Wednesday, February 26, 2020

How Weinstein got convicted

So how did prosecutors convict a Jewish movie producer of having a casting couch?

By hiring a female Jewish forensic psychiatrist expert witness, of course!

The NY Post reports:
The smartest thing the prosecution did was call Dr. Barbara Ziv, a forensic psychologist who testified to “rape myths” in Bill Cosby’s trial, to do the same here.

Ziv told the jury that more often than not, victims don’t report or disclose right away. Most victims actually know their assailants, and they often don’t resist. When it’s over, they often try to recast the assault as an encounter gone wrong or a one-time exception.

And very often, Ziv said, victims maintain a relationship with their rapist because “they can’t really believe that this happened to them. They’re hoping that this is just an aberration. You hear that all the time.”

And Weinstein, in vacillating between predator and benefactor, played right into that destabilizing dynamic, one in which his targets could never be sure he was truly a bad guy.
I couldn't find out much about her. She is supposed to be at Temple U., but she is not listed on their faculty page. Maybe being an expert witness is too lucrative to bother teaching.

Much of psychiatry is just bogus stuff Jews believe in.

Cosby and Weinstein will probably spend the rest of their lives in prison, but the appellate courts should not be allowing this sort of testimony. There is no scientific basis for it. It is just a Jewish feminist legal opinion that women should be able to change their minds about a sexual encounter, and complain about it many years later.

In the court of public opinion, Weinstein was destroyed by the NY Times and Ronan Farrow. Their stories were gossip from many years ago. There was no physical evidence, police reports, or contemporaneous reports.

What we have here is a re-definition of legal consent, and the infantilization of women. They are no longer capable of consent, at any age. A child cannot legally consent. And now even a 30-year-old woman can send hundreds of messages indicating consent, and years later some court might decide otherwise. MeToo means women must be treated like children.

The NY Times reports:
The actress Ashley Judd, who was among the first to go on the record for The New York Times’s 2017 investigation of Mr. Weinstein, tweeted:

‘I have mixed reactions about the whole case’

Ashley Judd also told The Times that the outcome was not her ideal form of justice. “I would love for Harvey to have a restorative justice process in which he could come emotionally to terms with his wrongs” through reconciliation, she said, rather than court proceedings leading to incarceration.
So obviously Judd does not believe that Weinstein committed a crime. She wanted him confronted for his rude behavior, and she wanted some sort of female emotional closure by telling him off or something like that. Women often have weird mixed feelings toward their ex-lovers.

This is all some sort of Jewish feminist power play.

Speaking of Jews in Hollywood, Disney just promoted a new guy to CEO. Could this be the first non-Jewish CEO in Hollywood? Nope. He is Jewish, and so is most of the rest of Disney management. You can count on more sick anti-Christian messages in their movies.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Miss Germany, age 35

A mum has made history after being crowned Miss Germany at the age of 35 – making her the oldest winner in the history of the competition.

Leonie von Hase beat 7,500 applicants to the crown, all while juggling her own online business and being a mum to her three-year-old son.

She is also the oldest woman to compete in the contest since it began in 1927.
She is German, White, attractive, heterosexual, and born female. If trends continue, these pageants are going to get a lot worse.

Monday, February 24, 2020

Max Boot attacks Christianity

Max Boot is a Russian Jew who claims to be an American conservative. He doesn't really have many conservative views. He is mostly known for being a warmonger.

He writes an attack on Christianity in the Wash. Post:
It has become conventional wisdom on the right that religion is under assault from secular liberals — and that the waning of faith is bad for America.

Attorney General William P. Barr, a conservative Catholic, summed up this alarmist outlook last fall during an incendiary speech at Notre Dame. He bemoaned “the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system” and the “growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism. By any honest assessment,” he thundered, “the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.” He went on to cite statistics on rising out-of-wedlock births (“illegitimacy”), along with “record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.” ...

Barr’s simplistic idea that the country is better off if it is more religious is based on faith, not evidence.
He then goes on to argue that America is better off than Pakistan, even tho Pakistan is more religious.
The United States is unusual not because religious observance has declined over the years but because it remains much higher than expected. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that 55 percent of American adults say they pray daily, compared with only 22 percent of Europeans. ...

But, perversely, the United States does worse in critical areas — such as the rate of homicides by firearms and the rate of children living in single-parent households — than Western nations that are less religious. How does Barr explain this if he thinks religion is a social elixir? ...

Remember, Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.
Yes, we have very high firearm homicides among blacks, and very illegitimacy rates among blacks and Mexicans. Blacks and Mexicans are nominally Christians at very high rates, but obviously they are not that religious if they are shooting each other and having illegitimate babies.

Boot is a big advocate of importing millions of non-Christians into America. He very much wants to turn us into a non-Christian country. These views are common among Jewish intellectuals.

The fall of Rome had more to do with its failure to deal with immigration effectively. The Eastern Roman Empire fell, because of Mohammedan invaders. Christian Europe lived on, and became greater than ever.

Sunday, February 23, 2020

Impossibility of proving consent

USA Today reports on a case where video-recorded consent did not exonerate a couple of Ohio State football players:
Brad Koffel, a Columbus criminal defense attorney in private practice for more than 25 years and managing partner of Koffel Brininger Nesbitt, advises his clients to obtain written consent for sexual acts, even if it’s just a text message, or any sort of audio or video recording indicating consent.

“If they don’t,” he said, “in this climate, then they’re going to suffer some consequences.” ...

Columbus criminal defense attorney Dan Sabol of Sabol Mallory said he would feel concerned if a client obtained written or recorded consent from a sexual partner.

“That’d be a red flag,” he said. “It might look as though they’re trying to cover their tracks.”

Proof of consent might help someone who is falsely accused, Sabol said, but if there is compelling evidence that a sexual act was not consensual, the documentation of consent from a partner could increase the appearance of guilt in a suspect.

“Just because someone says it’s consensual on video doesn’t make it so,” he said. ...

“It should be taken as a red flag that a person would have enough doubts about whether or not consent was established to ... request this type of agreement before or after an encounter,” said Laura Palumbo, communication director for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. “Because in reality, one of the most important things for people to know about consent is that if you have any doubts … then the interaction should not move forward with your partner.” ...

“A good consensual act or series of events should be active communication the whole time and checking in with their partner,” she said. “They should consent and enthusiastically agree the whole time.”
Got that, a man cannot prove that he has consent unless he has a written statement or recordings. But even then, having proof of his innocence raises a red flag and puts him under further suspicion.

Also, such proof would only show initial consent. He really needs proof that she was enthusiastic the entire time, and that is nearly impossible.

Harvey Weinstein's accusers showed consent before and after the incidents, but he faces life in prison anyway.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Boy Scouts bankrupted

Here is the Scout Law:

The Scout Law has 12 points. Each is a goal for every Scout. A Scout tries to live up to the Law every day. It is not always easy to do, but a Scout always tries.

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.
There are a lot of liberals who despise the Boy Scouts and what they stand for, and who did everything they could to destroy them.

Apparently the Boy Scouts biggest sin was that it kept secret lists of suspected child molesters, so that they could be watched or excluded from Scout activities. How else could they cope with the problem?

It appears that our law does not allow a national organization to promote the above beliefs among boys.

In related news:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg, facing millions of dollars in past sexual abuse claims, filed for bankruptcy protection Wednesday, according to court documents. ...

The diocese filed its petition for Chapter 11 reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pennsylvania. The petition estimates the dioceses' assets at $1 million to $10 million – and its financial liabilities as $50 million to $100 million.
This is a pretty crazy way to address a problem.

If these legal actions focused on punishing men for crimes committed, then I would be all in favor of them. But no one is being charged with any crimes. This is about greedy lawyers taking money that would otherwise be used to benefit innocent boys and others.

Friday, February 21, 2020

Using gays to destroy marriage

The NY Times has an article on how straight couples need to act more like gays and lesbians:
How to Make Your Marriage Gayer ...

Women in different-sex marriages reported the highest levels of psychological distress. Men in same-sex marriages reported the lowest. Men married to women and women married to women were in the middle, recording similar levels of distress. ...

Another parenting advantage for gays and lesbians is that they seldom end up with an unintended or unwanted child, which is a risk factor for poor parenting. In 2011, the last year for which figures are available, 45 percent of pregnancies in America were unintended, and 18 percent were actually unwanted. ...

Many gay couples work out detailed agreements about what kinds of sexual contact are permissible outside the relationship, under what circumstances and how often. ...

lesbian partnerships, despite their high average quality, have higher breakup rates than gay-male couples or different-sex couples.
Much of this can be explained by assuming that women complain more than men. Lesbian couples do not have the highest distress levels, but maybe that is only because so many of them break up that the worst ones are not sampled.

Here the biases get revealed:
All of us — heterosexual, gay or lesbian — face obstacles in figuring out how to replace traditional gender and marriage rules that frustrate our modern values while updating those that are still useful.
This assumes that "all of us" have "modern values" that are opposed to "traditional gender and marriage rules".

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Spielberg daughter turns to porn

The Sun tabloid reports:
STEVEN Spielberg's daughter Mikaela has launched a new career as an adult entertainer, The Sun can reveal.

In an exclusive interview Mikaela Spielberg, 23, who was adopted as a baby by the legendary film director and his wife Kate Capshaw, told how she has already started self producing solo porn videos - and says she would love to land a job as a dancer in a strip club once she obtains her sex worker license.

Mikaela, who speaks to her parents regularly, broke the news to them via FaceTime at the weekend and said they were “intrigued” but “not upset”.

Describing herself as a "sexual creature" she told The Sun: "I got really tired of not being able to capitalize on my body and frankly, I got really tired of being told to hate my body. ...

Mikaela told how it had been a huge confidence booster to show off her large natural breasts, which she describes as her "moneymaker" - and how she plans on producing more solo erotic videos to show off her curves.

And while she said she'd be happy at turning her hand to fetish videos - she draws the line at having sex with another person on camera, out of respect for her supportive fiancé Chuck Pankow, 47.
This whole story speaks volumes about what Hollywood values have done to our culture.

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Bloomberg explains his Jewish values

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency publishes a new interview of Mike Bloomberg:
As a Jew, as an American and as a human being, I am deeply disturbed every time I hear about these hate crimes. ...

When the president calls his supporters “real Americans” — an echo of the language that nativists, anti-Semites and the KKK used for many decades — he undermines our fundamental national values. ...

When he promotes conspiracy theories that are built on lies and prejudice, we must remember: Anti-Semitism is the original conspiracy theory. ...

I didn’t feel like I experienced any prejudice as a kid. ...

And I believe guaranteeing the survival of a democratic, Jewish state in the Holy Land is a solemn obligation of the United States, as it has been for more than half a century.
Got that? He is Jewish and almost 80 years old, and never personally experienced any prejudice. It is difficult to find anyone outside the Moslem world who experienced any anti-Jewish prejudice.

And yet he is preoccupied with a conspiracy theory that Jews are persecuted!

One of his best examples is that the President referred to "real Americans".

He says the solemn obligation of America is not to real Americans, but to Jews living in Israel.

He has the best political consultants that money can buy, and they signed off on this statement.

If I said on my blog that Jews believe this stuff, I would be accused of anti-Semitism. But here is Bloomberg, in his own words, as part of a billion-dollar campaign for President.

Monday, February 17, 2020

Unregulated use of companion robots

The British BBC reports:
US researchers have warned that the availability of sex robots with artificial intelligence (AI) poses a growing psychological and moral threat to individuals and society.

They say the technology is escaping oversight because agencies are too embarrassed to investigate it.

The scientists want action to prevent the unregulated use of such robots. ...

Kathleen Richardson, who is a professor of the Ethics and Culture of Robots and AI at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants this kind of marketing outlawed.

"These companies are saying, 'you don't have a friendship? You don't have a life partner? Don't worry we can create a robot girlfriend for you'.

"A relationship with a girlfriend is based on intimacy, attachment and reciprocity. These are things that can't be replicated by machines," she said.

Prof Richardson advises a pressure group that has been set up to monitor the emergence of these products. The campaign against sex robots is working with policy experts to draw up legislation aimed at banning claims that companion robots can be a substitute for human relationships.
"Are we going to move into a future where we keep normalising the idea of women as sex objects?" she told BBC News.
For centuries, people have gotten companion dogs as substitutes for human relationships. Why not robots?

Maybe we should ban dogs and cats. And if you want laws against normalizing the idea of women as sex objects, then you should want to ban lipstick, and other such things.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Runaway population growth in Africa

The NY Times reports:
As Egypt’s Population Hits 100 Million, Celebration Is Muted

With little habitable land, deepening poverty and dwindling supplies of water, the future looks bleak. And there is no sign of a slowdown.

CAIRO — Somewhere in Egypt, around lunchtime Tuesday, the country reached a major milestone: its 100 millionth citizen was born. ...

Egypt’s cabinet said last week that it was on “high alert” to fight population growth, which President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has described as a threat to national security on par with terrorism. If unchecked, the population could reach 128 million by 2030, officials say.

Mr. el-Sisi tried to push back the tide with a public health campaign called “Two Is Enough” to persuade parents to have fewer children. Like many such efforts, it failed.
Why worry? Quillette assures us that there is plenty of food for everyone:
The Battle to Feed All of Humanity Is Over. Humanity Has Won ...

For millennia, people lived on the edge of starvation. Today, starvation has disappeared outside of war-zones. Let’s look at some data. ...

Even in sub-Saharan Africa, the world’s poorest region, food supply per person per day rose from 1,852 in 1961 to 2,449 in 2017 – a 32 percent increase. According to one report, “There is a silent epidemic sweeping through Africa and it’s worse than HIV. Out of the 20 fastest rising countries with obesity, nearly half of them are in Africa. The health burden on the continent is rising.”
This is the future. Billions of Africans getting fat on Western food technology. Get used to it.

Saturday, February 15, 2020

One Commie praises another

Fox News reports:
In 2000, then-high school senior Buttigieg won the John F. Kennedy “Profiles in Courage” essay contest with a piece touting Sanders’ then-bipartisan streak and his bravery for calling himself a “socialist,” despite it being an unpopular term.

Buttigieg painted a picture, at the time, of an unmotivated electorate but, in a hopeful tone, said there “remain a number of committed individuals who are steadfast enough in their beliefs to run for office to benefit their fellow Americans.”

“Such people are willing to eschew political and personal comfort and convenience because they believe they can make a difference. One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders,” Buttigieg wrote.

“Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: ‘Socialist,’” he continued. “Here is someone who has ‘looked into his own soul’ and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound.”

He added that Sanders “is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion,” and that his attitude helps him to be “a powerful force for conciliation and bi-partisanship on Capitol Hill.”
Buttigieg identifies Socialism with Communism when he says:
Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film
As far as I know, the only blacklisted actors were those who belonged to Communist front organizations loyal to the Kremlin, and who refused to cooperate with anti-Communist investigations.

Friday, February 14, 2020

ACLU defends cross-dressing men

Evolution professor Jerry Coyne writes:
Over history, the ACLU has been a fantastic organization for preserving the civil liberties of everyone, particularly those who are oppressed.

But now they’re going woke, and thereby going downhill. Like the Southern Poverty Law Center, they have decided to get into the social-justice arena—which would be okay except that they are taking positions that are neither reasonable nor supportable. In this case, they’re trying to argue that it’s discriminatory to prohibit biological men who claim that they’re women—”transgender” athletes who have undergone neither surgical nor hormone therapy—from competing in women’s sports.  The ACLU has been arguing this for some time (see here), and the motivation behind this are recent instances when men who identify as women, but haven’t undergone hormone treatment or surgery, are beating the pants off women in track events. See this description of a Connecticut race in which two transgender women took first and second place, at least one of which—and probably both—hadn’t begun physical or hormonal transition (see also here).
Update: Coyne writes today, in defense of human sex being binary:
The shameful part of all this is that the scientific journal Nature, as well as three evolutionary biology/ecology societies, who should know better, made statements or editorials that neither sex nor gender are binary. That’s a flat-out abnegation of both their responsibility and of science itself. Evolution itself produces a binary of sex! To be anthropomorphic, evolution wants a binary of sex.

A while back, biologists like me were voices crying in the wilderness, for if you say that sex is a binary, you’re liable to be labeled a transphobe. (That’s a foolish slur, for the facts about nature are independent of how we should treat transsexual or other “nonconforming” individuals.)

But now other biologists are speaking up. Two of them, Colin Wright and Emma Hilton, have a sensible column about the sex binary in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (a conservative organ, of course: you’ll never see a claim for a sex binary in Salon or HuffPost, much less the New York Times, which ran an op-ed by Anne Fausto-Sterling denying that sex was binary).
It is amazing that mainstream scientific organization have bought into completely false statements in order to appease a tiny minority of kooks.

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Human Diversity

Here is a new book:
In Human Diversity, Charles Murray sets out to demonstrate three things: (1) There are biological reasons why men and women behave differently. (2) Human populations have evolved so many genetic differences that different groups cannot be expected to think and behave identically. (3) Increasingly, the people who are rich and influential got that way because they have biologically rooted talents and abilities, not because of unfair privilege. The NY Times
gives it a very negative review.
The main question is: Why am I asking these questions of Charles Murray? True, the burden of proof is on him to make a case for this “exciting” scientific revolution (whose discoveries just happen to regurgitate some of humanity’s most pernicious, wearying and stubborn stereotypes). But proof is not Murray’s concern. Despite its blizzard of statistics, the book’s most astonishing (and telling) declaration is on the first page. If “you have reached this page” — the first page, I remind you — “convinced that gender, race and class are all social constructs, and that any claims to the contrary are pseudoscience, you won’t get past the first few pages before you can’t stand it anymore. This book isn’t for you.” He continues smoothly: “Now that we’re alone...”

Now that we’re alone. This book is for the believers. Rigorous readers, skeptics, the unindoctrinated — you won’t be persuaded by “Human Diversity,” but why should that matter? You’re not even invited. How’s that for a safe space. How’s that for an orthodoxy.
Don't you just hate it when science confirms some long-held stereotypes?

At least Murray and the reviewer are in agreement on one thing -- that the book is not written for that reviewer. The reviewer (and the NY Times) are committed to a leftist world view that does not permit an examination of the facts on this topic.

Update: Sailer criticizes the review. He said the reviewer has a female Indian name.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Demographics are a freight train

Gregory Hood writes:
Joe Scarborough is a former Republican congressman who works at MSNBC. Like Jennifer Rubin, he’s made it clear he’s not conservative or even a Republican anymore. He has supported efforts to expose President Trump’s donors because “if your business funds Trump’s campaign, then you are supporting white supremacy.” He also compared federal immigration officials to Nazis.
Yesterday, Mr. Scarborough tweeted:
Actually, Democrats only won 50% or more of the popular vote in 2 of the last 7 elections.

He is correct that Democrats have bet their future on the demographic freight train. If they can flood America with non-white and non-Christian immigrants and migrants, then they can destroy White Christian America.

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Vindman needed to be fired

The NY Times published this letter:
To the Editor:

Re “Trump Hits Back, Firing Witnesses After Acquittal” (front page, Feb. 8):

Given the treatment of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and others, no one should ever again question the need for whistle-blowers to maintain anonymity, if they wish. Thank you, Mr. President, for making the case so clearly and so powerfully.

And, thank you to these two gentlemen and all those who had the courage, including Senator Mitt Romney, to do what they believed was right. I suspect history will applaud your efforts.
This is twisted Trump-hater thinking.

America has never allowed anonymous witnesses. I don't know if pre-revolutionary England allowed it, as the founders were against it, and our Constitution expressly forbids it.

The NY Times portrayed the firing of Vindman and Sondland as some sort of punishment, but I don't see it that way. They testified that they did not agree with our American foreign policy, and even implied that they ought to be working to undermine it.

Vindman even appeared to be more loyal to Ukraine than to America. The Ukrainians apparently thought so, and offered him high-level jobs in Ukraine.

Trump needs to have personnel to carry out his policies. That is all that is needed to explain the firings.

As for Romney, he made a big deal how he was following his conscience, and his religious beliefs. In case that sounds noble, it is the opposite of what he should have been doing. He should have been judging the evidence in the case to determine whether an impeachable crime had been committed. It is not a matter of conscience. He was just using his weirdo religious beliefs as an excuse for carrying out his grudge against Trump. He was not that much different from the law professor witnesses, except that they follow a different religion.

Monday, February 10, 2020

Amazon censors books for political reasons

The NY Times reports:
Amazon is quietly canceling its Nazis.

Over the past 18 months, the retailer has removed two books by David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, as well as several titles by George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party. Amazon has also prohibited volumes like “The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power” and “A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind.” ...

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been roiled in recent years by controversies that pit freedom of speech against offensive content. ...

When Amazon drops a book from its store, it is as if it never existed. A recent Google search for David Duke’s “My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding” on Amazon yielded a link to a picture of an Amazon employee’s dog. Amazon sellers call these dead ends “dog pages.” ...

In 1998, when Amazon was an ambitious start-up, its founder, Jeff Bezos, said, “We want to make every book available — the good, the bad and the ugly.” Customers reviews, he said, would “let truth loose.”
So now they are afraid of what David Duke has to say?

There is a very large amount of junk and misinformation on Amazon and Youtube. The management does not take action against those titles. They only take down items where they have an ideological disagreement, and where they are worried that the items might be persuasive.

Here is one of my favorite quotes:
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

Saturday, February 08, 2020

Bernie Sanders is a Communist

Bernie Sanders is now the Democrat favorite, despite efforts to cheat him out of the nomination, as he was cheated in 2016.

The Wash. Examiner reports
President Trump's recent jab at Bernie Sanders, calling him "a communist," was meant as an insult. But the 2020 Democratic front-runner and Vermont senator might not have taken it that way.

In 1972, Sanders, then a gubernatorial protest candidate for the socialist Liberty Union Party, visited an alternative high school in Rutland, Vermont, to give his campaign pitch. During a question-and-answer session, Sanders, then 31, brushed off accusations of being a left-wing radical.

"I don't mind people coming up and calling me a communist," Sanders said. "At least, they're still alive."

On the night of the Super Bowl, Trump said "communist" was the first word that came to his mind when he thought of Sanders in an interview by Fox News's Sean Hannity.

“I think he’s a communist,” Trump said. “Look, I think of communism when I think of Bernie. You could say socialist, but didn’t he get married in Moscow? That’s wonderful. Moscow’s wonderful.”

Trump was then corrected by Hannity, who explained that Sanders only honeymooned in the Soviet Union in 1988.

Although Sanders has refrained from self-identifying as a communist, his ties with far-left Marxist groups go back decades.
Sanders is actually worse than a Communist. Bad as the Communists were, they did not seek identity politics and social disruption as today's Leftists do.

Sanders used to be against open borders, but the Democrat Party has been taken over by Leftists who demand open borders, and Sanders has agreed.

Sanders is Jewish, but much of the Left is now aligned as anti-Israel, and Sanders has even aligned himself with some of those.

I am expecting Trump to easily defeat Sanders in Nov. 2020. Even if you hate Trump, he is surely better than a Commie.

Friday, February 07, 2020

Why people like historical movies

The NY Times gripes about the movie Oscars:
A quick glance at the best picture nominees reveals just how impenetrable that armor is: Of the nine films in this category, all but two spend the majority of their running times at least 39 years in the past. Each of these period pieces is overwhelmingly homogeneous when it comes to race, gender or both; the fact that they are set firmly in the past seemingly allows them to exist without much pushback.

“Ford v Ferarri,” for instance, is based on the true story of the rivalry between the rugged American car manufacturing behemoth and the Italian luxury carmaker during the 1960s. It’s the quintessential white “dad movie” — guys racing cars, guys talking about cars, guys arguing over cars.
I have a theory that these historical movies are popular largely because they are throwbacks to the good old days when White men accomplished things, and the stories can be told without inserting propaganda for identity politics.

I just watched The Stranger, a typical Netflix production. It takes place in England, which was a White country until recently. But this is today, and there are racial statements throughout the shows.

The title character is mixed race. Most of the relationships are inter-racial. No one voices any objection to it, although curiously, the inter-racial relationships are disasters. Most of the supporting characters are Black. Most of these Netflix shows have gay characters, although this did not (unless I missed something).

The casting director is not race-blind. Obviously each racial choice is made quite deliberately, and they are pushing some leftist political statement on us in many of the scenes.

While I don't hear people openly complain about this Netflix propaganda, I suspect that they would rather watch the historical shows where they don't such racial-sexual views repeatedly shoved in our faces.

The complaint that Oscars are White is not really correct. Over the past 40 years or so, Blacks have many Oscar nominations and wins. Likewise with other awards. The most conspicuous ethnic group there is Jews, not Whites.

In other movie news, Jessica Mann testified:
“I don’t need an excuse, I own my behavior.”
This is to explain that she continued a consensual sexual relationship with Harvey Weinstein for three years after he supposedly raped her. Wow, this trial is a joke. Weinstein may get convicted because of the large amount of irrelevant but prejudicial testimony, and the selection of jurors who do not understand female human nature. I am predicting a hung jury.

Colleges say Europe invented national conflict

Razib Khan writes:
It is quite common in various parts of the educated set to assert that nationalism and ethnicity and identity have shallow roots. The academic view can often be distilled down to Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (apparently this is the most assigned book among undergraduates, explaining its influence). Though Anderson’s thesis is not quite as general as people make it out to be, I do think it leads one toward the conclusion that national, ethnic, and communal identity is shallow, superficial, recent, and, of European causal origin.

If one takes these as a given then the essential, necessary, and causal role of the Belgians in fomenting conflict in Ruanda-Urundi is perhaps warranted. As it happens, I reject the generality of Anderson’s thesis. Rather, I believe that Azar Gat’s argument in Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism is much more persuasive. Gat is not saying that the French nation originated with Vercingetorix. But, he does argue that the elements of national identity which crystallized and converged with the French Revolution were deep and longstanding.

The same is clearly true of many non-European ethnicities and nationalities. They existed long before the arrival of European colonialism and political ideology.
According to this, today's college students are being taught that nationalism is just some superficial evil that was invented by Europeans and recently imposed on colonial subjects.

Sure, Europe has a bunch of national identities, and a history of fighting each other. But there is a long history of ethnic conflict in the rest of the world also.

Thursday, February 06, 2020

Taxi drivers do not want to spread infections

China reacts to coronavirus by building a hospital in ten days, and shipping exposed patients to concentration camps.

What do we do? Make threats against those who take obvious precautions:
The rapid international spread of the potentially deadly Coronavirus is causing panic and discrimination among Uber and Lyft drivers in the United States.

According to CNBC, racial bias incidents related to ride-sharing platforms Lyft and Uber, these incidents appear to be happening despite their efforts to curb discriminatory behavior. One member of a Facebook group with more than 12,000 Lyft and Uber drivers noted that at least five posts per day mention the virus. The member, who shared screenshots with CNBC, said that many drivers were saying they did not want to pick up riders of Asian descent and that it was not safe to do so.

Incidents have been recorded in San Francisco and Seattle, areas of the country with large Asian decent populations. CNBC did not report any specific incidents in New York City.
All of the coronavirus patients are Chinese. 100%. Drivers are doing a public service by trying not to spread the germs.

China also built a 57-story skyscraper in 19 days. Remember when American used to be able to accomplish things like that?

Wednesday, February 05, 2020

Trump Acquitted

Is there any doubt now that the impeachment was just a partisan power play?

The Dems only convinced one guy, Mitt Romney, who happens to be the one with a personal grudge against Trump. It is a fitting end to the matter that Romney cast the lone anti-Trump vote.

I used to think that Mormons like Romney were pro-America conservatives. No, they are just cuckservatives. Trump's 2016 was, in part, the result of Republican disgust for Romney and his kind.

Trump is now exonerated on all charges. The Dems ranted about Trump's taxes, emoluments, the Mueller investigation, etc, but effectively exonerated him on all those things by deciding not to charge them.

The impeachment was based on secret hearings, anonymous accusations, and personal attacks. No crime was ever charged. There was no first-hand evidence either. It was all just hearsay, Deep State cold warriors complaining about policy differences, and Jews claiming that the Founders would have disliked Trump.

I think that the Dems deliberately went with bogus charges as a way of showing that this was all about their contempt for Trump, and not much else. It was impossible for any objective person to think that Trump had committed a crime.

It is a great day in America that the Senate has stood up for truth and justice.

Update: Nancy Pelosi and Romney both demonstrated extreme childishness. More and more, Trump seems more like the only adult in Washington DC.

Moms claim abuse to get child custody

Feminists tend to argue that moms should always get child custody, and here is an example in Forbes.com:
For this first-ever national study, Meier and her research team analyzed published court opinions that were available online between 2005 and 2014, resulting in their data set of 4,388 custody cases. ...

Here are some of the more important findings:

When fathers alleged mothers were alienating, regardless of abuse claims, they took custody away from her 44% of the time. When the genders were reversed, and fathers started out with the children, mothers took custody from fathers only 28% of the time. Fathers were overall much more likely to win than mothers by claiming alienation.
If the dad won 44%, then presumably the moms won 56%. This is evidence of discrimination against dads, if anything.

It is also rare for mothers to win custody from fathers, because usually the mothers have to be pretty bad for the fathers to get custody in the first place.

In a lot of these child custody disputes, the mom is asking for sole custody while the dad asks for shared custody. The mom gets a huge financial bonus if she wins sole custody. But to win, she has to invent abuse allegations, and the court has little power to determine whether she is lying.

Decisions for joint custody should not be considered wins for the dad. Those are wins for the child.

The Forbes article is also criticized here.

Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Presidential actions in the public interest

Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz has given a flawless defense of President Trump, and almost no one disputes him directly. They either argue that he changed his opinion from 20 years ago, or they distort what he said about actions in the public interest.

He admits that his opinion has shifted slightly from 20 years ago, based on research into Andrew Johnson's impeachment. His opinion has changed very little.

The latter attack are against this Dershowitz speech, in answer to a question:
The only thing that would make the quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal. Now, we talked about motives.  There are three possible motives a public official might have.  The first is in the public interest…. The second is in his own political interest. And the third would be in his own financial interest, just putting money in the bank….

I want to focus on the second. Every public official believes that his election is in the public interest…. And if a president does something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
I think the problem here is the dangling phrase "in the public interest", in the last sentence.
he
Based on the obvious meaning, and on his explanations, I think Dershowitz meant this: If the president does something in the public interest, then he cannot be impeached for believing that it will help him get elected.

That is, "in the public interest" modifies "does something", not "he believes".

This argument may have been convincing to a lot of Senators. They all do things to get elected all the time. They can justify them by saying that they are in the public interest. Ideally they are doing things that are both in the public interest and helping to get elected. This is the nature of politics. The President is allowed to do the same.

A comment says:
The first question Dersh asks is, “Was the act itself criminal?” (Or very crime-like, anyway.) If the answer is “yes”, we need go no further, it’s impeachable. Good motives can’t redeem objectively criminal acts.

If the answer is, “no”, let me quote Dersh: “the president does something legal completely within his power, but he was motivated in part by a desire to get reelected, would that turn that motive into a corrupt motive?”. ...

What he’s saying here is that having a political motive for doing something doesn’t taint an act which could otherwise be justifiable.
That is correct.

Monday, February 03, 2020

Against Fairness

From a Quillette essay on bias:
Americans are taught, from an early age, that no one is intrinsically “higher” or “lower” than anyone else, that everyone is equally valuable. The United States “is built on the idea that all citizens as citizens are of equal worth and dignity,” as philosopher Martha Nussbaum puts it. So how do we reconcile our evolutionarily programmed favoritism with our conflicting sense of equality for all?
No, the US is not built on that idea. That is just more goofy stuff that Jews say.

The Jewish religion is based on Jews being superior, and everyone else being equal to each other. They say this, in various ways, all the time. They say these things as a way of saying that White Christians were no better than African slaves. The NY Times 1619 Project says similar things.

How did we get to the point where someone quotes a female Jewish philosophy professor on US political foundations? This is about like quoting a Communist on US political foundations. Or quoting a Moslem on Israel foundations.

The article goes on to say that parents care for their own kids more than strangers. The author wrote a 2013 book on "Against Fairness". This fact is obvious to everyone except philosophers, which commonly say that such preferences are irrational.

For other goofy stuff Jews say, see this NY Times article:
Touching the thumb and index finger to make a circle, with the remaining three fingers held outstretched, is a gesture that people around the world have made for centuries, mostly in positive contexts.

It is used for several purposes in sign languages, and in yoga as a symbol to demonstrate inner perfection. It figures in an innocuous made-you-look game. Most of all, it has been commonly used for generations to signal “O.K.,” or all is well.

But in recent years, it has also been appropriated for a more malign purpose — to signify “white power.” The gesture has become an extremist meme, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
Here is a Jewish organization trying to co-opt a symbol that has been innocuously used for centuries.

Sunday, February 02, 2020

Harvey Weinstein is innocent

Everybody is treating Harvey Weinstein as a rapist, but the legal case against him is remarkably weak. The chief accuser, Jessica Mann, has told a very bizarre set of stories, according to this Daily Beast account of her trial testimony.

In short, she was a 27-year-old actress wannabe who voluntarily entered into a consensual sexual relationship with Weinstein in order to get better movie roles. That is, most of it was consensual, but she later decided that a couple of the acts went beyond what she wanted. She never screamed or fought back or complained or reported it or anything like that. Not until years later when news reports of other complaints opened up the possibility of draining his fortune in payoffs.

There is also another accuser with a similarly weak case.

The prosecutors seem to realize that the facts about these accusers will not convict Weinstein of anything. So they are bringing an assortment of other women with stories going back to 1993 about other incidents that are not being charged.

This is like charging a man with robbing two banks, and then spending most of the trial time on accusations that he robbed other banks and got away with it. Except that such a prosecution would never be allowed in a bank robbery case, as irrelevant and prejudicial.

Weinstein may well be evil. If making offensive movies were a crime, he should be in jail for that.
From that point on, she said Weinstein would call her whenever “he needed a fix,” and those sexual encounters weren’t forced. The relationship, which was brief, also included a threesome and one encounter during which he urinated on her, Mann testified.

“The first time I saw him fully naked, I thought he was deformed and intersex,” she said, as Weinstein put his head into his hand. “He has extreme scarring that I didn’t know if he was a burn victim but it didn’t make sense. He does not have testicles and it appears that he has a vagina.”

Mann said she tried to end the relationship after multiple uncomfortable encounters—including one situation where Weinstein “said ‘Do you like my big, fat, Jewish dick?’” — but admitted she stayed in contact with him out of fear for her family and the future of her career. ...

“Once I was naked and laid on the bed, he went into the bathroom and sort of closed the door behind him. The door was still kind of open a little bit,” Mann said, as she started to cry. “And then he came out naked, and then he got on top of me and that’s when he put himself inside me.” ...

Despite her horror, Mann said she went down for breakfast with her friends and “shut down” as she agreed to join Weinstein for the premiere of August Osage County out of fear and confusion.
This is just so weird, I don't know what to say. Obviously she was free to walk away at any time. Mann is obviously a mentally ill opportunist. Maybe she shouldn't be allowed to make such choices, but we live in a free society where adults can do such things. I don't think he could have been raping her if he has no testicles.

Saturday, February 01, 2020

Rev. Love welcomes violent black attackers

Whites are surely the most cucked ethnic group, as evidenced by this example:
Blacks attacked a white teenager in Tennessee. The victim’s mother is furious — not at the attackers, but at neighbors who noticed their race.

“I am highly offended by people saying that this was stereotypical black children acting violently,” Edith Love told WREG. Miss love is a Unitarian minister who specializes in officiating at same-sex weddings.

Two young black men noticed her son had a $20 bill and asked for a dollar. He gave them a one-dollar bill, but they wanted more, and threatened to shoot him if he didn’t hand it over. They punched him, breaking his glasses and leaving him temporarily deaf.

Rev. Love does not want to press charges. She wants to have a discussion: “With them, with their families and say, ‘look this is my baby. This is your baby.’ Let’s talk this through.”

The blacks have reportedly harassed other neighbors and cursed at them with racial slurs. Rev. Love thinks she can convince them to “alter their path.” She holds a bachelor’s degree in “social and racial justice” and lectures on this subject.

Her bio states that she “believes her calling is to holding sacred space with everyone who has ever felt unwelcome, unloved, or outcast in her beloved hometown of Memphis, Tennessee. . . She believes all people are her people, the streets are her parish, and everywhere we are, we are standing on holy ground.”

In one interview, a young black girl was sitting next to her son, the victim. She may be an adopted daughter.
Some people may read this, and think that there is something noble about her attitude. No, she suffers from a mental illness. We don't praise people who commit suicide; we pity them.

How did Whites get like this? Here is a theory that traces genetic and cultural reasons that go back many millennia.