Scott Adams, who kept cubicle denizens laughing for more than three decades with Dilbert, the bitingly funny comic strip that poked fun at the absurdity of corporate life, before racist remarks got him pink-slipped, died Tuesday. He was 68.His comic strip was once the most popular. He also wrote some very popular books. He eventually got canceled for some obscure comments about an opinion poll.
He also had a podcast with some brilliant analyses of why Donald Trump was popular.
RESOLUTIONSchumer is a Jew who has worked for decades to replace us with foreigners.Condemning white supremacy, hate, and antisemitism, and efforts to give a platform to these dangerous ideologies.
Whereas Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist leader, organizer, and podcaster; Whereas Fuentes identifies himself as a ‘‘White Identitarian, race realist, ‘Jewish aware’, counter-Zionist, authoritarian’’; ...
(5) popularized the phrase ‘‘six million cookies’’ to express doubt about the 6,000,000 Jews killed during the Holocaust; ...
Whereas Fuentes used the 2017 ‘‘Unite the Right’’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which hundreds of torch-bearing demonstrators chanted ‘‘Jews will not replace us’’, to mainstream his ideology;
Whereas Fuentes has repeatedly peddled the white suprema- cist ‘‘Great Replacement Theory’’, which Fuentes calls the ‘‘Great Replacement REALITY’’, an antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews are orchestrating the replacement of native white Europeans from their countries by non-white immigrants;I would assume that a Talmudic Jew is a Jew who follows the Talmud, just as a Biblical Christian is a Christian who follows the Bible. How is this antisemitic?Whereas, on June 6, 2024, Fuentes posted that ‘‘there are basically two things that are going on: White genocide and Jewish subversion’’;
Whereas, in March 2023, at a rally in Maryland, Fuentes declared, ‘‘I love Hitler’’, and targeted ‘‘Talmudic Jews’’, which is a white supremacist and antisemitic term for Jewish people, saying, according to reporting, that ‘‘Talmudic Jews need to either leave the county or be converted’’;
The word antisemitism is coming to mean opposition to genocide.
(4) advancing the dual-loyalty trope by saying that Jewish Americans are loyal first to Israel and that ‘‘they have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interests of themselves before the interests of their home country’’; andSchumer is extremely loyal to Israel, as noted in his Wikipedia article:(5) claiming that he sees ‘‘Jewishness’’ as the defining trait of his political opponents;
Schumer has called himself "Shomer Yisrael" or "Guardian of Israel", an epithet he has used for years. ...Yes, I think Jewishness is the defining trait of Fuentes' political opponents. No one else would complain about six million cookies.In a March 2025 interview with Bret Stephens, Schumer said, "My job is to keep the left pro-Israel."
The resolution goes on to attack Tucker Carlson and Heritage Foundation for not going along with Jewish censorship demands.
The Hyphenated Heresy | Why Judeo-Christianity Must DieThis is about Christian Zionism. It is very common for evangelical Christians to be pro-Jewish and pro-Israel.Judeo-Christianity is not just shorthand how two religions share an Old Testament text. It is a fundamentally different religion that has bankrupted American evangelicals to support a state in the Middle East that has nothing to do with the Bible, Christ, or true religion.
I previously posted Christian Zionism is a Heresy.
It gives this explanation for how Judaism is different:
40:18 Or um you can swear and cross your fingers and be deceitful. Notice this. My goodness. When you think of, oh yeah, there really is a long heritage, a long history precedent of of this lawyer type religion. That's what Judaism is. is the religion of lawyers.The Oct. 7 Hamas attack has sharpened the divide between Zionists and others.40:36 It's litigation. And it's and it's the whole thing is trying to find loopholes to somehow be able to tip your hat to God while defrauding and robbing your common man. And so, um, already in terms of swearing or oath or giving your words. And again, 2,000 years, it's only gotten exponentially worse. But even at the time of Christ, they were saying, well, you know what? You can swear by the temple, the house of God. My father's house shall be a house of prayer for all nations. You can take that and swear by it. Blasphemy. Um, and you can do this and not be bound by your word. So, you can say, "Look, I promise that I'm going to uh to pay you this amount for this service or this good, and I give you my word by the temple." And what was it really?
Like, it's childish. It's it's it's lawyers using, you know, highlevel litigation and vernacular, but really it's imagine a 5-year-old child just with technical jargon, but a 5-year-old child, the equivalent is, um, dad, yeah, I'll do what you say. Um, and then later on doing the exact opposite. And when you're called out for it, saying, "Well, yeah, I said that, but I had my fingers crossed behind my back." Doesn't count. That's what they were doing.
There are lots of non-religious reasons for supporting Israel, but this addresses the religious issues. In particular, they say that Judaism is the most anti-Christian of the major world religions. Israel just caters to Christians to the extend that it cements USA support.
The video also attacks the commonly-repeated notion that Judaism and Christianity share a common foundation.
Separately an orthodox Jew Trump-supporting law professor published a WSJ op-ed on how Jewish conservatives are conspiring to purge the right-wing of anyone not loyal to the Zionist cause:
Mr. Roberts’s infamous video was most sharply criticized for invoking antisemitic tropes such as “venomous coalition” and “globalist class.” The deeper problem with his message was its neglect for the integrity of the institution Mr. Roberts leads. He declared unconditional fealty to Tucker Carlson, who he said “always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.” He defended Mr. Carlson’s softball interview with Nick Fuentes, a fringe figure who has denied the Holocaust. And Mr. Roberts said he wouldn’t be “attacking our friends on the right” or “canceling our own people,” referring respectively to Messrs. Carlson and Fuentes.This is just dishonest Jewish supremacy. Fuentes does not deny the Holocaust, and was certainly attacked by Roberts and Carlson. Fuentes is not even the real target here. These Jews are mainly going after Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and others who have fallen away from Zionism, like Charlie Kirk.But the Heritage Foundation has no power to cancel anyone. All it can do is protect its own integrity by declining to associate with unsavory figures like Mr. Fuentes. That’s what National Review editor William F. Buckley did in 1962, when he denounced John Birch Society leader Robert Welch who claimed, among other things, that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist, and whose organization disseminated antisemitic propaganda even while professing to oppose antisemitism.
It is funny how they all cite Buckley trying to cancel the JBS 62 years ago. He was just slandering a political rival.
The world is lining up against Israel, and what it is doing in Gaza. Wikipedia says:
The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war.Much of the world now favors kicking the Jews out of Israel. It is very strange that right-wing Jews are now focusing so much hatred on conservatives who are mostly pro-Jew and pro-Israel.
Catholic Princeton professor and Trump-hater Robert P. George has joined the attack, citing "the moral principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition". I heard that his wife is a Jew. There are no such principles. According to Wikipedia, the term Judeo-Christian was redefined and popularized during the Cold War in an attempt to invoke a unified American identity opposed to communism.
It appears to me that many Christians are being deceived and bullied into supporting anti-Christian religious views. Maybe they are worried about being called anti-semitic. In today lingo, everyone is either an anti-semite or a genocidal baby killer. There is nothing wrong with rejecting the beliefs of a rival religion.
This is baffling. I suspect that the movie would not have done so well, if in English or set in the USA. Hollywood would not make a movie like this.
If you have not seen it, the main point is that rich people are much too nice to poor people. A rich family is consistently nice to some poor grifters who turn out to have no redeeming values. The rich should have never trusted the poor for anything.
This movie was so widely praised that I believe that everyone liked its elitist message. Do not trust poor people. Keep them away from your family, unless they are carefully controlled and supervised. They are poor because they lack the good character of respectable people, and even if you give them an honest break, they are still disgusting criminals.
If someone smells bad, then trust your instincts and assume that he is a disgusting person. Do thorough background checks. Do frequent checks to make sure that some low-life is not taking advantage of you.
Many critics praised the movie's unflinching honesty. By this I assume they mean that honest decent people achieve the good life by being good citizens, while poor people are like vermin to be avoided.
If you watch the movie, just pretend the Parks are Whites, while the Kims are Blacks.
I asked an AI LLM, and it said that the movie maker intended a more nuanced interpretation, and that it's an indictment of a world where honest paths lead nowhere for many. But that is not the movie at all. The Kims do get honest jobs and kindness, and they turn into evil monsters anyway. There is no ambiguity. The Parks are nice people throughout the movie, and the Kims are very bad.
Reviews by left-wing critics usually have some commentary about rich people have better lives than poor people, sometimes citing data that is not in the movies. They see what they want to see. Yes of course rich people have more than poor people, by definition. But the movie itself does not speak out against this at all. If anything, the movies suggests that poor people should be more limited in their opportunities, so that they do not ruin the lives of nice people.
I conclude that this movie is being praised for its unflinching honesty, but no one wants to say what it is honest about. Because admitting it is elitist.
It’s hard to overstate how influential the theory is today. “You almost certainly can’t get through an introductory psychology class without hearing about cognitive dissonance,” Adam Mastroianni, writer of the psychology Substack “Experimental History,” told me. The phrase has been invoked to explain why environmentalists eat meat and why some Trump supporters play down the President’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein.The article explains the contrived origin of the theory, and how attempts to replicate studies have failed.
Wikipedia defines:
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as a mental phenomenon in which people unknowingly or subconsciously hold fundamentally conflicting cognitions.[1][2] Being confronted by situations that create this dissonance or highlight these inconsistencies motivates change in their cognitions or actions to reduce this dissonance, maybe by changing a belief, by explaining something away,[2] or by taking actions that reduce perceived inconsistency.[3] ...Of course people do try to resolve conflicting evidence and beliefs. No issue there. It is the psychology theorizing about this that is dubious. If you ever hear someone say that something is explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance, the explanation is almost certainly incorrect.Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory is still one of the most influential social theories in modern social psychology.
Chief Justice John Roberts has published his end of year report.
A quarter of a millennium later, the Declaration of Independence stands as one of the most widely read and emulated political documents in history. Its preamble articulates the theory of American government in a single passage that has been hailed as “the greatest sentence ever crafted by human hand.”7No, those signers did not enslave anyone. While many did own slaves, they did not approve of enslaving Africans and shipping them to America.That sentence — likely the principal work of Jefferson, with light edits from Franklin and Adams — proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”8
It enunciated the American creed, a national mission statement, even though it quite obviously captured an ideal rather than a reality, given that the vast majority of the 56 signers of the Declaration (even Franklin) enslaved other humans at some point in their lives.
The Declaration goes on to complain about "merciless Indian savages". It did not intend to make citizens out of Negroes or Indians.
A few years later, the Constitution preamble reads:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.It later provides for the banning of the slave trade, but not slavery itself.
Note that there is no mention of being for the benefit of foreigners who might wish to come.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed citizenship for free White Christians of good character, and for children of two citizen parents.
However most of the evidence indicates that European Neanderthals had bigger brains and were more advanced than the African homo sapiens.
A new NY Times article sumarizes some of the recent evidence:
Neanderthals, who flourished across Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years before vanishing around 40,000 years ago, had a notable return to the scientific spotlight in 2025.Biology professor Jerry Coyne, an expert on speciation, adds:More than a dozen high-profile scientific studies explored all sorts of aspects of their existence, from their love lives (they probably kissed Homo sapiens) to potential flaws in their red blood cells that may have hastened their decline.
For a long time I’ve maintained that Neanderthals, which most anthropologists seem to think are a species different from Homo sapiens, in fact constituted a population that was H. sapiens. That, at least, is a reasonable conclusion if you use the Biological Species Concept, which defines populations as members of the same species if, when they meet under natural conditions in nature, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. And we know that’s true of Neanderthals and “modern” H. sapiens, because we carry some Neanderthal genes (I have some), and that means the two groups hybridized and that the hybrids backcrossed to our ancestors—and were fertile.DNA evidence shows that Neanderthals and African homo sapiens interbred, with today's non-African humans being descended from both.
His fieldwork in Spain indicates that Neanderthals independently fashioned cave art and jewelry, such as decorated seashells, between 65,000 and 115,000 years ago, tens of thousands of years before similar finds linked to Homo sapiens in Africa or their arrival in Europe. ...Note that even this article calls the Africans "modern humans" to distinguish them from Neanderthals, as if the Neanderthals were not modern or not human. On the contrary, this evidence shows that Neanderthals were more modern and more human than the African homo sapiens.A study in Science Direct detailed how Neanderthals in modern-day Serbia were elite hunters, executing daring, commando-style ambushes and dramatic cliff drives to corner wild goats in treacherous terrain. Fifty thousand to 70,000 years ago, in what is now Israel, neighboring Neanderthal groups practiced distinct, culturally transmitted methods for butchering animals, according to research published in Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology. And in a paper in Science Advances, scientists working a site in Germany found that Neanderthals were extracting marrow fat from bones 125,000 years ago, long before early Homo sapiens were doing anything similar. ...
The study, detailed in Science Advances, highlighted three items that showed clear evidence of having been intentionally shaped and used for drawing. One remarkable discovery was a two-inch yellow “crayon” from roughly 42,000 years ago, which microscopic analysis showed had been repeatedly sharpened, indicating that it was likely a valued tool. The implement had clearly been modified through grinding and scraping.
Dr. d’Errico argued that the crayon must be attributed to Neanderthals rather than modern humans: It was found in a site known to have been occupied by Neanderthals, and preceded the era when Homo sapiens were widely accepted to have arrived in that area. Researchers called the artifact a crayon, he said, based on its function and specific wear patterns, which strongly confirmed its use for marking a surface, possibly skin or rock. Tiny signs of friction and applied pressure, not just the object’s shape alone, suggested it had been used as an artistic tool.
I used to follow some the evolutionist v creationist debates. The evolutionists would argue that the Neanderthals were a separate species, contradicting the Bible somehow. The creationists argued that the Neanderthals were human, possibly descended from Adam and Eve. It is amusing that the evolutionists turned out to be wrong.
And yet the evolutionists seem to want to cling to the idea that the true humans were the Africa homo sapiens, because they are closer to African apes, and maybe descended from an African Adam and Eve.
The Dark Ages, as I am hardly the first to remark, seem to be returning. Occult forces we believed the Age of Reason had banished forever are swarming back into public life. ...He goes on to complain about some podcasters with farfetched theories.It is becoming clear we have drastically undervalued the rare and precious achievement of a civilisation founded on rational thought. Ironically, as the Dark Ages return, the Enlightenment philosophers and scientists who campaigned against zealotry and ignorance — and to whom we ultimately owe the entire miracle of scientific modernity — are patronisingly downgraded by revisionist historians.
This is a common view of history, and it is wrong.
Universities were invented during the Dark Ages. We own scientific modernity to the Dark Ages, not those Enlightenment philosophers.
To the extent that the Dark Ages suffered economic decline, it was mostly because the Islamic world had disrupted Mediterranean trade routes. The Roman Empire had previously kept these routes open.
If you really believe that Europe created a civilization founded on rational thought, and you want to follow their example, then the first thing is to keep out the Mohammedans.
Publicity about the death of George Floyd led to a huge spike in Black murders. The murder is only now returning to normal.
Derek Chauvin has an appeal pending, but he has no chance. He has a good argument that he was just following standard police procedure, and did not contribute to Floyd's death. But freeing him might lead to riots, so he will stay in prison.
Someday people will be asking about how the world went mad around 2010-20. Floyd's death had a huge impact, but it is impossible for any rational person to believe that the cops had any intent to kill Floyd, or that the incident somehow proves systemic racism against Blacks. And yet that is what most people said.
Fuentes frequently and harshly criticizes Pres. Trump, and says his main priority for the 2026 election is to defeat Indian-American Republican Vivek Ramaswamy in the 2026 Ohio gubernatorial election.
Here is what puzzles me -- his chief opponent is a Jewish Democrat woman!
The problem with Ramaswamy is not just that he is a Hindu first generation immigrant, or that he is a con man who made his fortune by overselling a useless product. It is that he arrogantly tries to define America in a way to make it more suitable for Hindoo immigrants. He also promotes Indian immigration to replace dumb Americans.
He ran for President as a natural born citizen, but in this video he admits that his father is not a citizen, and his mother was not when he was born. Thus he would not qualify as a natural born citizen, under some definitions, as he was an anchor baby.
He attacked Fuentes in a speech as having no place in the conservative movement, getting this response:
3:52 Well, you know what, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ben Shapiro, I think it's time for both of you to go home.It will interesting to see what the Ohio voters do with someone who insults Americans in this way.This is my home. Okay? I was born here. My parents were born here. My grandparents were born here. My grandparents fought in World War II. I am a Catholic. I was baptized. I was confirmed. I observe Christmas and Easter. I speak English not as a second language, as a first language. I play baseball. I eat hot dogs. This is my country.
4:36 We will allow you to live here as a guest if you respect our customs, our heritage, our traditions, our identity. We may even give citizenship to your great grandkids if they are patriotic Americans.
But if you come into my country from India, from [ __ ] Poland or Russia where these Jews come from, if you come into my country and start telling me what it is to be an American, who is and isn't American, you come into my country and start telling me that being European and being Christian and speaking English has nothing to do with America. And someone who got their citizenship from an H1B visa after getting a green card is just as American as someone that came on the Mayflower, you have worn out your welcome and it is time for you to go home.
5:40 That's what that means. Because you do not belong here. You have no respect for this country. And here's the difference. When my ancestors got to this country from Italy, they kissed the ground when they arrived and they learned to speak [ __ ] English.
8:55 No great civilization, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, has ever lasted after handing women full sexual autonomy. The civilizations that did dominate, well, they enforced strict patriarchy, arranged marriages, male authority, and restricted freedom. These weren't cruelties. They were engineered for societal survival, guaranteeing reproduction, unity, and strong lineages.I guess we have more free speech now, and he was previously banned for saying things like this:
0:06 if women's sexual preferences are liberated and go unchecked they destroy civilizations. if women are allowed to choose harems. for if women are allowed a voice in matters that pertain to the safety of a nation then that nation will die inevitablyHe cites some academic research to back up some of what he says.0:21 it's as simple as that once you realize this you understand the entire basis behind civilized society and if not you'll understand by the end of this video ...
14:46 this is why we've never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of great empires.
14:57 the signs of decline are already observable while many countries are sliding into social decline. the canary in the coal mine is the self-described humanitarian superpower that pursues a feminist foreign policy.
15:10 when looking at sweden it's one of the most gender equal countries on earth and while they've become the rape capital of europe they're flushing their culture and country down the toilet and pressing forward in their civilizational suicide at an ever accelerating pace.
15:26 the total and complete feminization of sweden and its men have allowed their women to invite their country's own destruction through the importation of millions of unassimilatable and aggressive people from completely alien cultures.
15:43 not only are they borrowing money to fund the colonization of their country but they are now even creating gender imbalances that will have severe and lasting repercussions on their society's future and they await their doom with smiles of tolerance and passivity calm as hindu cows
I am sure he is over-simplifying the research, but what if he is right? What would we do about it?
Probably some people would say that our modern liberal principles of feminism, democracy, egalitarianism, etc. require us to just put our heads in the sand and accept the consequences.
We have had a lot of social changes in the last 50 years, and many of them seemed to be without anyone even considering the long-term consequences. For example, importing Somalians to Minnesota or legalizing same-sex marriages. And changes to family law regarding divorce, alimony, and child custody. Maybe some of these are related to declines in child fertility. I do not think that the lawmakers or judges even considered the consequences.
00:50 - Frankenstein, by Mary ShelleyAll four written by women.
02:54 - A Room of One's Own, by Virginia Wolf
07:00 - Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austin
08:42 - Harry Potter, by JK Rowling
For comparison, I asked Grok:
The BibleI am stunned by the inclusion of silly children's books, and women's books.
The Quran
The Republic by Plato
On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
1984 by George Orwell
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling
I would have included Euclid's Elements, Ptolemy's Almagest, Newton's Principia, Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and Bourbaki's Elements of Mathematics.
[MSNBC/MSNOW reporter] 1:26 but there's no scientific evidence to prove that a black woman and a white woman are genetically different. Right? ... I mean this is like government data. ...She is quite emphatic about it, and could have edited the comment out of the recording if she wanted to.1:58 I'll say that again there's there is at least there is no scientific evidence to prove that
I am not posting this to make fun of her for not knowing basic biology. She probably took a college class where she was taught this.
We live in a world where DNA tests are commonplace, and the tests can identify race, other biological traits, and close relatives. We see professional athletes who are the sons of other professional athletes. And yet people recoil with horror at the suggestion that genes have something to do with who you are.
Here is another example:
Alison Gopnik is a well-known professor at UC Berkeley and popular writer on developmental child psychology, the Mind and Matter columnist for the Wall Street Journal from 2013-2023.The biggest known influences on developmental child psychology are surely genetics and IQ. There is an enormous amount of research on this, so she would write about it, right?
No, she denies that any such questions are interesting.
the common features of, say, what kids are doing are much more interesting than the variations. What I really want to know is how is it that anyone could have a brain that enables them to accomplish these amazing capacities? Thinking about, is this child smarter than the other one, given how unbelievably smart all of them are to begin with, I just think it’s not an interesting question.No, she cannot really believe this. Any academic study of child development is going to look at why some kids turn out better than others. Otherwise what is the point?
The problem is that the research is too interesting, and too unsettling for many people.
Update: Here is another example of people scared of genetic info: DNA paternity tests are illegal in France, Germany, and Switzerland.
Update: Google AI says:
In the modern scientific community, the consensus is that race does not exist as a biological or genetic category among humans.This is obviously false, but enough people say it that some may even believe it.Major scientific organizations, including the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), have concluded that there is no biological basis for dividing humans into distinct races.
Free will is mostly a philosophical issue, so I can understand scientists saying that it cannot be resolved. Or I can understand most people who believe in it because they experience it in everyday life.
But most academics writing on this subject fall into one of two camps.
(1) Compatibilists like Dan Dennett, who say that free will is scientifically impossible, but it would be bad for the public to find out, so they propose a way to believe in it anyway. It is like saying that it is good for society to believe in God, even though there is no God.
(2) Hard-core determinists, who say everything is determined, and free will is just a harmful illusion. Sam Harris goes so far as to say that he does not even have a feeling of free will.
What is baffling to me is how all these professors live their lives as if they have free will, and they seem very smart, and their arguments make no sense.
People are responsible for their acts in the sense that they are the people who do the acts, and that leads to the idea that those people need, for their own sake and society’s, to be punished or rewarded. Punishment is still justified under determinism to keep criminals out of society, to give them a chance to be rehabilitated, and (to most) as a form of deterrence. ...There is no science buttressing determinism.Finally, praise is as justified as punishment, for praising people for some actions, even if they had no choice, will almost always lead them to perform more good actions, because we’re evolved to appreciate praise, which raises our status. In the end, though none of us have choices about how we behave, we go about our lives feeling as if we did, and that’s enough for me. ...
I don’t think we should go around telling people that the classical notion of free will is true. Although I’ve been kicked out of a friend’s house and also threatened by a jazz musician for defending determinism (in the latter case by telling him that his saxophone solos were determined rather than improvised under free will, so that he could not have played a different solo), I’m still a diehard determinist. ...
But because notions of free will still permeate our justice system in a bad way, yes, I think everyone needs to think about determinism and accept the science buttressing it. Then we can go about our everyday lives acting as though we have choices.
If no one has any choices, then it is impossible to improve our society. It is all determined. There is no point in trying to give people incentives, or deterrence, or praise, or punishment. You cannot choose a policy for the common good, because you cannot make choices.
And I don't see what good it is to act as if we have choices, when we do not.
Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." The argument proves that we have free will, to my satisfaction. Maybe not to you. Maybe you are schizophrenic, and have to follow the voices in your head, or maybe you are like Sam Harris, and took too many psychodelic drugs.
Regardless, it is 100% wrong to say that there is any scientific argument against free will, and 100% wrong to think that we can do anything to improve society if we have no free will.
Reid is the Canadian writer of the Game Changers book series and other hockey-themed gay romance novels. She said in 2023, "Game Changer came from a place of me being angry at hockey culture and how clearly homophobic it was and is, and all the other things that made me really ashamed to be a hockey fan. That whole series attacks the NHL and hockey culture quite a bit."From her pictures, it is unlikely that she ever played hockey. Her bio says she has two kids, but says nothing about a husband.A 2025 television series, Heated Rivalry, was adapted from the first and second books in the Game Changers series.
From the reviews, the books and shows are pornographic and have lots of homosexuality. They are marketed as romance novels, but they do not have much romance. Mainly it is a way for her to express her anger at hockey culture.
I am just posting this to warn anything who might think this tv series is a good hockey story.
The family courts will no longer work on the presumption that having contact with both parents is in the best interests of a child, in a landmark change that domestic abuse campaigners have said “will save so many children’s lives”.Janice Fiamengo comments:The move has been heralded as “groundbreaking” by family lawyers and campaigners ...
The government confirmed on Tuesday that it would repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the act “when parliamentary time allows”. ...
The announcement means family court judges will no longer have to work from a starting point that parental involvement is in the child’s best interest, and instead will be directed to consider the evidence and assess a child’s wellbeing on a case-by-case basis.
The article does not admit the well-documented fact that mothers are the most frequent perpetrators of child abuse and child homicide (see, for example, p. 65, perpetrators of child fatalities). Neither does the article acknowledge that women do indeed lie about abuse , precisely as a means to sway custody outcomes in their favor. Moreover, women do alienate children from their fathers, often with the assistance of family court orders. Alienation is a recognized form of child abuse.Britain used to be a great nation. This is more evidence of its suicide.Feminists quoted in the article admit that this is merely an important “first step” in their long march to total father-exclusion. ...
Many fathers’ groups have lobbied for decades to secure fathers’ legal right to be involved with their children, amassing peer-revied data showing that children do better with both parents present: they are less likely to experience mental illness and juvenile delinquency, less likely to commit crimes or join gangs, more likely to finish school, less likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, and less likely to commit suicide or self-harm. Against fierce opposition, such organizations have achieved significant success in the United States in helping to shepherd statutes through state legislatures that encourage judges to award shared custody to parents after divorce.
National women’s groups in America (including the National Organization for Women) have been vehement opponents of bills to encourage shared parenting, claiming that a presumption of father involvement empowers male abusers. Such advocates reject any implication that women owe anything to the fathers of their children (Radbord is incensed that a woman might be prevented from moving out of state by a father’s petition), and refuse to acknowledge the sincerity of fathers’ parenting aspirations.Feminism is not about equality. It is more about eliminating fathers rights.
Christian nationalism asserts that the United States is a country founded by and for Christians. ...Also:In the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the term "Christian nationalism" has become synonymous with white Christian identity politics, a belief system that asserts itself as an integral part of American identity overall.
Heritage American is a designation that became popular in American national conservatism and the MAGA movement in 2025. It is an example of loaded language ...This is somewhat broader than:
Old Stock American (also known as Colonial Stock, Founding Stock, or Pioneer Stock) is a colloquial name for Americans who are descended from the original settlers of the Thirteen Colonies. Historically, Old Stock Americans have been mainly Protestants from Northwestern Europe whose ancestors emigrated to British America in the 17th and 18th centuries.A WSJ article argues:
There Are No ‘Heritage Americans’That is not correct. The early settlers were White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASP). By 1800 or so, the USA was a melting pot, where that term meant a mixture of WASPs with Germans, Irish, Catholics, and others from northwest Europe. This created a uniquely American ethnic identity. The heritage Americans are those belonging to that ethnic identity.It’s a notion of national identity at odds with our history and traditions. ...
Are you a heritage American? According to a group of online weirdos who call themselves conservatives (and possibly Vice President JD Vance), probably not.
The “heritage-American” concept refers to those who can trace their ancestry back to the beginning of American history. The earlier the better.
There is an American ethnic identity, and I do not know of a better term for it.
Saying that there are no heritage Americans is like saying that there are no ethnic Japanese or Italians. Of course there are. To deny it is just to express ethnic hatred.
Christian nationalists admire the USA founders who were Christians and nationalists. I don't take the term to mean advocating for a theocracy or anything like that. The founders did not want a theocracy.
Islam seeks to tightly integrate religion with government. But that is not Christian nationalism. The USA founders created a government inspired by Christianity and designed for a Christian citizenry of heritage Americans, but the government is not directly controlled by church authorities or anything like that.
A new video says: 10 European Countries FORCING Muslims To RETURN To Their Countries Of Origin!!! Apparently some European countries are taking some steps to prevent being invaded by Mohammedans.
His arguments are weak, but I expect him to at least get his scientific facts right. Nope. See these two videos that mock him mercilessly.
I watched 40+ hours of Sapolsky neuroscience videos. Madness.
The Polycene is a proposed new geological/historical epoch describing our current era, characterized by the entanglement of multiple global crises (a "polycrisis") like climate change, AI proliferation, geopolitical shifts, and social fragmentation, moving beyond simple binaries into a complex, interconnected, multi-dimensional world demanding new governance, ethics, and design thinking. Coined by thinkers like Thomas L. Friedman, it signifies a time where technology, society, and the environment interact faster and more profoundly than ever, creating both immense challenges and opportunities for collective adaptation.Friedman explains here and here.
This is backwards. In the late 19th and XX century we got running water, electricity, motor cars, telecommunications, antibiotics, world wars, computers, television, electronic chips, air travel, modern math and physics, etc.
By contrast, the 21st century has been boring. Progress has slowed to a crawl.
The most exciting development has been AI. It is bigger than anything else in the last 30 years. But in retrospect, it was just the inevitable consequence of XX century inventions. There are not many new ideas. It is mainly the neural nets of 50 years ago, run on chips that are faster according to the Moore's law of the 1960s.
8:20 I will tell you there is a movement among Christians, particularly young Christians. The public polling numbers of support for Israel among young Christians is plummeting. 8:35 And they're being spread lies. They're being spread lies, isolationist lies that we should withdraw from the world because nobody wants to hurt us.Cruz is espousing a Christian heresy. It is not what mainstream Christians believe.8:46 But they're also being spread theological lies. They are being taught replacement theology, which is a lie that the promises God made to Israel and the people of Israel are somehow no longer good. They are no longer valid. That when God made a promise, he didn't mean the promise he made.
9:11 And instead, it is an argument that the Christian church has replaced Israel and the Jews and the Jews are no longer God's chosen people. And all of the promises throughout the Bible are now a dead letter. The church need to engage and say the Bible is not silent on Israel. The Bible is crystal clear on Israel. And in the church, we will stand and fight.
The Jews of today are not even the same as the Jews/Hebrews of the Bible. Judaism developed around 500 AD, largely as a rejection of Christianity. Christians do not have to give special consideration to an opposing religion.
Jews themselves do not believe in anything like Christian Zionism.
There is a long tradition of trying to preserve the Holy Land for Christianity. There are three major religions that attach great historical significance to Jerusalem and the surrounding area -- Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. If Christians want to take a religious interest in Israel, it should be to clear the way for Christians and Christian interests. Instead, the Christian Zionists are content to let Jews run the place, and maybe let Mohammedans run the West Bank and other territories. This is baffling to me.
Whatever deal God made with the Jews, it was not to keep the Christians out, or to subordinate Christians to Old Testament customs.
Soon, online discussion of the album turned extreme in ways that many found bewildering. There were social media posts accusing Swift of implicitly endorsing the MAGA movement, trad-wife gender norms, and even white supremacy with dogwhistle references. While the far-right have been known to claim the singer as an icon of “Aryan” greatness despite her record of championing Democrats and liberal values — and President Trump himself has blithely and disingenuously shared AI-generated imagery depicting her as a supporter — this was a noticeably divergent trend, an apparent attempt to cancel Swift for those presumed affiliations. The attacks largely focused on specific word choices (her use of the term “savage” on the song “Eldest Daughter” was interpreted as racist) and symbols (a necklace for sale on her website stirred up Nazi comparisons because its lightning bolt charms bore a passing resemblance to the bolt pattern worn by the SS). ...A lot of these controversies are fake. Anonymous online comments pretend to be offended, when they are really just stirring up attention.What Swift’s defenders didn’t realize, however, was that they were pushing back against a false narrative that had been seeded and amplified by a small network of inauthentic social accounts. Worse, they were helping to disseminate those bad-faith allegations by earnestly engaging with them.
Here is another fake controversy.
The reconstruction of Beachy Head Woman’s skull before, right, and after the latest DNA results, left
The London Sunday Times reports:
For a time she was hailed by historians as the earliest known black Briton, a woman who lived and died on these islands during the Roman occupation but whose ancestry was thought to lie in sub-Saharan Africa. New DNA evidence tells a different story. The skeleton known as Beachy Head Woman was not a long-distance immigrant. ...It was all a big hoax. She probably looked like the one on the left.In 2016 a plaque was put up to mark her significance. The sign, erected in East Dean, East Sussex and now taken down, read: “The remains of ‘Beachy Head Woman’ were found near this site. Of African origin, she lived in East Sussex 2nd-3rd Century AD.” ...
“By using state-of-the-art DNA techniques we were able to resolve the origins of this individual. We show she carries genetic ancestry that is most similar to other individuals from the local population of Roman-era Britain,” he said.
80% of the 0:30 people listening disagree 0:31 with my position on this, 0:32 but. But it comes from my 0:34 heart, not just my head. 0:36 It wasn't a political 0:37 evolution. It was a 0:38 position. Being that I 0:40 don't think it's fair.I 0:42 want to see trans kids. I 0:43 have a trans godson. 0:44 There's no governor that 0:46 signed more pro-trans 0:46 legislation than I have, 0:47 and no one has been a 0:49 stronger advocate for the 0:50 LGBT community.
There are different ways to use passkeys. You can put them on your PCs and phones, secured by special memory and whatever biometrics you use to login to those devices.
Or you can put them in a password manager.
Or you can put them on security keys.
You can use passkeys instead of passwords, but then you need to be sure that they are stored in reliable places, and/or backed up. They cannot be memorized like passwords.
If you trust your phone or your password manager, then that is all you need. But the big advantage of passkeys is that you can easily create them on multiple devices such that they never leave the device. That is, you do not need to back them up if you have alternate passkeys to accomplish the same logins.
Passwords have the drawback that an eavesdropper might copy them, or a phisher might trick you. Passkeys solve these problems. You can put the passkey on a security key, and be sure that it never leaves the key, and it will only be used on the intended web site. There is also a pin on the key, to protect against loss or theft.
Here are some security keys I tried.
Yubico 4. There are pre-2018 and now obsolete, but have the advantage that they can be used for an unlimited number of accounts. Google can use it as a 2sv, with a password. The other keys have this feature also, but Google refuses to use the feature if it thinks that the key supports passkeys.
Yubico 5. These are the market leaders, and are the safest bet. Some can use NFC with a phone, and also store Authenticator keys.
uTrust. Mine works most of the time, but is sometimes not recognized properly.
Onlykey. These have the feature that you can store a bunch of site passwords on them, and protect them with a pin that you enter directly on the key. Other keys depend on the OS to control the pin. A drawback is that each only holds 12 passkeys.
Thetis and Trustkey. These are cheap and reliable, and hold a lot of passkeys.
Solo Tap version 1. I had low expectations for this, as the company announced a version 2. I was able to upgrade the firmware by loading an obsolete python library, and it works well with 50 passkeys. That is better than my Yubico keys.
Fetian. These work with bluetooth, but that is more trouble than it is worth. Being wireless seems like an advantage, but they have to be charged, and the pairing is a hassle.
Price varies from $10 to $60. I get the impression that there is not much consumer demand for these, as some of these products have not be updated in years. Paying more does not necessarily get you a better key, as they all implement the same FIDO2 spec.
Using these has some quirks. With a passkey to a Google account, you can login with Mozilla Firefox without entering your username or password. With Google Chrome, you must take the extra step of entering your password. It is odd that logging into a Google account is more smooth on a non-Google browser than a Google browser.
There are two competing visions now emerging on the American right, and they are incompatible. One vision of American identity is based on lineage, blood and soil: Inherited attributes matter most. The purest form of an American is a so-called heritage American — one whose ancestry traces back to the founding of the United States or earlier.He goes on to say that his top priority is to condemn White Americans like Nick Fuentes.This view is now popularized by the Groyper right, a rapidly ascendant online movement that argues for the creation of a white-centric identity. This is a predictable response — one that I anticipated in my 2022 book, “Nation of Victims” — to anti-white discrimination over the last half-decade, and it is no longer just a fringe viewpoint.
The alternative (and, in my view, correct) vision of American identity is based on ideals.
Americanness isn’t a scalar quality that varies based on your ancestry. It’s binary: Either you’re an American or you’re not. You are an American if you believe in the rule of law, in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, in colorblind meritocracy, in the U.S. Constitution, in the American dream, and if you are a citizen who swears exclusive allegiance to our nation.
I am surprised that he regards his alternative vision as the binary one. Most of today's immigrants do not accept American values, and retain allegiances to their home countries. I guess he is also rejecting the Jews who claim dual citizenship with Israel.
I agree with some of what he says, but the idea that he defines the American vision is absurd.
He is rich, but I would not call it the American dream. He mainly profited by sell stock based on exaggerated promises that never materialized.
The NY Times reports:
Some 400,000 years ago, in what is now eastern England, a group of Neanderthals used flint and pyrite to make fires by a watering hole — not just once, but time after time, over several generations.They found evidence of Neanderthals using tools to deliberately and repeatedly set fires.That is the conclusion of a study published on Wednesday in the journal Nature. Previously, the oldest known evidence of humans making fires dated back just 50,000 years. The new finding indicates that this critical step in human history occurred much earlier.
A wildfire would have left evidence far from the site, but the researchers found none. What’s more, the same patch had been burned repeatedly over the course of decades. And the fires there reached intense temperatures and burned for hours. The researchers grew increasingly certain that generations of Neanderthals had intentionally set fires at Barnham.For more, see Control of fire by early humans. Older humans were known to have made use of naturally occurring fires, but there is no proof that the Africans were able to start fires.A last major clue came to light with the discovery of pieces of pyrite alongside heat-shattered flints. Anthropologists have documented many groups of hunter-gatherers around the world who make fires by striking pyrite against flint.
All the more notable, Dr. Ashton said, was that the rocks for miles around Barnham don’t contain pyrite. He speculated that the fire-making Neanderthals must have brought pieces of it to Barnham. The nearest known source of the mineral is some 40 miles to the east.
regardless his argument was it all happened so long ago 54:06 why did Jews continue talking about the Holocaust?What is the difference? Christians like to talk about the Crucifixion of Jesus, and Jews like to talk about the Nazi-Jew Holocaust.we've all moved on they use it all the time as a political weapon and 54:13 so And of course, I suppose the obvious question for him, I went and checked afterwards how many times he's talked 54:19 about, for example, on his show the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which was over 2,000 years ago, right? He does it 54:25 all the time.
So, you know, if I'd been smart in the moment as a fellow Christian, I would say, "Well, hang on. 54:30 But isn't that exactly what Christians do all the time about the crucifixion? What's the difference?"
I can think of a few differences. One is well-documented in the last century, and for the other we only have ancient second-hand accounts.
One is central for Jewish cohesion, and one for Christian cohesion.
One is illegal to question on most of Europe, and one is openly doubted by lots of respectable scholars.
Jews demand that people like Fuentes endorse the Jewish stories. No one demands that Jews endorse the Christian stories.
In the interview, Morgan seemed to think he scored when he called Fuentes, and Fuentes accepted the label. Fuentes just shrugged it off, saying everyone is racist.
Fuentes is correct, as the term is used today. The anti-racists say so, and they especially attack those who claim to ignore race. They say it is racist to not notice racial differences. But of course people like Fuentes are called racist mainly because he notices racial differences.
As young conservatives discuss cost of living as a top concern, the H-1B issue has become a purity test of one’s nationalist bona fides, and by extension, one’s commitment to the America First agenda promoted by conservative figures including Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson. ...I agree that the visa program is an anti-American scam. It is used by the richest companies to replace Americans with Indians.As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the H-1B issue has already emerged as a central talking point in some races. In Florida, James Fishback, a 30-year-old investment chief executive running for governor as a Republican, has described the H-1B system as an “anti-American scam.” He vowed to “eliminate” the program, if elected, and fire the H-1B workers currently employed by the state.
“‘If there are more jobs for immigrants, then there must be less jobs for natives,’” said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University who focuses on immigration. “It’s a combination, really, of nationalism and economic ignorance. They don’t understand the benefits and gains from the policy.”Somin is a Russian Jew lawyer who advocates policies to destroy USA, mainly open borders, legalized heroin, and abolishing single-family zoning and nationalism. He literally wants to replace Americans with foreigners. He just gave speeches in Israel and Mexico, but did not advocate them having open borders or abolishing nationalism.Those benefits can include economic growth and innovation that leads to more jobs, including for U.S.-born workers, according to some studies.
He regularly complains that American voters are too stupid to understand that they are better off working for Indians and living in crowded housing projects.
You might think that the Indians have hot computer skills, but actually they are worse than AI.
Artificial intelligence has gutted entry-level roles in the tech industry that Mishra and his classmates were counting on. Among his 400 classmates at the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, fewer than 25% have secured job offers. ...Students at engineering colleges in India, China, Dubai, and Kenya are facing a “jobpocalypse” as artificial intelligence replaces humans in entry-level roles. Tasks once assigned to fresh graduates, such as debugging, testing, and routine software maintenance, are now increasingly automated.
Over the last three years, the number of fresh graduates hired by big tech companies globally has declined by more than 50%, according to a report published by SignalFire, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm.
All races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie! The races of mankind are markedly different in the nature and also in the extent of their gifts, and the Germanic races belong to the most highly gifted group, the group usually termed Aryan ... Physically and mentally the Aryans are pre-eminent among all peoples; for that reason they are by right ... the lords of the world.The author did not believe in Darwinian evolution, so I am sure his analysis is flawed and outdated.
People say Jesus was a Jew, and I am not sure if they mean genetically, culturally, or religiously. I asked Google Gemini AI, and it said all three. It said that Jesus was not a Christian, because Christianity was founded by Paul after Jesus died.
That seems crazy to me.
Here is a more modern essay:
Any realistic path to victory over wokism requires widespread acceptance of hereditarianism among the elites. As I explained in “Why We Need to Talk about the Right’s Stupidity Problem,” wokism is what follows from taking the equality thesis seriously, given a background of Christian morality. If all races and sexes have the same innate distributions of psychological traits, disparities in socioeconomic status must be due to environmental factors. In practice, that means differences in outcome favoring whites or men will be attributed to past or present white racism or sexism. This triggers an all-consuming crusade against the hidden forces of discrimination. That’s what wokism is. Smart people are disproportionately attracted to the woke left because the mainstream right accepts the equality thesis but fails to recognize its implications. Woke law and woke institutions are primarily effects rather than causes of elites being woke. Undermining the equality thesis destroys the intellectual basis of wokism and gives the elites a reason to join the right.This nearly got philosopher Nathan Cofnas canceled.
RESOLUTION Condemning white supremacy, hate, and antisemitism, and efforts to give a platform to these dangerous ideologies.Schumer is very pro-Jew and pro-Israel, and in this commentary:Whereas Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist leader, organizer, and podcaster; ...
Whereas Fuentes used the 2017 ‘‘Unite the Right’’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which hundreds of torch-bearing demonstrators chanted ‘‘Jews will not replace us’’, to mainstream his ideology; ...
the ‘‘Great Replacement REALITY’’, an antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews are orchestrating the replacement of native white Europeans from their countries by non-white immigrants;
I have always admired Senator Chuck Schumer. He has long presented himself as one of Israel’s staunchest allies in the US Congress. He’s spoken with pride about being the “Shomer Yisrael,” the “guardian of Israel” — a clever play on his name and his self-proclaimed role in protecting the Jewish state. He has addressed AIPAC conferences, authored a book on antisemitism, and often cites his Jewish upbringing as the moral compass guiding his political choices.You might think that Schumer would argue that Jews are not replacing White with non-white immigrants. No, he does not argue that at all. He is a big advocate of letting migrants into the USA. And it is not because of a belief in open borders, and he is firmly against it in Israel. His complaint is that Fuentes has a platform for his views.
The resolution continues:
Fuentes perpetuated antisemitic conspiracy theories, including— ...Yes, I think Jewishness is the defining trait for Fuentes' opponents, and Schumer's resolution proves it. Furthermore, Schumer is a good example of someone loyal first to Israel. He brags about it, to his Jewish constituency.(4) advancing the dual-loyalty trope by saying that Jewish Americans are loyal first to Israel and that ‘‘they have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interests of themselves before the interests of their home country’’; and
(5) claiming that he sees ‘‘Jewishness’’ as the defining trait of his political opponents;
The resolution goes on to condemn the "platforming of Nick Fuentes". In other words, censor him.
In other Jewish news, Bari Weiss has promoted Tony Dokoupil to CBS evening news anchor. His name is Czech, not Jewish. He seems to be best known for this essay:
My adult circumcision: how I made the cut for my new religionSo these Jews eat pork and get led by a lesbian rabbi, but he had to get his foreskin cut to please an Israeli girl. He implies that he was already circumsized, but had to get cut some more for ritualisic submission to matriarchal Jewish customs.To remain uncut, I was told, is to remain spiritually cut off from the Jewish people.
By Tony Dokoupil ...
I came to this knowledge on the way to the altar, of all places. I was engaged to a nice Jewish girl, taking some free conversion classes at a big, progressive Manhattan synagogue. I wanted to learn about something that mattered to her, and the more I learned the more it mattered to me, too.
This wasn’t a fur-coat-in-summer kind of congregation. It was part of the Reform movement: only game for the high holidays, mostly casual about pork, always down with gay female rabbis.
According to Wikipedia, they divorced a couple of years later, and he married another Jew.
Bari Weiss is fanatical Jewish and Zionist. Is this all a coincidence? Did he have to subordinate his manhood to the Jewish cause to get this job? This is so weird, I do not know what to say.
Update: Weiss is also a lesbian. She quit the NY Times because it was not Jewish enough for her.
Update: I saw a claim that Weiss spends $10,000 per day on bodyguards. I find this hard to believe. She should not have to spend anything, as her views are not even particularly unusual.
This is a funny topic. Among the general public, people overwhelmingly believe that spanking is beneficial, and even a necessary part of childrearing.
But among experts, meaning academics, child psychologists, and pediatricians, only opposition to all spanking is acceptable. Must never be done.
In the history of human civilation, all successful societies have used corporal punishment.
I have run across commentary by social scientists, where they are not only opposed to spanking, but do not understand the purpose to it. This baffles me. Social science researchers are supposed to be able to look at data, and deduce causes for behavior. If they want the reasons for spanking, they could just ask any parent. And yet they cannot figure it out. This causes me to doubt any research that they do.
Both Molyneux and Collins have unusual personal stories that color their views. Molyneux emphasizes Libertarian principles, while Collins talks a lot about evolutionary principles.
They do not talk about the published research much. It is mostly anti-spanking, but not really convincing as the studies not have good controls, and only really show that extreme and frequent beatings are harmful. They do not show that any method of discipline is better than any other.
They both have unusual and well-thought out philosphies that are worth considering, even if you disagree. Both have their own podcasts where they expound on their views at great length.
The Collinses also employ corporal punishment in disciplining their children, which is based on Simone's personal observation of lions and tigers during a safari trip, despite clinical consensus that it impairs childhood development.This is Wikipedia bias. His view is based on a great many things, including published research, as you can see in the debate. No, there is not a clinical consensus. Wikipedia is essentially saying that Collins is impairing his kids based on seeing lions on a safari.
Molyneux started to lose me when he talked about how abolishing spanking was a step in a multi-century project to adopt the Non-Aggression Principle and reach a libertarian utopia. Collins had more immediate concerns, such as keeping his child off the street.
One of the main arguments against spanking is that emotional manipulation is more effective. The idea is that mom smothers the baby with love and affection, and then discipline the child by withdrawing affection. Doing this makes the child loyal and obedient, better than spanking. That may be correct, but I do not agree with it.
I found this on Twitter.
This view is widespread, but I have criticized it many times. It is anti-Christian propaganda. Most of what created the modern world was invented during the period labeled the Christian Dark Ages on this chart. Christian Europe advanced centuries ahead of the rest of the world.
The chart gives the impression that Europe would have done better without Christianity, or that Europe was falling behind the rest of the world. Not true. The opposite is more accurate.
It is true that when the Roman Empire moved east, some areas got left behind. But Christians were playing the long game, and making changes that would take centuries to pay off.
Everyone agrees that scientific advancement skyrocketed in Christendom after about 1500, while the rest of the world lagged far behind. That built on earlier advances, such as those described in Renaissance of the 12th century.
I get the impression that a lot of educated people think that Christianity somehow held back scientific progress, and that we might have advanced farther without it. That is completely crazy, as all Christian countries did much better than all non-Christian countries. The difference is so dramatic that it is hard to imagine Christendom doing better than it did.
Hatred of Jews threatens Western civilization itself, Fine said.This is all nonsense. The Sumerians, Egyptians, and Chinese had older civilizations. Judaism did not even become a religion until about 500 AD. Israel only since 1948.U.S. Rep. Randy Fine says antisemitism serves as a “canary in the cold mine” when it comes to destructive hate.
“Jews have been around for 3,000 years. In fact, we’re the oldest civilization that has existed,” the Atlantic Coast Republican said, “and the antisemitism was around for most of that 3,000 years. What we have seen over that history is that every civilization that has hated Jews has not stopped at hating Jews.” ...
“I serve with two antisemites in Congress. Of 220 Republicans, two of them are antisemitic,” Fine said.
Jews are not particularly hated. Jews have high-status positions thoughout the West. Those two Congressmen do not hate Jews. Fine called Tucker Carlson "the most dangerous antisemite in America", after Carlson hosted Nick Fuentes. Glenn Greenwald says Fine is more anti-Islam than Fuentes is anti-Jew.
Fine is Jewish, and has a $30M fortune from Las Vegas gambling fees. He was probably doing slimy things that Christians do not do.
Fine is leading a Jewish effort to purge the Republican Party of those who do not fully support the Jewish agenda. 80% of Jews vote Democrat, and yet the Jews want to take over the Republican Party as well. And not just the majority. Any dissent must be silenced.
I found this online comment:
There have always been two large groups of Jews.There is some truth to this. The secular and religious Jews sometimes seem to be opposites. Then they agree on certain things.The secular and the religious.
The secular group is where the globalists, marxists, fascists, censors etc come from. Globalists who demand multiculturalism for everyone except the Jew.
The religious is filled to the brim with Zionists and where the child sacrifices, blowing mosques and churches, and killing Palestinian children come from. Nationalists who demand multiculturalism for everyone except Israel.
When you buy something online with Visa or Mastercard, the merchant is prohibited from saving the 3-digit security code. Unless it is a recurring subscription.
You might think that the fees will terminate when the card expires. Nope. Mastercard Automatic Billing Updater (ABU) and Visa Account Updater (VAU) are services that provide merchants with the info from a replacement or updated charge card. So the charges continue without your notice or approval.
If you paid on your phone with Google or Apple Pay, then you can use those services to cancel. However Google will typically charge your card 1-2 days in advance of renewal, on the excuse of trying to maintain uninterrupted service. If you cancel before the renewal date, then presumably Google will undo the charge.
If you subscribed to Twitter/X on Google Play, then you cannot even use Twitter to manage the subscription. Google owns the payment contract. Twitter does not even see the charge card number. You can only cancel or renew on Google, not Twitter. When I tried, Twitter gave me this message:
Premium -- Expiring soonI knew that Google and Apple take big commissions on their app store sales, but I had no idea that they own the renewal rights.
Your features will be available for the remainder of your billing period. Looks like you bought this subscription on the X Android app. You’ll need to manage or cancel your subscription from there.
I guess I will have to lose my blue check mark until I free myself from Google.
Some banks offer virtual credit card accounts. These used to have the advantage that you could set them to expire in a money, and with a low credit limit. Then you use one to buy some online services, and then let it expire with the confidence that any unwanted charges will be severely limited.
However, no more. Visa and Mastercard now block these services. You can still get a virtual card, but Visa and Mastercard will renew it and send the updated info to the merchants.
It appears to me that I can still open a vitual charge account, allow it to be scheduled to expire in three years, and then manually cancel it after a month. This should be a way to avoid the card updater service.
Another alternative is Privacy.com. It is not a bank, but it can create virtual charge accounts and let you manage them online. It has a free plan, with premium plans starting at $5 per month.
I find that I have to have multiple bank cards, because charges are sometimes inexplicably declined. Sometimes I have to call the bank and ask them to unfreeze the card. Often I cannot figure out why a completely routine charge was questioned.
All in all, these charge accounts are extremely good deals for consumers, but some of the rules are baffling. If a purchase is declined, why can't the bank app tell me why? If I am buying with the phone on a merchant card terminal, why can't the phone let me approve the amount of the purchase? Who decided that restaurants should be able to add tips after I approve the bill and get my card back? Why isn't easier to control expenses?
The students at America's elite universities are supposed to be the smartest, most promising young people in the country. And yet, shocking percentages of them are claiming academic accommodations designed for students with learning disabilities.I would think that colleges would want a reputation for rigorous standards and mentally competent graduates. Instead they have DEI admissions, mentally disabled students, and easy A grades on all the courses.In an article published this week in The Atlantic, education reporter Rose Horowitch lays out some shocking numbers. At Brown and Harvard, 20 percent of undergraduate students are disabled. At Amherst College, that's 34 percent. At Stanford University, it's a galling 38 percent. Most of these students are claiming mental health conditions and learning disabilities, like anxiety, depression, and ADHD.
Obviously, something is off here. The idea that some of the most elite, selective universities in America—schools that require 99th percentile SATs and sterling essays—would be educating large numbers of genuinely learning disabled students is clearly bogus.
Briefly, a drug company manipulated a study to claim that the anti-depressant Paxil was good for children, and then made $11 billion in sales. It later paid $3B to settle govt claims about fraudulent research.
A p-value of 0.11 was moved to less than the required 0.05 by restructuring the data.
He ends by saying that the journal should retract the publication. There must be a better solution. The study data were not faked. They were just artfully presented, with some relevant data omitted. This was considered acceptable at the time. Possibly someone could figure that out by reading the study.
We need higher standards for medical study publications.
In the meantime, you should know that the research behind psychiatric drugs is questionable.
You wrote a book last year called the technological republic and you quote Samuel Huntington in it and 2:45 you that argues the following argues that the rise of the west was not made 2:50 possible quote by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.Some of those European and American ideas, values, and religion did contribute to the ability to apply organized violence.3:01 What do you mean by that? And is that what Palantir ultimately does?
3:06 Well, I I I think one of the most interesting about that, about the quotes, that quote, is it's indisputably and obviously true.
Europe had to fight a lot of wars to get where it is today. So did the USA.
one of the biggest one of the biggest problems we have in our 3:39 elite institutions especially our ivy leagues is this indisputable truth that 3:44 no one would listen to the superior of our ideas if our ability to organize in violence was inferiorHe has gotten rich from supplying AI to military contractors.that every single 3:52 person in the world believes outside of the faculty of Harvard and certainly all of our adversaries know to be true is 3:59 viewed as something that's kind of worthy of great discussion and dispute.
And the primary reason they dispute it 4:05 honestly is because at their core they they want to undermine the superiority of western values which are meritocracy, 4:13 rule of law, accepting that inputs and outputs are not the same, that are the 4:18 basis of building the superiority on the military on the military plane. Yo
Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal says immigrants from Somalia, India, Latin America, and Africa “built this country and make this country what it is today.”She is from India.
No, East Indian immigrants did not build USA. There are many hard-working and productive Indian-Americans, but on balance, Indians are a net negative.
It is much more accurate to say that Britain and the USA built India. Without that help, India would not even be a real country.
The situation with Somalians is much worse. The news out of Minnesota makes it appear that all the Somalians are criminal parasites.
