Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Trying to shame White Christian boys

In case you have any doubt that the news media is dominated by factions that hate white Christians, check out the story of the Kentucky Covington Catholic High School boys in Washington DC. Even the supposedly conservative mag National Review had to retract its Jewish-style shaming of whites.

The white Christian boys were symbols of Western Civilization. They were extremely well behaved, even as they were surrounded by uncivilized troublemakers.

The NY Times also retracts its Jewish shaming:
A fuller and more complicated picture emerged on Sunday of the videotaped encounter between a Native American man and a throng of high school boys wearing “Make America Great Again” gear outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
No, this is just another lie, to cover up their previous lies. No videotape ever showed those boys doing anything wrong.

It has long been a goal of Jewish Marxists to break down to social order in the West by destroying the family amongy non-Jews. But would they ever do that? They have no power to intervene in the private family lives of others.

Or so you might think. Watch this YouTube video, Selling Divorce to the West. It does not mention Jews or Marxists, but it does make a good argument that Hollywood movies led to a deterioration of marriage in English-speaking countries.

Brazil’s new foreign minister wrote an essay on Trump and the West
However, if we were to open the door for a moment, if we were to stop looking at the map and instead begin to study the terrain, especially the spirit landscape, what we would find is a huge pile of words and feelings, ideas, and beliefs shaped over the course of 25 or 30 centuries (it is not that much, just 100 generations), which we could call the West, or Western Civilization; an organic, living, once-powerful entity, which is today showing serious symptoms of weakness and even dementia, giving the impression that, if left to run its natural course it might, in a few years, disappear for good. ...

And what exactly is the West, which has no choice but to be, otherwise it would disappear as a civilization? Trump explains this in the next portion of his speech: The West is “a community of nations.” The West is a group, certainly, but not a shapeless mass, much less a grouping of states based on some treaty, but a set of nations – entities each defined in terms of its deep historical and cultural identity rather than as abstract legal entities – forged from unique experiences rather than from cold principles or values: a community, therefore, where peculiarities are not an accident but their own essence and part of an organic whole, and critical to the health and strength of the grouping. The removal of borders, the supranational principle, common values – nothing could be further from Trump’s concept of the West as a community of nations.

And what characterizes that community, which is based on, rather than being beyond, nationalities? Trump points, first of all, to art: “inspiring works of art that honor God”; and then innovation; the celebration of heroes, traditions, and ancient customs (which, at the start of our own culture, Camões referred to as “arms and the heroes”); the rule of law; freedom of expression; empowerment of women; family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of life; the habit of debating and challenging, and seeking to know; and “above all … the dignity of every human life, … the hope of every soul to live in freedom.” Then there are “those priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as a civilization,” what we’ve “inherited from our ancestors … has never existed to this extent before. And that if we fail to preserve it, it will never, ever again exist.”

A long time ago, a world leader would never speak that way. Here, Trump is closer to Reagan and Churchill (who viewed themselves as great defenders of freedom and civilization against savagery and oppression).
He appreciates Trump better than the American press.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Jews attack Western Civilization

A Jewish paper reports:
King has long been dubbed "America's white supremacist congressman" for often making remarks in support of white nationalism. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King asked in an interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro responded to King's quote saying, "Congress ought to vote to censure him, and then he ought to be primaried ASAP. …" Shapiro also tweeted he will donate to his primary opponents campaign.
I thought that Shapiro was an advocate of conservative policies and free speech.

He is first of all, an orthodox Jew. Jews like Shapiro and Mormons like Romney tend to hate Pres. Trump, even when they agree with everything he does.

To answer King's question, those things became offensive when Jews got control of the news and entertainment media. They hate Whites and Western Civilization most of all. They would get laughed at if they used the term "Western Civilization", so they call it "white supremacy" instead.

King did not support white nationalism or white supremacy. He merely complained that these terms are being used to smear support for Western Civilization.

Whites are supreme in the USA and Europe in the sense that they are the largest ethnic group, and they have dominated everything that makes the civilization run smoothly.

Jews hate this, and do everything they can to bring in non-whites and non-Christians, and to undermine whites whenever possible.

The Left has been doing this for decades. You might think that the Jews are only doing it because they are leftists, but how do you explain Shapiro? He is not a leftist, and he attacks leftists whenever he can.

Monday, January 14, 2019

Psychologist attack on men

The whole psychology profession is dominated by Jews and feminists, and they are anti-masculinity in almost everything they do. Now they have formalized some of their anti-male advice.

The NY Times reports:
The American Psychological Association has released several guides for psychologists who work with people belonging to certain groups — members of ethnic and linguistic minorities, for example, or women and girls.

It did not have a guide for working with males, in part because they were historically considered the norm. But in August, the A.P.A. approved its first set of official guidelines for working with boys and men.

The guidelines, 10 in all, posit that males who are socialized to conform to “traditional masculinity ideology” are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health.

They acknowledge that ideas about masculinity vary across cultures, age groups and ethnicities. But they point to common themes like “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”
Of course the Jewish/feminist psychologist never suggest any manly activity, like lifting weights. They only try to get men to be more effeminate.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Podhoretz against Western Civilization

Have any non-whites ever made a significant contribution to Western Civilization?

You would think that would be an easy question to answer, but the Jewish neocon race-baiter John Podhoretz writes in a NY Post op-ed:
Far-right naked racists, of whom the most prominent in the US is probably Steve King, the nine-term congressman from Iowa.

King gave an interview to The New York Times this week in which he equated “white supremacy” with “Western civilization” and asked this: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? ... Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

King’s history of horrifying comments on race dates back two ­decades. ...

King’s words this week drawing a parallel between “white supremacy” and “Western Civilization” are especially pernicious.

For one thing, Western civilization isn’t “white,” if by “white” one is referring to skin color. Much of what we consider the roots of Western civilization comes from Asia Minor and North Africa.
For examples of great non-whites, he cites Jews, Jesus, St. Augustine, Alexander Pushkin, and Alexander Hamilton!

The only non-white thing about Hamilton is that there was a popular Broadway play that portrayed him as black. Podhoretz is seriously confusing fiction with reality.

Jesus and St. Augustine could have had white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, for all anybody knows. Pushkin was at least 7/8 white. Hamilton had a light peaches and cream complexion with violet-blue eyes and auburn-red hair.
The greatness of our civilization can’t be found in its elevation of “whiteness” above all, because it does no such thing. That idea is the core of Nazism, not Americanism. “White supremacy” treats being “white” as a tribal identity. But Western civilization’s greatness lies not only in the beauty of its art and the wisdom of its thought but in the universality of its message.
Now we get to his real issue. Like most Jews, he is a Jewish supremacist. He believes that Jews should control the money and information channels. He is a big promoter of Jewish pride in their tribal identity, but he hates the idea of whites having any tribal identity.

The Jewish religion has no universal message. It says Jews are the Chosen People, and that Jews should do whatever is good for Jews.

As soon as any white non-Jew shows any ethnic identity or pride in Western civilization, Jews like Podhoretz are quick to start name-calling with "Nazism". Really? I thought that Nazis did bad stuff, but according to him, they were just white people recognizing the greatness of our civilization.

I will be watching to see if any Jewish publications denounce this sort of anti-white racial hatred, but I doubt it.

There seem to be some very deep-seated jealousies here. Jews do best in white supremacist countries. Jews are scattered around the world, but where do they prefer to live? White countries. And they they complain about White people all the time.

I quoted someone saying "Jews do not understand the first thing about America." It seems like a silly statement, and Podhoretz appears to be an educated man. He has a funny idea about Americanism. He writes a whole column praising non-whites, but he cannot seem to name any exemplary ones.

The libertarian Reason mag attacks King by quoting:
Take it away, Jean de Crevecouer in Letters from an American Farmer (1782):
What then is the American, this new man? He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds.

He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world.
I've noted elsewhere that Crevecoeur has his limits (among other things, he speaks only of men and he owned slaves for a time). But he accurately captures a process by which America is a country that has long aspired to be a place where people could be judged, in Martin Luther King's phrase, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
No, the slave-owner was probably not ignoring skin color.

Crevecoeur was describing a new American race resulting from mixing English, French, and Dutch. In other words, all White people from Northwestern Europe. He is saying that there is an American race, not that Americans ignore race.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Matriarchy leads to narcissistic Peter Pans

Quillette reports:
As David Gilmore’s cross-cultural study of men shows (1990), in the small handful of cultures without patriarchy, men live a narcissistic Peter Pan existence, putting very little into the community and leaving most of the labor to women. Such societies have not developed beyond a rudimentary level, and cannot compete with their more highly organized and structured neighbors. This is why there are so few of them. They are not a suitable model for modern industrial nations to copy.

Copying them, however, is what we have been doing in recent decades as attacks have mounted on the sexual division of labour. ...

Eleanor Rathbone, for example, persuaded the U.K. parliament in 1945 to bypass husbands and pay family allowances to mothers, after conducting a long campaign against what she dubbed the “Turk complex.”
That was the start of a long slow decline into today's matriarchy. Here is more evidence of decline:
Alongside this cultural decline, the bourgeois mindset also seems to have suffered genetic decline. There is growi g evidence that people in Western countries are losing the gene-based improvements their ancestors had gained in cognitive capacity and other mental traits.

The strongest evidence for this regressive evolution is seen in an Icelandic study that shows a steady decline since the early twentieth century in alleles associated with high educational attainment (Kong et al. 2017). ...

Since the 1970s the IQ decline seems to be driven much more by decomposition of the nuclear family: proportionately more births are to single mothers who tend to have children by sexy men who are less intelligent and more prone to violence (see previous post).
It is probably not just the IQ genes that are declining. Many other desirable genes are also.
The market economy, and its power to create so much wealth, came into being because of certain cultural, psychological and, yes, genetic characteristics. Those characteristics are not distributed uniformly around the world. In fact, for a long time they didn’t even exist. They gradually evolved and came together in certain human groups, particularly in northwest Europeans.

Yes, there were similar evolutionary processes in other human groups, notably East Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, Parsees, and so on. But those groups, too, will form a diminishing proportion of the world’s population. The cultural, psychological, and genetic basis for the market economy will therefore regress as time goes on.

The most likely scenario is that the market economy will likewise regress. We will return to a low-trust world of spatially localized markets with no market economy, at least not one that will self-generate without coercion. We will all be poorer.
If this is right, then increasing GDP is all an illusion. The world is getting poorer all the time.

Wednesday, January 09, 2019

American patriots are stockpiling guns

SciAm reports:
Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before — that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

So, who is buying all these guns — and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male — but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile. ...

applicants were overwhelmingly dominated by white men. In interviews, they told her that they wanted to protect themselves and the people they love. ...

In a series of three experiments, Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay asked hundreds of liberals and conservatives to imagine holding a handgun — and found that conservatives felt less risk and greater personal control than liberal counterparts. ...

“Those with high attachment felt that having a gun made them a better and more respected member of their communities.” ...

“This is interesting because these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the ‘nation,’ says Froese.
Of course there is a distinction between the federal government and the nation. We currently have a Speaker of the House who says that a wall is an "immorality", and refuses to fund it.

The "nation" refers to the people and the land, not what governance is currently in place. The French nation refers to the those who practice the traditional French language and culture in France, and not Algerians who just moved there several years ago.

I believe that the Ctrl-Left would remove President Trump in a coup, if it could get away with it. They would also abolish the 1st and 2nd amendments to the Constitution. And then they would seek an ethnic cleansing of White Christians, and to replace them with non-white and non-Christian immigrants.

There is maybe a 1% chance that political differences will not be resolved peacefully, and America will degenerate into a civil war. If that happens, the patriots will be well armed. I hope that means that the leftists do not push us into a civil war.

Tuesday, January 08, 2019

Genius biologist believes animals are egalitarian

I criticized Sapolosky for not believing in free will, but the same interview has this:
We write a lot in Pacific Standard about economic and social inequality, but until I read Behave, it never occurred to me to compare humans with other animals in this respect. You argue that humans have far more inequality than any other species. Any idea why that is?

Because of our psychological sophistication. A low-ranking non-human primate may they get beat up when somebody is in a bad mood, or get the crummiest place to sit when it's raining. Or they'll find something good to eat, and someone (of a higher rank) will take it away from them. But that's basically it. They don't have societal constructs that lead them to think it's their own damn fault.

Humans can be driving down the freeway, and the driver in front of you can signal your lack of socioeconomic success (via their more expensive automobile).
So humans have more social inequality than animals because some humans drive fancier cars than others?

He is not referring to ppl being better off because the car works better. He is talking about someone feeling bad about a low-status car, and says that animals do not have that feeling.

This is crazy. Humans distribute their food so that no one starves. No animals do that. In many species, the low status animals do not eat or reproduce.

I don't know how Sapolsky got to be considered such a genius.

Monday, January 07, 2019

Maximizing human capital

Economists like Tyler Cowen argue that government policies should solely be designed to maximize GDP. If you object that GDP does not take environmental damage into account, he will say that he really wants to use a modified GDP that factors in his favorite causes.

This sort of thinking sometimes goes under the slogan, "a rising tide lifts all boats." Among philosophers, it is called utilitarianism or consequentialism. Cowen's view is a little extreme in that he considers someone in Ethiopia in a millennium to be as important as someone today.

He wrote a book on this subject, and to prove his sincerity, he promised to donate all his profits to some clown in Ethiopia.

Tucker Carlson recently enraged conservatives with an economic rant that included, “Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot.”

I am wondering if any of these smart economists ever tried to quantify human capital.

There are 7 billion people in the world. Some are making the world a better place, and some a worse place. If you take into account consumption of resources in future generations, then the big majority of people have negative value.

Advances in genetic research may soon make it possible to quantify human capital on the genome level. Most human traits are heritable, so once he have good genomic models, we could estimate human capital directly from the genomes.

You might protest that a man is more than his DNA. I would agree, but if you are projecting a millennium into the future, as Cowen does, then a man is just the DNA of his descendants.

A man may have genes for criminal behavior, and never commit any crimes. After a millennium, he could have thousands of criminal descendants.

An ugly woman could have thousands of ugly descendants. If resources become scarce, then no one wants them used up by ugly people.

It may seem harsh to judge people based on their genomes, but if you buy into future utilitarianism like Cowen, then surely it is better to exterminate undesirables now than to somehow correct all the damage in a millennium.

Countries like Taiwan and South Korea have gotten rich by implementing capitalist theories of money. Eventually, I think some countries will try to seriously maximize their genomic capital. If so, they might create paradises of low crime, low strife, high trust, high productivity, and high happiness.

How good or bad this is remains to be seen. Many would argue that any such project would be doomed to fail. If some country does the experiment, we may find out.

Sunday, January 06, 2019

The evolutionist plan for genocide

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist Jerry Coyne writes:
I’m a free-will “incompatibilist”: someone who sees the existence of physical determinism as dispelling the idea of contracausal, you-could-have-done-otherwise “free will”, which is the notion of free will most common among people. Many people find my view disturbing and fatalistic, and I’m often posed this question: “If everything is determined by the laws of physics mediated through our neurobiology, what’s the point of trying to change somebody’s mind?”

My response is that no, we can’t choose (via contracausal free will) whether we want to change someone’s mind, nor can they freely choose (in the same sense) whether to change it. But human brains are wired by both evolution and experience in a way that alters people’s behaviors when (in general) they would benefit from those changes.
Got that? You have no ability to make decisions for yourself, but leftist brainwashers can reprogram your brain to follow their agenda.

Coyne then endorses a fellow leftist-atheist-evolutionist:
A couple of weeks ago, at a speech before a friendly audience, President Donald Trump likened immigrants to poisonous snakes. To biologist and behavioral scientist Robert Sapolsky, it was a revolting but revealing remark.

"That's a textbook dehumanization of 'them,' he said. "If you get to the point where citing 'thems' causes your followers to activate neurons in the insular cortex—the part of the brain that responds to viscerally disgusting things — you've finished most of your to-do list for your genocide."

That sort of sharply stated, science-based analysis has made Sapolsky a popular and influential writer and thinker. A MacArthur fellow, he is a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, and the author of several books, including the 2017 best-seller Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.

Sapolsky has spent much of his career in Kenya, studying baboons (among other primates), and he uses that knowledge to put human behavior into a broader perspective. In a recent telephone interview, he discussed the biological basis of our current political fault lines.
So his political view boils down to saying it is okay to compare people to Kenyan baboons, but not to snakes.

Sapolsky's big treatise is a massive tirade against free will.

Let's talk about tribalism. First of all, is that an accurate term for the sorting into opposing camps that's going on today?

Absolutely, in a very primate kind of way. The easiest symbols that we grab onto in deciding if someone is an "us" or a "them" are visceral ones. Being disgusted by someone's personal behavior — the way 'they' do stuff — is a much easier entree to hating them than disagreeing with their views on the trade deficit.

Primates are hard-wired for us/them dichotomies.
For him, he identifies with an "us" consisting of fellow leftist academics and primates, with "them" being religious folks.

But devout religious observance in a group setting is. Studies show that support for terrorism in majority Muslim countries is unrelated to how often you pray, or how devout you are about food prohibitions. But it is related to how often you pray in a mosque. The same is also true of right-wing Jewish extremists in Israel. When sacred values are re-affirmed in groups — that's when things get scary. ...

Scapegoating is an incredibly mammalian thing to do.
So he scapegoats Trump supporters, Muslims, and Israeli Jews. That is his to-do list for genocide.

If he is right, then the only sensible thing to do is to destroy all the mosques. Mosques are just training grounds for future terrorists. Moslems do not believe in free will either. The Western world has the power to bomb and destroy all the world's mosques. With advance warning, it could be done with minimal loss of life. Mecca could be destroyed when hardly anyone is there. China already has experience in re-programming Moslems, so maybe they could lead the plan.

Speaking of primates, here is anthropologist John Hawks insisting that humans must be groups with both monkeys and apes:
Humans are not phylogenetically separate from living great apes; the same common ancestors that connect those apes also are our ancestors. In other words, “apes” in English are not a proper monophyletic group, unless humans are also included. The same is true of “monkeys” – no way of grouping the ceboid [New World] and cercopithecoid [Old World] monkeys is monophyletic unless the apes and humans are also included. (The branch that includes all of these primates is known as the Anthropoidea).
It is funny how these learned academics refuse to admit differences between humans and monkeys.

Saturday, January 05, 2019

Disney is now synonymous with hate

Matt Miller writes in Esquire mag:
a loud section of Star Wars fans, have tragically become synonymous with hate, bigotry, and pervasive assholeness in 2018. From various sinister online campaigns, to racist and misogynistic attacks on actors, to bafflingly stupid takes and interpretations of the film, The Last Jedi inspired the worst impulses of a far-right movement that’s taking hold of the internet and extending its influence into the real world.

The hate began almost immediately after the Last Jedi hit theaters to positive reviews from critics. Days after the movie was released, Rotten Tomatoes was swarmed with negative reviews marking the biggest disparity between fans and critics in the history of the franchise. As of this week, the film has a 91 percent from critics and a 45 percent from fans. ...

"We are tired of being spat on, told that the franchise we so adore is not for us anymore, and of our favorite characters being mistreated by the directors of the new movies. We call upon @Disney for change." ...

It’s fascinating that, as Disney has begun to course-correct Star Wars, it seems that J.J. Abrams is charged by the powers that be with getting both fans and critics excited about Episode 9. And what’s concerning about this is who the people pulling the strings might be listening to. ...

These “trolls” are the anonymous, despicable beating heart of America. They are holding up a mirror to our society. They are insuring that the worst of us have a voice to incite real change. They elected an amoral, racist golden toilet for a president. And that same sickness has bled into something once as harmless as a children’s space movie.

If the moral Star Wars fans — the ones who applaud these films for better representing the people, ideas, and goodness around us — stay silent, well, then the trolls control the narrative. This was a year where the trolls won.
So the fans hated the three Disney Star Wars movies, and this critic is upset that Disney might be listening to the fans?!

I only saw the first Disney Star Wars movie, and hated it. The next two are supposed to be much worse. Disney has been taken over by lizard people who are trying to brainwash us.

You know that something is wrong when the critics love the movies, and the fans hate them. There is also something wrong with the movie critic cannot resist attacking President Trump, and the 60M voters who elected him.

Miller even goes so far as to say that "moral Star Wars fans" should speak up in favor of the hated movies! Disney and the critics are trying to impose a moral order on us, whether we like it or not, and it is not a Christian moral order. It is a sick Cultural Marxist moral order that seeks to exterminate white Christian straight men. Disney, Hollywood, and Hollywood groupies have fallen to the Dark Side.

Maybe the surest way to identify these lizard ppl is to bring up the subject of Donald Trump. You can figure that someone is a bigot if you mention Barack Obama and suddenly spouts some racial slurs, and you can similarly deduce that he is a bigot if the mention of Trump causes him to spout "amoral, racist golden toilet" or something like that.

A new Moslem Democrat Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib was just sworn in, and she immediately went into rant calling Trump obscenities and vowing to impeach him. It will be interesting to see what kind of press she gets, as she wants to exterminate the Jews also. My guess is that they will celebrate her Trump hatred, as if she were a courageous spokeswoman for a moral cause.

Friday, January 04, 2019

The twin evils of modern society

Dalrock tries hard to square Christian teachings with human nature. He writes:
In my previous post I noted that it took me many years of blogging before I recognized that chivalry and not feminism is the primary corrupter of modern conservative Christianity. This understanding is essential, because conservative Christians are laboring under the assumption that chivalry is a tool to fight feminism. Part of what makes this so confusing is that chivalry and feminism are often quite difficult to tease apart. Feminism is fundamentally an appeal to chivalry, which is the essential truth of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism:
Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.
The fatal conservative error is to assume that doing feminists’ bidding will eventually lead to feminist gratitude. Conservatives foolishly believe that one more act of valiant chivalry will finally win the feminists over. Chivalry is a way to strike a heroic pose while cravenly avoiding the terrifying prospect of opposing feminism. It is cowardice posing as bravery.

Even worse, in the chivalrous mindset feminist expressions of ingratitude are only proof that the chivalrous man is on the right and heroic path. Persistence in the face of cruel scorning by his lady is the very essence of chivalrous manhood.
You have to read him for the explanation of why feminism and chivalry are dual evils.

As he explains, Lancelot became the model of chivalry by humiliating himself for the sake of an adulterous woman.

This situation is analogous to the twin evils of Jewish and Mormon Trump-haters. The Jewish Trump-haters believe in feminism, while the Mormon Trump-haters believe in chivalry. It is debatable which is worse.

Mitt Romney just wrote an op-ed attacking Trump. His first complaint is that Trump badmouths his enemies. But then Romney has no substantial criticism, and he is essentially just engaging in name-calling himself. Weird.

How did Romney get a such a screwed-up view of the world? Many other Mormon politicians have the same disease.

According to this, Romney went on CNN just to complain that Trump was not sufficiently subservient to Jewish causes. Apparently Romney understands that he can get press in the Jewish media by doing this.

Mormons are the mirror image of Jews. They are both brainwashed with views that are fundamentally incompatible with a Christian society.

Thursday, January 03, 2019

All mental disorders are linked

Norway science news:
Neuroticism is one of the five higher-order personality traits and pretty much everyone has it to some extent.

People who score high on neuroticism are easily worried and are more likely to experience negative feelings such as fear, anger, frustration, jealousy, guilt, and loneliness. They tend to interpret common situations as threatening, or to feel that small challenges are hopelessly difficult.

Now Eivind Ystrøm, a professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo and his colleagues say that this trait best defines the risk of developing psychiatric problems.

Research also shows that it is mainly your genes that determine your personality, and thus the risk of mental illness.

And for better or worse, your upbringing probably has minimal effect.

All mental disorders are linked

"Previously we thought that mental illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and substance abuse, were completely separate diseases," Ystrøm says.

But research has now shown that these illnesses are often linked. If you suffer from one mental illness, you are more likely to develop another. And if someone in your immediate family has a psychiatric illness, your risk increases not only for this disorder, but for all other disorders.
The article does not mention it, but women consistently score much higher levels of neuroticism. They also show much higher rates of psychiatric illnesses, and are much more commonly medicated for them.

Wednesday, January 02, 2019

NY Times blasts James Watson again

It is funny how Jewish publications are obsessed with race and intelligence. The latest is the NY Times article titled "James Watson Won't Stop Talking Race". Actually, that newspaper has had 875 articles about race since the last time Watson talked about the subject.

The paper is always running article on how smart Jews like Einstein are, and how stupid non-Jews like Trump are. And it is always claims that non-Jews are no better than black Africans.
In 2007, Dr. Watson, who shared a 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, told a British journalist that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says, not really.” ...

In response to questions from The Times, Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that most experts on intelligence “consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences.”
This is supposed to be a refutation of Watson, but Watson and Collins are saying nearly the same thing. That is, that white score higher than blacks on IQ tests, and the differences are attributed to genes and environment.
But his remarks have lingered. They have been invoked to support white supremacist views, and scientists routinely excoriate Dr. Watson when his name surfaces on social media.

Eric Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, elicited an outcry last spring with a toast he made to Dr. Watson’s involvement in the early days of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Lander quickly apologized.

“I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander wrote to Broad scientists. “They have no place in science, which must welcome everyone. I was wrong to toast, and I’m sorry.’’
Lander is clever enough to signal the insincerity of his apology. He does not say that Watson is wrong. He only says that Watson's views have caused him to be despised. He also says science must welcome everyone at the same time he says it must not welcome Watson.

It is really crazy to say that Lander cannot make a toast to Watson because of some scientific opinion that Watson expressed once. If Watson were wrong, they would just prove him wrong. They only silence and ostracize him because they cannot prove him wrong.

Some researchers do think that Watson will be proved wrong someday. For a survey of expert opinion, see this.
As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.
Watson is not Jewish, so the paper has to find a way to say he found success by stealing from a Jewish woman.
“If he knew African-Americans as colleagues at all levels, his present view would be impossible to sustain,’’ Dr. King said.

If that is the case, it may not bode well for combating prejudice in biomedical research, where African-Americans represent just 1.5 percent of grant applications to the N.I.H. Biases in hiring by medical school science departments are well documented.
Knowing a few African-Americans colleagues tells almost nothing about averages for the entire race. Biases in hiring could be for or against blacks. Any such biases have nothing to do with correlations between race and IQ anyway.

Jews are big believers in IQ, or they would not be writing these articles. But they always get around to some sort of argument that non-Jewish whites have the same IQ blacks, and thus inferior to the Jews.

Tuesday, January 01, 2019

What I learned in 2018

At the end of each year, I like to take note of issues where I have changed my mind.

California has been lost. California used to be a paradise about 50 years ago. Then it imported about 20M people, mostly from Third World countries. The schools went from the best in the USA, to only 30% White and the worst. Half the state is on welfare. No Republicans can ever get elected to statewide office, and in a few years, no Whites will be electable either. The real estate is all owned by rich people. The middle class Whites are leaving the state.

The rest of the USA is probably similarly doomed. Hardly anyone has learned the lessons of the California immigration experiment. Maybe President Trump, but he is hated for it. We are in the midst of the dramatic demographic replacement in the history of mankind, and the pro-immigration forces have gained the upper hand. I do not see how it can be stopped.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix are evil. So are all the others who actively work to shut down legitimate opinions with censorship, de-platforming, and name-calling.

MeTooism is the most destructive social trend in a long time.

I used to regularly denounce identity politics. Now I think that it is human nature. Democracy and multiculturalism are incompatible. White people need to accept what the rest of the world accepted long ago.

I used to think of people as intelligent autonomous beings. I would give them credit for having informed and considered opinions, even if they didn't. Now I think that it makes more sense to treat people like 4-year-olds. Most human-human interactions are at about the level of a 4yo child. I just watched a TV documentary on some advanced scientific theories, but even it could have been all explained to 4yo children, if they had wanted to.