Canada undergoing population replacement

Martin Collacott writes in the Vancouver Sun paper:

According to University of London professor Eric Kaufmann, almost seven out of 10 Vancouver residents will be “visible minorities” within two decades and 80 per cent of the Canadian population (compared to 20 per cent today) will be non-white in less than century.

Kaufmann notes that, with its continuing high immigration intake and the fact that four out of five newcomers are visible minorities, Canada is undergoing the fastest rate of ethnic change of any country in the Western world.

Questions must be asked about why such drastic population replacement is taking place and who is benefiting from it.

While Canada has been helped by large-scale immigration at various times in its history, the current high intake causes more problems than benefits for our current population. Our economy grows because of the increasing population, but the average Canadian gets a smaller piece of the bigger pie. The cost is huge — with latest estimates indicating taxpayers have to underwrite recent arrivals to the tune of around $30 billion annually. Young people in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto are being crowded out of the housing market by sky-high prices caused largely by the ceaseless flow of new arrivals, and the quality of life of most residents is negatively affected by increased traffic and commute times, along with congestion and pressure on the health care and education systems.

Despite this, those who profit from mass immigration continue to laud its benefits. Their claims are not supported by the facts, however. We are not facing looming labour shortages that we can’t meet with our existing workforce and educational infrastructure. Immigration, moreover, does not provide a realistic means of dealing with the costs associated with the aging of our population. ...

If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere.

Is this what Canadians want for their children and their descendants? Almost certainly not.

And yet we are letting it happen through a combination of wilful ignorance, political and financial greed and an excess of political correctness.

Vancouver will be 70% non-white in only 20 years.

So if Canadians don't want it, what are they willing to do about it? Other countries would fight a bloody war before they would let something like this happen to themselves.

How New Atheism has failed

Scott Alexander writes:

The Baffler publishes a long article against “idiot” New Atheists. It’s interesting only in the context of so many similar articles, and an inability to imagine the opposite opinion showing up in an equally fashionable publication. ...

The New Atheists accomplished the seemingly impossible task of alienating a society that agreed with them about everything. The Baffler-journalists of the world don’t believe in God. They don’t disagree that religion contributes to homophobia, transphobia, and the election of some awful politicians – and these issues have only grown more visible in the decade or so since New Atheism’s apogee. And yet in the bubble where nobody believes in God and everyone worries full-time about sexual minorities and Trump, you get less grief for being a Catholic than a Dawkins fan. ...

This is 90% of popular intellectual culture these days: progressives regurgitating progressivism to other progressives for nothing but the warm glow of being told “Yup, that was some good progressiving there”. Conservatives make fun of this incessantly, and they are right to do so. But for some reason, in the case of New Atheism and only in the case of New Atheism, Progressivism itself suddenly turned and said “Hey, you’re just repeating our own platitudes back to us!” And New Atheism, caught flat-footed, mouth open wide: “But…but..we thought we were supposed to…we thought…”.

There are several problems here.

The leaders of the New Atheists are all creeps, and their groups are dysfunctional. Just read about some of the controversies at their meetings.

The atheists attack Islam, but their appeal is largely to Christian-haters who like the fact that Islam undermines Christianity.

They barely talk about God at all, but try to use their nominal atheism to pretend to have rational thinking underlying their weirdo political views.

Atheism has become identified with leftist politics. I don't know whether the New Atheist leaders intended that, or if leftists hijacked the movement.

For all these reasons, and probably others, atheism has fallen out of favor.

What destroys civilizations

Relampago Furioso writes:

In 1934, Oxford-educated anthropologist J.D. Unwin published Sex and Culture, a scientific study of 6 civilizations and 80 tribes covering a span of 5,000 years of human history. He warned of the consequences of completely abandoning restraints on female sexuality.

These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.

This dire warning came a full 30 years before the CIA funded Gloria Steinem and her Ms. Magazine. Any policymaker educated in anthropology would have known of Unwin’s groundbreaking revelation. This knowledge was ripe for the picking for those who wanted to break down Western society and redesign it as a New World Order collective in which the state was at the center of family. This of course means men have effectively become enemies of the state.

Aldous Huxley thought highly of Unwin’s ideas. He wrote:

Unwin’s conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.

In layman’s terms, Huxley warned us human society would regress rather than progress if women were allowed to become degenerate whores and their uncontrolled hypergamous instincts allowed the Pareto Principle to return – a world in which 20% of men dominate the sexuality of 80% of women. The rest of men go without until sex and companionship until they Go Galt and tear the system down.

I don't know whether this is right or not, but is anyone even considering these issues? It appears to be a flaw of modern liberal democracy that policies can lead to the destruction of society, and no mechanism is in place to consider the consequences. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church might have filled this role, but not anymore.

Evolutionist complains about "cheap white eggs"

Professor Nathan Lents specializes in human evolutionary biology, and wrote 2 years ago:

The podcast is about Tal and Amir, two gay men from Israel who have a baby, actually three babies (!), through IVF with surrogacy. ...

The phrase “cheap white eggs” gets more sinister the longer you think about it. First, it implies that white eggs, and thus white people, are a premium. It also reveals that, although there is a desire for thrift, racial preferences trumps all. These aren’t ‘white cheap eggs,’ they are ‘cheap white eggs.’ The baby had to be white. Preferably cheap, but definitely white. ...

The scrutiny of the egg donor brings the story face-to-face with one of the most thorny ethical issues in reproductive medicine today: designer babies. Our society is inching closer and closer to the days when technology may allow us to select and edit the physical and even mental characteristics of our children.

The only discussion of this that we got was one question, “And why do you want your children to be tall?” Amir responds, “Well because it’s just easier!” The story then moves on. ...

However, if you don’t see the white supremacy built into the phrase “cheap white eggs,” which drew laughs from all involved in this story,” I suspect the whole thrust of my take on this story will be lost on you so maybe just move on.

Lents is mixed up. The phrase “cheap white eggs” implies that white eggs are cheap, not that they are a premium or supreme. If they were premium, they would be premium white eggs.

No, I don’t see the white supremacy built into the phrase “cheap white eggs”. Maybe "expensive white eggs" would suggest white supremacy, but being cheap does not mean supreme.

If anything, the story suggests Jewish supremacy. They live in a country that encourages Jewish immigration, Jewish culture, Jewish education, Jewish settlements, and Jewish couples having Jewish babies. The Jewish authorities have no interest in creating some sort of racial equality with non-Jews.

It is very strange for him to complain about white supremacy, when whites have very little to do with the story. It is about gay Israeli Jews making Jewish babies by exploiting non-Jews in other countries. Lents also complains that the Jews did not consider other options, that they cheat the non-Jewish women out of money, and that the podcast did not fully explore the human side. But the show explicitly explains that the gay couple spent several years trying all the options, and it goes to a lot of trouble to interview the parties involved .

Lents has written a book about how humans are just like animals. So surely he understands Jewish evolutionary strategies. Being gay would appear to be a poor strategy, but apparently the couple has 3 kids anyway.

Denial of race is leftist ideological

Massimo Pigliucci is a philosophy professor, and writes a lot on pseudoscience and related subjects. He posts:

Research on the genetics of skin color differences deals yet another blow to the idea that races are real.

I replied:

The genetics article is only a blow to the straw man idea that race is synonymous with skin color. The prevailing view for centuries has been that skin color is just one of many racial differences, and that view is not at all threatened by the new research. On the contrary, the research helps explain how skin color got coupled to race.

He responded:

What would be the “prevailing view for centuries” of the biology of race? Because my understanding as a biologist is that the prevailing view is that races do not exist. They are, literally, skin deep.

I posted the following reply, with references to back up what I wrote, but Pigliucci promptly deleted it:

Today's prevailing scientific view is that races do exist. For $200, you can get a DNA test if you are not sure of your race. Here are some modern explanations, from different political viewpoints:
On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism
More on biology and race
The Biological Reality of Race
Race is not just skin color
Why race as a biological construct matters
Richard Dawkins accepts the usefulness of race
A PRIMER ON THE REALITY OF RACE

For history, see Wikipedia: Historical race concepts.
For an example of earlier thinking, see the biology textbook used in the 1925 Scopes Trial: "The Races of Man. - At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest race type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

While you may disagree with some of this, no one says that race is only skin deep.

He has now closed comments without mine, so I am posting it here.

He did allow this comment, referring to his own paper on the subject:

Note that the Pigliucci and Kaplan paper states that part of the reason for arguing that races don’t exist is political/ideological: “Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races.”

The paper then starts: “It has become commonplace to claim that, insofar as “race” is a biological concept, there are no human races. This claim, while widely defended, is misguided.”

Note that the paper is unable to show that the race concept is wrong; only that it is political "misguided" because leftists do not approve of some of the implications.

Pigliucci responds:

Please do not patronize me. I have given you plenty of arguments over the years, on a variety of subjects. Never made a dent. And now you perversely insist in using my own paper to make an argument that is either irrelevant or entirely at odds with what Kaplan and I wrote. Enjoy yourself, I will not take part.

Pigliucci won't even defend his own paper!

His arguments don't make a dent because they are contrary to modern science on almost every front, and they are illogical political opinions.

The denial of biological human races is entirely based on leftist politics and ideology. The deniers make silly arguments that do not even make any sense.

Pigliucci is of course a typical academic Trump-hater who complains about Republicans being anti-science. However he is much more anti-science than those he attacks.

The sins of Harvey Weinstein

I hate to pile on Harvey Weinstein, but we need to learn the right lessons from his collapse:

The real reason he’s a scumbag

Weinstein is a feminist, a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and the financial force behind the recent date-rape hysteria documentary The Hunting Ground. On the surface, that seems ironic, but there actually isn’t a contradiction in a male feminist being a “predator” at the same time he works to alienate women from men as a whole. ...

Weinstein’s deep hatred for the West can be seen in all of his films, including Django Unchained, the anti-Catholic Philomena and the anti-Christian Mary Magdalene, due out in 2018.

In the respected Jewish arts-and-culture publication Tablet Magazine, Mark Oppenheimer  surmised that Weinstein was motivated by a desire for revenge on “gentile” society. “It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women — Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc. — was a gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy of having risen above his outer-borough, bridge-and-tunnel Semitic origins.”

This is how Jews run Hollywood. They are at war with white Christian America.

I am reluctant to pile on, because I think that he is probably innocent of the criminal accusations, as they seem bogus:

Among those accusing him of rape is Asia Argento, who enjoyed success in the late ’90s and early 2000s. After the rape, “She said that she had consensual sexual relations with him multiple times over the course of the next five years, though she described the encounters as one-sided and ‘onanistic.’ Years later, when she was a single mother dealing with child care, Weinstein offered to pay for a nanny. She said that she felt ‘obliged’ to submit to his sexual advances. Argento said that she knew this contact would be used to attack the credibility of her allegation.”

These women prostitutes to me. First they sleep with Weinstein to advance their careers. Then they take cash for sexual services. Then, when it appears that he will be paying out million dollar settlements, they suddenly present stories from many years ago to get more money.

So why are they suddenly turning on him now? Because his power has declined a lot:

During his up years, Weinstein really seemed to understand Briffault’s Law. English anthropologist Robert Briffault (1876-1948) wrote that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” ...

By 2016, Hollywood had started to notice that Weinstein’s ability to deliver had faded. His films were bombing. No Oscars had been awarded to any actress since Lawrence. As Briffault’s Law deftly puts it: “Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him.”

It sure is funny how fast a man can fall so far. A couple of years ago, he had a lot more power, and his Hollywood and media friends covered up for him.

The other big sexual harassment story is Bill O'Reilly. The NY Times now reports that he paid $32M to Lis Wiehl for a "nonconsensual sexual relationship" and sending gay porn, over a period of 15 years. Wiehl graduated from Harvard Law School, and was threatening to sue him. He paid off previous settlements for various rude and flirtatious remarks, such as calling a black woman employee "hot chocolate".

A lot of ppl also dislike O'Reilly for various reasons, especially at the NY Times.

It is hard for me to believe that Wiehl had a 15-year nonconsensual sexual relationship with O'Reilly, or that anything happened that would justify $32M. It appears to me that Wiehl was extorting money out of her, because O'Reilly desperately needed her compliance so that he could renew his contract. The whole thing stinks.

China policy may have averted 1 billion people

AAAS Science Mag reports:

A new study of China’s one-child policy is roiling demography, sparking calls for the field’s leading journal to withdraw the paper. The controversy has ignited a debate over scholarly values in a discipline that some say often prioritizes reducing population growth above all else.

Chinese officials have long claimed that the one-child policy — in place from 1980 to 2016 — averted some 400 million births, which they say aided global environmental efforts. Scholars, in turn, have contested that number as flawed. But in a paper published in the journal Demography in August, Daniel Goodkind — an analyst at the U.S. Census Bureau in Suitland, Maryland, who published as an independent researcher — argues that the figure may, in fact, have merit.

By extrapolating from countries that experienced more moderate fertility decline, Goodkind contends that birth-planning policies implemented after 1970 avoided adding between 360 million and 520 million people to China’s population. Because the momentum from that decline will continue into later generations, he suggests, the total avoided population could approach 1 billion by 2060. Some scholars worry such estimates could be used to justify, ex post facto, the policy’s existence, and feel that Goodkind’s criticisms of previous work fall outside the bounds of scholarly decorum.

“For the top journal to publish that paper was quite something,” says Nancy Riley, a demographer ...

Beginning in 2000, an international group of researchers appealed to the Chinese government to relax birth-planning regulations. At the heart of their argument was empirical research debunking the claim of 400 million averted births.

In other words, many researchers are saying that scientific publications should be manipulated to conform to political goals.

There are various political and moral arguments for and against the China 1-child policy. I am not sure what my position on that would have been. But it is a little crazy to say that data and analysis should only be published if it supports one side of the argument.

Who is afraid of Richard Spencer?

Why is anyone afraid of Richard B. Spencer?

I have watched several of his Youtube videos. He does not express radical opinions or make strong arguments. Mostly he makes general and oblique comments about current political events and what he considers the Alt Right movement. He occasionally says he prefers ppl of similar ethnicity to himself, but that is true about most of the world.

What he does do is trigger hatred of white ppl. Spencer does not advocate white supremacy, but the protesters against must give many observers a better argument for white supremacy than anything Spencer would say anyway. The protesters seem like lunatics, fascists, criminals, and undesirables. Spencer seems calm and rational by comparison.

A Martian might conclude that folks like Spencer should be running the country, while the protesters should not be allowed to vote.

I think that the protesters would be much better off ignoring Spencer. Nobody would have heard of him, if it were not for these protests.

Update: Gateway Pundit claims Spencer is a Deep State plant.

It is clear to anyone with in IQ above room temperature, that, if you are on the right, and you are going to an event organized by Richard Spencer, Jason Kessler, Mike Enoch, or Eli Mosley, you are, what Spencer’s hero Lenin called, a “useful idiot”. You are going to be photographed, documented, and you are going to have an FBI file labeled “Domestic Terrorist” on it for the rest of your life.

Father's nightmare in divorce court

Wonder what family court is like? Paul Schwennesen tells his story, and how fathers are mistreated.

CNBC says future holds racial doom

Here is another forbidden truth. CNBC announces:

Market doomsayer Marc "Dr. Doom" Faber has launched a racially charged diatribe in his latest newsletter, alleging that the U.S. is great primarily because it is ruled by white people.

The eccentric Gloom, Boom & Doom report author, who often speaks on CNBC and other financial media, generally forecasting some type of market downturn, focused his latest comments on the racial conflicts happening around the country.

(A CNBC spokesperson said it will not book him in the future.)

"And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority," he wrote.

"I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out."

I assume that if CNBC thought that he was wrong, then it would just have another guest to prove him wrong. Not that it would have to do anything, as he did not make the controversial comments on the air.

The guy apparently thinks that racial conflict is increasing, and is bad for the future of America. I guess he is not allowed to say that anymore.

Zimbabwe is a country that went from white rule to black rule, and then to chaos.

Why environmentalists avoid population issues

Overpopulation is at the root of most, if not all, environmental problems, from global warming to pollution. Any honest environmentalist would devote most of his efforts to reducing population and immigration.

But the vocal environmentalists are on the Left, and one of them explains:

I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.
Since you asked (many times).
Updated by David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Sep 26, 2017

I thought I would explain, once and for all, why I hardly ever talk about population, and why I’m unlikely to in the future. …

When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern … let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over “population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings. …

History is replete with examples, but perhaps the most germane recent episode was less than 20 years ago, at the Sierra Club, which was riven by divisions over immigration. ..

These members advocated sharply restricting immigration, saying the US should be reducing rather than increasing its population. …

The article goes on to say that it is more politically acceptable to advocate educating Third World girls so that they won't want to have babies. Or to attack wealthy inequality, as it is popular to blame wealth ppl for everything.

California bans animal breeding for pets

UPI reports:

California becomes first state to require stores sell only rescue animals

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation into law this week that requires pet stores in the state to exclusively sell rescue dogs, cats and rabbits.

Assembly Bill 485, the Pet Rescue and Adoption Act, requires all dogs, cats, and rabbits offered for retail sale in California to be obtained from animal shelters or non-profit rescue organizations. ...

The bill received widespread support from rescue organizations, but was opposed by groups that included the American Kennel Club and California Retailers Association. ...

Assembly Bill 485 unanimously passed the California state senate in September and will go into effect Jan. 1, 2019.

I did not know that there was even any such thing as rescue rabbits.

Now if you buy a dog, you might have to get a pit bull that survived criminal dog fights. I am told that pits bulls are the most common breed in shelters today.

I guess animal breeding is not illegal yet, and you may be able to buy directly from a breeder.

In a few years, California will ban the breeding of humans. If you want a child, you will have to adopt a rescue child from some place like Guatemala or Somalia.

Democracy will be toast

Vox reports:

Is American democracy in decline? Should we be worried?

On October 6, some of America’s top political scientists gathered at Yale University to answer these questions. And nearly everyone agreed: American democracy is eroding on multiple fronts — socially, culturally, and economically.

The scholars pointed to breakdowns in social cohesion (meaning citizens are more fragmented than ever), the rise of tribalism, the erosion of democratic norms such as a commitment to rule of law, and a loss of faith in the electoral and economic systems as clear signs of democratic erosion. ...

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer in government at Harvard University, summed it up well: “If current trends continue for another 20 or 30 years, democracy will be toast.”

This is a consequence of leftist identity politics and immigration.

Nobody believes in world democracy. Democracy only makes sense if you believe that your fellow man has similar interests. If we are going to admit millions of folks with completely different values, then they will eventually vote to destroy the USA as we know it. It does not make sense to let them all out-vote us.

How Israeli law mistreats dads

Ever wonder what the Jewish concept of marriage is?

Jews are only 2% of the USA population, but they are 3 out of the 5 supreme court votes to redefine marriage, and also very big in the psychology and lawyer groups that influence family law. And of course Hollywood characters like Harvey Weinstein control how marriage is portrayed in movies and TV. Most ppl assume that Jews have essentially the same Judeo-Christian values as other Americans, but it is not true.

The National Parents Organization reports:

If you think fathers in the U.S. have it tough, you’re right, but nowhere near as tough as do Israeli dads.

I’ve written a fair amount about the horror show that is the family court system in Israel. They make no pretense of fairness or doing what’s best for kids. In Israel, children of divorce get essentially no relationship with their fathers until they’re seven. The meager visitation periods are carried out at supervised locations only. If a father needs to travel abroad, even for a brief period, he has to post a bond in the amount of 100% of the child support he’s required to pay for all the years he’s required to pay it. Feminist organizations oppose every effort to improve children’s relationships with their fathers, even minor ones. As far as I can tell, that opposition is invariably successful.

Now we know why (Israel National News, 10/11/17).

The Knesset's Special Committee for the Rights of the Child will hold a meeting on alienating chil dren from their parents - but will only invite women's organizations to take part.

Yes, the Knesset has decided to gather information about parental alienation, but will get it only from women’s groups. No fathers or fathers’ groups were invited. Say, I wonder how balanced those hearings will be.

Here in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and the like, feminist groups have routinely claimed that parental alienation doesn’t exist, that the very concept is nothing more than a sneaky move by fathers’ organizations to shanghai children from “protective” mothers who, naturally, are entitled to have the kids, no questions asked. ...

Anti-father bigotry doesn’t get much clearer than what the gender feminists are doing on this issue in Israel and the linked-to article is admirably blunt about the fact.

Most alienated parents are fathers, since mothers automatically receive custody of all children under age six. If even one child is under six years of age, the mother will receive automatic custody of all the siblings in case of divorce.

The latter is a fact I’d not previously known. The Tender Years Doctrine doesn’t only mean that kids under seven automatically live with Mom, but that all their siblings do too, irrespective of age. So the TYD in fact intrudes on all father-child relationships, not just those of kids under seven.

Meanwhile, until the divorce agreements are final, the non-custodial parent meets their children for one hour once a week at a supervised "contact center" only. Finalizing the divorce agreements can sometimes take years, during which time the children are unable to have a healthy relationship with their non-custodial parent (usually the father).

Yes, Israeli courts encourage mothers to drag out the divorce process. Since they have the children until the final order is signed (and in the case of kids under seven, afterward as well), mothers can easily degrade the father-child relationship during the divorce process. During that time, parental alienation is easy to achieve should Mom so desire. Plus,

In addition, mothers are told by their lawyers to lie and claim that their partners hit them or harmed the children.

I don't object to a Jewish country applying Jewish law to marriage, or a Moslem country applying Moslem law.

But I do object to Jews having any say over marriage law for American non-Jews.

Badmouthing colonialism

I posted arguments for colonialism, and here is a rebuttal:

Gilley says he is simply asking for an unbiased assessment of the facts, that he just wants us to take off our ideological blinders and examine colonialism from an empirical perspective. But this is not what he has done. Instead, in his presentation of colonialism’s record, Gilley has deliberately excluded mention of every single atrocity committed by a colonial power. Instead of evaluating the colonial record empirically, he has distorted that record, concealing evidence of gross crimes against humanity. The result is not only unscholarly, but is morally tantamount to Holocaust denial.

First, Gilley says he is making a “case for colonialism,” to rescue Western colonial history’s “bad name.” But he restricts his examination to “the early nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries.” He does so because if he were to include the first 300 years of Western colonialism (i.e. the majority), it would be almost impossible to mount any kind of case that the endeavor benefited indigenous populations. ...

Next, Gilley’s method of defending colonialism is through “cost-benefit analysis,” in which the harms of colonialism are weighed against the “improvements in living conditions” and better governance. ... We should observe here that this is a terrible way of evaluating colonialism. It is favored by colonialism’s apologists because it means that truly unspeakable harms can simply be “outweighed” and thereby trivialized.

It seems completely reasonable to me that arguments for present-day colonialism would be based on an examination of more recent colonialism, and to look at the costs and benefits.

Saying "morally tantamount to Holocaust denial" is especially strange. Obviously the author has some sort of emotional or religious hatred of white ppl, and badmouthing colonialism is sacred to him.

Self-hating white people

I was perusing a diversity page of a politically correct site, and to my surprise it had a link for white culture! It was the Center for the Study of White American Culture.

But it turns out that they don't believe in white culture at all. The Center promotes inter-racial marriage, and "decentering whiteness" so that white ppl can learn to be dominated by other races.

The White American Culture site has not been updated in a few years, so maybe the entity is dead.

It defines:

Race - a specious classification of human beings created by Europeans (whites) which assigns human worth and social status using "white" as the model of humanity and the height of human achievement for the purpose of establishing and maintaining privilege and power.

This is nutty. In my experience, non-whites are much more race-conscious than whites.

Low IQ kids get spanked more

The libertarian site LewRockwell.com is "ANTI-STATE•ANTI-WAR•PRO-MARKET", and is also anti-spanking:

The duo studied samples of 806 children ages two to four and 704 children ages five to nine and then retested both groups four years later. The IQs of children between the ages of two and four who were not spanked ranked five points higher compared to those who were spanked in their same age group. Children who were five to nine years old that were not spanked were 2.8 points higher in IQ four years later compared to their spanked counterparts. ...

A study published in the Journal of Family Psychology by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Michigan claims that children who get spanked are more likely to “defy their parents and to experience increased anti-social behavior, aggression, mental health problems and cognitive difficulties.“

These were not controlled studies. We know that IQ and personality disorders are largely inborn. All these studies show is that low-IQ misbehaving kids get spanked more. Black kids get spanked the most.

The researchers and the libertarians reverse the causality here, and conclude that spanking causes low IQ and bad behavior. Similar reasoning would conclude that spanking causes black skin.

The dishonesty of these folks is apparent from their refusal to even mention the possibility of reversed causality. The anti-spanking research and advocacy is driven by unscientific beliefs about nonviolence and child rights.

Amnesty International Nazis

Amnesty International describes its mission:

Overview

Discrimination strikes at the very heart of being human. It is treating someone differently simply because of who they are or what they believe.

We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, sex, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,health or other status. Yet all too often we hear heart-breaking stories of people who suffer cruelty simply for belonging to a “different” group from those in power.

Amnesty’s work is rooted in the principle of non-discrimination.

Based on this, it should stick up for neo-nazis and white nationalists. They are often mistreated for who they are and what they believe.

You might argue that AI is not intending to support groups that hate other groups, but I think they do have that intention. The statement seems worded to include Moslems who believe in killing infidels. AI itself would not agree with killing infidels, but it also seems to support Moslems having that belief.

Censorship on Columbus Day

Want proof that colonialism was a good thing?

I mentioned that Colonialism article might be censored, and now it has happened:

A controversial essay that offered a defense of colonialism and led to a revolt at Third World Quarterly has been withdrawn due to “serious and credible threats of personal violence” to the journal’s editor, according to a notice posted by the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis.

The essay, “The Case for Colonialism,” was withdrawn at the request of the journal’s editor, Shahid Qadir, ...

If you have not read the arguments in favor of colonialism, then you do not have an informed opinion on the subject. Now the anti-white thugs will prevent any honest scholarly discussion.

For now, you can find the (pdf) article here.

More and more, celebrations of Columbus Day have been replaced with complaints about Columbus committing genocide against indigenous ppl. Only obscure blogs like Rightly Considered do anonymous philosophers deny that it was genocide.

Most people know that the Aztecs were conquered by Cortez. But how many people know that the Aztecs were an aggressive empire that was at war with other Mesoamerican states? ... Cortez only conquered the far superior Aztec numbers because Tlaxcala and the Totonacs considered the Spanish useful allies to curb the great threat of the Aztecs coming from Tenochtitlan. ...

Although not allies like the Tlaxacallans, the Tarascans also accepted Spanish sovereignty and likewise were exempt from the brutal suppression that the Spaniard inflicted upon the Mesoamerican states they defeated in war. The diverse histories of the Aztecs, Tarascans, and Tlaxacallans make the imposition of a single narrative in Mesoamerica inaccurate or misleading. And certainly the treatment of the latter two cannot be understood as a genocide. ...

Spain does not represent all colonial powers. English and French models were quite different in their approach to the Americas. The French got along famously with the Indians they encountered. The British treated the Indians as sovereign polities and negotiated and made trade agreements and alliances with them.

All this talk of genocide by white-haters is just going to encourage more talk of White Genocide. Currently white countries are being invaded by non-whites from the Third World.

Update: AP reports:

President Donald Trump is proclaiming Monday as Columbus Day — without any of his predecessor's qualms.

The president's proclamation Friday directs the U.S. to celebrate his discovery of the Americas, noting "the permanent arrival of Europeans ... was a transformative event that undeniably and fundamentally changed the course of human history and set the stage for the development of our great Nation."

Trump's proclamation only praises Columbus, Spain and the explorer's native Italy.

It contrasts with President Barack Obama's document almost exactly a year earlier. Obama's proclamation acknowledged Columbus' spirit of exploration. But he said the nation should "also acknowledge the pain and suffering reflected in the stories of Native Americans who had long resided on this land prior to the arrival of European newcomers."

Trump is right here. Columbus's discovery was maybe the most important and positive transformative events in all of human history. That is why Columbus Day is celebrated.

Facebook admits biased algorithms

I commented that Google has bluffed the public into thinking that its search algorithms are neutral, when they are obviously not. Google employs 10k site raters.

Now Facebook announces:

Nobody of substance at the big companies thinks of algorithms as neutral. Nobody is not aware of the risks.

That was a response:

Stamos’ tweetstorm was set off by Lawfare associate editor and Washington Post contributor Quinta Jurecic, who commented that Facebook’s shift towards human editors implies that saying “the algorithm is bad now, we’re going to have people do this” actually “just entrenches The Algorithm as a mythic entity beyond understanding rather than something that was designed poorly and irresponsibly and which could have been designed better.”

It is nice of Facebook to admit that its algorithms are biased, but Google and Facebook still stubbornly refuse to allow appropriate user control over what is seen.

Google and Facebook could put in fake news filters, and make them user options. No single filter will make everyone happy, For example, some users will want to see Alex Jones links, and some will not. Google and Facebook could allow users to block Alex Jones and similar links, if they wished.

Consider the analogy to email. Most email clients allow you to block senders, or to filter messages according to various criteria. Google Gmail has a spam classifier, but you can override it with your own preferences. The only thing that it completely block is child porn, as far as I know. But you have no such control over Google searches, Google news, Facebook news, etc. Those companies have a left-wing dictatorial mindset where they want to make decisions to control what you see. Apparently they also make more advertising revenue that way.

Latest leftist gun control idea

The Las Vegas shooting has brought a new round of crazy ideas, and here is the latest:

Michael Moore is proposing that the US repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with a new amendment. Moore’s proposed amendment would include a provision to make a man get permission from his wife or girlfriend before buying a gun:

As over 90% of gun violence is committed by men, in order for a man to purchase a gun, he must first get a waiver from his current wife, plus his most recent ex-wife, or any woman with whom he is currently in a relationship (if he’s gay, he must get the waiver from his male spouse/partner). This law has greatly reduced most spousal/domestic gun murders in Canada.

I know that Moore is a goof, but he does have a substantial following. Other leftist-feminists probably think like this also.

New Neanderthal genome proves ancestry

The LA Times reports:

Modern humans are a little more Neanderthal than we thought.

A highly detailed genetic analysis of a Neanderthal woman who lived about 52,000 years ago suggests that our extinct evolutionary cousins still influence our risk of having a heart attack, developing an eating disorder and suffering from schizophrenia. ...

Anthropologists believe that the ancestors of modern humans encountered Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago, soon after they migrated out of Africa. That would explain why modern people of African descent have little to no Neanderthal DNA. ...

The second genome “adds to mounting evidence that Neanderthal ancestry influences disease risk in present-day humans, particularly with respect to neurological, psychiatric, immunological and dermatological” traits, according to the new study led by Svante Pääbo and Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and colleagues. (Pääbo and Prüfer led the 2013 Nature study as well.)

Experts in evolutionary genetics say the endurance of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans makes it important to take a long view of acquired traits. ...

“Neanderthals had been living outside of Africa for hundreds of thousands of years,” said Vanderbilt evolutionary geneticist Tony Capra, who was not involved in the current study. “As our closer human ancestors moved into those environments, it’s possible that interbreeding with Neanderthals gave ancestral humans benefits.”

In a 2009 genetic analysis, Pääbo and colleagues found scant evidence of interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. But as new samples yielded themselves to ever-more-complete analysis, evidence of mating between members of the two distinct peoples has grown.

Such interbreeding gave our human ancestors access to genes that were already adapted to an environment filled with new and unfamiliar challenges, Capra said.

In spite of this genetic evidence, these articles continue to refer to ancient Africans as "ancestors of modern humans", while Neanderthals are called "our extinct evolutionary cousins".

No, the DNA proves that Neanderthals were ancestors to modern Europeans and Asians, and did not go extinct. Furthermore, it seems likely that Neanderthal DNA contributed to positive human traits that helped our ancestors survive in Europe and Asia.

Svante Pääbo is some sort of weirdo Swedish bisexual, and his political-social biases prevent him from drawing the obvious conclusions.

Compare to this Chicago research paper from a century ago:

The Superiority of the Mulatto

American Journal of Sociology
Volume 23, Number 1 (July, 1917)
pages 83-106

E. B. Reuter (1880-1946)

Perhaps the most significant fact regarding the Negro people in America is the degree to which the race has undergone differen- tiation during the period of contact with European civilization. From the low and relatively uniform state of West African culture there has come to be a degree of cultural heterogeneity not else- where observable among a primitive people. While the bulk of the race in America is as yet not many steps removed from the African standards, there has nevertheless arisen a considerable middle class, which conforms in most essential respects to the conventional middle-class standards of American people, as well as a small intellectual group, some members of which have succeeded in coming within measurable distance of the best models of European culture. Within the racial group in America at the present time there are represented the antipodal degrees of human culture: at the one extreme are the standards of West Africa; at the other, those of Western Europe.

A study of the more advanced groups shows a great preponderance of individuals of mixed blood and a dearth, almost an entire absence, of Negroes of pure blood. In the numerous lists of exceptional Negroes, published from time to time by Negroes as well as by white students of race matters, there is a regular recurrence of a few names; the various lists are virtually repetitions. The dozen or score of men everywhere mentioned as having attained some degree of eminence are, in all but one or two cases, men of more Caucasian than Negro blood. In a recently published compilation of one hundred and thirty-nine of the supposedly best-known American Negroes there are not more than four men of pure Negro blood, and one of these, at least, owes his prominence to the fact of his black skin and African features rather than to any demonstrated native superiority. Of the twelve Negroes on whom the degree of doctor of philosophy has been conferred by reputable American universities, eleven at least were men of mixed blood. Among the professional classes of the race the mulattoes outclass the black Negroes perhaps ten to one, and the ratio is yet higher if only men of real attainments be considered. In medicine the ratio is probably fifteen to one, in literature3 the ratio is somewhat higher, on the stage it is probably thirteen to one, in music the ratio is at least twelve to one. In art no American Negro of full blood has so far found a place among the successful. In politics, the ministry, and other occupations in which success is in no way conditioned by education or ability the proportion of mulattoes to black Negroes is somewhat less, though still high. In politics the ratio is at least seven to one, and even in the ministry it is not less than five to one. The successful business men of the race are in nearly all cases men of a bi-racial ancestry. Among the successful men in every field of human effort which Negroes have entered there is the same disproportion between the numbers of pure- and mixed-blood individuals…

Stated in another way, the chances of any child of mixed blood, chosen at random from the general mulatto population, later reaching a degree of distinction that would entitle him to be ranked as eminent is fifteen times as great as would be the chances of a full-blood black child similarly chosen. ...

The Negroes recognized the superiority of their masters and attributed that superiority, as did the white man himself, to the fact of his race and color. They accepted their inferior status as a consequence of their inferiority. No Negro questioned the superior ability of the white, and probably there is no Negro today who does not subconsciously believe the white man superior. Certainly the assumption is less questioned among them than among the whites.

The mulattoes, when they appeared upon the scene, simply took over the prevailing way of thinking. They accepted the white man as superior, recognized the Negro as inferior, and looked upon themselves as an intermediate type. The white man treated them as inferior; the Negroes treated them as superior. They looked up to the white and down on the black. ...

The desire on the part of the Negroes, owing in part to the prestige enjoyed by the mulattoes, results in the condition of almost every superior man among the black Negroes marrying a mulatto wife. The superior mulatto men rarely ever marry into the black group. ...

Further analysis of the facts shows the tendency of the men to select wives of the same or a lighter color. It is quite the exception to find a man married to a woman of a color darker than his own. ...

In the American mulatto the evolution of a superior race may be seen in process.

It is paywalled, but you can get the whole paper on mixedracestudies.org.

There have been major migrations of Africans into Asia and Europe about 50k years ago, and yet this DNA evidence shows that none of them have survived, except by interbreeding with Neanderthals.

Update: The London Telegraph reports:

Struggling to get a tan? Blame your Neanderthal ancestors ...

A raft of new papers published in the journals Science and the American Journal of Human Genetics has shed light on just how many traits we owe to our Neanderthal ancestors.

Scientists also now think that differences in hair colour, mood and whether someone will smoke or have an eating disorder could all be related to inter-breeding, after comparing ancient DNA to 112,000 British people who took part in the UK Biobank study.

The Biobank includes genetic data along with information on many traits related to physical appearance, diet, sun exposure, behaviour, and disease and helps scientists pick apart which traits came from Neanderthals.

Dr Janet Kelso, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Germany, said: “We can now show that it is skin tone, and the ease with which one tans, as well as hair color that are affected.”

When modern humans arrived in Eurasia about 100,000 years ago, Neanderthals had already lived there for thousands of years and would have been well adapted to lower and more variable levels of sunlight than the new human arrivals from Africa were accustomed to.

"Skin and hair color, circadian rhythms and mood are all influenced by light exposure," added Dr Kelso.

"Sun exposure may have shaped Neandertal phenotypes and that gene flow into modern humans continues to contribute to variation in these traits today."

In other words, 50k years ago, black Africans left Africa and mated with lighter-skinned Neanderthals to produce genetically superior offspring. There is debate about what were the advantages of these ancient mulattoes, and one new paper argues that they survived because they had better winter coats made from animal furs.

Marriage is in open retreat

Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus pushes his new book in WSJ:

Marriage in the U.S. is in open retreat. As recently as 2000, married 25- to 34-year-olds outnumbered their never-married peers by a margin of 55% to 34%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, those estimates had almost reversed, with never-marrieds outnumbering marrieds by 53% to 40%. Young Americans have quickly become wary of marriage.

Many economists and sociologists argue that this flight from marriage is about men’s low wages. ... Another hypothesis blames the decline of marriage on men’s fear of commitment. ...

My own research points to a more straightforward and primal explanation for the slowed pace toward marriage: For American men, sex has become rather cheap. As compared to the past, many women today expect little in return for sex, in terms of time, attention, commitment or fidelity. Men, in turn, do not feel compelled to supply these goods as they once did. It is the new sexual norm for Americans, men and women alike, of every age.

His theory boils down to saying that men are too selfish, and women are too generous.

This is a blue pill theory.

Marriage was redefined, and now it is less appealing to both men and women, for different reasons. These were deliberate policy changes, and not the inevitable result of technology. There has been a leftist movement to abolish marriage, and it has largely succeeded.

Dalrock explains, along with his own criticism of Regnerus:

Margaret Wente at the Globe and Mail* asks where all the good men have gone. ...

What Wente doesn’t understand is that timing is everything. From an economic point of view, women are dividing up sexual access that traditionally would have been reserved only for their husband into two blocks. The first block contains their most attractive and fertile years, and it is dedicated to no strings sex with exciting badboys. Then, once women reach what Rollo calls the epiphany phase, they want to bargain sexual access in their remaining (older and less fertile) years for maximum beta bucks.

Google employs 10,000 human raters

The NY Times explains:

Most people have little understanding of how Google’s search engine ranks different sites, what it chooses to include or exclude, and how it picks the top results among hundreds of billions of pages. And Google tightly guards the mathematical equations behind it all — the rest of the world has to take their word that it is done in an unbiased manner.

“The complexity of ranking and rating is always going to lead to some lack of understanding for people outside of the company,” said Frank Pasquale, an information law professor at the University of Maryland. “The problem is that a lot of people aren’t willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.”

Yes, the public does not know, and has been tricked into believing that it is all done by tightly guarded mathematical equations.

Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines used by human raters to determine what is a good search result and what is a bad one. Google said its global staff of more than 10,000 raters do not determine search rankings, but their judgments help inform how the algorithm performs in the future.

There is the key fact that most ppl do not realize. Google employs 10,000 human raters to evaluate web pages. Google rankings are subjective, and are based on whatever Google decides to promote.

Democrats reject white males

Want proof that the Democrat Party has written off white Christian males? Just look at their home web page:

PEOPLE
African Americans
Americans with Disabilities
American Jewish Community
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
Democrats Abroad
Ethnic Americans
Faith Community
Hispanics
LGBT Community
Native Americans
Rural Americans
Seniors and Retirees
Small Business Community
Union Members and Families
Veterans and Military Families
Women
Young People And Students

Some of these might be interpreted to include white males, but the Democrats don't.

Fall of the Roman Empire

I recommend this 10-minute YouTube clip: The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) --- Senate scene.

In the big-budget Hollywood movie, the Roman Senate debate whether to expel the barbarians, enslave them, or to allow them to become citizens.

The Roman senators seem to lack the will to make Rome great again. The empire is eventually overrun by barbarians.

Some Africans only very distantly related

ZME Science reports:

Using the latest genetic sequencing techniques, researchers from Sweden and South Africa analyzed the genomes of ancient human remains from KwaZulu-Nata, southern Africa. They report a new deeper divergence timeline of up to 350,000 years for modern humans, far earlier than previously thought. ... Based on the hunter-gatherer genomes, Carina Schlebusch and colleagues at Uppsala University, Sweden, have established the divergence among modern human humans to have occurred sometime between 350,000 to 260,000 years ago.

This is interesting, but what does it have to do with modern humans? It only tells us that some African tribes are more distantly related than was previously thought.

Where and when modern humans emerged is still debatable. For many years, anthropologists used to think humans evolved in one single corner of Africa from where they dispersed into Europe and Asia through the Middle East. More and more evidence, however, is starting to point towards a multiregional origin for anatomically modern humans in Africa.

I thought that the single out-of-africa theory was disproved many years ago. Modern humans evolved in Asia and Europe, after interbreeding between Africans and Neanderthals, not Africa.

Update: There is more info here. Africans are believed to have split from Neanderthals about 600k years ago, and modern Europeans and Asians are descended from both sides of that split.