Sunday, June 17, 2018

Make the lie big, and they will believe it

I collect things we cannot say anymore, and here is a new one to me. The NY Times reports:
A Massachusetts high school student captioned his senior photo in the school’s yearbook with a quote generally attributed to the Nazi leaders Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler, the school’s principal said in an apologetic letter to parents this week. ...

The quote, which reads “Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it,” is widely associated with Hitler and Goebbels’s use of propaganda to build the Nazi empire.
So how is this offensive? It is just a well-known statement of how propaganda works.
Nationally, reported anti-Semitic incidents surged 57 percent in 2017, up to 1,986 from 1,267 in the previous year, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which believes the increase is linked to the divisive state of American politics, the emboldening of extremists, and the effects of social media. ...

Robert Trestan, regional director of the A.D.L. in Boston, which is helping the school respond to the episode, ...

Mr. Trestan said he hoped the school would hold sessions in the future to teach students about anti-Semitism.
Wait a minute -- do the Jewish organizations really consider this an anti-Semitic incident?!

Most of those anti-Semitic incidents have turned out to be hoaxes by Jews and other minorities. Some turned out to be natural causes, like the weather. But this is neither. It is just an innocent quote that has no obvious connection to the Jews.

There is a Wikipedia article on Big lie, but it says Goebbels was talking about English leaders. It also says Hitler used a related phrase in his famous book in connection with blaming Jewish Marxists. I would not call it anti-Semitic to accuse the Communists of lying about something, as that was what Hitler was doing. The Communists really do have a long history of big lies.

Anyway, when you hear some Jewish group complain about anti-Semitic incidents, remember that it might have just been someone using the phrase "big lie."

Friday, June 15, 2018

Not enough white kids to go around

An Arizona legislator is being asked to resign for saying this:
60 percent of public school children in the state of Arizona today are minorities. That complicates racial integration because there aren’t enough white kids to go around. ...

Immigration today represents an existential threat to the United States. If we don’t do something about immigration very, very soon, the demographics of our country will be irrevocably changed and we will be a very different country. It will not be the country you were born into.
The reasoning behind the school integration cases like Brown v Board of Education was that schools need enough white kids to go around.

It is an obvious fact that immigration is turning the USA into a very different country. I don't know of any great country that has survived this sort of demographic change.

The liberal news media was complaining all day yesterday that illegal kids from Honduras sometimes get separated from their parents. I have never heard any of those creeps express concern about American kids get separated from their parents, as happens every day in family courts and in CPS actions. I am disgusted by any suggestion that foreigners should have more rights than Americans.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Einstein had funny opinions about Chinese

The London Guardian reports:
Einstein's travel diaries reveal 'shocking' xenophobia

Private journals kept by the scientist and humanitarian icon show prejudiced attitudes towards the people he met while travelling in Asia ...

The publication of Albert Einstein’s private diaries detailing his tour of Asia in the 1920s reveals the theoretical physicist and humanitarian icon’s racist attitudes to the people he met on his travels, particularly the Chinese.

Written between October 1922 and March 1923, the diaries see the scientist musing on his travels, science, philosophy and art. In China, the man who famously once described racism as “a disease of white people” describes the “industrious, filthy, obtuse people” he observes. He notes how the “Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse.” After earlier writing of the “abundance of offspring” and the “fecundity” of the Chinese, he goes on to say: “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

... “even those reduced to working like horses never give the impression of conscious suffering. A peculiar herd-like nation [ … ] often more like automatons than people.” ... “I noticed how little difference there is between men and women; I don’t understand what kind of fatal attraction Chinese women possess which enthrals the corresponding men to such an extent that they are incapable of defending themselves against the formidable blessing of offspring”.
Einstein identified as Jewish, not white. He was not religious in the usual sense of believing in God, praying, and attending religious services and customs, but he was very much Jewish in the sense of supporting Zionism, identifying with those of Jewish ancestry, promoting Communist causes, and politically attacking white people. His quote about racism being a disease of whites was in connection with Jewish Communist efforts to create racial animosity among white folks.
“Einstein’s diary entries on the biological origin of the alleged intellectual inferiority of the Japanese, Chinese, and Indians are definitely not understated and can be viewed as racist – in these instances, other peoples are portrayed as being biologically inferior, a clear hallmark of racism. The disquieting comment that the Chinese may ‘supplant all other races’ is also most revealing in this regard,” writes Rosenkranz.

“Here, Einstein perceives a foreign ‘race’ as a threat, which … is one of the characteristics of a racist ideology. Yet the remark that must strike the modern reader as most offensive is his feigning not to understand how Chinese men can find their women sufficiently attractive to have offspring with them. In light of these instances, we must conclude that Einstein did make quite a few racist and dehumanising comments in the diary, some of which were extremely unpleasant.”
Consider the idea that "Chinese supplant all other races." Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Obviously it would be extremely racist and offensive to advocate Chinese people eradicating all other races. But then it should be less offensive to disagree with the idea.

Apparently you cannot have any opinion on demographic trends, without being called a racist.

Jews consider non-Jews to be biologically inferior. No news there. It would be surprising if he did consider Chinese people to be like himself.

Update: The London Guardian ran a followup with Chinese opinions:
Many were in strong support of the scientist: “This is called insulting China? That’s ridiculous. Did the Chinese in that era look dirty? When I see the photos from then, they look dirty, Einstein depicted the true state of that era.”

Others compared the scientists’s observations to that of Lu Xun, considered the father of modern Chinese literature, who was best known for his scathing satire of Chinese society in the early 20th century. “We praise Lu Xun because he pointed out our disadvantages. Why should we blame Einstein for this?”

Historical narratives promoted by the Chinese government often paint the days before China’s communist party took power in 1949 as chaotic.
And here is a Jewish opinion:
The ‘Jewish race’ is the smartest in the world and possesses the highest human capital, so Israelis ought to be skeptical about the current corruption probes into Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, a Likud party lawmaker has claimed.

“I can tell you something very basic,” MK Miki Zohar said, during a debate on Radio 103FM on Wednesday, as cited by the Times of Israel: “You can’t fool the Jews, no matter what the media writes. The public in Israel is a public that belongs to the Jewish race, and the entire Jewish race is the highest human capital, the smartest, the most comprehending.”

Monday, June 11, 2018

It is now acceptable to hate men

The WashPost published this lesbian rant against men:
Why can’t we hate men?

by Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.

... it seems logical to hate men. ...

So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? ...

maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise ...

So men, .... Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this.
Of course today's college campuses only allow hating white Christian heterosexual men in this way.

There is no factual basis to anything she says. She complains about "women have lower rates of property ownership". Women have higher rates in much of the world, and her only source for the statement is a claim that women have a lower rate in the country of Jordan. She complains that "women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels", but colleges today are about 55% women.

Here is a man who seems to follow her logic:
I challenge myself and fellow male Princetonians to be co-agents with our newly vocal “sisters.” We see from history that slaves acting alone could not un-enslave themselves; they required a dedicated abolitionist movement of the enslavers, namely whites. Women now require a dedicated abolitionist-like movement of men who are dedicated to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with activist women, awakening our country to the imperative of no-longer-delayed respectful treatment of women.
The man must be mentally ill.

For a contrasting view, Dalrock explains how we have already turned into a matriarchy. He is particularly disgusted by Christians, who should know better, but nevertheless badmouth men and fathers at every opportunity. He writes:
Father’s Day is a difficult day for modern Christians. While modern Christians have contempt for fathers 365 days a year, this is the day that makes the contempt for fatherhood most difficult to contain. For while the feeling of contempt for fathers (especially married fathers) is all but universal, it is also something which modern Christians still feel the need to deny.
Dalrock is right. If Christian preachers will not honor fathers, what hope is there for anyone else?

Saturday, June 09, 2018

Just one male for every 17 females

Some archaeologists announce:
Live Science reports that population geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University has proposed a new explanation for the population bottleneck between 5,000 to 7,000 years ago detected in the genes of modern men, which suggest that during this stretch, there was just one male for every 17 females. Feldman and his team conducted 18 simulations that took into account factors such as Y chromosome mutations, competition between groups, and death. The study suggests that warfare among people living in clans made up of males from the same line of descent could have wiped out entire male lineages and decreased the diversity of the Y chromosome. In this scenario, there are not dramatically fewer males, but there was significantly less diversity in their genes. “In that same group, the women could have come from anywhere,” Feldman said. The study found no bottleneck in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to child. “[The women] would’ve been brought into the group from either the victories that they had over other groups, or they could’ve been females who were residing in that area before,” he said, since the victorious male warriors may have killed all the men they conquered, but kept the women alive and assimilated them. To read about genetic adaptation to life at high elevations, go to “The Heights We Go To.”
Wow, this would be wild. Are there modern evolutionary psychology consequences to this?

It suggests that women have an instinctual desire to be raped by foreign invaders. After all, those were the only ones who reproduced 6k years ago. There were better off being in the harem of a conquering warrior, in terms of reproduction.

Even today, we see women much more in favor of immigration than men. We see a feminist utopia like Sweden taking in so many Moslem immigrants that it now has one of the highest rape rates in the world. And the feminists who run Sweden do not seem to object.

Wednesday, June 06, 2018

Trying to find motives for pursuing racial conflict

Steve Sailer posts:
Here’s an interview with a Jewish professor of history, Marc Dollinger, who points out some fairly obvious truths that have gotten lost in all the retconning. ...

So there are basically three areas advanced for why Jews would involve themselves in the struggle for racial equality. All three turn out to be false. But the first would be the history argument, that says blacks and Jews share a common history, and therefore Jews empathize with the historical experience of blacks, and therefore they’re willing to help. ...

The second argument is a sociological one, which is to say Jews experience social marginalization; blacks experience social marginalization. Since Jews understand what it is to be on the margins, they help blacks. ...

The third one, the one we get today, is Judaism: that the religion of the Jews argues for social justice, tikkun olam. Prophetic Judaism, the Reform movement, is involved with all of that.
It turns out to be simple identity politics.

The simpler explanation is that Jews see it in their interests to promote racial animosity among non-Jews. As the above article points out, the other explanations don't make any sense.

As a comment says:
Jews, like any group, have group interests. And those interests often are not in alignment with White American interests.
Yes, that's true, but Jews are the only ones who so actively go around creating animosity in other groups against white Christians.

Just to take one example from the day's news:
Starbucks (SBUX) announced Monday that Schultz will step down later this month as executive chairman, the end of a 36-year run at the company.

In an interview with The New York Times, he acknowledged that he may consider a bid for the White House.

"I want to be truthful with you without creating more speculative headlines," he said. "For some time now, I have been deeply concerned about our country — the growing division at home and our standing in the world." ...

Schultz has spoken frequently about race, and Starbucks has taken progressive stances on social issues — including gay marriage, immigration and Trump's travel ban. Last year, the company said it plans to hire 10,000 refugees over five years. ...

The company drew protests in April after two black men were arrested while they were waiting inside a Philadelphia store. Starbucks closed 8,000 stores for an afternoon last week to teach employees about racial bias.
He is supposed to be a great business genius for figuring out that he could bilk caffeine addicts into paying $5 for a cup of caffeine-boosted coffee. The coffee is essentially the same as the $1 coffee from McDonalds, except that Starbucks has higher caffeine levels.

Besides selling coffee, he is primarily known for policies of creating racial animosity among non-Jews. And he is proud of it! Among his Jewish interviews at the NY Times, he is probably a great hero who should run for President. What could be better than squeezing money out of non-Jewish addicts, and baiting them into racial conflicts?

Monday, June 04, 2018

President Trump’s Amused Mastery

From a CH post:
Decent people view an apology as a positive gesture and usually reciprocate with the same level of generosity and good faith.

Leftists however view any apology as (1) an admission of Guilt and (2) a sign of Weakness that needs to be exploited.

Never apologize to Leftists.

This is one of the big reasons Donald Trump drives the Left into such a frothing rage. He never apologizes, never admits guilt and appears to have no sense of shame whatsoever — and he keeps getting away with it no matter how loudly they scream and stomp their feet. Their entire schtick revolves around shame and guilt: when the Commander in Chief refuses to go along with their show trial, it shows just how impotent they really are.

In Game terminology, what Trump displays is the attitude known as Amused Mastery. It’s the demeanor of a man who brushes away impertinence from his lessers, shit tests from women, and screeching indignation from the media. He answers shaming tactics with shamelessness, phony opprobrium with ridicule, and smarmy moralism with Chad-crafted nicknames.

What he doesn’t do is get defensive, apologize, or supplicate to his would-be inquisitors to gain their favor (or a brief reprieve from their hate). Trump’s attitude is all alpha, with the tiniest of beta morsels occasionally thrown in to utterly disorient his detractors and, more crucially, to peel away more fence-sitters to his side, the kind of disengaged normies who can’t understand why the media is crying hitlerwolf for the millionth time because Ivanka posted a touching photo of herself cuddling with her little boy.
This is correct.

It is true that there are decent people who appreciate and accept an apology without animosity. But they are in the minority.

The really good people do not require apologies. One of the most famous movie quotes ever is Love means never having to say you're sorry.

The bad people, especially the leftists, just use an apology as a weapon, just as police and prosecutors use a confession against a criminal defendant. They do whatever they can to extract the confession, and then use it to put the confessor in prison.

Much of the leftist media coverage of President Trump consists of leftists trying to badger him into an apology that they can use against him. They even want him to apologize for what Roseanne Barr says!

Trump is the President. He should not be apologizing.

Friday, June 01, 2018

Greer says most rape is just bad sex

Think that today's feminists are the heirs to the ones from 50 years ago? I think not. Greer was one of the more famous feminists from back then, and her story is nothing like what we hear today.

Britain news:
Germaine Greer has sparked anger after she said that rapists should be given an ‘R’ tattoo on their cheek instead of being jailed in a speech at the Hay Literary Festival.

Greer, who was raped at a party days before she turned 19, said that most rape was actually just ‘bad sex’ and ‘don’t involve any injury whatsoever’.
'Christian Grey poseur' who brutally raped two women jailed for 20 years

She told an audience: ‘We are told it’s one of the most violent crimes in the world – bullshit’.

She added: ‘Most rape is just lazy, just careless, just insensitive.

‘Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal right, he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.

‘Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime – and some rapes are – think about it as non-consensual, that is, bad sex.
This is so retro it is funny.

Of course most of today's MeToo complaints about about what most people have called consensual sex.

Meanwhile, here is today's trend:
It seems unjust for the law to provide impunity for their abusers. This may explain why several states have recently abolished statutes of limitations in rape cases (as California did in 2016), a trend that was galvanized by the pileup of accusations against Bill Cosby. Still, about half the states impose a statute of limitations in cases of rape.
It seems to me that rape needs a statute of limitations more than any other crime, because the evidence is gone in a matter of hours. Unless it is reported and investigated within a day, it is often impossible to tell who is telling the truth.

And in Greer's words, it might be just someone complaining about bad sex.

Atheists may be genetic mutants

Lance Welton writes:
Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality. Belief in these kinds of gods was selected for, they maintain, because once we developed cities we had to deal with strangers—people who weren’t part of our extended family. By conceiving of a god who demanded moral behaviour towards other believers, people were compelled to cooperate with these strangers, meaning that large, highly cooperative groups could develop. ...

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here) they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

Woodley suggests that weakened Darwinian selection would have led to the spread of “spiteful mutations” of the mind, which would help to destroy the increasingly physically and mentally sick group, even influencing the non-carriers to behave against their genetic interests, as carriers would help undermine the structures through which members learnt adaptive behaviour.

This is exactly what happened in the infamous Mouse Utopia experiment in the late 1960s, where a colony of mice was placed in conditions of zero Darwinian selection and eventually died out.
If this is even partially correct, then it has a lot of implications.

Humans do have the ability to cooperate with strangers, and no other species does. So presumably this ability evolved, is genetic, and is more prevalent in some groups than others.

Cooperating with strangers is a good feature for building a civilization, but many people seem to cooperate only with their own clan. With genetic diversity, you get many situations where A cooperates with B, but B does not cooperate with A. This seems unstable, unless A is willing to ostracize B.