This genius lost $29 billion

It is amazing how someone can be considered a great genius, just because he made a lucky guess when he had a 50-50 chance of being right.

After the mortgage crash, John Paulson raised $38B for a hedge fund in 2011. Now it is only worth $9B.

UN Population projection for 2100

From Visual Capitalist:

According to the most recent projections by the United Nations, the global population will rise from 7.6 billion to 11.2 billion people by 2100. ...

Although 83 million people are being added to the global population every year, this population growth differs greatly by region. As a result, it’s worth looking at two major factors to see why this is the case.

The first is the fertility rate, which has obvious implications on population growth. On a global basis, this rate (measured in births per woman) is close to 2.5, and by 2100 it will have dropped to 2.0. ...

The second measure that plays a big role in these projections is life expectancy. For each new person born, how long are they expected to live? ...

According to these same estimates, it is expected between 2017-2050 that half of all global population growth will be in just nine countries (in this order): India, Nigeria, DRC, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, United States, Uganda, and Indonesia.

Over that duration of time, it’s also projected that the populations of 26 African countries will at least double.

Click on the link to see the animated projections.

The chart is not broken down by race, but it looks like the evil fantasy of a conspiracy to exterminate the white race. It does show N. American growing to 500M ppl, but most of those will be non-white.

No, this is from official UN estimates. The are the result of trends caused by today's social policies. It is hard to see how the world will even feed itself in the year 2100.

Nonconforming Jews try to have a child

The NY Times reports:

Some L.G.B.T. Parents Reject the Names ‘Mommy’ and ‘Daddy’

When Amanda Davidson, a 42-year-old Los Angeles-based artist and writer, welcomed her firstborn child in December — a boy named Felix — with her partner Isaac Schankler, 39, a composer, she chafed at the assumptions the medical staff members made about how the pair wanted to identify themselves as parents.

I don't get it. Isn't this a man and a woman having a child? Where is the LGBT?

I don't know, but this is a Jewish newspaper celebrating a Jewish couple that is not even married. The woman is 42 years old, having a first child. So they probably had fertility treatments, or it was an adoption, or something. And they don't want to be mommy and daddy?

Is there any other ethnic group that celebrates this sort of psychological disorder?

People hate discussing genetic consequences

William Saletan writes in Slate:

The race-and-IQ debate is back. The latest round started a few weeks ago when Harvard geneticist David Reich wrote a New York Times op-ed in defense of race as a biological fact. …

I’ve watched this debate for more than a decade. It’s the same wreck, over and over.

I agree with him. It is a train wreck every time.

More broadly, much discussion of human nature is problematic. IQ is the best-studied heritable mental characteristic, but there are many others, and they drive ppl nuts. They just don't want to accept that 50+% of their personality and intelligence was written into their DNA before birth.

It also drives ppl nuts to talk about natural difference between men and women.

Race, or as Saletan prefers, ancestry and population groups, are also tied to DNA, and determined before birth.

A comment says:

I think that most of us would be happy to stop talking about race and IQ. But that needs to be part of a package deal that includes:

Stop talking about race and employment category discrepancies by race

Stop talking about race and disproportional representation in jobs where intelligence is important

Stop talking about race and student gaps, tracking, gifted programs, school discipline, and racial makeup of classes

Stop taliang about race and housing where housing decisions may be based on factors that correlate with intelligence

In general, stop having your cake and eating it. If you want to use race to gain special treatment, you need to prove that you are being discriminated against in the first place and that it’s not just a fair outcome due to intelligence after having received an equal opportunity.

That is also correct. The more you talk about racial and sexual egalitarianism, the more you deny human nature, then the more you lead ppl to be redpilled.

Jordan Peterson has jumped into the "Jewish Question" with an argument about race and IQ. Part of his popularity has to do with his willingness to discuss human nature with worrying too much about whom he is offending.

Saletan used to be willing to discuss human nature, but he had to become an apologist for Leftism to keep his job.

Update: Saletan is quoted, from his former life as a reporter on human nature:

“This is what happens when you deny reality. First you lose your senses, then your mind, then your soul.”

Bill Cosby is convicted

I didn't follow the Bill Cosby trial, but he was just conviction based on an allegation about a romantic encounter in 2004.

The main accuser collected $3M for making the accusation. The jury was apparently persuaded by 5 other witnesses who didnt' actually witness anything about the charges, but who were used to conduct a character assassination against Cosby.

If someone is on trial for robbing a bank, the prosecution is not allowed to bring in other evidence of bad behavior unrelated to the particular bank robbing charge at issue.

Apparently the extra 5 women brought in to make the case that Cosby had a pattern of aggressively pursuing sexual encounters with women.

Cosby is also rich, black, elderly, and somewhat politically controversial. He became a symbol of the MeToo movement, so taking him down was an important priority of white feminists.

I don't think that Cosby got a fair trial.

Update: I recently listened to a couple of stupid NPR programs on black lynchings. Someday they will be talking about the Cosby trial as a modern black lynching.

Update: A defense lawyer explains:

Cosby will no doubt fight his conviction on appeal. He has the funds to hire the best talent available. Here are issues that you can expect to hear more about.

First, was his deposition testimony properly admissible? Normally, the admissions of a defendant are permitted under several exceptions to the hearsay rule. The statements may be against penal interest; they may also be admissions of a party opponent.

But in this case, Cosby gave the deposition amid what sounded like assurances that the words would not be used against him in a subsequent prosecution. The trial court held that promise void. Expect appellate lawyers to challenge that ruling.

As a practical matter, it was a mistake for Cosby to give the deposition at all. The Fifth Amendment yields a privilege against self-incrimination. Plead the Fifth. Sure, you risk an adverse inference in a civil proceeding; jurors will be told that they can hold an invocation of the Fifth against a civil litigant in certain circumstances. But better to lose a little, or even a lot, of money, then head to prison.

Next, the law is ridiculously liberal when it comes to admission of evidence of other bad acts in sex crimes. Why this special status for sex offenses? Due process requires proof of the elements of the offense for which you are charged. We generally prohibit what is known as propensity, or character, evidence. Showing a jury that a defendant committed other bad acts predisposes the jury to believe the defendant did what he is charged with doing. Such evidence is strictly limited, except in sex cases. It makes no sense to have special rules of evidence for sex cases. The parade of accusers was prejudicial. Period.

And what of the extended statute of limitations in sex cases? Try defending yourself sometime against an accusation that took place, allegedly, more than a decade ago. The statute of limitations never runs in a murder case. That’s because of the seriousness of the crime, and the fact that the decedent cannot speak. Cosby’s accusers are still very much alive. Sex, unlike murder, is ubiquitous.

Finally, the corroboration provided by the accuser’s publisher, who was permitted to testify that the accuser wanted to put allegations of Cosby’s sexual misconduct in her book, but the publisher spiked it, was most likely offered for the limited purpose of showing that the accuser wanted to make the allegation public, not for the truth of the assertion – that Cosby raped her. That’s the sort of distinction judges ask jurors to draw all the time. I have my doubts about whether jurors follow the law. This so-called constanncy of accusation evidence is a flashpoint in the law just now.

2nd gen immigrants have mental illnesses

NewScientist reports:

Moving to a new country is a stressful experience, putting migrants at increased risk of anxiety disorders. But they aren’t the only ones who suffer: their children and grandchildren also experience more anxiety and higher rates of suicide than the general population.

This might be down to the discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities, or to chemical markers of stress inherited through the generations.

That’s what Baptiste Pignon at Public Assistance Hospitals of Paris and his colleagues have found after combing through health surveys collected from 38,694 people …

The rest is paywalled. Note the lame explanations.

The obvious explanation is not discrimination or stress inheritance, but the fact that they are living in an alien culture.

Suppose your family came from a Moslem country that believes in killing infidels. And then you have to live among infidels, and attend schools that teach you uncomfortable truths. You might suffer anxiety.

Or maybe it is the high anxiety immigrants who come here already have high anxiety or other mental illness.

They should also look at the anxiety of the native population that is increased as a bunch of Third World migrants move into the neighborhood. Sweded imported a bunch of Moslems, and now it is the rape capital of the world. Surely that has increased the anxiety of Swedish women.

Suicide of the West

Trump-hating conservative Jonah Goldberg has written Suicide of the West.

But what is the "West"? Wikipedia defines:

Ancient Greece[a][b] and ancient Rome[c] are generally considered to be the birthplaces of Western civilisation: the former due to its impact on philosophy, democracy, science and art; the latter due to its influence on law, warfare, governance, republicanism and architecture. Western civilisation is also founded upon Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism and various Protestant churches), which is in turn shaped by Hellenistic philosophy, Judaism and Roman culture; ...

In modern usage, Western world refers to Europe and to areas whose populations largely originate from Europe, through the Age of Discovery's Christian imperialism.

In other words, white Christian patriarchal civilization.

"Suicide of the West" seems to be a euphemism for White Genocide. Sure, the West could defend itself against the barbarians, if it had the resolve. It does not, so its decline could be considered suicide.

Goldberg blames the Left for Pres. Trump. He complains about tribalism, but of course it is tribalism that seeks to destroy the West.

Plotting to replace white Christians

A WSJ op-ed:

When white nationalists and supremacists gathered in Charlottesville, Va., last summer, they marched with tiki torches and chanted: “The Jews will not replace us.” ...

Jewish communal organizations led the effort to enact the law [the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965], which eliminated preferential quotas for Western European immigration and increased the total number of immigrants. That led to an increase in non-European immigration. In Mr. MacDonald’s view, the act started the “replacement” of white Christians by a more ethnically diverse population.

It is true that Jewish communal organizations are major supporters of multiculturalism. Then again, so are most mainstream churches, on both sides of the papal divide. Christian communal groups loudly extol their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

It is not true that most churches favor the replacement of Christians by non-Christians. That was mainly advocated by Jews.

It is true that many white Christians voted for the 1965 Act, and that Jews could never have accomplished their immigration and replacement strategy without the cooperation of white Christians.

See WSJ letter for how Jews supported the 1965 Act.

The WSJ is pro-business, and has been a long-time advocate of importing cheap labor, and thus replacing the white Christian population. The pro-business argument for immigration is somewhat different from the Jewish argument. Maybe the Charlottesville marchers should have also chanted, "The Wall Street Journal will not replace us."

Of course not all Jews are in favor of the replacement policies. Only about 90% of them. (At least 90% of the non-orthodox Jews. I am not sure about the orthodox ones.)

Just think about this when you hear from someone who is Jewish, a Trump-hater, and who gives anti-Trump arguments that don't even make any sense. Their hatred of Trump is almost always grounded in a belief that he stands in their way of plans to replace the white Christian population.

Learn how you might be manipulated

I mentioned the granddaddy of Jewish conspiracy theories, and here is an audio translation:

The protocols of the learned Elders of Zion in modern English

A one-page summary.

Goyim are mentally inferior to Jews and can't run their nations properly for their sake and ours. We need to abolish their governments and replace them with the single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it's for a good cause.

Here's what we'll need to do place our agents and helpers everywhere. Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans. Start fights between different races, classes, and religions. Use bribery threats and blackmail to get our way. Use Free Masonic lodges to attract potential public officials. Appeal to successful people's egos. Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail. Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, than despotism. Abolish all rights and freedoms except the right by force, by us. Sacrifice people, including Jews, sometimes when necessary. Eliminate religion. Replace it with science and materialism. Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect. Rewrite history to our benefit create entertaining distractions. Corrupt minds with filth and perversion encourage people to spy on one another. Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor. Take possession of all true wealth, property, and especially gold. Use gold to manipulate the markets causing depressions etc. Introduce a progressive tax on wealth. Replace sound investment with speculation. Make long-term interest bearing loans to governments. Give bad advice to governments and everyone else.

Eventually the goyim will be so angry with their governments. We'll blame them for the resulting myths that they'll gladly have us take over. We will then appoint a descendant of David to be the king of the world and the remaining goyim will bow down and sing his praises everyone will live in peace and obediently order under his glorious rule.

The funny thing is that it doesn't have that much directly to do with Jews. The conspirators could be Freemasons or Commies or leftist globalists or anyone else. After all, the plot involves eliminating religion, and Judaism is a religion. Jews lack social cohesion without Judaism.

I realize that the Russian version of the book is a forgery in the sense that parts of it were plagiarized from earlier works.

Nevertheless, the book is a fascinating insight on how an evil cabal might take over the world.

Ask yourself: How much of this do you see going on? Who is doing it? How many are aware of how they are being manipulated?

Rivers of Blood in Sweden

Slate Star Codex is a very popular blog written by an anonymous rationalist Jewish psychiatrist. It is usually quite good, but I was struck by this off-hand comments:

Compare all the anecdotes and popular lore about how immigrants are criminals. It’s totally false – immigrants have crime rates well below native-born citizens. But we only know that because there have been really good studies. If the studies hadn’t been done, and all we had to go on was the daily lurid stories about a Mexican guy knifing someone, who would believe it? In the absence of real studies, the media’s ability to spin a compelling narrative casting some people as monsters feeds on itself forever. We know that happens relatively often. Are we sure this time is different?

No, there are no such studies. Just propaganda from pro-immigration academics.

What are you going to believe, what you can see with your own eyes, or some bias studies?

Politico reports:

STOCKHOLM — Sweden may be known for its popular music, IKEA and a generous welfare state. It is also increasingly associated with a rising number of Islamic State recruits, bombings and hand grenade attacks.

In a period of two weeks earlier this year, five explosions took place in the country. It’s not unusual these days — Swedes have grown accustomed to headlines of violent crime, witness intimidation and gangland executions. In a country long renowned for its safety, voters cite “law and order” as the most important issue ahead of the general election in September.

The topic of crime is sensitive, however, and debate about the issue in the consensus-oriented Scandinavian society is restricted by taboos.

To understand crime in Sweden, it’s important to note that Sweden has benefited from the West’s broad decline in deadly violence, particularly when it comes to spontaneous violence and alcohol-related killings. The overall drop in homicides has been, however, far smaller in Sweden than in neighboring countries.

Gang-related gun murders, now mainly a phenomenon among men with immigrant backgrounds in the country’s parallel societies, increased from 4 per year in the early 1990s to around 40 last year. Because of this, Sweden has gone from being a low-crime country to having homicide rates significantly above the Western European average. Social unrest, with car torchings, attacks on first responders and even riots, is a recurring phenomenon.

Shootings in the country have become so common that they don’t make top headlines anymore, unless they are spectacular or lead to fatalities. News of attacks are quickly replaced with headlines about sports events and celebrities, as readers have become desensitized to the violence. A generation ago, bombings against the police and riots were extremely rare events. Today, reading about such incidents is considered part of daily life.

... that some neighborhoods are definitely no-go for ambulance drivers — at least without police protection. ...

Since crime is intimately linked to the country’s failure to integrate its immigrants, the rise in violence is a sensitive subject. When the Swedish government and opposition refer to the country as a “humanitarian superpower” because it opened its doors to more immigrants per capita during the migrant crisis than any other EU country, they mean it. This has resulted in some impressive contortions.

In March, Labor Market Minister Ylva Johansson appeared on the BBC, where she claimed that the number of reported rapes and sexual harassment cases “is going down and going down and going down.” In fact, the opposite is true, which Johansson later admitted in an apology.

Note that the Swedish authorities claim that immigration is a success, while any fool can see that it has ruined the country.

The problems of immigration were famously predicted:

Fifty years ago today, on 20 April 1968, the austere shadow defence secretary Enoch Powell MP made a speech in Birmingham. ...

Powell's River of Blood speech was a first and that's why it was so electric.

It was the first time that a major politician had spoken out against the cosy establishment consensus on immigration which had prevailed between both parties since the war.

By the late 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens had exercised their legal right and settled in Britain. ...

Moreover employers in Britain, facing a labour shortage, actively recruited in the wider English-speaking world, especially where workers were cheap.

Neither Labour nor the Tories had substantially different positions. ...

Powell's greater concern was that immigration would erode the national character. ...

His greatest preoccupation is not even the immigrants coming but rather their descendants, the "native-born" who, he worried, would "constitute the majority" of the ethnic minority population in a few decades hence.

Britain, he said, "must be mad, literally mad, as a nation" to be allowing such "inflow". These native-born would be betwixt and between two worlds and fundamentally alter Britishness for the worse. ...

Moreover Powell, for many years hence legitimised a certain type of nativism. Even today, the words "Enoch was right" can be found on many a far-right placard. ...

In a world where the infamous "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" was a commonplace refrain, this was a significant change. ...

As historian Robert Saunders of Oxford University told me: "If you take that speech in 1968, you have the manifesto of modern populism; the idea that speaking out against immigration is the act of a courageous and visionary statesman, it's the idea that what immigrants want is domination, what they want is the whip hand over the local population, it's the idea that what liberalism is about is about giving privileges and preferences to minority groups and that has been the position of populists ever since."

The UK BBC is rebroadcasting the speech today.

Yes, the immigration was literally mad, and the children of immigrants have fundamentally altered Britishness for the worse.

Update: You can now listen to the UK BBC Radio 4 program. It can be streamed, but not downloaded. It is not really a rebroadcast, because it was never broadcast in the first place. An actor reads it from a transcript. The program interrupts every few sentences to keep telling us what a racist and foolish speech it was.

Boycott Starbucks

I am always hearing how blacks and other minority and majority groups have difficulties in the USA, so it is enlightening to hear examples.

I have read in history books that under Jim Crow laws in the Old South, sometimes blacks had to eat at one end of the lunch counter while whites ate at the other end. I have never witnessed this myself.

Now apparently black men sometimes have to buy something if they want to use the Starbucks restroom.

And Starbucks admits one of the secrets to its success: It can get away with selling $5 coffee because its racist customers are willing to pay extra for the privilege of drinking coffee without blacks hanging around.

The $1 coffee at McDonalds is just as good, but you might encounter blacks there.

The story reveals a difference between whites and blacks. When the police tell white folks that they have to leave a private restaurant, they politely leave.

The Starbucks management was so startled by the behavior of these black trespassers, that they are shutting down their stores for a day to give lessons in dealing with rude blacks.

I am suspicious that Starbucks engineered this whole incident in order to encourage blacks to boycott Starbucks. Blacks who hang around Starbucks without buying anything are bad for business. Of course Starbucks cannot admit this, because it cannot afford to alienate white liberals who pretend to like blacks but do not want to drink coffee next to one.

Update: Wonder why Starbucks is waiting a month for the training shutdown? It only takes a few minutes to tell employees to treat whites and blacks the same. The answer is that Starbucks has hired liberal Jews to spend a month developing the training! I guess the Jewish customers are more valued than the black customers.

Update: Starbucks has fired the Jews, and decided to let blacks run the show. There was too much diversity in the diversity planning, I guess. Or maybe the blacks hate the Jews.

Plotting for world domination

The Times of Israel reports:

A Saudi scholar claimed that Jews are implementing the contents of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” by using Hollywood to “target us” and preoccupy the masses with arts, sports and theater.

While stressing that there is no proof of the authenticity of the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, Sheikh Sa’ad ibn Abdullah Al-Humayd, a professor of Hadith Studies at King Saud University in Riyadh, said this didn’t matter since what appears in the book “has been translated into reality.”

He said the conspiracy that Jews are trying to take over the world by using their wealth could have been intentionally distributed by Jews who concluded it would benefit them.

It is funny to hear Saudis complain about others misusing their wealth.

I looked at the Wikipedia article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to see why this book is called a "forgery". Apparently about 8% of it has some identifiable phrases in common with earlier works. The examples mentioned are "obligation to pay interest", and a metaphor about the Hindu god Vishnu having 100 hands has some similarily to an earlier metaphor of Vishnu having 100 arms.

It said that Hitler cited the book, acknowledging these plagiarisms, and considering the book's content important anyway.

My guess is that Hitler figured that if the Jews hatched a written scheme to take over the work, then they would have stolen ideas from Machiavelli and other schemers in history. Were the Jews supposed to have come up with a 100% original plan?

I wonder why Jewish publications are so quick to call this book a "forgery", when all they mean by this is that some of the ideas were derived from earlier works.

The book has also been claimed to be a plot for the Illuminati or the Freemasons to take over the world.

If the Jews or any other group really had an evil plot to take over the world, how would they communicate their plan? You might try keeping the plan super-secret, but that is hopeless if you want group members all over the world to follow the plan. No, the plan would leak out, so you would have to have a backstory to convince outsiders that the plan is a hoax. So the Protocols books is genius.

Islam also has a plan to take over the world. They cannot say that the Koran is a hoax, so instead they have to argue for tolerance of their religious beliefs, or that the Koran is misinterpreted.

Thought on blackmail and other news

Most violent revolutions make the people worse off. If you want to help the Syrians, then you should hope Assad kills as many revolutionaries as possible, by whatever means.

According to reports, the black men in Starbuck did not buy anything, and repeatedly refused to leave when asked by the management. They even refused to leave when asked by the police. Stores also call cops on white ppl under these circumstances, and cops remove the trespassers.

Starbucks is a business, and it doesn't make its money off black men.

James Comey is only proving that he should have been fired sooner.

When the G.W. Bush supporters said "Mission Accomplished", they referred to a mission that in fact had been accomplished.

Yes, Iraq is still a screwed-up place, and it might continue to be for the next millennium.

I blogged many times about how the evidence against Scooter Libby was extremely weak. The main piece of evidence that his recollection of a conversation differed from that of Tim Russert, and it seemed to me that Russert had much more of an incentive to lie.

Valerie Plame deserved to be outed, as she used her CIA position to publicly spread lies about the war. She was apparently outed by herself and Armitage, not Libby.

It is possible that Libby had a secret deal with Bush to be the fall guy for administration lying about Iraq.

It is good to hear that Paul Ryan has given up his war against Pres. Trump. Ryan has been a disaster as Speaker. He was mainly popular among cuckservatives.

It is hard to see how Backpage is any more guilty of crimes than any other dating site. They all include ads from women who suggest sexual availability in exchange for a man's money. And now that there is a new federal law to apply, I don't see how any of the sites can stay clear of the law.

Stormy Daniels is a prostitute who gets paid for performing sex acts on camera, and a blackmailer for demanding payments in exchange for her silence. And a crook for taking the money and then cheating on the deal.

I occasionally hear ppl say that Trump must have had the liaison, or else why would he have authorized payment? The argument is illogical. The purpose of blackmail is to extract money from someone who does not want an allegation made public. In this case, we have no way of determining the truth of the allegations, but it could be seen to be in Trump's interest to not have the allegations made public anyway.

Maybe Trump put a couple of million dollars in an account, and told he lawyer to use it to get rid of nuisance claims that have the potential to cause a lot of trouble, in his own judgment. It is possible that the lawyer paid off Daniels without discussing it with Trump or even having any opinion about whether the allegations were true or false.

Commie roots of WHO and psychiatry

Brock Chisholm was first Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), and Wikipedia says:

Religious and other conservative writers and groups have accused Chisholm of being a Marxist or a Communist or subversive.[7] "For instance, Brock Chisholm, a former director of the World Health Organization, pronounced that 'To achieve One-World Government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to their traditions and national identification'."[9] Such accusations fit into a Cold War norm in which some conservatives claimed that "a large percentage of the U.S. Communist Party consisted of 'psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors and social, health, and welfare workers."[10] Others contended that one goal of Communism was to "dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.[11] Some lumped Chisholm among other Marxists and Communists "behind the scenes," including: Wilhelm Wundt, Otto Gross, Wilhelm Steckel, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Kurt Lewin, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Adorno, Robert Owen, A.S. Neill, Havelock Ellis, John Rawlings Rees, Sigmund Freud, Antonio Gramsci, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and Georg Lukacs.[12]

Here is another quote:

The re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training... these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. Would they not be legitimate objectives of original education? Would it not be sensible to stop imposing our own local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that...they may have the ability to size things up and make their own decisions?

He died in 1971, so this is old news.

20k censors to appease Islam

The Facebook-Zuckerberg plan is to hire 20k censors and develop censor bots:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg predicted Tuesday it will be five to 10 years before Facebook has technological tools in place to flag and remove hate speech from the platform before it is posted.
...
“That’s a success in terms of rolling out AI tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community,” Zuckerberg said. “Hate speech, I am optimistic that over a five to 10 year period we'll have AI tools that can get into some of the nuances, the linguistic nuances of different types of content to be more accurate in flagging things for our systems, but today is just not there on that.”

The Facebook CEO said that by the end of 2018, the company will have 20,000 employees devoted to security and content review.

Here is what he wants to censor:

Last month, Facebook censored a German historian who posted a message about Islam's historic impact on Germany. Facebook banned the historian for 30 days, ...

"Islam always plays only one role in the 1700-year-old history of the Christian Occident: the role of the sword of Damocles which hung above us, the threat of barbarism against which one needed to unite and fight," Hesemann wrote, according to NRW Direkt. "In this sense, Islam is not part of German history, but the defense against Islam!"

No, this is crazy. If FB wanted to do users a favor, it would merely develop tools to allow users to block seeing Islam-related messages on their home pages, if they want. There is no good reason to block messages from the whole system, because many users will want to read those messages.

That is, no good reason unless you are a Jewish leftist globalist seeking world domination.

Yes, I know that a lot of Jews hate Islam. But they hate Christianity even more, and they like to promote Islam as a way of undermining Christianity.

Debate on Jewish group evolutionary strategy

Nathan Cofnas writes in a new scholarly paper:

[Psychology professor Kevin] MacDonald argues that a suite of genetic and cultural adaptations among Jews constitutes a “group evolutionary strategy.” Their supposed genetic adaptations include, most notably, high intelligence, conscientiousness, and ethnocentrism. According to this thesis, several major intellectual and political movements, such as Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism, were consciously or unconsciously designed by Jews to (a) promote collectivism and group continuity among themselves in Israel and the diaspora and (b) undermine the cohesion of gentile populations, thus increasing the competitive advantage of Jews and weakening organized gentile resistance (i.e., anti-Semitism). By developing and promoting these movements, Jews supposedly played a necessary role in the ascendancy of liberalism and multiculturalism in the West.

While not achieving widespread acceptance among evolutionary scientists, this theory has been enormously influential in the burgeoning political movement known as the “alt-right.” Examination of MacDonald’s argument suggests that he relies on systematically misrepresented sources and cherry-picked facts. It is argued here that the evidence favors what is termed the “default hypothesis”: Because of their above-average intelligence and concentration in influential urban areas, Jews in recent history have been overrepresented in all major intellectual and political movements, including conservative movements, that were not overtly anti-Semitic.

The paper is a bunch of cherry-picked criticisms, with a handful of examples of MacDonald making statements stronger that what his sources support.

It is true that not all Jews were Commies, not all Commies were Jews, etc. It is also true that you find Jews in conservative movements. But Jews overwhelmingly stick to a few Jewish ideologies, even if they are secular Jews like Freud. For example, about 70-80% of Jews voted Democrat in the last election, even tho Trump is the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel President in a long time.

The article notes that MacDonald has a very credible following, while many scholars have been afraid to say whether he is right or wrong.

I couldn't wade thru all this. You can read replies and comments here, here, here, here, and here. It appears to me that Cofnas has very little to rebut MacDonald's main theses, but merely nitpicks some of the evidence.

How else do you explain Freud being so popular with such bogus theories? How else do you explain so many Commies being Jewish?

Going to the present day, how else do you explain Jewish-dominated news media, like the NY Times and CNN, being so anti-American?

Violation of European fundamental values

Breitbart reports:

President Juncker said that Poland did not show the proper ‘solidarity’ with the rest of the political bloc because it has only allowed in large numbers of Ukrainian migrants and not Muslims, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.

During a meeting with new Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Juncker praised the country for allowing in many Ukrainians displaced by the country’s internal conflict; however, he later said: “We are in talks with Hungary and Poland. I do not accept them saying, ‘we do not accept coloured people, Muslims, or homosexuals in our territory’. It is a major violation of European fundamental values.”

Jakub Dudziak, an official in Poland’s migration department, said: “In the streets, you can not tell if people are Poles or Ukrainians, we’re very much alike. It may be that the Poles are afraid of people coming from other parts of the world.”

So what are those "European fundamental values"? To accept invaders from other parts of the world?

I am not European, so they can have whatever values they want. But do they really now have fundamental values to bring in coloured people, Muslims, and homosexuals in preference to Ukrainians? For how long has this been true?

Europe has a history of repelling invaders for centuries, if not millennia. It certainly appears to me that the core European value is to create nation-states of similar Christian people. When did that change?

More white hatred from The Atlantic

I posted about the new Utah free-range parenting law, and now the white-haters at Atlantic complain that it discriminates against poor dumb brown single moms:

The middle- and upper-middle-class parents I interviewed never voiced those same concerns. For them, free-range parenting seems relatively risk-free. Consider Lenore Skenazy, the former columnist who coined the term. ...

And even if they had, I, like many well-off parents, probably would have been able to talk my way out of trouble. My own research finds that middle- and upper-middle-class parents are particularly good at exempting their children from many rules and punishments—partly because of savvy negotiating skills, but partly because their class or race affords them the benefit of the doubt. ...

Utah’s new law—and the free-range-parenting movement more generally — doesn’t seem to account for all this. The law doesn’t specify when free-range parenting becomes neglectful parenting, and that gives authorities an uncomfortable amount of discretion. Utah’s law protects parents from having their children taken away, but only if those children are of “sufficient” age and if those children’s “basic needs are met.” But what counts as sufficient? ...

The better-educated, better-paid parents who embrace free-range parenting aren’t preoccupied with questions like these.

Actually, here is what Skenazy said:

Of course “sufficient age and maturity” is vague, but the law is clearly leaning in the direction of giving “Free-Range” parents the benefit of the doubt when they give their kids some unsupervised time, rather than charging negligence.

The vagueness comes from left-wing nanny-state politicians, not from free-range parents.

This Utah law is overwhelmingly to the benefit of low-class poor parents.

This is just another example where the mainstream press uses any excuse to attack white ppl. Even when white ppl push thru a law that primarily benefits non-whites, the magazine blames whites.

Mainstream press endorses scientific racism

Leftist publications are getting all excited about scientific racism again.

The Nation complains:

Nineties-relic Charles Murray (The Bell Curve) is popping up on campuses and in conservative media outlets, much to the delight of those who think his graphs confer legitimacy to their prejudices. Atheist philosopher and podcaster Sam Harris is extolling Murray’s highfalutin version of racist graffiti as “forbidden knowledge.” New York Times’ increasingly off-the-rails op-ed page gave genetics professor David Reich the opportunity to write that “it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races.’”

Reich goes further than that, explaining:

And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.

You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

That means just about all traits, as most of them are 50% or more genetic. In other words, modern genomics is explaining racial differences.

A Wash. Post op-ed rants about Aristotle's logic and concludes:

Instead of discouraging low-IQ individuals from having children or paternalistically assigning them to their “proper place,” as Murray advocates, let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.

That is essentially an argument for sterilizing or exterminating brown and black people.

He complains that Aristotle wrote that many people are by nature fit to be slaves. He doesn’t mention that Aristotle was mostly talking about white people:

There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type.

If she were Jewish, she’d understand!

Here is a 1939 Atlantic article by a Christian woman who married a Jew:

Then my mother pulled out the oldest and bitterest chestnuts that have been hurled against the Jews, accusations as old as the Roman Empire.

'The Jews are essentially an Oriental race,' she stormed, 'East is East, and Jews and Christians cannot really meet any more than Christians and Chinese. Jews are sensual, aggressive, ostentatious, cunning—that is a heritage they can never overcome. They accomplish things in business because they are shrewder than Christians and never hesitate to seize an unfair advantage. They accomplish things in science yes, but mostly windy theories like those of Einstein and Freud. Jewish painters like Picasso and Modigliani are clever but never great. Jews in the theatre—well, you have seen what they have done to Hollywood. The moving pictures are full of sex and sensuality, and cater solely to the Jews' god, money. Has there ever been a Jew who could approach Beethoven or Raphael? Has there ever…’

I guess it was socially acceptable to stereoype Jews back then.

The Wash. Post published this article last week by a Christian woman who dated some Jewish men:

Over almost seven years and two serious relationships with Jewish men who at first said religion didn’t matter — and then backtracked and decided it did — I’ve optimistically begun interfaith relationships with an open mind twice, only to become the last woman these men dated before settling down with a nice Jewish girl.

I can now say with certainty that I am tired of being a Jewish man’s rebellion. ...

Sure, there were some tense moments in these relationships. One of their mothers was extremely overbearing, somehow getting my cellphone number and calling me, asking where her son was. I didn’t know where he was, and her calling me made me incredibly uncomfortable. I asked my boyfriend how she got my number — he swore he didn’t give it to her — and told him I didn’t want this kind of involvement to be part of our relationship. When he talked to her about it, she exploded, yelling, “If she were Jewish, she’d understand!” I wasn’t invited to the seders that his family held, despite my saying I had loved attending them with my friends. There were times at church that I saw couples worshiping together and felt pangs of jealousy. But I told myself every relationship had its problems and these were relatively minor.

These issues weren’t there at first, but they started to appear after some time had passed and we were already in love. After years of dating, religion was suddenly a problem when it never had been before. I didn’t understand where it was coming from, and they weren’t able to explain it.

Not being Jewish was not the official reason either of these relationships ended.

If she is not Jewish, how is she supposed to learn to undertand such matters? the Atlantic magazine isn't telling us anymore.

Update: I posted the 1939 essay without reading all of it. She praises highly her Jewish husband, but is puzzled as to why he clings to his Jewish identity even tho he does not seem to believe in any of the Jewish religion and he married a non-Jew.

The bizarre part tho is that she says that one of their disagreements is about Hitler.

In the eyes of Ben, as in the eyes of all his people, Hitler stands for the Jewish equivalent of the Antichrist—a little, strutting monster whose sole purpose and pleasure in life is to flog, imprison, impoverish, humiliate, and plague Israel. ...

I try to tell Ben that Hitler is merely writing another page in a history that will continue so long as the status quo between Jews and Gentiles remains—a status that only the willing shoulders of both protagonists can remove. ...

He looks upon Hitler as something malignantly unique, and it is no use trying to tell him that a hundred years hence the world will no more call Hitler a swine for expelling the Jews than it does Edward I of England, who did the same thing in the thirteenth century—an expulsion that remained in strict effect until the time of Cromwell, because a hundred years hence another country will be having its Jewish problem, unless…

She also has trouble with his family's clannishness.

Facebook spies on your messages

Bloomberg reports:

Facebook Inc. scans the links and images that people send each other on Facebook Messenger, and reads chats when they’re flagged to moderators, making sure the content abides by the company’s rules. If it doesn’t, it gets blocked or taken down.

The company confirmed the practice after an interview published earlier this week with Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg raised questions about Messenger’s practices and privacy. Zuckerberg told Vox’s Ezra Klein a story about receiving a phone call related to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. Facebook had detected people trying to send sensational messages through the Messenger app, he said.

“In that case, our systems detect what’s going on,” Zuckerberg said. “We stop those messages from going through.”

Google automatically scans gmail messages, and has occasionally reported users to the police.

It is funny that Facebook has been selling users' private data to advertisers and political campaigns for years, but the press only gets excited about it when it is revealed that the data was possibly used for Trump's benefit.

Do you really want Facebook taking sides in a civil war in Burma?

What did you think was happening when you click a "Like" button? That button exists for the purpose of selling your privacy to marketers.

Utah legalizes free-range parenting

Salt Lake paper reports:

So-called free-range parenting will soon be the law of the land in Utah after the governor signed what appears to be the country's first measure to formally legalize allowing kids to do things on their own to foster self-sufficiency.

The bill, which Gov. Gary Herbert announced Friday that he'd signed, specifies that it isn't neglectful to let kids do things alone like travel to school, explore a playground or stay in the car. The law takes effect May 8.

Utah's law is the first in the country, said Lenore Skenazy, who coined the term free-range parent. A records search by the National Conference of State Legislatures didn't turn up any similar legislation in other states.

Utah lawmakers said they were prompted to pass the law after seeing other states where parents had been investigated and in some cases had their children temporarily removed when people reported seeing kids playing basketball in their yards or walking to school alone.

For more info on why this common sense law was needed, see the Lenore Skenazy pages.

A law like this should not be necessary, but it is a welcome protection against the nanny state.

Treating people like 4-year-olds

Supervising 4-year-old kids has changed my view of the world.

4yo kids can speak in complete sentences, and understand very simple reasoning. You can carry on a conversation with them, as long as you don't expect them to think for themselves or to draw on the wisdom of experience.

I am finding that for most people I have to deal with, it is easier if I treat them as 4-year-olds. When I run into store clerks, state bureaucrats, casual acquaintenances, and strangers on the street, it works much better if I treat them as 4yo kids.

The Dilbert cartoonist made a lot of enemies with this 2011 post:

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy.

His critics did not seem to understand the point he was making at all, and threw tantrums like 4yo kids. In other words, their behavior supported his point.

Christina Hoff Sommers is known as the "factual feminist" because she uses actual data to clarify wage issues, and she was recently shouted down at a law school for being a "fascist". There is no point in having a rational discussion with those who refuse to hear facts.

The problem is broader than that. I have now read 100s of anti-Trump essays, and they are pretty much all at a 4yo level. Even if it is a Nobel Prize winner writing in the NY Times, the arguments are at a 4yo level.

If I am dealing with a learned professional, like a physician, lawyer, or dentist, then obviously they have knowledge that far exceeds that of a 4yo. I might ask, "Do I need a filling in this molar?", and that is obviously not something I can ask a 4yo. Once I get outside their specific expertise, they are just as dopey as all the others, and a 4yo kid level conversation works well.

This is especially true of women. Even women with advanced degrees are usually not that interested in having an intellectual conversation. How can you reason with a woman who refuses to distinguish between violent stranger rape, marital sexual relations, and catcalling?

For some people, treating people as 4yo kids even works in their area of expertise. I have run into educators, psychologists, social workers, and others who show no obvious expertise at all. They might pretend to have expertise, and talk down to me as if I were a kid. If I challenge them for some expert opinion, they get very uncomfortable. And if I ask some question requiring a thoughtful response, forget about it.

The path of least resistance is to go along with the game, and treat them as 4yo kids also. It is usually just easier that way.

Again, I am not identifying them with 4yo kids. Neither was Dilbert. If an adult makes an adult argument, then go ahead and give an adult response. But if an adult gives an irrational arguments that makes about as much sense as something a 4yo kid might say, then it is just easier to treat that person as if she were a 4yo kid.

The MeToo movement has exposed a lot of 4yo-level thinking, in both women and men. Most of those commenting on this subject have taken the position that if a women tells an unverifiable story about events many years ago, then it should be believed if it sounds credible, that is, if it sounds as if it could have happened as a reporter retells the story.

How stupid is that? Anyone can tell a plausible story. Just take a real story, and change the names and places.

There are also those who insist that they can determine guilt from hearing just one side of the story. How often does that happen? There are reasons why courts require both sides of an issue before issuing any orders.

There are also people who assume that someone who pays blackmail must be guilty. Since it is obvious that a woman can severely damage a man's reputation by just making an accusation, then it might make business sense to pay hush money to a blackmailer, even if the blackmailer is lying about the facts. Is some cases, it might even be more desirable to silence a liar than a truth-teller.

I am having to rethink my opinions about democracy. What good is it if most ppl are so childish in their opinions? About 90% of the population has political opinions that are predictable from their demographics.

Immigration raises crime rates

The NY Times reports:

As of 2017, according to Gallup polls, almost half of Americans agreed that immigrants make crime worse. But is it true that immigration drives crime? Many studies have shown that it does not.

Immigrant populations in the United States have been growing fast for decades now. Crime in the same period, however, has moved in the opposite direction, with the national rate of violent crime today well below what it was in 1980.

In a large-scale collaboration by four universities, led by Robert Adelman, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo, researchers compared immigration rates with crime rates for 200 metropolitan areas over the last several decades. The selected areas included huge urban hubs like New York and smaller manufacturing centers less than a hundredth that size, like Muncie, Ind., and were dispersed geographically across the country.

According to data from the study, a large majority of the areas have many more immigrants today than they did in 1980 and fewer violent crimes. The Marshall Project extended the study’s data up to 2016, showing that crime fell more often than it rose even as immigrant populations grew almost across the board.

In 136 metro areas, almost 70 percent of those studied, the immigrant population increased between 1980 and 2016 while crime stayed stable or fell. The number of areas where crime and immigration both increased was much lower — 54 areas, slightly more than a quarter of the total. The 10 places with the largest increases in immigrants all had lower levels of crime in 2016 than in 1980.

Crime has gone down in the last 40 years, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with immigration. Everyone agrees to that.

Do immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native white population? It appears that this study does not address the issue. (I cannot tell for sure, as the article is paywalled. It is funny to see the NY Times complain about research that is not publicly available.)

Where I live, most of the reported crime is immigrant-related. This is especially true of violent and gang-related crimes.

I would count the Orlando nightclub shooting as immigrant-related, as the shooter's parents are Afghan immigrants. This study does not, as is therefore ignoring much of the crime that is caused by immigration.

The NY Times is ideologically pro-immigration, and it is lying to us about the crime that it is causing.