Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Inside the Trump Kangaroo Court

Law professor Alan Dershowitz writes in the NY Post:
I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.

But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.

The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn.

Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution. But when the defense’s only substantive witness, the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk. Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media.

I think the jury will acquit Trump.

Tuesday, May 21, 2024

California’s Looming Crime Catastrophe

Heather Mac Donald writes:
Recent legislation makes it easier for felons to claim racial bias—potentially putting them back on the streets in large numbers.

California is about to demonstrate what a world constructed from the tenets of critical race studies looks like. The sentencing reversal in California v. Windom is the result of a recent law that will likely bring the state’s criminal-justice system to its knees. The Racial Justice Act, passed in 2020 without meaningful public review, turns long-standing academic tropes about implicit bias and white privilege into potent legal tools. And the floodgates are about to open. Starting this year, the RJA allows anyone serving time in a California prison or jail for a felony to challenge his conviction and sentencing retroactively on the ground of systemic racial bias.

The Racial Justice Act operationalizes the proposition that every aspect of the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks. But according to the act’s legislative authors, it’s too hard to prove such bias in the case of individual arrests and prosecutions. Therefore, the act does away with the concept of individual fault and individual proof. From now on, statistics about past convictions are sufficient to invalidate a present trial or sentence.

The RJA explicitly repudiates a key Supreme Court precedent that had governed bias challenges in criminal trials.

The George Floyd racial reckoning continues, and millions may be dead before it is all over.

Monday, May 20, 2024

NY Times Likes Planet of the Apes

Jamelle Bouie writes in the NY Times:
There is no franchise in Hollywood filmmaking that is as consistently good, and as consistently interesting, as “Planet of the Apes.”

I feel very strongly about this, and not because I am an admitted enthusiast of genre filmmaking. Like any long-running series, “Planet of the Apes” — which spans 10 films and more than 50 years — has its lows. But those are well outnumbered by the films that deliver real thrills, showcase strong (and occasionally exceptional) performances and, rare among Hollywood movies of its type, provoke thoughtful discussion of serious ideas.

If you somehow are not familiar with the premise of “Planet of the Apes,” it is surprisingly straightforward. In the far future, mankind has regressed into animalistic squalor — unable to speak or reason — and intelligent apes have stepped into the sunlight as Earth’s premier sentient species. The first five films, beginning with 1968’s “Planet of the Apes” and concluding with 1973’s “Battle for the Planet of the Apes,” tell the story of the fall and rise (and fall again, perhaps) of ape society.

The 1968 film, starring Charlton Heston, is a masterpiece. Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, who would go on to win an Academy Award for best director for “Patton,” with cinematography by Leon Shamroy (best known for his work on “Cleopatra” and “The King and I”), it begins as a sparse and desolate disaster film, with a trio of astronauts wandering a seemingly strange planet of blue skies and desert vistas. When the apes finally arrive — as predators hunting a roving band of humans — it is in a kinetic sequence of genuine intensity. From there the film becomes a drama of sorts, as Heston’s cynical and misanthropic protagonist, Taylor, tries to prove his intelligence to ape scientists and escape lobotomization and castration at the hands of ape leaders. The movie ends, of course, with Taylor and his human companion Nova stumbling on the ruins of the Statue of Liberty, at which point Taylor damns the people of his time for their folly. “You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

The rest is behind a paywall, so I am not sure what point he is making.

If there is any discussion of serious ideas, it is mainly the foolishness of a civilized society allowing itself to be infiltrated by inferiors who hate the dominant group. It seems like a thinly disguised story of how White South Africans got taken over by Blacks.

I would have thougth that Blacks would be offended by these movies. Instead they seem to admire how "intelligent apes have stepped into the sunlight as Earth’s premier sentient species." Or that's what Bouie says, anyway.

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Defending Russia for Traditionalists

I am trying to understand why any American would want to take sides in either the Ukraine or Gaza wars.

The Ukraine War is being fought to expand NATO to the Russian border. The Gaza War is being fought to exterminate the Palestinian Arabs. Why should Americans care?

Alexander Dugin writes:

The inauguration of President Putin marks a new stage in Russia’s history. Some lines from previous periods will surely continue. Some will reach a critical threshold. Some will be curtailed. But something new must also emerge.

I would like to draw attention to the ideological aspect, which could become a fundamental vector for Russia’s further development in the international context.

In our fierce confrontation with the West, teetering on the brink of nuclear conflict and a third world war, the problem of values is becoming increasingly apparent. The war in Ukraine is not merely a conflict of states with their quite rational national interests but a clash of civilisations, with all of them fiercely defending their value systems.

Today, it is already clear that Russia has decisively committed to defending traditional values and sees them as integral to the fundamental processes of strengthening its civilisational identity and geopolitical sovereignty. This is not just about the various interests of individual subjects within the same — Western — civilisation, as the escalating conflict between Russia and the collective West could have been interpreted until recently. It is now obvious that two value systems are clashing.

The modern collective West staunchly defends:

Absolute individualism;

LGBT and gender politics;


Cancel culture;


Unrestricted migration;

Destruction of all forms of identity;

Critical race theory (according to which previously oppressed peoples have every right to oppress their former oppressors in turn);

Relativist and nihilistic postmodern philosophy.

The West ruthlessly censors its own history, bans books and artworks, and the US Congress is preparing to remove entire passages from the Holy Scriptures, allegedly offensive to certain groups of people based on ethnicity and religion. Moreover, the development of digital technologies and neural networks has raised the issue of transferring global governance from humanity to artificial intelligence — and several Western authors already hail this as an incredible success and the long-awaited arrival of the singularity.

The USA is still a much better country than Russia. Ukraine appears to be a worse country than Russia. I just post this to explain why some people hope Russia wins.

Saturday, May 18, 2024

This is a Queer Planet

The London Daily Mail reports:
NBC has unveiled an upcoming documentary that focuses on examples of same-sex relationships and sex transitioning in the animal kingdom.

Queer Planet will be released on June 6 as part of Peacock's Pride Month celebrations and is narrated by actor Andrew Rannells.

The project is billed as a 'first-of-its-kind nature documentary' and will explore 'hidden LGBTQ+ communities among animals that have unconventional sexualities and genders,' according to Indie Wire.

The documentary's synopsis reads: 'Take a worldwide journey exploring the rich diversity of animal sexuality — from flamboyant flamingos to pansexual primates, sex-changing clownfish, multi-gendered mushrooms and everything in between.

'This documentary looks at extraordinary creatures, witnesses amazing behaviors, and introduces the scientists who are questioning the traditional concept of what’s natural when it comes to sex and gender.'

The Queer Planet trailer promises insight into bisexual lions, gay penguins and transgender creatures.

'Everything you were taught as a kid is wrong,' Australian author Bradley Trevor Greive says in the trailer for the film, which is rated TV-14. 'This is a queer planet.'

'It's only in humans that we have such a stigma about it,' says biologist Antonia Forster.

Maybe there is an audience of those who want to take moral lessons from clownfish.

No, what you were taught as a kid is not wrong. These stories are mostly hoaxes.

I look forward to a sequel on theft, rape, and murder in the animal world.

Friday, May 17, 2024

Takedown of Judith Butler

Judith Butler is a California-Berkeley professor, and considered the intellection leader of the trans-feminist-queer movement.

Here is some recent criticism. In short, she is a nutcase.

She describes herself as a non-binary lesbian queer. She is Jewish and anti-Israel. Her works are incoherent.

For some more sensible views of feminism, see the recently updated podcast, The Fiamengo Files.

Thursday, May 16, 2024

Demise of Online Dating

The online dating world appears to be broken. Bumble is an app marketed mainly to women.

NY Times:

A Bumble billboard with big office buildings looming behind it. The mostly yellow advertisement has a photo of a couple on one side of it along with the words: “A VOW OF CELIBACY IS NOT THE ANSWER.” ...

On Monday, Bumble said in a statement that it was in the process of removing the ads from its global campaign and would be making donations to the National Domestic Violence Hotline and other organizations, offering those groups the billboard spaces.

I don't get it. Are those the choices? Celibacy or domestic violence? Some people actually like sexual relations.

Another article says:

‘The Bachelor’ Promises True Love. So Why Does It Rarely Work Out?

Of the 40 seasons of “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette,” only eight couples have stayed together. We spoke to former contestants about the show’s flaws.

These articles are paywalled, so I don't know whether they uncover the problems.

OpenAI has created virtual friend technology, and it is rumored to be developing a porn product. Other AI companies will do it anyway. We could soon see the day when millions prefer virtual/AI mates to real people.

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Cohen's Anti-Trump Testimony should be Disregarded

Michael Cohen is now the Biden star witness against Pres. Trump. Cohen testified that he lied many times, and even went to prison for it, and now makes all his money badmouthing Trump.

So what did he testify that was so damaging? Here it is:

“He wasn’t thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign,” Cohen said of the exchange — at which point Trump, seated at the defense table, turned toward him and shook his head with a sly smile on his face.

Cohen claimed Trump wanted him to delay Daniels’ story from coming out until after the election.

“I want you to just push it out as long as you can, just get past the election,” Cohen claimed Trump said. “Because if I win, it will have no relevance because I’m president. And if I lose, I don’t even care.”

First, this should have been inadmissable hearsay. Trump was not under oath.

For example, if I tell my barbar that I want a haircut to look good in a job interview, then the barber retelling the story cannot be used in court, as I was not under oath. I may have just said that to indicate what kind of a haircut I wanted.

There is an exception for admissions against interests, such as when a murder admits to killing. But there is no admission here. Next, Cohen does not know what Trump was thinking. Cohen is not a mind-reader.

Next, the whole conversation should have been attorney-client privileged. Trump is entitled to get legal advice, without his questions being used against him.

There is an exception for plotting to commit a crime. But nobody claims that this conversation was criminal. The alleged crime had to do with the later bookkeeping.

Finally, none of this implies the money was an illegal campaign expense. Trump did not say to pay the hush money do that more citizens would vote for him. It appears that Trump wanted to kill the story before the election because the upcoming election was going to make it a big story. After the election, no one will care. So if he wanted to avoid personal embarrassment, he needed to kill it before the election.

The prosecution main argument against Trump is that he is a bad person because he was unfaithful to his wife, and said crude things on the Access Hollywood. So convict him of something else, that is not even a crime.

Monday, May 13, 2024

Teenaged Boy Dreamt to Swim with Women

CNN reports:
“I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans,” Cortez-Fields, a senior on the women’s swim team at New Jersey’s Ramapo College, told CNN.

As an NCAA competitor, Cortez-Fields underwent more than a year of hormone therapy, blood tests and testosterone tracking to meet the association’s transgender athlete guidelines and achieve [his] dream of swimming alongside other women.

Ahh, what teenaged boy has not dreamt about swimming alongside nearly naked women?

But he fears that winning will get him exposed as a boy. (He is not a teenager anymore, but the article implies that he is trying to realize a teenager dream.)

Maybe we should find some more socially acceptable way for these boys to live out their teenage sexual fantasies. They are surely despised by the other swimmers. He is not a real man, not a real woman, and not a sportsmanlike competitor.

Sunday, May 12, 2024

German Courts Suppress Truth about Afghan Crimes

Elon Musk:
Are you saying the fine was for repeating accurate government statistics?

Was there anything inaccurate in what she said?

Judge Heiko Halbfas saw things differently on Monday: “Those who attack human dignity cannot invoke freedom of speech.” Kaiser deliberately created an image in the minds of others that led to hatred of a nationally determined group, the district newspaper reported.
The context is that Afghans in Germany are gang rapists.
The Verden regional court in Lower Saxony has upheld a verdict against Rotenburg AfD leader Marie-Thérèse Kaiser for incitement to hatred. The 27-year-old was also found guilty in the appeal hearing on Monday of inciting hatred against Afghan local workers.

For this, the politician now has to pay 100 day fines (a type of fine related to daily income of the convicted) plus a fine of €60, a total of €6,000. ...

Among other things, the politician linked to an article showing that Afghans in Germany are particularly heavily involved in gang rape.

Wow, the Germans have been neutered. When I see a story like this, I assume that the reality is much worse. Next time, the German govt will not release the ethnic data on rapists.

Whoever thought that Afghans could be imported into Germany, and become Germans?

Saturday, May 11, 2024

Coulter would not Vote for an Indian

Leftists are cying racism about this interview:
"Its About Your Loyalty, Who Do You Support?" - Vivek Ramaswamy and Ann Coulter on Citizenship
Coulter is correct that immigrants and first-generation Americans do not get Americanism at all. The come from dictatorial countries, and do not understand American freedoms.

Some say that after a citizenship ship, they can make their loyalites to the USA. Others say that after a generation or so, they will assimilate, and be just like Americans.

Coulter points out that America was created by WASPs:

In the United States, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) is a sociological term which is often used to describe white Protestant Americans of Northwestern European descent, who are generally part of the white dominant culture or upper-class and historically often the Mainline Protestant elite.[2][3] Historically or most consistently, WASPs are of British descent, though the definition of WASP varies in this respect.[4] WASPs have dominated American society, culture, and politics for most of the history of the United States. Critics have disparaged them as "The Establishment".[5][6] Although the social influence of wealthy WASPs has declined since the 1960s,[7][8][9] the group continues to play a central role in American finance, politics, and philanthropy.[10]
The Leftists are saying that she votes based on skin color, but that is not what she is saying.

The comments I say just used name-calling, and made no substantive arguments. It seems to me that there are two arguments they could be making.

(1) Immigrants will eventually assimilate, and become just like WASPs.

(2) WASPs just just accept that they are being replaced by foreigners with other values.

Perhaps (1) has happened with Irish and Genrmans, but has not happened with most other immigrant groups.

So that leaves us with (2). The Leftists are not really arguing against racism, but against Americanism.

Friday, May 10, 2024

Judaism Inseparable from Israel

USA Today:
Hundreds of Jewish Zionist students at Columbia University signed a letter calling for peace amid on-campus antisemitism they said arose in recent pro-Palestinian protests and asserting that "Judaism cannot be separated from Israel" – a message that some other Jewish Columbia students reject.

"We proudly believe in the Jewish People’s right to self-determination in our historic homeland as a fundamental tenet of our Jewish identity," the students wrote. "Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel."

The more than 500 students who signed, as of Thursday, all listed their full names, school affiliation, and year in school.

This might eeem like a minority view, but the US House just passed a bipartisan anti-semitism resolution consistent with this.

One of the founders of Israel:

There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews > > >living in England, France, Germany or America.

Chaim Weizmann

Here is another Jewish opinion:
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with Anne Applebaum, staff writer at The Atlantic" about her latest cover story for the magazine, "The New Propaganda War."

Autocrats in China, Russia, and elsewhere are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom around the world.

She goes on to complain that some Africans blame the USA for the Ukraine War. And that we should regulate social media so that democracy does not lose the propaganda war.

This is just weirdo Jewish thinking. Democracy has become a code word for progressivism.

Update: Jewish Law professor Josh Blackman defends the letter, and writes:

But one rather common approach is to simply disregard certain religious doctrines that are inconsistent with modern-day values. For example, on Yom Kippur, the tradition is to read a well-known passage from the Book of Leviticus: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." ...

It is entirely possible to treat the connection between Judaism and Israel in the same fashion as some treat Leviticus 18:22.

Wow, that is quite an analogy!

Thursday, May 09, 2024

Wisconsin Judge is Against Marriage

From a 2020 story in a feminist Jewish site:
Earlier this month, Jill Karofsky was elected to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. The Jewish, single mom of two defeated the Trump-endorsed incumbent in a surprise victory, winning 55 percent in the purple state. ...

Karofsky will be the third Jewish woman to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court: ...

“I am a 2-time Ironman triathlete and I run 50-mile ultra-marathons." ...

On her judicial philosophy, Karofsky said, “When I hear a judge say ‘apply the law as it is, not as I wish it to be,’ I generally know they are likely to be the worst kind of activist judge, intending to implement a far-right-wing agenda. I am committed to the rule of law, to an independent judiciary, and to applying the Constitution fairly and equitably to today’s world.”

Mazel tov, Jill. We’re cheering for you!

She has her own far-left-wing agenda.

Wisconsin law favors marriage for adoptive parents, and now she wrote an opinion wanting to abolish that law.

This incongruent outcome exemplifies the specious connection between the statutes and their stated goal of promoting a child's best interest. At first glance the connection may seem neatly knitted together; however, closer inspection reveals nothing more than a fraying tangle of dubious assumptions, circular reasoning, and outdated values that fail to reflect the practical realities of modern family life. ...

There are many different family structures that create stability for children, and the statute's one-size- fits-all approach can actively work against the benefit of a child, as it did in this case. ...

More than 20% of children have witnessed domestic violence within their lifetime, often resulting in long term harm to their development. ...

("[A] large body of research now exists that finds that children are not necessarily better off living with two biological parents who are in constant marital conflict.").

This is a good example of Leftist Jews trying to destroy to undermine Christian civilization. Why else would she write such a ridiculous opinion against adoptive parents being married?

She could give these same silly arguments against any govt policy. For example, the state requires a drivers license to drive a car on public roads. She could post a rant about how some licensed drivers have car wrecks, or how some unlicensed drivers are actually pretty safe. Such examples prove nothing about whether licensure is a good policy.

She cannot be that stupid. This is just Jewish thinking.

Wednesday, May 08, 2024

Neanderthals were the most Advanced Hominids

Discover magazine reports:
We know that the Neanderthals were talented makers. They used a sophisticated array of scrapers and blades, which they fashioned out of stone and other materials. And though Neanderthals were once por­trayed as basic and brutish, scientists are now stressing a new narrative: This species was in its way as innovative and creative as our own ancestors. Here’s a look at what Neanderthals could make. ...

With their tools, art, and con­trol of fire, it’s increasingly difficult to see the achieve­ments of the Neanderthals as all that different from the achievements of our own ancestors. Adding to that difficulty is recent research into Neanderthal speech.

This is so bizarre. Neanderthal were our ancestors, and the same human species as we are. Nearly all non-African humans today have some Neanderthal DNA.

Tuesday, May 07, 2024

Judge Orders Trump Gagged Again

Pres. Trump was censored again:
"But this judge, uh, said that I can't get away from the trial. You know he's rushing the trial like crazy. Nobody's ever seen a thing go like this," Trump said in the interview. "That jury was picked so fast — 95% Democrats. The area's mostly all Democrat. You think of it as a — just a purely Democrat area. It's a very unfair situation that I can tell you." ...

"Defendant violated the Order by making public statements about the jury and how it was selected," Merchan's ruling states. "In doing so, Defendant not only called into question the integrity, and therefore the legitimacy of these proceedings, but again raised the specter of fear for the safety of the jurors and of their loved ones."

Trump is right to question the legitimacy of the trial. It is a sham. No one has been prosecuted for anything like it before.

The prosecutor has to prove that Trump intended to violate, and argues that NY law does not actually require proving a violation if intent can be proved.

How could Trump have intended to violate the law, when no oen suggested that the alleged actions were criminal?

Trump is currently on trial in NY for lying in his business records. Cohen paid off a blackmailer and Trump later compensated him, booking it as a legal expense. The DA says that was a crime, because of an intent to cover up some other unspecified crime.

Monday, May 06, 2024

A Conservative knows what he does not know

Quillette used to have some interesting articles, but it has goesne downhill.

Currently it has a paywalled copy of this 2017 essay:

Postmodernism presents a threat not only to liberal democracy but to modernity itself.
But not the accompanying rebuttal by a postmodernist:
Anti-postmodern commentaries are certainly in vogue these days. ... Jordan Peterson has insisted that transgender activists who demand he use their preferred pronouns represent a “a post-modern, radical leftist ideology” that is “frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.”
This latter esasay reveals post-modernism to be as nutty as thee critics claim. It goes on to say that science is not objective because: (1) some scientists collected data on racial differences; (2) some psychiatrists developed theories for treating patients who report sexual anxieties; and (3) some Canadian physicians opposed assisting suicides.

It goes on to try to persuade conservatives:

Postmodernism and conservatism share similar values, since both doctrines are founded on scepticism. Andrew Sullivan points out in The Conservative Soul that the defining characteristic of the conservative is that “he knows what he doesn’t know.” As the “guardians of doubt,” conservatives remain humble. Unlike the religious fundamentalist who believes that truth is settled, conservatives admit that knowledge is imperfect. Sullivan reminds us that the pursuit of absolute values cannot be fully reconciled with the government of mortals, who are limited by custom, feeling, habit, history and prejudice. Like postmodernists, conservatives accept that truth is not perfectly objective. Perspective always comes into play.
No. The real problem with post-modernists is that they do not make any sense. A conservative who knows what he doesn't know is not the same as a skeptic, and certainly not the same as rejecting objective truth.

This is a typical post-modernist argument. No facts, no logic, no sense.

The French think that Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida were great geniuses. No. They were incoherent charlatans. They make no sense.

No Good Research Supports Gender Affirmation

CNN reports:
Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender – the one the person was designated at birth – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which one wants to be known.
Such opinions have made their way into court decisions, such as this 86- federal appeals court opinion on a N. Carolina case.

These terms do not mean what they appear to mean. You expect "medically necessary" to me that there is some medically demonstrable need for the treatment. That is not the case. All the term means is that insurance should pay.

And "evidence-based" suggests that there are scientific studies supporting the treatment. But there are no good studies. The evidence is anecdotal.

Reporter Jesse Singal reports:

The New England Journal of Medicine published a highly anticipated study called “Psychosocial Functioning in Transgender Youth after 2 Years of Hormones.” The research team has spent years following a cohort of kids who have been administered puberty blockers or hormones at four participating clinics. In this study, they reported on how the kids who went on hormones did over the two-year span following the start of that process. The participants filled out surveys every six months on issues pertaining to their mental health, gender dysphoria, and so on. According to the authors, the kids showed key improvements two years later. “Our results provide a strong scientific basis that gender-affirming care is crucial for the psychological well-being of our patients,”
This sounds scientific, until he reveals that the study only showed self-reported improvement in 2 of the 8 preregistered measures.

England has backed off these treatments, as dangerous for minors. See the Cass Review, which is generally pro-LGBTQ, but cauthions about low-quality studies.

I say it is pro-LGBTQ because it says on p.150:

11.5 Whilst the Review’s terms of reference do not include consideration of the proposed legislation to ban conversion practices, it believes that no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion practice.
It takes the position that therapies may be used to affirm LGBTQ+ status, but not to help a patient be straight or normal. Why would it say this? It was just supposed to review what services work and what don't. So it would be reasonable to review studies on whether the services work, but just to say it should not be done is an extreme pro-LGBTQ+ opinion, not backed by evidence.

It is true that the major medical and psychological organizations have endorsed gender-affirming treatments, and maybe you want to trust the experts, but these same organizations lied to us repeatedly during the covid pandemic.

Sunday, May 05, 2024

Seeing Feminism as an Addiction

ot Devon Eriksen writes:
Feminism is not so much an ideology as is a strategy for constructing narratives in order to seek power.

Men and women both use language to seek power, but they have different ideas of what power is.

To a man, power is direct power: the ability to act and effect change in the world. It is skill, strength, knowledge, technology, wealth, resources, the ability to command others and be obeyed.

To a woman, power is indirect power: having the status, prestige and value which makes others act on one's behalf, sometimes by request, but ideally without. It is having one's needs, safety, and happiness seen to automatically by virtue of being a priority to others.

In the 1960s and 70s, feminism was mostly referred to as "women's liberation", or "women's empowerment", referring to the sort of power which a few feminist intellectuals coveted — the direct power to act on their own, without any interdependence with men, whom they despised.

But coveting direct power is a very masculine mindset, and as these intellectuals gained followers who were more feminine in outlook, their original goals were altered and then replaced. The terms "women's liberation", and "women's empowerment" fell out of favor, replaced by terms like "women's rights".

Because "liberation" and "empowerment" require individual initiative and action, while "rights" are automatic.

The modern feminist does not want to exert power directly, and bear the responsibility for that power. She wants indirect power.

Often the goal isn't even to achieve her stated ends, but simply to have power exerted on her behalf.

This is why the modern feminist becomes angry when you offer her a pistol with which to defend herself.

You perceive this as offering her direct power which she can wield to solve the problem she faces, or claims to face. But she perceives this as pushing the responsibility to solve that problem back on her.

This why feminists will advance frivolous arguments against carrying a gun:

"I am so klutzy and incompetent that it is literally easier for a man to take the pistol I am holding and shoot me with it than it is for me to shoot him when I am already holding it."

"What if I am attacked by Dracula riding Godzilla? A pistol won't help me then."

"Guns should be unnecessary because I deserve to live in a world that is 100% free of violence."

They don't want the gun.

They don't want that power.

They don't want to be powerful.

They want someone else to be powerful, and use that power to take care of them.

This is why they would rather the government spend outrageous sums of money on stupid stunts like this video, that clearly won't work, than slap down $500 of their own money for a Glock which clearly will.

But why?

Why would they prefer indirect power which won't keep them safe to direct power which will?

The answer is in the question.

They don't want to be safe. They don't even want to feel safe. It isn't about safety. They already feel safe.

It isn't even about power.

It's about what indirect power really does for them. It makes them feel cared about.

If you accept that as your premise, all the noise about "men don't respect women", "society doesn't care about women", "the government is failing to protect women" suddenly makes sense.

The point of ERA, the Violence Against Women Act, Title IX, the Duluth Model, etc, etc, isn't actually any end to which government power is being put. It's the fact that power, disruptive power, society-altering, system-smashing power, is being wielded on behalf of women at all.

They demand this because having the demand met makes them feel cared about. Valued. Loved. Special. Important.

This is critical to them, and it makes sense if you think about why. Women evolved under conditions in which they were physically helpless. They couldn't survive without men. Any women who preferred to pick up a spear and hunt buffalo for herself, rather than have men take care of her, didn't pass on those genes to the descendants she didn't have.

So, now, when you tell a woman to get a Glock and a decent IWB holster, many of them still react as if it were 10,000 BC and you had offered them a flint-tipped spear.

What the hell is this? That's not how it's supposed to go. You're supposed to defend them, right?

So if women are hardwired to want to be cared for, and feminism is an expression of that desire, why is it so clearly toxic and obnoxious to anyone who doesn't already subscribe to it? Why is it toxic and obnoxious at all?

Because it is a twisted expression of that natural desire, not a healthy one. It is an addiction, and it makes feminists behave like addicts.

Addiction is any expression of a desire whereby the process of fulfilling the desire intensifies rather than satiating it.

Feminists obtain indirect power by constructing a narrative that claims they are insufficiently protected, insufficiently cared about, insufficiently valued.

This obtains exertion of power on their behalf, which should make them feel cared about, but in the very process of demanding it, they are brainwashing themselves into the same belief they wish to project on others... that society thinks they are worthless trash, second-class citizens, not important, and so on.

This merely intensifies the psychological need they set out to fulfill.

In reality, middle and upper class western women are the most cared-about demographic in the history of the known universe. In no other species, and no other civilization, do males care anywhere near so much about the welfare of female strangers. In most species, they do not care at all.

So how do you deal with feminists who are addicted to indirect power?

Same way you to deal with any other junkie. Don't supply them with their drug of choice. Don't enable with them. Don't argue to them that they are addicts, rather than someone who has spontaneously developed a massive drug deficiency.

Simply present them with no attack surfaces for obtaining their drug of choice. Reserve your expressions of caring to women who seek it to inspire it by treating you how you wish to be treated, rather than berating it out of you.

On a political front, don't argue with them. You cannot talk them out of their demands, because their demands are driven by emotional needs that have nothing to do with the thing demanded. You aren't going to talk them out of it. Instead, focus on making them look ridiculous to the audience.

One fine way to do that is, in fact, to offer them direct power over their own lives.

And let everyone watch them angrily refuse it.

Saturday, May 04, 2024

Election is about Freedom, America and Democracy

Fox News reports:
President Biden called the allied nation of Japan "xenophobic" in a speech this week, alongside a slew of other nations he claims are suffering from lack of immigration.

Biden made the remarks extolling the virtues and benefits of immigration on Wednesday at a fundraiser in Washington, D.C.

"This election is about freedom, America and democracy. That’s why I badly need you. You know, one of the reasons why our economy is growing is because of you and many others. Why? Because we welcome immigrants," he said.

"Why is China stalling so badly economically? Why is Japan having trouble? Why is Russia? Why is India? Because they’re xenophobic," the president continued.

So that is why Biden is flooding the USA with foreigners?

Let's look at the numbers. India had 360 million people in 1951, growing to 1 billion in 2000, and 1.4 billion today.

Biden seems to be arguing that India should have taken in more immigrants, and become even more populous.

Not sure if he is stupid, senile, or evil.

I agree that the election is about freedom, America and democracy. Biden is determined to repopulate America with foreigners. We did not vote for that. His justification is to call us zenophobic if we disagree. In the process he is also taking away our freedom, and trying to jail Trump for his opinions.

AP reports:

Nearly two months after the election, a recount settled the outcome in a Northern California U.S. House primary contest, ... Voting in the state’s primary election concluded on March 5. ...

At time when many Americans have doubts about election integrity, a two-month stretch to tally votes in one House race “absolutely is a problem from an optics point of view,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which seeks to improve the voting process.

Any count that takes more than a few hours cannot be trusted. The Democrat Party stands for rigged elections.

Friday, May 03, 2024

Jews try to Censor Criticism

AP reports:
The House passed legislation Wednesday that would establish a broader definition of antisemitism for the Department of Education to enforce anti-discrimination laws, the latest response from lawmakers to a nationwide student protest movement over the Israel-Hamas war.

The proposal, which passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support, would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. It now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.

Under the new law, it will be illegal to say the Jews killed Jesus, or to say Israel is like Nazi Germany, or to refer to Jewish control of finance and entertainment and government, or to say the Jews exaggerate the Jewish Holocaust, or to hold Israel to a double standard.

Yes, I hold Israel to a double standard. I expect them to be better than the surrounding Moslem Arab countries. I guess that puts me in violation of this proposed law.

Jews are always crying about imaginary anti-semitism. They want us to believe that they are a persecuted minority, deserving of special privileges. They and the Dmocrats have pushed for DEI favors as a way of punishing White Christians. Now they are discovering that they do not qualify for DEI privileges, and they created a monster. They have imported foreigners who hate the Jews, and it is the biggest story in years on college campuses.

I would be all in favor of making sure that Jews are protected from rioters at colleges. But no, they try to censor our opinions. Jews are the chief cause of censorship in the USA today.

Apparently very few criticisms of Jews are allowed. We can criticize the Gaza atrocities, as long as we do not call Israelis Nazis.

Thursday, May 02, 2024

McKinsey Diversity Study was Bogus

The Telegraph reports:
Hiring more ethnically diverse management teams does not boost profits, new research has claimed, casting doubts on previous studies.

A study in Econ Journal Watch says that previous studies by the consultancy firm McKinsey claiming that racial diversity “is a business imperative that drives real business results” are based on data that cannot be replicated.

In other words, the study was a hoax.

If they believed in diversity, McKinsey would have assigned a diverse team to do the study. No, it was all incompetent Black women.

There is no business argument for dei diversity. It is all just hatred of straight White males.

Wednesday, May 01, 2024

Explaining the College Protests

I am trying to understand these college protests about Israel. It is baffling that students would get excited about obscure Middle East issues that haven't changed much in decades, that they would sympathize with sadistic murderers, and that colleges would be so helpless to deal with them.

Here are my hypotheses. If I missed any, add them in the comments.

(1) Women are instinctlive attracted to rebels, criminals, and foreign invaders. Most of the protesters are women. Men may be just tagging along to sleep with the women.

(2) Moslems trying to subjugate us. Islam teaches that Jews and Christians should be subjugated to Moslem rule, as has happened in 50+ Moslem countries. It is hard to push for that directly in the USA, so they do it indirectly with these protests.

(3) Jews have taken over the USA, and this is the only way to object. Jews dominate the Democrat Party, the Biden administration, Hollywood, academia, finance, news media, etc., just as predicted by the Protocols. They have also successfully censored any criticism of them. Protesting Gaza atrocities is the only criticism allowed.

(4) The protests are paid astroturfers, sponsored by foreign agitators trying to destroy America. A lot of previous civil unrest has been promoted by Communists, Jews, and other seeking to undermine Americanism.

I don't know, but I think the net effect of these protests is to further convince Americans that we are heading in the wrong direction. Some people will blame Biden, and vote against him. His core constituency is Jews, extreme Leftists, and White haters, and they are conflicted about these protests. There is no chance Biden can make them happy.

The NY Post reports:

Top Biden administration officials are mulling over plans to potentially welcome into the US a small number of Palestinians fleeing the region amid the bloody Israel-Hamas war, according to a report.
Oh wow. Help the Jews by importing Moslem terrorists that no one else wants.

Here is one of the protest leaders, before she deleted it:

Johannah King-Slutzky, Columbia U. biography:
My dissertation is on fantasies of limitless energy in the transatlantic Romantic imagination from 1760-1860. My goal is to write a prehistory of metabolic rift, Marx’s term for the disruption of energy circuits caused by industrialization under capitalism. I am particularly interested in theories of the imagination and poetry as interpreted through a Marxian lens in order to update and propose an alternative to historicist ideological critiques of the Romantic imagination. Prior to joining Columbia, I worked as a political strategist for leftist and progressive causes and remain active in the higher education labor movement.
The colleges have made a deal with the devil.

Tuesday, April 30, 2024

How Noem Killed her Dog

Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor and Republican vice-presidential hopeful, may have committed a class two misdemeanor offence when her fated dog Cricket, a 14-month-old wirehair pointer Noem deemed “untrainable” for hunting pheasant, killed a neighbor’s chickens.

Under South Dakota law, “any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog that chases, worries, injures, or kills any poultry or domestic animal is guilty of a class two misdemeanor and is liable for damages to the owner thereof for any injury caused by the dog to any such poultry or animal.” ...

Section 40-34-1 of the South Dakota codified laws – Killing of dog lawful when disturbing domestic animals – says: “It shall be lawful for any person to kill any dog found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals except on the premises of the owners of said dog or dogs.”

Noem writes that she killed Cricket on her own property.

So she was legally required to get rid of her dog, but only authorized to kill it on someone else's property? Weird.

Apparently a lot of dog lovers think it is fine to keep a nuisance dog that terrorizes the neighbors.

Monday, April 29, 2024

England to be Dependent on African Immigrants

The London Independent reports:
Falling birth rates in the UK will leave the country reliant on immigration for the next 80 years, new research has suggested.

By 2100, Britain along with 198 countries will have fertility rates below what is necessary to sustain population size over time, according to a study published in The Lancet.

The analysis in the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors study predicts that sub-Saharan Africa will account for one in every two children born on the planet by the end of the century.

Meanwhile in Western Europe, the total fertility rate – the average number of children born to women of childbearing age – is predicted to be 1.44 in 2050, dropping to 1.37 in 2100.

In the UK, the total fertility rate was 2.19 in 1950, dropping to 1.85 in 1980 and then 1.49 in 2021. That is well below the rate of 2.1 needed to maintain a steady population without significant immigration.

If that is not clear enough, the article goes on to recite some contradictory propaganda.
“And once nearly every country’s population is shrinking, reliance on open immigration will become necessary to sustain economic growth.
No, if all countries were shrinking, immigration would not help at all. Instead, some countries are expanding, while others are shrinking. Overall, the Earth's population is increasing by 80 million per year.
“Sub-Saharan African countries have a vital resource that ageing societies are losing – a youthful population.”
No, if people thought that babies were a vital resource, then they would have more babies.
She added: “There is very real concern that, in the face of declining populations and no clear solutions, some countries might justify more draconian measures that limit reproductive rights.
No, draconian measures would be to expand reproduction, not limit it. Or maybe it means some countries will force women to have babies. Not sure how that would work.
“It is well established that nations with strong women’s rights are more likely to have better health outcomes and faster economic growth.
GDP counts women in the paid labor force, but not moms taking care of babies. So persuading women to not have babies will increase GDP, but that is just an artifact of how it is calculated.

The US Govt regularly brags about increasing GDP, but it does not keep pace with population increases, so there is no gain in per capita GDP.

“It is imperative women’s rights are promoted and protected and that women are supported in having the number of children they wish and pursuing their careers.”
If increasing the birth rate is really so important, then we would not leave it to the whims and wishes of individual women.

So here is the plan for the 21st century. Use feminism to convince Western women that they have a right to be wage slaves, instead of having babies. Enjoy increased GDP. Import sub-saharan Africans to replace the babies they would have had.

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Musk endorses Great Replacement Theory

Elon Musk retweeted this:
Eva Vlaardingerbroek

Here it is! The full speech I gave at #CPACHungary that the establishment is losing its absolute mind about.

I spoke the forbidden truth: The Great Replacement is no longer a theory - it’s reality. White Europeans are being replaced in their own countries at an ever accelerating rate and it will mean the end of our civilization if we don’t turn things around.

Musk adds that the Replacement is accelerated by low White birth rates.

Some will say that this is a good thing, because it is leading to a more diverse and equitable world. I doubt it, but this is important, and we should have an open and honest debate about it.

Explain to me exactly why it is good that London, Amsterdam, Ireland, Sweden, etc. have had hugh demographic shifts? The result is almost entirely negative.

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Pres. Biden is Losing Support

Donald Trump tweets:
Crooked Joe Biden would say, constantly, that he ran because of Charlottesville. Well, if that’s the case, he’s done a really terrible job because Charlottesville is like a “peanut” compared to the riots and anti-Israel protests that are happening all over our Country, RIGHT NOW….And it’s Crooked’s fault because he sends the wrong message every single time. The fact is that Crooked Joe Biden HATES Israel and Hates the Jewish people. The problem is that he HATES the Palestinians even more, and he just doesn’t know what to do!?!?
Pres. Biden approval rating is the lawest ever, for a President in his 13th quarter.

I think the big issues are immigration, inflation, foreign policy, and LGBTQ issues. He is deeply unpopular on all of these. Plus his family is correct, and he is too denile to do the job.

The Democrats have bet the campaign on trying to convict Trump of the supposed crime of describing a legal expense as a legal expense. Nobody can explain what is criminal about what he did. The NY prosecutor says that there is a loophole in the law where they only have to convince a jury of criminal intent, without actually specifying a crime.

Biden did say several times that he ran for President because several peaceful protesters in Charlottesville chanted "Jews will not replace us." Or maybe it was "You will not replace us." So he has tried his best to replace White Americans.

Friday, April 26, 2024

Harvey Weinstein Conviction Overturned

AP reports:
New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein ’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.

“We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” the court’s 4-3 decision said. “The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

The state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. His accusers could again be forced to retell their stories on the witness stand.

The court’s majority said “it is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges lodged against them.”

This was a strange case. The news media was filled with reports of as many as 100 accusers, and yet there was no firm evidence. The main accuser in court was contradicted by a lot of evidence that the affair was consensual.

Weinstein was only convicted by convincing the jury that Weinstein had a pattern of bad behavior, as indicated by uncharged accusations.

Here is the court opinion.

I previously posted that Weinstein is innocent, and did not get a fair NY trial. I did not follow the LA trial.

Another trial disaster is the various charges against the founders of Backpage, an online service similar to Craigslist. Here is the latest:

A federal judge has acquitted Backpage co-founder Michael Lacey of dozens of counts, including a majority of those on which federal prosecutors planned to retry Lacey later this year. U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa also acquitted former Backpage executives Jed Brunst and Scott Spear on multiple counts of which they were convicted by a jury last fall.
This was a big story because of the sex trafficking charges, but they all appear bogus. Lacey was just found guilty of "international concealment of money laundering", whatever that is.

The feds were out to shut down Backpage because some prostitutes liked to advertise on it, but it was really just an ad site, and the company should not have been liable for personal ads. The feds claimed that there were underage girls on the site, but I don't think anyone proved that.

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Three types of anti-science Misinformation

Our scientific publications have been corrupted.

SciAm reports:

Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary

This is bad science. The production of gametes does not sufficiently describe sex biology in animals, nor is it the definition of a woman or a man.

The animal kingdom does not limit itself to only one biological binary regarding how a species makes gametes. Scientifically speaking, animals with the capacity to produce ova are generally called “female” and sperm producers “male.” While most animal species fall into the “two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract” model, many don’t. Some worms produce both. Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives. There are even lizards that have done away with one type all together.

So sex is binary throughout the animal kingdom, except for some worms. And sex is immutable except for some fish.

Mammal sex is binary.

Another SciAm article:

How Anti-Trans Efforts Misuse and Distort Science

Three types of misinformation are being used against transgender people: oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research and promoting false equivalences ...

Many of the arguments against trans rights center on the idea that transness itself is not legitimate—that there are just two sexes, period. You describe this idea as “sex essentialism.” ...

Essentialism is the idea that you can take any phenomenon that is complex and distill it down to a particular set of traits. In the case of sex essentialism, the idea is that you can sufficiently describe sex by a few particular characteristics. In this debate, it used to be chromosomes, now it’s gametes (egg and sperm cells). The target is always moving, because if you want to make something binary, then you need to find the most binary characteristic. Today, sex essentialism boils all of sex down to the gametes that a person produces. Then you draw a line from gametes to all of these other characteristics—to sex roles, even to the personality of an entire individual.

Biologists have used gametes to define sex for about a century. And yes, there are just two sexes, period.
Today dishonest ascriptions of what biology is are being deployed to restrict women’s bodily autonomy, target LGBTQIA+ individuals broadly and, most recently, attack the rights of transexual and transgender people.

Given what we know about biology across animals and in humans, efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society.

This is crazy stuff. Why the talk about "women’s bodily autonomy", if it denies the difference between men and women? Why "transexual and transgender people" -- do these trans people try to change their sex or their gender? No one is "trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society".

Science is corrupted.

Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Islamized Europe or a European Europe?

NY Times:
“There’s just one question on voting day. Do you want an Islamized Europe or a European Europe?”

This stark choice was posed by Marion Maréchal, a rising star of the French far right, at the launch of her party’s campaign for the European elections in June. In an incendiary speech, she spoke of a Europe under siege from “many foreign powers and Islamist organizations profiting from anarchic immigration in their efforts at destabilization, subverting our youth, organizing something like a Fifth Column in our countries and recruiting deadly jihadist soldiers.” She was joined by a stream of speakers bewailing a European project hijacked by L.G.B.T.Q. activists, environmental fanatics and anti-Western ideologues. ...

While Ms. Maréchal’s Reconquest party sulfurously accuses elites of orchestrating a Great Replacement of Christians by Muslims, it seeks its own place in the corridors of power.

Yesm there is a Great Replacement. Not sure what makes it "sulfurous".

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Biden continues to push Evil Policies

The Biden admministration has been a disaster for migrant inflow, inflation, foreign wars, and DoJ lawfare.

Here are some lesser policies that are also disasters. AP reports:

The Sheetz convenience store chain has been hit with a lawsuit by federal officials who allege the company discriminated against minority job applicants.

Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials.

In other words, Blacks are criminals but employers have to hire them anyway.

FIRE reports:

Today the Department of Education released troubling new rules on how colleges investigate campus sexual misconduct allegations. The bottom line: Students who find themselves in a campus hearing are now less likely to receive a fair shake. ...

The rules:

  • Eliminate the right to a live hearing to contest the allegations.
  • Eliminate the right to cross-examine one’s accuser and witnesses.
  • Weaken the right to be represented by lawyers in campus sexual misconduct expulsion proceedings.
  • Require colleges to adopt a definition of sexual harassment which will inevitably be used to censor constitutionally protected speech.
  • Allow for the return of the “single-investigator” model, in which a single administrator serves as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
And Biden is pushing transgender grooming in the schools.

Monday, April 22, 2024

Judge with Vagina Engenders Confusion

Canada news:
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a recent sexual assault case that it was “problematic” for a lower court judge to refer to the alleged victim as a “woman,” implying that the more appropriate term should have been “person with a vagina.”

In a decision published Friday, Justice Sheilah Martin wrote that a trial judge’s use of the word “a woman” may “have been unfortunate and engendered confusion.”

Martin does not specify why the word “woman” is confusing, but the next passage in her decision refers to the complainant as a “person with a vagina.” Notably, not one person in the entire case is identified as transgender, and the complainant is referred to throughout as a “she.”

The transgender folks are mentally ill, but what is her excuse? How did she get on the Canada supreme court if she cannot call a woman a woman?

Sunday, April 21, 2024

Cut Funding for Public TV and Radio

Here is NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher on the truth.

There has been a lot of press on this, but isn't it obvious? Their editorial board has 87 Democrats and 0 Republicans. In the last year, it has run about 2000 pro-Biden stories, and 0 pro-Trump stories. An NPR listener would have no idea why anyone ever voted for Trump.

PBS TV is just as bad. If Republicans were really ruling as Republicans, they would cut off govt funding for PBS TV and NPR Radio. They never have a balanced treatment of anything.

The current NPR CEO is the symptom, not the cause. Ask yourself: how does such a wacky woman get such a big job?

The Hill reported a year ago:

It was tendentious — and inaccurate — for Elon Musk to identify NPR on his Twitter platform as a “government-affiliated” news organization. NPR may have its biases, notably in its story selection, but to class it in the same category as the New China News Agency or, in their day, Pravda or Tass, is both argumentative and absurd. ...

NPR may receive little direct federal funding, but a good deal of its budget comprises federal funds that flow to it indirectly by federal law. Here’s how it works: Under the terms of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act, funds are allocated annually to a non-governmental agency, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, overseen by a board of presidential appointees.

It is like China News or Pravda. It is anti-Trump and woke, all day, every day.

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Cofnas Fired for criticizing Diversity

The London Telegraph reports:
Nathan Cofnas, an early career research fellow in the Faculty of Philosophy, is reported to have had his research affiliation with Emmanuel College terminated.

The lecturer had said that in a meritocracy, “blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment” and dismissed racial equality as “based on lies”. ...

“The committee first considered the meaning of the blog and concluded that it amounted to, or could reasonably be construed as amounting to, a rejection of diversity, equality and inclusion policies,” the newspaper quoted the letter as saying.

“The committee concluded that the core mission of the college was to achieve educational excellence and that diversity and inclusion were inseparable from that. The ideas promoted by the blog therefore represented a challenge to the college’s core values and mission.” ...

a 2019 article by Mr Cofnas claiming that there were “gaps” in IQ between different racial groups.

No academic freedom anymore.

If Cofnas were wrong on the facts, someone would write an academic paper proving him wrong. Nope. They fire him because he is right.

I have previously mentioned Cofnas, such as here, on Jewish evolutionary strategy. I do not think he is always right, but he addresses important issues with reason and data.

In a survey of taboo questions, the intersection of race and IQ tops the list.

Friday, April 19, 2024

Leftist Scientists Defend Cannibalism

I am always wondering what the next step Leftists will use to try to bring down civilization.

NewScientist reports:

Is it time for a more subtle view on the ultimate taboo: cannibalism? ...

IT IS the ultimate taboo: in most societies, the idea of one human eating another is morally repugnant. Even in circumstances where it could arguably be justified, such as when a plane crashed in the Andes in 1972 and starving passengers ate the dead to survive, we still have a deep aversion to cannibalism. ...

Ethically, cannibalism poses fewer issues than you might imagine.

No, there was no need for the passengers to eat the dead to survive. All they had to do was to send a couple of players on the soccer team to hike into town to call for help. But they were too lazy, until half of them were dead.

The article does not mention Haiti, but it appears to be written to make us have a more favorable view towards places like that.

Also, Biden Implies His Uncle Bosey Was Eaten by Cannibals.

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

French First Lady to Prove She is a Woman

The NY Post reports:
France’s elegant first lady, Brigitte Macron, is about to take the extraordinary step of going to trial in a Paris court to fight a conspiracy theory — amplified last month by American conservative commentator Candace Owens — that she was born a man.

Brigitte, 70, has long been the subject of fascination because of her marriage to the much younger Emmanuel Macron, 46. The two met in northern France when he was a 15-year-old student and she was his drama teacher, and wed in 2007.

Mme. Macron’s libel trial is set for June, where she will face off against the right-wing accuser and freelance journalist Natacha Rey, who hides behind avatars to push rumors that powerful members of the French establishment are hiding Brigitte’s true identity. ...

“In recent weeks, particularly internationally via the Trumpist influencer Candace Owens, I felt that the harm to my clients was increasing day by day,” Ennochi said.

This is not any more ridiculous than raising questions about Pres. Barack Obama's birth certificate. When our leaders behave strangely, we need proof that they are what they say they are.

Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Democrats depend on Crazy Single Women

Jennifer Galardi writes:
Last month, conservative news host Jesse Kelly told Megyn Kelly on her podcast that “the mentally ill single woman is the beating heart of the Democrat Party.”

He proclaimed over 70 percent of single women vote Democrat. Furthermore, he declared that “studies” show approximately 60 percent of those women had been diagnosed with some sort of mental illness.

Kelly (the man) joked that everyone knows a woman with “her eyes half bugged out of her skull. … She ruins Thanksgiving every time bragging about her 15th abortion!” While Kelly’s exaggerations made me laugh, I simultaneously thought to myself, Oh crap. He’s talking about me. Or at least who I used to be.

Married women and mentally stable women support Trump.

She got some pushback, and followed up:

As much as they whine about “gender” being a social construct, women have inherently feminine traits that predispose them to liberal or progressive values....

The left weaponizes women’s tendency to be more caring and nurturing. They play on emotions all women likely have felt at some point in their lives — the feeling of being taken advantage of, dispossessed, or patronized. Women who have not yet disposed of the victim narrative will continue to empathize with it and stand with their “brothers and sisters.”

Monday, April 15, 2024

Press Tries to Deny that Crime is Up

SciAm reports:
Why We Believe the Myth of High Crime Rates

The crime issue, a focus of the 2024 presidential election, is sometimes rooted in the misplaced fears of people who live in some of the safest places ...

The overwhelming consensus is that crime is only getting worse. According to a Gallup poll, in late 2022, 78 percent of Americans contended that there was more crime than there used to be.

These perceptions would make sense if they were accurate, but they aren’t. Crime, in fact, is down in the U.S., ...

There are many reasons for these attitudes. Partisanship plays a growing role in fueling these perspectives.

The truth is more nearly the opposite. The Wash. Post did a poll to compare US violent crime in 2023 to 2019. 57% correctly answered that crime was higher in 2023, while only 11% of Post readers did.

In other words, crime is up, and the major news and science media are on a propaganda campaign to convince us otherwise.

Sunday, April 14, 2024

Keep Moslems off our Courts

The Pakistani-American lawyer Adeel Abdullah Mangi has been nominated to be a judge.

A Slate column argues:

Democrats—the party that has in recent decades identified themselves with equity and social justice—to recommit to fighting Islamophobia. Instead, they’re allowing Islamophobia to sabotage the judicial nomination of a highly qualified candidate: Adeel Mangi, an attorney from New Jersey, who, if confirmed, would become the first-ever Muslim attorney to sit on a federal appeals court. ...

Confirming Mangi would add some sorely needed diversity to our nation’s courts—the federal bench is currently 66 percent white—and a check on biases. A study by the Center for American Progress found that judges belonging to different racial, ethnic, and religious groups use their unique backgrounds and life experiences to shape their rulings, and that it overall has a net positive impact on our judiciary. “Women judges and judges of color have spoken out about gender and racial bias on the courts and led calls for reforms,”

The article makes two arguments: (1) we should replace White Christian men with more Moslems to promote leftist causes; and (2) anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

No, these arguments are contradictory. If it is bigoted to oppose Moslems on the court, then it is also bigoted to promote Moslems on the court.

This is not a matter of picking the most qualified candidates. He was picked for being a Moslem.

Some say it is wrong to judge someone for a condition he was born into. Maybe Mangi is a Moslem because he was born into it, or maybe he free accepted it as an adult. I am not sure which is worse.

Regardless, Islam is incompatible with Americanism. Appellate judges have a lot of power. and we do not need Moslems.

Saturday, April 13, 2024

The most Pernicious Faith is Islam

Biology prof. Jerry Coyne writes:

But now the most pernicious faith seems to be Islam. Certainly many Muslims (and I know some) practice their faith benignly and even charitably. But many others don’t, and they enable harms throughout the world — harms that were never produced by Christianity or that have been largely abandoned by them. Here are some practices promoted or exacerbated by Islamic doctrine:

  • Islamism: the desire to dominate the world with Islamic doctrine, including sharia law
  • The codified oppression of women. In many places women must be veiled, put into cloth sacks, can’t go out without a male guardian, can’t go to school or get many jobs, must walk behind their husbands, can be beaten (or divorced) by their husbands without sanction, can be stoned to death for adultery (a practice just resumed by the Taliban in Afghanistan), and so on.
  • Honor culture: killing of family members who supposedly sully a family’s “honor”
  • Female genital mutilation, which is encouraged in many places by Islam
  • Sharia law, which is also oppressive. For example, the testimony of women under sharia law counts only half as much as a man’s
  • The oppression of gays, including outright murder in places like Gaza and legal execution in places like Iran.
  • Blasphemy laws, under which you can be killed for insulting Islam or burning the Qur’an
  • The demonization and sometimes the killing of apostates or atheists
  • The issuing of fatwas when Westerners insult Islam, sometimes calling for killing those perceived to insult the religion (Charlie Hebdo, Salman Rushdie, etc.). This is connected with the blasphemy laws mentioned above
  • Divisiveness within the religion that leads to war and death: Sunnis kill Shiites and vice versa, so there are internecine killings as well as cross-cultural killing
  • The propagation of hatred of Jews and propagandizing of the young
  • Favoring religious teaching in madrassas above secular teaching
  • The suppression of freedom of speech in general, particularly that which criticizes the government, often an explicitly Islamic government.  Masih Alinejad, for instance, fears for her life in America because she criticizes Iran, which has tried to both kill and kidnap her in separate incidents. Why? Because she’s against mandatory wearing of the headscarf (hijab) for women.
Islam is worse that this. First, there is no really any difference between Islam and Islamism. All followers of Islam believe in dominating the world with Islamic doctrine, and committing jihad against others.

Islam cannot co-exist with other religions. It cannot even co-exist with secular government.

Islam does not believe in free will, or other freedoms we take for granted. If you are born into Islam, you must stick with Islam or be killed.

There are now Leftists, some of them Atheists, who say it is bigoted to say one religion is better than another. Yes, some religions are better, and Islam is the worst.

Thursday, April 11, 2024

Getting Visas for Staging Robberies

Instead of deporting criminals, we are giving them visas to stay! Example:
HOUSTON – In January, FOX 26 reported on what police thought was a robbery turned homicide when a bystander shot the robber, but an investigation now shows that the robbery was fake.

22-year-old Rasshauud Scott was staging a robbery that two victims were in on when Jesus Vargas, a bystander, shot and killed him.

Court records say that Scott was working with William X Winfrey, who instructed Scott to stage the robbery in exchange for money.

The documents say the two victims were in on the robbery, so they could file for U-Visas. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a U-Visa is granted to victims of certain crimes to aid law enforcement in solving cases. It grants the victim temporary immigration status, including work authorization; temporary immigration status for qualifying family members of the victim; and the possibility of lawful permanent resident status.

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Sex is not Assigned at Birth

Richard Dawkins writes:
The American Medical Association says that the word “sex” — as in male or female — is problematic and outdated; we should all now use the “more precise” phrase “sex assigned at birth.” The American Psychological Association concurs: Terms like “birth sex” and “natal sex” are “disparaging” and misleadingly “imply that sex is an immutable characteristic.” The American Academy of Pediatrics is on board too: “sex,” it declares, is “an assignment that is made at birth.” And now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urge us to say “assigned male/female at birth” or “designated male/female at birth” instead of “biologically male/female” or “genetically male/female.” ...

Even so, the sexual divide is an exceedingly clear binary, as binary as any distinction you can find in biology.

So where does this leave the medical associations’ claims about “sex assigned at birth”?

A baby’s name is assigned at birth; no one doubts that. But a baby’s sex is not “assigned”; it is determined at conception and is then observed at birth, first by examination of the external genital organs and then, in cases of doubt, by chromosomal analysis.

Or from a NY Times op-ed:
This matters because sex matters. Sex is a fundamental biological feature with significant consequences for our species, so there are costs to encouraging misconceptions about it.

Sex matters for health, safety and social policy and interacts in complicated ways with culture. ...

More generally, the interaction between sex and human culture is crucial to understanding psychological and physical differences between boys and girls, men and women. We cannot have such understanding unless we know what sex is, which means having the linguistic tools necessary to discuss it. ...

The problem is that “sex assigned at birth”— unlike “larger-bodied”— is very misleading. Saying that someone was “assigned female at birth” suggests that the person’s sex is at best a matter of educated guesswork. “Assigned” can connote arbitrariness — as in “assigned classroom seating” — and so “sex assigned at birth” can also suggest that there is no objective reality behind “male” and “female,” no biological categories to which the words refer.

Contrary to what we might assume, avoiding “sex” doesn’t serve the cause of inclusivity: not speaking plainly about males and females is patronizing. ...

A more radical proponent of “assigned sex” will object that the very idea of sex as a biological fact is suspect. According to this view — associated with the French philosopher Michel Foucault and, more recently, the American philosopher Judith Butler — sex is somehow a cultural production, the result of labeling babies male or female. “Sex assigned at birth” should therefore be preferred over “sex,” not because it is more polite, but because it is more accurate.

This position tacitly assumes that humans are exempt from the natural order. If only! Alas, we are animals. Sexed organisms were present on Earth at least a billion years ago, and males and females would have been around even if humans had never evolved.