Friday, March 16, 2018

David Brooks bashes Trump again

NY Times columnist David Brooks writes:
In the decades before Trump, the Republican Party stood for an idea: character before policy. To Mitt Romney, John McCain, the Bushes and Ronald Reagan, personal character and moral integrity were paramount. They stood for the idea that you can’t be a good leader or a good nation unless you are a good person and a good people.

Trump asked the G.O.P. to reverse those priorities. He asked the Republican Party to accept the proposition that it doesn’t matter if your leader is a liar, a philanderer and a narcissist. It doesn’t matter if he is cruel to the weak and bigoted toward the outsider. What matters, when you’re in a death match in which the survival of your nation and culture is at stake, is having a bastard in charge who understands and is tough enough to win.

The central Republican bet is that Trump’s moral nature won’t matter. You can be a bad person and have a successful presidency. You can have a good nation without good moral norms. Trump asked for the party’s soul, and he got it. That was the story of 2016 and 2017.

The question of 2018 is whether the Democrats will follow suit.
I have criticized Brooks many times for his silly ideas. I have also noted his bogus research reporting and personal moral failings. He also exhibits Jewish supremacy, and likes to equate Christian Americans with other non-Jewish inferiors. He probably has more allegiance to Israel than to the USA. He treats non-Jews as sub-human. He plays the identity politics game, and has contempt for white Christian America.

No, the most annoying thing about Brooks is that he has been a regular commentator on PBS TV and NPR Radio for many years in which he supposedly represents Republican. There is nothing Republican or conservative about him. He enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and vehemently denounced Trump in 2016. He had plenty of bad things to say about G.W. Bush also.

It is extremely dishonest of him to get paid the big bucks to represent ppl he personally despises. PBS and NPR will have him and a Democrat on, supposedly for balance, and ask both about some Trump issue or other political matter of the day. Both of them will spend their time trashing Trump and other Republicans! Brooks also keeps his job at the NY Times because he is a Jewish Republican-basher, but the paper can pretend that he is a conservative because he is more conservative than the other Jewish Republican-bashers on staff.

Calling Trump a liar is getting tiresome. Trump is the most honest political leader we have seen in a long time. He is called a liar for exaggerating his inauguration crowd, and for a few other trivialities, but he is much more straightforward and honest with the public than Obama and Hillary Clinton ever were. Trump explains what he does and why he does it.

Trump is also much more honest than Brooks. Brooks does not correct his errors or explain his biases.

The Democrat Party sold its soul a long time ago. Most of its campaigning is to attract votes from those who hate white straight male Christian Americans.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Jews have ruined National Geographic

Want an example of Jewish influence on our society today?

Jews took over Disney many years ago, and have now ruined kiddie cartoons, Star Wars, and Marvel Comics.

Hollywood took over National Geographic mag recently (first by Fox, then Disney). They appoint a Jewish editor in chief, who vows to remake the magazine in support of Jewish causes:
For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It
By Susan Goldberg, Editor in Chief

This story is part of The Race Issue, a special issue of National Geographic that explores how race defines, separates, and unites us. Tell us your story with #IDefineMe.

… I’m the tenth editor of National Geographic since its founding in 1888. I’m the first woman and the first Jewish person—a member of two groups that also once faced discrimination here.
She then hires a Jewish journalist to write an article promoting the Jewish version of scientific racism -- namely that all non-Jews are essentially the same as Africans.
There’s No Scientific Basis for Race — It’s a Made-Up Label

It’s been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.

… DNA reveals what skin color obscures: We all have African ancestors.
This illustrates two of the main beliefs of the Jewish religion: that Jews are persecuted, and that non-Jews are essentially the same as Africans.

Goldberg pretends to have some sort of moral superiority because her previous non-Jewish editors often portrayed unclothed savages as lesser beings. She is saying that those non-Jewish white editors were essentially the same as those primitive savages, and so had no right to portray them as less civilization. And because she is a persecuted Jewish woman, she is entitled to say that white people are essentially niggers.

There is, of course, a scientific basis for race. You can go pay $200 to have your genes sequenced, and the lab will tell you what race you are.

You might say that it is unfair of me to single out these authors for being Jewish. But these Jewish supremacist ideas are mostly, if not entirely, promoted by Jews.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Collaborating with Muslims against Christians

I always thought that Jews and Muslims hated each other, but this blog has many articles to the contrary:
Throughout Islam’s existence, Jews have collaborated with Muslims against Christians. Indeed, a strong case can be made that Jews created Islam in the first place to weaponize Arabs against Christians in order to gain re-admission to their homeland, from which they had been expelled centuries before by the Romans.

The Jewish collaboration with Muslims during their invasion of Spain is one of the best-documented Jewish betrayals, one that has eerie parallels with our own times.
It is funny to see Jews rushing to the defense of Muslims immigrating to Europe and the USA.

Monday, March 12, 2018

Labeling Jews a hostile elite

Talking Points Memo reports:
MacDonald has claimed that Jews are trying to change the “racial hierarchy” in the U.S. by promoting immigration from non-European countries, and he has said that Jewish people lack the “moral idealism” that he claims white people possess. MacDonald has written, appeared on and edited for several openly racist media outlets like the Occidental Observer and The Political Cesspool.

In April 2013 he wrote in the Occidental Observer: “Given the prospect that Jews will continue as an elite hostile toward White America and given the ethnic/racial transformation of the country resulting from importing millions of people who do not identify with the traditional people and culture of the country (presumably the Boston bombers) and often have historical grudges of their own to grind, the future of Whites in America is grim indeed.”

In January 2013, he told the David Duke Show that Jewish people “don’t really have moral principles,” but rather “a set of interests.” In December 2012, he claimed that Jewish people are “opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America.”

“I realize that many good people shy away from saying it, but the reality is that Jews have very aggressively pursued policies that benefit them and are opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America and the West,” he wrote. “And because Jews attained status as an intellectual and media elite, they have been able to have a very large effect on public policy and even on the attitudes of non-Jews.”
It is funny how articles like this will quote this stuff, and make no effort to rebut it except to declare it is anti-Semitic.

Okay, I accept that many now use the term to mean saying that Jews pursue their own group interests.

There is a faction of the Alt Right that greatly admires the Jews, and that seeks to similarly pursue their own ethnic group interests.

The Daily Stormer blames the Jews for everything. It quotes the above, and adds:
The Jews absolutely are a “hostile elite.” They are the single most wealthy and powerful group in America, and they use that wealth and power to abuse the native population of this country in absurd, extreme ways. They absolutely are the sole driving force behind the mass immigration agenda.

They are also the sole driving force behind:

Racial integration
The homosexual agenda
The feminist agenda
The pornography agenda
Removing prayer from schools
The abortion agenda
Gun control
The censorship of political speech
The tranny agenda
The anti-Trump agenda

And the list goes on and on and on.

They use their power in the financial industry, the news media, academia and Hollywood to shove all of this stuff down our throats.
This is clearly exaggerated. They are only maybe 50-80% of the driving force behind the mass immigration agenda and those other items. Maybe 90% in the cases of porn, school prayer, and feminism.

For saying things like this, Google and others have expelled the Daily Stormer from the .com world. That is just Google's way of saying that the Daily Stormer is mostly correct. When I have found YouTube videos with warnings, the warnings are invariably based on the video containing uncomfortable truths.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

MeTooism will be destroying marriages

Whenever there is a successful social movement, we have to ask how far it will go.

Many of the programs on Netflix openly promote miscegenation. I watched one where the FBI sent an undercover agent to seduce a pretty white woman, and it sent a black man! The woman was bisexual, and they just assumed that she liked blacks. In another, the white Marvel superhero Jessica Jones seduces a big strong black man, and it is implied that no white man could similarly satisfy her.

There is a girl who won a girls wrestling championship by taking steriods, and it was allowed because she claimed to be transitioning to a boy.

Where is MeToo headed? Read this Vox essay:
We need to talk about sexual assault in marriage

Eight years into our marriage, sitting in a therapist’s office with my husband, I mustered all my courage and said my deepest, darkest truth: “When we have sex, I feel like I’m being violated.” The unwanted sex at times made me sick: Once I had to run straight from bed to the bathroom, where I retched into the toilet.

I lived every evening dreading the signals of my husband’s desire. I bargained my way out of sex as often as I could. I gloried in being sick enough to have the right to refuse.

I read a book to distract myself for as long as I could while he did the thing he needed to do.

The majority of sexual encounters in America take place in marriage…. Do we believe there is no painfully “bad sex,” coercion, or sexual assault in marriage?
I believe that prostitution will soon be considered the only morally acceptable form of heterosexual activity. Only explicitly-paid prostitution is fully consensual, according to newer definitions of consent.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Why Most Obituaries Are of White Men

The NY Times apologizes:
So why not more women and people of color on the obituary pages? (Why, for that matter, not more openly gay people, or transgender people?)

The larger answer: Because relatively few of them were allowed to make such a mark on society in their own time. Universities may have barred them. Businesses and political parties may have shut them out. The tables of power were crowded with white men; there were few seats for anyone else.
Do you believe that? About 95% of the great accomplishments of the world are by white men. And that's all because universities, businesses, and political parties have shut out women and ppl of color?

American universities are mostly women. They have not had any barriers to ppl of color for at least 50 years. In many other countries, the opportunities are mainly for ppl of color.

The picture at the top of the NY Times article is that of a South African woman who "began a movement to reforest Kenya by paying poor women to plant trees." Really? Is that what passes for a great accomplishment when the paper wants to write obituaries of ppl other than white men? It is pitiful. Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, but Kenya needs to have others pay poor ppl to plant trees. It is a wonder that they do not all starve to death.

Friday, March 09, 2018

Making human-chimp hybrids

Psychology professor David Barash proposes:
It is a bit of a stretch, but by no means impossible or even unlikely that a hybrid or a chimera combining a human being and a chimpanzee could be produced in a laboratory. After all, human and chimp (or bonobo) share, by most estimates, roughly 99 percent of their nuclear DNA. Granted this 1 percent difference presumably involves some key alleles, the new gene-editing tool CRISPR offers the prospect (for some, the nightmare) of adding and deleting targeted genes as desired. As a result, it is not unreasonable to foresee the possibility—eventually, perhaps, the likelihood—of producing “humanzees” or “chimphumans.” Such an individual would not be an exact equal-parts-of-each combination, but would be neither human nor chimp: rather, something in between.

If that prospect isn’t shocking enough, here is an even more controversial suggestion: Doing so would be a terrific idea. ...

In his book, Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith examined how dehumanization goes hand-in-hand with racism and genocide. ...

On the other hand, it seems equally likely that faced with individuals who are clearly intermediate between human and ape, it will become painfully obvious that a rigid distinction between the two is no longer tenable. ...

And—more important—for any human being currently insistent upon his or her species’ specialness, to the ultimate detriment of literally millions of other individuals of millions of other species, such a development could well be a real mind expander and paradigm buster. ...
A lot of u=innumerate ppl do not seem to understand that measurements can be continuous or discrete. That is, you can measure something as a real number, with continuous variation in possible values, or as an integer or true/false value, where intermediates are not possible.

This is fifth-grade arithmetic, but is too much for most ppl.

Leftist egalitarians often argue that it is unscientific to distinguish between human races because they can cross-breed and produce intermediates. Some even argue that it is impermissible to distinguish between the sexes, because of tomboy girls and effeminate boys.

So if this guy produced a human-chimp hybrid, would they conclude that humans and chimps were all the same? Maybe so, but I think that it is more likely that most ppl would conclude that some human races are more evolved than others, and that it makes good scientific sense to distinguish them.
After years of opposition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced in August, 2016 that it intends to lift its moratorium on stem cell research, which holds out promise for treating (perhaps even curing) many serious human diseases, such as cirrhosis, diabetes, and Parkinson’s. Currently prohibited—and likely to remain so—is funding for studies that involve injecting human stem cells into embryonic primates, although inserting such cells into adults is permissible. Insofar as there is a biological line separating human beings from other species, it should be clear that this line is definitely permeable, not hard and fast, and is based more on ethical and political judgment than on science or technology. All sorts of things can be done; whether they should, is another question.
Did President Obama really have an 8-year moratorium on stem-cell research? I thought that 100 Nobel Prize winners endorsed him in 2008, with their main argument being that he was going to do stem-cell research that was going to make the crippled walk again. Didn't he do that?

The opponents of human embryonic stem-cell research pointed to the slippery slope of degrading what it means to be human. They could have cited Barash as proof.

Barash very much wants to blur the distinction between humans and animals, as he wants to attack Christianity and promote animal rights.
But I propose that generating humanzees or chimphumans would be not only ethical, but profoundly so, even if there were no prospects of enhancing human welfare. How could even the most determinedly homo-centric, animal-denigrating religious fundamentalist maintain that God created us in his image and that we and we alone harbor a spark of the divine, distinct from all other life forms, once confronted with living beings that are indisputably intermediate between human and non-human?

In any event, the nonsensical insistence that human beings are uniquely created in God’s image and endowed with a soul, whereas other living things are mere brutes has not only permitted but encouraged an attitude toward the natural world in general and other animals in particular that has been at best indifferent and more often, downright antagonistic, jingoistic, and in many cases, intolerably cruel.
Now I am beginning to wonder if he is trolling us, but I doubt it. He is just carrying goofy leftist opinions to the next level.

Update: I found that NIH announcement:
The National Institutes of Health announced on Thursday that it was planning to lift its ban on funding some research that injects human stem cells into animal embryos.

The N.I.H. announced its proposal in a blog post by Carrie Wolinetz, the associate director for science policy, and in the Federal Register.

The purpose is to try to grow human tissues or organs in animals to better understand human diseases and develop therapies to treat them.

MeToo is a form of mass hysteria

The NY Times reports:
A Yale student who had been suspended by the university was found not guilty on Wednesday of sexually assaulting a fellow student, in a rare college rape accusation to be tried in the courts. The verdict laid bare seemingly gaping divides in the national reckoning around sexual consent and assault. ...

In an interview after the verdict, Norman Pattis, a lawyer for Mr. Khan, said he had tried to challenge “the outer limits of the #MeToo movement,” which he called “a form of mass hysteria.”

“Sex happens, especially on college campuses,” he said.
Yeah, there is a gaping divide between those claiming sexual assault, and the facts.

Yale kicked this guy out of college, and the NY Times printed his name, even tho he is innocent. Meanwhile, they conceal the name of the girl who made the false accusations.

Nearly all of these big publicity rape stories have turned out to be false.

One could also ask why Yale is admitted kids from Afghanistan, or why the USA let the guy in the country in the first place. Surely there are many thousands of better qualified Americans.

Or ask why some dopey white college girl would go get drunk in an off-campus party with an Afghan? Probably no one told her how foolish that is. Not Yale, not her friends, not her teachers, and probably not even her parents.

Of course the MeToo crowd would say that girl should have been free to dress provocatively, flirt with an Afghan, be promiscuous, get drunk, and go home with the guy, without the jury finding out because she is free to do what she wants with her own body.

Our whole legal system has been corrupted by bogus MeToo research:
The example discussed here began with a small study by an associate professor at a commuter college in Massachusetts. The 12-page paper describing the study barely created a stir when it was published in 2002. Within a few years, however, the paper’s principal author, David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts-Boston psychologist, began making dramatic statements that extrapolated far beyond the study’s conclusions. He created, virtually out of whole cloth, a theory that “undetected” serial rapists are responsible for 90 percent of assaults on college campuses, that they premeditate and plan their attacks, and that they are likely to have committed multiple acts of violence.
Lisak was exposed as a fraud, and yet he continues to influence the legal system for the worse.

Thursday, March 08, 2018

Why black people are afraid

The movie Get Out just won an Oscar:
“The conventional dynamic people understand is white fear of the black neighborhood,” says Peele. “In recent times, we’ve been dealing with the fact that black people have a lot to fear in a white neighborhood. This movie explores why black people are afraid of white people.”
Really? Is that a thing?

Surely blacks have a lot more fear in black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods. The chances of a black being victim of a crime are about ten times higher in the black neighborhoods.

I am guessing that most ppl saw this movie as an amusing race-reversal movie. They understand whites have a fear of black neighborhoods but aren't allowed to talk about it, so they watch this movie and imagine all the races reversed.

I also wonder if Black Panther is just a clever way of making fun of black ppl. It is a modern version of Amos 'n' Andy.

Wednesday, March 07, 2018

The killer was held accountable

NPR Radio News reported,
a couple of days ago:
The African-American director's documentary tells the personal tale of his brother's killing by a white man. Michel Martin talks to Ford, the first openly transgender director nominated for an Oscar.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: Finally today, we want to tell you about one more contender for an Oscar tonight. It's a documentary about the death of William Ford Jr.. Before you knew the name Trayvon Martin or Tamir Rice or Eric Garner or the names of other unarmed black men and boys who've died violent deaths for which no one was held accountable, William Ford Jr., a teacher about to become a police officer, was killed after an altercation with a white employee at a car repair shop near his home on Long Island, N.Y. An all-white grand jury declined to charge him for shooting Ford.
George Zimmerman certainly was held accountable for the death of Trayvon Martin. He was vilified by the news media and President Barack Obama, investigated, indicted, jailed, and put on a nationally-televised trial for murder.

After hearing overwhelming evidence that Martin was trying to beat Zimmerman to death, the jury unanimously agreed that he was not guilty.

Yet the white-haters still try to make a martyr out of Martin. They are essentially saying that it is okay for blacks to go around viciously beating and injuring others. Saying this is much more offensive than anything that I've heard a white supremacist say.

Tuesday, March 06, 2018

California, immigrant welfare state

The LA Times reports:
Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. ...

California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation's welfare recipients. ...

55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.
Companies get cheap labor out of immigrants, and so argue that they are good for the economy, but that doesn't take into account all the welfare, crime, and other problems.

The NY Times reports:
Part of the reason is that Sweden’s gang violence, long contained within low-income suburbs, has begun to spill out. In large cities, hospitals report armed confrontations in emergency rooms, and school administrators say threats and weapons have become commonplace. Last week two men from Uppsala, both in their 20s, were arrested on charges of throwing grenades at the home of a bank employee who investigates fraud cases. …

Last year, Peter Springare, 61, a veteran police officer in Orebro, published a furious Facebook post saying violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden.” It was shared more than 20,000 times; Mr. Springare has since been investigated twice by state prosecutors, once for inciting racial hatred, though neither resulted in charges.

Even President Trump weighed in on the issue, saying that after taking in “large numbers” of immigrants, Sweden was “having problems like they never thought possible.”
Trump is one of the few truth-tellers in public life today.

Here is another low California rating:
Stop bragging about your beaches, mountains and culture, Californians. The latest study by U.S. News editors say all those amenities add up to nothing short of the worst "quality of life" in the United States.

The annual Best States ranking was part of a study that scored all 50 states across eight categories: health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, fiscal stability, and quality of life.

More weight was given to scores in categories that, based on a survey, "mattered most to people." ...

In this ranking, quality of life is defined by more than just the sunny skies.

"In addition to a healthy environment, a person's quality of life is largely a result of their interactions with those around them," U.S. News writes. "Studies show that when people feel socially supported, they experience greater happiness, as well as physical and mental health."
This is a polite way of saying that California has the best natural environment, but the worst people because it has been ruined by immigration. Nobody likes the immigrants, and they don't even like each other.

Meanwhile, the white-haters are rioting in Michigan:
Violent clashes erupted Monday when Richard Spencer, a leading figure in the white nationalist movement, visited Michigan State University to spread his message decrying diversity and taking aim at a society where "everything that is good is anti-white."

Fights broke out as some protesters hurled bottles, rocks and horse manure to block Spencer's supporters from entering the Pavilion for Agriculture and Livestock Education, a venue at the southern tip of campus where Monday's event was held. Punches were thrown as members of the two groups hurled insults at one another. ...

Law enforcement were out in full force. Helicopters buzzed overhead as more than 100 officers clad in riot gear guarded the entrance to the pavilion and escorted some of Spencer's supporters inside. Dozens of police vehicles lined the street near the venue, and protesters at one point lied down on the street to block an armored vehicle moving down the road.
These riots should prove that some people are unfit to be citizens in a civilized society. If Spencer had trouble convincing anyone, he could just tell his audience to look out the window.

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Whites have not benefited from slavery

I have heard several ppl recently claim that all white Americans are privileged from slavery.

I very much doubt that there is any white American alive today who has benefited from slavery. Slavery was aboloshed 150 years ago. Before the Civil War, only a small minority of whites owned slaves. Poor whites probably suffered reduced wages as a result of labor market competition from slaves. Slaveowners lost their slaves, without compensation. Most of the wealth of the South was destroyed by the war and Reconstruction. There is no remaining wealth from slavery, and there has not been for a very long time.

Having the descendants of African slaves living in the USA may have been of some economic advantage to some whites, but that has to be balanced against the economic harm, such as the decline of Detroit and Chicago. I will defer to economists who might have analyzed this, but I very much doubt that there is any net benefit.

On the other hand, American blacks appear to have benefited from slavery. Most of them are better off than their cousins in Africa. Even during American slavery before 1860, it is still likely that the black slaves were better off in the USA. Many of them would have been slaves in Africa. The American slaves probably had a higher standard of living, and maybe even more personal freedom, than their African counterparts.

I could be wrong about some of this, but I listen to black scholars on sources like NPR Radio, and they do not appear to dispute any of this. They have complaints, like an occasional use of the N-word, but no substantive argument for white privilege resulting from slavery.

Friday, March 02, 2018

Two bad reviews of Pinker

Steven Pinker's new book has gotten a lot of praise, but criticism from Nature:
But the book’s premise lies in the past: the Enlightenment, that period in the eighteenth century when, Pinker argues, reason, science, humanism and progress became the centre of intellectual endeavour in Europe and North America. That legacy, he asserts, is ripe for resurrection at a time of political upheaval, the rise of demagoguery, climate scepticism and ‘fake news’. ...

Although it is framed as a historically informed template for a new age of reason, Enlightenment Now ultimately becomes something else: an extended dismissal of the arguments of despair that Pinker fears are defining politics and crowding out an alternative approach rooted in rationality and global cooperation. He does not frame the thesis in economic terms. Yet he essentially defends globalization and the growth of market economies by claiming that it has brought more progress than any force in history.
And here:
Pinker never seems to see the force of the question: How do we know that all this did not take place in spite of, rather than because of, the Enlightenment? In fact, he doesn't even pretend to go to the trouble of establishing a causal connection between his contentious version of the Enlightenment and the various improvements that he imagines follow in its wake. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc seems to be the operative principle.

For the sceptical reader the whole strategy of the book looks like this. Take a highly selective, historically contentious and anachronistic view of the Enlightenment. Don't be too scrupulous in surveying the range of positions held by Enlightenment thinkers - just attribute your own views to them all. Find a great many things that happened after the Enlightenment that you really like. Illustrate these with graphs. Repeat. Attribute all these good things your version of the Enlightenment. Conclude that we should emulate this Enlightenment if we want the trend lines to keep heading in the right direction. If challenged at any point, do not mount a counter-argument that appeals to actual history, but choose one of the following labels for your critic: religious reactionary, delusional romantic, relativist, postmodernist, paid up member of the Foucault fan club.
I don't think that these reviews get to the heart of what is wrong with Pinker's approach, but interesting anyway.

Update: A new London Guardian article also attacks Pinker:
One of the strangest ironies of our time is that a body of thoroughly debunked “science” is being revived by people who claim to be defending truth against a rising tide of ignorance. The idea that certain races are inherently more intelligent than others is being trumpeted by a small group of anthropologists, IQ researchers, psychologists and pundits who portray themselves as noble dissidents, standing up for inconvenient facts. Through a surprising mix of fringe and mainstream media sources, these ideas are reaching a new audience, which regards them as proof of the superiority of certain races.

The claim that there is a link between race and intelligence is the main tenet of what is known as “race science” or, in many cases, “scientific racism”. Race scientists claim there are evolutionary bases for disparities in social outcomes – such as life expectancy, educational attainment, wealth, and incarceration rates – between racial groups. In particular, many of them argue that black people fare worse than white people because they tend to be less naturally intelligent. ...

The recent revival of ideas about race and IQ began with a seemingly benign scientific observation. In 2005, Steven Pinker, one of the world’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, began promoting the view that Ashkenazi Jews are innately particularly intelligent – first in a lecture to a Jewish studies institute, then in a lengthy article in the liberal American magazine The New Republic the following year. This claim has long been the smiling face of race science; if it is true that Jews are naturally more intelligent, then it’s only logical to say that others are naturally less so.
The leftists probably hate Pinker more for his book on The Blank Slate.

The article goes on to conclude that IQ research has "potentially horrible human consequences", and that it is not just bad science, it is not science at all.

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Muslim complains about Muslim culture

I watched this TEDx talk:
What We Don’t Know About Europe’s Muslim Kids and Why We Should Care | Deeyah Khan

Published on May 13, 2016
Aged 17, Deeyah fled from Norway confused, lost and torn between cultures. Unlike some young Muslims she picked up a camera instead of a gun. She now uses her camera (and her superpower) to shed light on the clash of cultures between Muslim parents who prioritise honour and their children's desire for freedom. She argues that we need to understand what is happening to fight the pull to extremism.

Deeyah Khan is a critically acclaimed music producer and Emmy and Peabody award-winning documentary film director. ...
There is a similar TED talk:
Published on Feb 16, 2017
As the child of an Afghan mother and Pakistani father raised in Norway, Deeyah Khan knows what it's like to be a young person stuck between your community and your country. In this powerful, emotional talk, the filmmaker unearths the rejection and isolation that many Muslim kids growing up in the West feel -- and the deadly consequences of not embracing our youth before extremist groups do. Note: Comments are disabled for this video because YouTube's comment moderation tools are not up to the task of maintaining a quality discourse here.
She complains that Afghan and Pakistani Muslims are not treated as true Norwegians in Norway, but her real complaints are against brown-skinned Muslims. She portrays the entire brown-skinned Muslim culture as being horrible and evil. She wants us to understand them, as if you too might become a terrorist or a murderer if you also grew up with brown-skinned Muslims.

Do these people sound like true Norwegians to you?

Watch this video if you want a better understanding of the people who will be trying to kill your grandchildren.