can agree with this. I do not read this as saying women must be mothers and caregivers.

14. The Left

Leftism is an ideology of death and must be confronted and defeated. “Losing gracefully” will eventuate in the destruction of our people and civilization.

This is why they support Pres. Trump. Trump is doing what must be done to confront the Left, while most other Republicans are willing to lose gracefully. If it were not for Trump, the Left would be winning. However much the Alt-Right might seem goofy, the Ctrl-Left is much crazier.

As much as Spencer thinks that he can define the term Alt-Right, it is really more identified with how Trump and his supporters confront the Left.

As I write this, I see that Spencer is being censored at Texas A&M. He seems to just want to express his opinions peacefully. Pres. Trump is one of the few public figures who is willing to blame leftist rioters for the violent confrontations.

Why hospitals overbill for services

I always assumed that medical providers over-bill for services because they want to get the maximum insurance reimbursement, and it is too hard to keep track of insurance payment schedules. That's what they have told me, anyway.

This comment says that there are other reasons:

Marking down hospital bills is known as “claims repricing”. It exists because gigantic unpaid bills are profitable to several groups in unexpected ways. Here’s a doctor (who owns a hospital) explaining it.

Basically, when a bill of $558 is marked down to $89 (-$469):

– Hospitals claim a $469 “accounting loss” to maintain their fiction of being a non-profit tax-exempt org (while paying directors multi-million$ salaries).

– Hospitals get a partial rebate on “losses” from Washington via Medicare/Medicaid payments (the bigger the loss, the more they profit!).

– Insurers back-charge large policy holders 35% of the $469 “savings” they “negotiate” (much more profitable than just charging a % on top of what they pay out, which most people presume how insurers work).

– Lawyers seek hospitals with the biggest sticker prices when suing for damages, because the amount awarded is independent of what their client ends up paying.

Wow, I did not know this. If this is right, then you are doing the provider a favor when you refuse to pay an inflated bill.

Democrats pander to identity politics

Julian Assange writes:

“What neither side of US politics wants to admit: the promotion of identity politics combined with the declining white super majority has led to turbo charged white identity politics. Since Dems catered for non-white identity politics, Trump and the GOP took hold of white identity politics. Whites are still over 60% of the voting population. As long as Democrats pander to identity politics the GOP will be able to herd whites into supporting it. It seems too late for the Democrats to disengage with identity politics. So GOP will continue to market itself (sotto voce) as the party of whites. Democrats will be out of most offices until whites lose their majority. That won’t be for decades. Most countries that do not have a 70%+ super majority ethnic group have ethnicized electoral politics.”

He also quotes the long-time Singapore Prime Minister:

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..

I think this is mostly correct. The Democrats have bet everything on mobilizing non-white and non-Christian identity politics to get elected. They apparently expected the white Christians to commit cultural suicide, or to swamp them with other ethnic groups imported from elsewhere. They seemed to truly believe that we had reached a point where white Christians would never elect a Republican President again.

As Democrats pander to identity politics, I expect more and more white Christians to come to the conclusion that the Democrat Party is trying to destroy them.

Everyone misreads a public text

NY Times columnist (and Jewish Trump hater) David Brooks writes:

The first actor is James Damore, who wrote the memo. In it, he was trying to explain why 80 percent of Google’s tech employees are male. He agreed that there are large cultural biases but also pointed to a genetic component.

Actually the memo does not mention this 80% of Google, nor does it mention a genetic component.

Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, “For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate.”

The memo cites the research.

He [Google CEO Sundar Pichai] fired Damore and wrote, “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.”

That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo. Damore wrote nothing like that about his Google colleagues. ...

As Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic, “I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.”

Maybe the last time Pres. Trump tweeted?

Almost every Trump-hater mischaracterizes what he said, even tho the accurate sources are readily available to everyone.

Another example is the US Intelligence Community report on Russian influence. All the mainstream media reported that this said that 17 intelligence agencies unequivocally concluded that Putin manipulated the US election. In fact the main conclusion was that 2 agencies had high confidence that the Kremlin attempted some influence, mostly in the form of anti-American propaganda on the RT channel. It specifically denies that it has any certainty, or that Russia had any influence over the election, or that there is agreement in the intelligence community. Apparently 1 agency thought that Russia wanted to put out anti-Clinton messages, but did not think that Trump would win and was not trying to help him.

And most of the attacks on Trump are based on hearsay and anonymous sources. If the press cannot get the public documents right, I certainly cannot trust it with anonymous sources telling implausible stories.

So why do some many ppl, from Trump-haters to CEOs to CNN to the Ctrl-Left get these things wrong? It appears that either they are very stupid, or very dishonest, or they are wearing ideological blinders or some sort. Or some combination. The best term for these ppl is Fake News.

Humans cannot detect emotion well

Nautilus reports:

The traditional foundation of emotional intelligence rests on two common-sense assumptions. The first is that it’s possible to detect the emotions of other people accurately. That is, the human face and body are said to broadcast happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and other emotions, and if you observe closely enough, you can read these emotions like words on a page. The second assumption is that emotions are automatically triggered by events in the world, and you can learn to control them through rationality. This idea is one of the most cherished beliefs in Western civilization. For example, in many legal systems, there’s a distinction between a crime of passion, where your emotions allegedly hijacked your good sense, and a premeditated crime that involved rational planning. In economics, nearly every popular model of investor behavior separates emotion and cognition.

These two core assumptions are strongly appealing and match our daily experiences. Nevertheless, neither one stands up to scientific scrutiny in the age of neuroscience. ...

Let’s begin with the assumption that you can detect emotion in another person accurately. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough. A glance at someone’s face and body language reveals what the person is feeling, right? Haven’t we been told that a smile tells one story whereas a scowl tells another? Raised arms and a puffed up chest supposedly display pride, while a drooping posture supposedly declares that someone is sad.

The big problem with this assumption is that in real life, faces and bodies don’t move in this cartoonish fashion. People who are happy sometimes smile and sometimes don’t. Sometimes they even cry when they’re happy (say, at a wedding) and smile when they’re sad (when missing a beloved aunt who passed away). Likewise, a scowling person might be angry or just thinking hard, or even have a case of indigestion. In fact, there isn’t a single emotion that has one specific, consistent expression.

Numerous scientific studies have confirmed these observations. When we place electrodes on people’s faces to record their muscle movements, we see that they move in different ways, not one consistent way, when their owners feel the same emotion. ...

Books and articles on emotional intelligence claim that your brain has an inner core that you inherited from reptiles, wrapped in a wild, emotional layer that you inherited from mammals, all enrobed in — and controlled by — a logical layer that is uniquely human. This three-layer view, called the triune brain, has been popular since the 1950s but has no basis in reality. Brains did not evolve in layers.

I think that this is correct. But why do most ppl think that they can read someone's emotions and feelings? I have met ppl who claim that they are very good at it, when they have no evidence of any ability at all.

Google chose a side in the culture war

The NY Times reports that Trump supporters are being driven out of Si Valley and this:

For alt-right activists, who occupy the rightmost flanks of a powerful conservative internet subculture, Google’s response to Mr. Damore’s memo was low-hanging fruit for mockery. But there is another reason that the alt-right’s opposition campaign appeared so quickly, with such well-practiced maneuvers.

For the last several months, far-right activists have mounted an aggressive political campaign against some of Silicon Valley’s biggest players. Extending their attacks beyond social networks like Facebook and Twitter, tech’s typical free-speech battlegrounds, they have accused a long list of companies, including Airbnb, PayPal and Patreon, of censoring right-wing views, and have pledged to expose Silicon Valley for what they say is a pervasive, industrywide liberal bias. ...

It’s unlikely that any alt-right protest will make a dent in the bottom lines of multibillion-dollar Silicon Valley behemoths. But by forcing these companies to take sides in an emerging culture war, these activists have already achieved a kind of perverse goal. They have found a new punching bag, and they have proved that in the hyper-polarized Trump era, there is no such thing as neutrality.

This last paragraph is very strange. Nothing in the article suggests that the alt-right wanted Google or any other Si Valley company to take sides in the culture war, or that Google wants to be neutral. Google has aligned itself with the Ctrl-Left. I am sure that the Alt-Right would prefer that Google remained neutral, so that all opinions are available on YouTube.

Google claims to promote diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance. But it, and other tech companies, have declared war on Republicans, Alt-Right, and anyone else opposed to their Ctrl-Left agenda.

Five laws of behavioral genetics

J-Man writes:

The five laws of behavioral genetics are:

All human behavioral traits are heritable
The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes.
A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.
A typical human behavioral trait is associated with very many genetic variants, each of which accounts for a very small percentage of the behavioral variability.
All phenotypic relationships are to some degree genetically mediated or confounded.

All this means that genes account for much more human behavior than most ppl realize, and family environment counts for less.

J-Man would say that obesity is mostly genetic partially because of genes that control fitness and exercise, but mostly because of genes that control behavior like laziness and overeating. You have some theoretical ability to increase exercise, lower consumption, and lose weight, but if your innate personality traits keep you from sticking to a diet, they you will not take advantage of that ability.

He is a determinist, but that doesn't follow from those laws, as those heritable traits are only 40-80% inherited. Some ppl might alter their behavior enuf to live a longer and healthier life, but it is a small percentage and may not be significant in research studies.

How Google is evil to fire Damore

The NY Times reports on Google firing James Damore for his opinions in an internal memo:

In a companywide email, Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of the memo had violated the company’s code of conduct and crossed the line “by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

The memo put the company in a bind. On one hand, Google has long promoted a culture of openness, with employees allowed to question senior executives and even mock its strategy in internal forums. However, Google, like many other technology firms, is dealing with criticism that it has not done enough to hire and promote women and minorities.

One female Google engineer posted on Twitter upon reading the memo that she would consider leaving the company unless the human resources department took action.

Wow, this confirms “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”, as described in the memo, as well as the leftist-victim-censorship mentality.

Here is a representative point from the memo:

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to: ...

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

If Google had followed his advice, then it would be better able to reason about the facts. Instead, it apparently caved in to over-emotional leftist females demanding that the guy be fired. The CEO presumably thought that he was empathizing with the females, as he came back from his overseas vacation to fire him.

It is hard to believe that this is the same company that once had a motto of "Don't be evil", and whose CEO Eric Schmidt was quoted as saying:

Google is run by three computer scientists. We’re going to make all the mistakes computer scientists running a company would make. But one of the mistakes we’re not going to make is the mistake non-scientists make. We’re going to make mistakes based on facts and data and analysis.

No, Google has no facts or analysis that Damore is wrong about anything.

Google is not really that big a believer in diversity. Yahoo has brought in females to a greater extent, and Google has profited greatly from Yahoo's poor management.

It should be obvious that Damore was fired for telling the truth. If Damore were wrong, then the company would just rebut what he said. But instead the company has just denounced him without denying anything in his memo. It merely said things like "we cannot allow stereotyping".

Google makes about $80B a year on stereotyping. That is, it spies on you, uses stereotypes to develop a profile on you, and then sells ads based on that profile. It also makes about $10B a year from other services. So I guess it is a little sensitive about stereotyping.

The memo with links has now been posted at diversitymemo.com/. Google was a big political supporter of the Obama administration, until the Obama DoJ sued Google for sex discrimination against women. Breitbart has documented Google witchhunts against employees with non-conforming views. CNBC says it may have been illegal for Google to fire Damore, as he as a right to express his political opinions and communicate with fellow employees about improving working conditions.

How Jewish scientism leads to Leftism

Physicist Coel writes:

Alex Rosenberg’s An Atheist’s Guide to Reality is the most radically scientistic book that I’ve read. ...

Rosenberg argues — and I entirely agree — that our moral senses are part of our human nature. We have a “core morality” programmed into us by evolution to enable us to interact socially and so exploit a cooperative evolutionary niche. Of course evolution doesn’t care about the morality itself, it only cares (metaphorically “cares” of course) about what leads to us leaving more descendants. It follows that (page 286): “there are no facts of the matter about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad”. But it also follows, since humans are highly similar genetically, that “most people naturally buy into the same core morality that makes us tolerably nice to each other”. ...

But then comes the argument where I part company with Rosenberg.

But when you combine core morality with scientism, you get some serious consequences, especially for politics. In particular, you get a fairly left-wing agenda.

Rosenberg’s argument is based on determinism. None of us have “free will” in the dualistic, contra-causal sense, we are all products of the past and of our environment. Whether we were born into a rich family or a poor one, whether we are born with genes that make us talented or not, whether we grow up in an environment that helps us prosper, are all things that we could not choose. Whether we are a millionaire at age 30, or whether we are stuck in a minimum-wage job, is thus largely a lottery of birth.

I assume that Alexander Rosenberg is Jewish, and that he sees Jewish morality as being just a rationalization for whatever evolutionary strategy helps Jews to collectively exploit an evolutionary niche. And his belief in science and science alone leads him to atheism and determinism. He combines all this to become a hard-core leftist/Marxist, as if it is a logical consequence of his other beliefs.

There are many errors here. The absurdity should be obvious to anyone who believes in Christian free will. Rather than list them, I just want to point out this view. Many other prominent Jewish atheist intellectuals hold similar views, such as Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne.

Many of these atheists claim to be extremely rational and knowledgeable about science. But then they tell you to believe in whatever evolution has trained you to believe in! And if you did, you would not believe in either determinism or leftism.

Google dissenter exposes Leftism

A Google employee has posted a rant against the company's leftism:

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. ...

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

He makes many good points, but I don't see why he is happy to have leftist scientists with their leftist biases.

Google's official response shows that it is wearing leftist ideological blinders.

Moralizing diversity is disgusting. Google is a business, and it needs to justify its policies on business terms, not by shaming and censoring. Jordan Peterson expressed from views similar to the above rant, and Google shut down his account last week with no explanation. It was only reinstated after some public pressure. Some think that he became politically incorrect for refusing to use genderless pronouns, but Google won't say.

A large part of Google's success can be traced to Yahoo failing:

As a former employee of Yahoo!, I can say with absolute conviction that the majority of the problems with the company stemmed from too many women being involved in the first place. When I started in 1999, it was mostly guys. By the time I left last year, it seemed like it was easily 75 percent women. No matter what job or position they were doing, they either were out on maternity leave half the time or just getting back therefrom. It was the most frustrating thing in the world to try to work with.

Have you ever gone to a meeting with six women and yourself as the only guy? You might as well not even turn up; nothing is going to get done, anyway. It’s just going to be an hour spent on irrelevant, tangential nonsense with no decision reached at the end.

Yahoo still have some good products, but it has sadly declined under female leadership.

The environmental cost of dogs and cats

The LA Times reports:

You’ve heard about the carbon footprint, but what about the carbon paw-print? According to a new study, U.S. cats’ and dogs’ eating patterns have as big an effect as driving 13.6 million cars for a year. ...

Cats’ and dogs’ overall caloric consumption was about 19% that of humans in the U.S.

“Just to put that in context, that’s about the same amount of calories that the country of France consumes and so that whet my appetite a little bit,” Orkin said. ...

Notably, dogs and cats actually consumed about 33% of the animal-derived calories that humans did, perhaps because their diets are generally more meat-heavy than ours, Orkin said. On the other end, they also produce about 30% of the feces that humans do (and much of that gets thrown in the trash in plastic bags, instead of treated the way that human waste is).

In short, Orkin concluded, American dogs and cats eat enough animal product to account for about 64 million tons of methane and nitrous oxide, two other powerful greenhouse gases. That’s about the same impact on our warming climate as driving 13.6 million cars for a year.

Save the planet. Kill all the dogs and cats.

Why Americans love Tucker Carlson

If you watched the video Why white supremacists love Tucker Carlson by Vox, then be sure to catch Vox vs Tucker Carlson DEBUNKED to point out some of the lies about immigration.

For leftist white-haters like Vox, all immigration policies are racist. Any attempt to limit immigration into the USA is white supremacist, since most of the immigrants are non-white. And because white nationalists/supremacists want such limits, then favoring such limits means agreeing with someone who was once accused of being the Klu Klux Klan 40 years ago.

So accept demographic displacement, or be called racist, KKK, Hitler, Islamophobic, and whatever other childish name-calling they can find. The Left always uses such name-calling when they have no substantive argument.

Update: Here is the latest Tucker Carlson video that could be said to favor white supremacism. Of course he does not say anything of the kind, but interviews a white-hating leftist SF talk show host who promotes white extermination policies. Tucker merely probes him to justifies his racially discriminatory policies, particularly as applied to Asians.

If you don't believe that these leftists hate white ppl, watch one of these videos. The guest justifies anti-white policies to favor members of some groups because other members of the groups had some hardships centuries ago. But he is against any favoritism of white groups even if they suffered worse hardships. He ended with some completely bizarre pseudo-science theory about how black ppl are inferior because of epigenetics.

Tucker Carlson does a service by exposing what these wacky leftists believe.

Identifying progressive Muslims

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:

How to identify a genuinely progressive Muslim

Therefore, if you want to discern whether a “liberal” Muslim is truly progressive, see whether he or she gets death threats from other Muslims.

This is not too much different from saying that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

Coyne thinks that these dead-man-walking Muslim are just the ones to import into the USA!

That might work if we could somehow keep all the other Muslims out. But we cannot.

Meanwhile, an Eastern Orthodox author of a book on St. Benedict writes in the NY Times:

According to Genesis 1, in four days, God made the heavens, the earth and all the vegetation upon it. But four days after Anthony Scaramucci’s filthy tirade went public, Team Trump’s evangelical all-stars — pastors and prominent laity who hustle noisily around the Oval Office trying to find an amen corner — still had not figured out what to say. ...

Is there anything Donald Trump can do to alienate evangelicals and other conservative Christians who support him? By now, it’s hard to think of what that might be.

Where does the NY Times find these Trump-haters?

Everyone likes to make fun of evangelicals for believing in the Genesis story, but does this author think that evangelicals are supposed to vote for whoever uses the least swear words? Not everyone is that superficial.

Trump is not an evangelical, but he is squarely on the side of Christendom. Most politicians are not. That should be enuf to explain Christian support for Trump.