Thursday, June 24, 2021

ACLU wants to Ban Book on Transgenders

A book can be both praised and hated. But praised and banned? Former NY Times columnist writes:
You may have heard of Shrier. She is the author of Irreversible Damage, which the Economist named one of the best books of last year, and a dogged journalist who has taken on the difficult and thankless subject of the enormous rise of gender dysphoria among teenage girls.

I say thankless because it’s hard to capture the decibel of the vitriol that has met her work. To give you a taste: one of the ACLU’s most prominent lawyers said that “stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” (The subject of how the ACLU came to favor book banning is taken up brilliantly here.)

Here is the top comment:
And I understand why so many people object. I recently learned that my niece is now my nephew. His parents are both conservative. They wrestled with the issue and only relented and affirmed his identity as male after a long period of adjustment and a lot of counseling. It's easy for me to understand why their family would be upset about a book that questions their decision. ...

And I think that's a positive step for America. We are becoming a less closed-minded, bigoted nation thanks to free speech and the activism of the lgbtq+ community and their supporters. Yay America!

Here is a positive review of Shrier's book, now retracted by the journal, and a negative review.

I am trying to understand both sides of this issue, but it is difficult. I read the retraction statement, and it is transparently dishonest. I read the negative review, and there is very little substance to it. Its best point was that the transgender medicos are following published recommendations. So what? Those recommendations could be written by sick perverts. There does not appear to be any serious science in support of what they say.

The review even has a paragraph attacking the publisher for publishing other books that are politically conservative books. I wonder if that is really the point here. Advocating transgenderism is just a way of taking sides in the culture war. After all, the percentage of the population with a direct interest in transgenderism is much less than 1%, and yet the issue dominates the leftist agenda.

The UK BBC reports:

The US government has announced it will offer gender confirmation surgery for transgender veterans through its health care coverage for the first time.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) secretary Denis McDonough announced the change at a Pride event in Florida.

This is what used to be called sex change surgery. I guess that they decided that the term was inaccurate because the surgery helps change gender, not sex.
Mr McDonough made the announcement in Orlando on Saturday. The city this month marked five years since a gunman opened fire at a gay nightclub, killing 49 people.
The gunman was a Moslem who did not know that the nightclub was gay. But I guess we can compensate for it by castrating some retired soldiers. Plus Disney is going to remake Snow White with a non-white actress.

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Feminists Emasculating Men

South Koreans feminists use an emoji symbol to celebrate small penises. Weird.

Harvard-MIT feminists are gloating about declining sperm counts:

The human species is in grave reproductive danger, according to recent headlines. Some scientists say that sperm counts in men around the world have been plummeting, with Western men approaching total infertility by 2045. Far-right “Great Replacement” theorists, who fear that people of color are “replacing” the white population, have taken up the research with gusto. […]

The narrative that white, Western men are in danger of emasculation and disappearance has deep roots in white nationalist discourse. It is tied to a nostalgic cultural myth of a past in which white men held unchallenged power.

Yeah, White men are nostalgic about the days when they had high sperm counts and everyone accepted them as dominating the sexual hierarchy.

Breitbart reports:
LGBT activist Jayne Ozanne has insisted that “gentle non-coercive prayer” should be included in UK legislation banning LGBT conversion therapy.

Ms. Ozanne has said that prayer asking for God’s help to overcome same-sex attraction resembles hate speech, even in the case of “gentle non-coercive prayer,” and therefore should be outlawed.

“All prayer that seeks to change or suppress someone’s innate sexuality or gender identity is deeply damaging and causes immeasurable harm,” Ozanne asserted, dubbing such a practice “hate prayer.”

“Prayer isn’t prayer if it causes you to hate yourself for being LGBT!” Ozanne wrote on Twitter last month. “It’s actually ‘Hate prayer.’ It is dangerous, damaging & must be included in a bill to #BanConversationtherapy.”

“I know – I spent years trying to ‘pray the gay away’ & ended up in hospital wishing I would die,” she said.

This is the future, I am afraid. We will not even be able to pray for a normal life.

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

WashPo Video prepares for Racial Reckoning

The Wash. Post and other liberal news media keep telling us to prepare for a racial reckoning, such as with this video:
The Lily What is White racial identity and why is it important?

When George Floyd died, people across the United States started to look more critically at how white supremacy affects all of us. In this episode, we talk to mental health experts and scholars about why understanding your whiteness and the ways that white supremacy benefits you is an important part of becoming self aware.

Ben Shapiro has a video explaining what is wrong here.

Wash. Post gives the impression that (1) given the choice, BIPOCs prefer to live among White supremacists; and (2) BIPOCs will endlessly complain about it.

The Black woman on the Wash. Post video says that since Floyd died, for the first time White people became of their whiteness. A White woman says Whites are experiencing an awakening of their racial identity. She says Whites are not racist, and do not even understand the supposed racism that BIPOCs are complaining about.

I am not sure this propaganda is going to do what they think. If White start identifying with Whites as a group, they may want to disassociate with criminal junkies like Floyd, and other BIPOCs who are perpetually resentful of Whites and White culture.

A new poll shows that all this racism propaganda has mainly convinced White women:

In the Angus Reid Institute poll released on Monday, 54% of women under age 35 were ready to condemn Canada as racist, while only 21% of men over 55 agreed.

Young women, in fact, were even more likely than non-whites to take a negative view on race relations. The survey showed that 42% of non-white Canadians see the country as racist. Among women over 55, 30% agreed that Canada is racist.

Those Canadian women under 35 have probably never even witnessed any racist acts. They are just reciting what they have been told in school, or about George Floyd.
The poll showed that 85% of Canadians believe the country is made stronger by having residents from various ethnic and racial backgrounds. In other words, they agreed with what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said repeatedly, that “Diversity is our strength.”
Now this is seriously delusional. Canada was almost split by Quebec separatists. Most Canadians have no idea how much worse it can be with other ethnic groups.

Update: Here is a good criticism of the Wash. Post video.

Monday, June 21, 2021

White Fagility is now Nice Racism

According to a new book, Nice Racism, the worst racists are those guilty of:
-rushing to prove that we are “not racist”;
-downplaying white advantage;
-romanticizing Black, Indigenous and other peoples of color (BIPOC);
-pretending white segregation “just happens”;
-expecting BIPOC people to teach us about racism;
-and feeling immobilized by shame.
Okay, I will try to avoid these.

White segregation does not just happen. It is nearly always the result of BIPOC hostility.

No, I do not expect BIPOCs to teach us about racism. BIPOCs are much more racist than Whites, by any measure. We can learn by seeing their examples of their own racism, but that's about all.

We should not romanticize BIPOCs. Racists are treating George Floyd as a hero, but he was just a criminal junkie.

There is no shame in being White. The book says all Whites are racist, by definition, so there should be no shame in being a White racist. It is a necessary consequence of being born into a multiracial society.

It is a mistake for Whites to rush to prove that they are not racist. They and others would be better off celebrating White ethnicity and culture.

Finally, let's not downplay White advantage. This author portrays BIPOCs as emotionally retarded infantilized pitiable creatures in perpetual of what they regard as their White superiors.

I have heard of the 1973 French novel The Camp of the Saints being called a White supremacist textbook. The Robin DiAngelo books are the White supremacist books of the 21st century.

I should note that there are sensible Blacks who are disgusted by everything in these books. The books are mainly popular with White liberals.

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Happy Fathers Day

Research shows that fathers are extremely important, as their presence is correlated with all good parenting outcomes. Eg, crime comes from kids raised in fatherless homes. Kids do better with fathers in every way that anyone has ever measured. Singles dads do better than single moms.

Fathers Day usually has a lot of messages blaming fathers for not doing more. In a way, this is a recognition of the crucial importance of fathers.

If the importance of fathers were truly recognized, then fathers would get child custody in divorce cases. Instead, the bias is against fathers. Angelina Jolie sued Brad Pitt for divorce 5 years ago, and says she will never forgive him for seeking joint custody, and is now trying to manipulate the kids to testify against him. If the importance of fathers were really recognized, then the case would have ended 5 years ago.

The scientific evidence doesn't really prove what it appears. It is possible that all the bad outcomes are caused by bad mothering, and bad behavior by the mom is also what drives the dads away.

Or it may be that the parenting practices are irrelevant. The damage may be all at the genetic level. That is, the mom may have bad genes that cause her to choose dads with bad genes, and cause her to be unable to keep a husbands. Inheritance of those bad genes is then what causes the bad outcomes in kids, not the bad parental behavior.

Regardless, we would all be better off with a father custody rule. The consensus of the comments on the above story is that Jolie is a evil lunatic who should never have been allowed to litigate custody for 5 years.

Saturday, June 19, 2021

Evolution by Jerks, Falsified

During about 1980-2000 the leading science popularizer and intellectual was Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. His biggest scientific accomplishment was something his detractors called Evolution by Jerks. He called their theory Evolution by Creeps. Supposedly Gould had replaced Darwinian evolutionary thoery.

Evolution professor Jerry Coyne writes:

Punctuated equilibrium (PE) was first proposed in a paper by Niles Eldredge and Steve Gould (“E&G”; reference below) in 1972, the year before entered graduate school. When I entered Harvard in 1973 it was a huge deal, heavily promoted by Gould, a professor in the Museum of Comparative Zoology as a replacement for the view of evolution most people held (“neo-Darwinism). Not a little of the theory’s popularity came from Gould’s nonstop promotion as well as his extraordinary ability to write popular science. ...

But, over time, PE became more than a hypothesis about the relative rate of evolutionary change in fossil lineages. It morphed into a theory of evolutionary process — a theory that was pretty much “non-neo-Darwinian” and also much more controversial. And while the pattern may be right, the processes proposed by E&G are so wrong that I’d call them “definitively falsified”.

Gould was also an over-opinionated Jewish Marxist.

Among the general public, Gould's most famous work was a book attacking the measurement of intelligence. The book was trashed by experts, and praised by non-experts. As Wikipedia politely explain:

The book received many positive reviews in the literary and popular press, including many written by scientists, but the reviews in scientific journals were, for the most part, highly critical.[4] Literary reviews praised the book for opposing racism, the concept of general intelligence, and biological determinism.[4] Reviews in scientific journals accused Gould of historical inaccuracy, unclear reasoning, and political bias.
Gould is dead. He is still a good example of how a very high status public intellectual can be full of crap.

Friday, June 18, 2021

Older woman gets lucky with IVF

NY Times guess essay:
I Did I.V.F. Without a Partner. It Shouldn’t Have Been So Hard. ...

Aziz Ansari, the co-creator of “Master of None” and the director and co-writer of the episode, is a friend, and in the fall of 2019 he told me that he wanted to write a story about a woman doing I.V.F. without a partner, as I had done. He wanted to hear my story. ...

Then there is the societal judgment that single would-be mothers face, especially those over 40, as I was. Doing I.V.F. alone is still seen as an outlandish choice, even by some of those that offer the services. At times it felt as though I was offending everyone else’s morality, just because my circumstances did not fit their idea of what’s “normal.”

Those who offer the services do a lot of their business with women like her. That is, older single women who passed up many earlier opportunities to get married and pregnant.

The essay implies that clinics and insurance companies should do more to enable her right to be a parent. I wonder if she thinks the same about men wanting to be parents.

The top reader comment is:

I'm sorry, what was so hard about this? The title implies that there is some systemic flaw that warrants correction, but it's just a story about a fairly privileged human traveling to different countries to find a doctor who will give her what she wants, which is to bring yet another human into an already overpopulated world. The scope of vision here is absurdly shallow.
The next top reader comment says:
When I was 29, an unkind family member suggested that 29 was getting too old to get pregnant. I thank that unkind family member mentally every day of my life, because if my husband and I had waited another few years to get pregnant, we probably would not have had our children. We just didn't know about my fertility problems until we started trying. ...

No one should voluntarily wait until the last possible moment (early 40's) to get pregnant and then hope technology bails them out. I'm sorry if this sounds unkind, but again, I owe my children to unkind advice.

Every 29 year old woman should hear that unkind advice. Another NY Times article says women in their 20s are not having kids anymore.

The Netflix show has this summary:

Three years after the events of Chapter 3, Alicia discusses the possibility of being a single mother and the grueling process of getting pregnant at her age at a nearby fertility center. Her first round of IVF shots do not go well, as they only produce a fragmented embryo that can't be implanted. Her mother consoles her through her efforts and with a renewed spirit she tries again with a determination to be a "bad bitch" and get the job done. The episode ends with Alicia being ecstatic after being informed about her pregnancy.
The real-life IVF Alicia of the essay is White, while the fictional IVF Alicia is Black. Replacing Whites with BIPOCs is a theme of the Netflix series.

Both Alicias complain that insurance pays for infertility treatments, but the company is reluctant to pay unless there is some evidence of infertility.  

A law firm is offering these benefits:

A law firm has offered to fund surrogate mothers for staff wanting to start a family as part of a £45,000 package of fertility care measures.

The perk will cover not just IVF or egg-freezing treatment but also ‘gestational carriers’ as the country’s top law firms rush to provide pioneering medical benefits and to show their credentials as employers committed to diversity.

The offer to London-based solicitors employed by Cooley will see employees, including single men and women and gay couples, subsidised to have children, even to the point of surrogate mothers bearing their offspring.

It follows the offer from another firm to provide IVF and egg freezing, and another to pay for gender transition surgery.

Cooley, which is based in San Francisco and has clients among Silicon Valley tech businesses, has extended the fertility treatment package offer to London staff after it was made available in California offices.

The firm will reimburse staff up to £45,000 for fertility treatment.

It said it was a package for ‘personalised fertility care and family-forming support’ and that it was available to ‘single parents by choice and LGBTQ+ individuals and couples’ as well as employees with opposite sex spouses and partners.

The offer extends to adoption expenses.

Paying for adoptions and gestational carriers is illegal in England, if the money goes to the mom.

My guess is that the firm has a lot of female employees who are being persuaded to indefinitely defer motherhood in favor of career advancement at the firm. It offers this benefit in order to trick them into thinking that they are keeping their options open. Very few of them will actually have babies at age 40.

Thursday, June 17, 2021

Public is concerned about the Satanic Cabal

The NY Times reports on a new poll:
15 percent of Americans say they think that the levers of power are controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles, a core belief of QAnon supporters. The same share said it was true that “American patriots may have to resort to violence” to depose the pedophiles and restore the country’s rightful order.

And fully 20 percent of respondents said that they thought a biblical-scale storm would soon sweep away these evil elites and “restore the rightful leaders"....

14 percent of Americans fall into the category of “QAnon believers,” composed of those who agreed with the statements in all three questions. Among Republicans only, that rises to roughly one in four. (Twelve percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats were categorized as QAnon believers.)

But the analysts went a level further: They created a category labeled “QAnon doubters” to include respondents who had said they “mostly disagreed” with the outlandish statements, but didn’t reject them outright. Another 55 percent of Republicans fell into this more ambivalent category.

Which means that just one in five Republicans fully rejected the premises of the QAnon conspiracy theory. For Democrats, 58 percent were flat-out QAnon rejecters.

What are we supposed to think, when our leaders, from Pres. Biden on down, openly support sex changes on minors?

And why won't they tell us what really happened on Jan. 6? The feds are sitting on 15,000 hours of video recordings that they refuse to release. And now it turns out that some of the leaders of the protests are not being charged, because they were FBI informants:

“We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who were present in the capital on January 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them, and many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight. But strangely, some of the key people who participated on January 6 have not been charged…The government calls those people unindicted co-conspirators. What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every single case they were FBI operatives,” the host added.

Tucker cited the example of a mystery individual identified in court filings only as “Person Two,” who stayed in the same hotel room as Thomas Caldwell, a 65-year-old Virginia man alleged to belong to the Oath Keepers, described by the Justice Department as a “paramilitary” and “militia” group which was involved in the Capitol unrest.

According to a DoJ filing against Caldwell his alleged co-conspirators, the retiree joined “Person Two and others known and unknown in storming past barricades and climbing stairs up to a balcony on the west side of the Capitol building.”

Black crime in our cities is skyrocketing, but Biden's only answer is to tell everyone to spy and snitch on your White friends and neighbors:
President Joe Biden’s administration announced their plans to create ways for Americans to report radicalized friends and family to the government, in an effort to fight domestic terrorism.
If you tell the truth about what is going on, you risk losing your bank account. Even Trump's lawyers are being persecuted.

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

Belgium is Already a Lost Country

From a translated video:
A couple of days ago I posted a video from Silvia Sardone, an Italian MEP for the Lega, talking about the enormous mosque being built in Strasbourg with funding from the city government. In the following video Ms. Sardone visits the other “capital of Europe”, Brussels, to discuss the recent conviction of four members of the Flemish nationalist group Voorpost. The four men were given six-month prison sentences for displaying a banner with the words “Stop Islamization” above stylized figures clad in niqabs.
Apparently Moslems have enough political power that they cannot be criticized.

This is not freedom of religion. This is subjugation by an invading people.

The US is not even concerned about Islam anymore. The feds just want to blame Whites. The Atlantic reports:

In the two decades since September 11, the U.S. has fought terrorism and extremism by concentrating on law-enforcement and intelligence readiness, with experts focused on disrupting fringe groups before they carry out violence. This Band-Aid approach is ill-suited to combatting modern far-right extremism, which has spread well beyond fringe groups and into the mainstream.
No, there is no far-right extremism in the mainstream. This is just silly.

If we have learned anything in the last year, it is that BLM has led to a huge upsurge in murders and other criminal violence. And not by far-right extremists. About 95% of it is in groups that vote Democrat.

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

The Dark Side of Bitcoin

The NY Times has an essay on The Brutal Truth About Bitcoin.

The entire essay is about positive aspects of Bitcoin, until this paragraph at the end:

Ironically, rather than truly democratizing finance, some of these innovations may exacerbate inequality. Unequal financial literacy and digital access might result in sophisticated investors garnering the benefits while the less well off, dazzled by new technologies, take on risks they do not fully comprehend. Computer algorithms could worsen entrenched racial and other biases in credit scoring and financial decisions, rather than reducing them. The ubiquity of digital payments could also destroy any remaining vestiges of privacy in our day-to-day lives.
This is like a parody of leftist nonsense. Yes, of course every investment threatens to benefit some more than others. That is what investments do.

There are no racial biases in credit scoring. The agencies do not track race.

It does not even mention the real brutal truth of Bitcoin -- it is primarily used for financial crimes. It is used for extortion, tax evasion, smuggling, and money laundering. If some country or large corporation would create a suitable digital currency, then there would be no use for Bitcoin. A trillion dollars in digital assets could disappear, and we would be better off.

Monday, June 14, 2021

The Mental Health Gap

It used to be that the Republican Party had the more educated and wealthy members. On average, Republicans had about one more year of schooling than Democrats. Over the last 25 years this has reversed.

Now the super-rich are Democrats, and so are the college professors and govt workrs. The Democrats have also become the hate-whitey party. Working class whites have shifted to Republican. On the coasts the elites are Democrats, while elsewhere many of the elites are Republicans.

There is another gap that is rarely mentioned. One out of six Americans is on psychiatric drugs, and the big majority of them are women.

Want to guess their political leanings?

Breitbart reports on a Pew study:

When sex and age were factors, 56.3 percent of white women between the ages of 18 and 29 and who labeled themselves as “liberal,” said they had been given a mental health diagnosis, compared to 27.3 percent of conservatives in the same categories and 28.4 percent of moderates
Donald Trump would still be President, if the election were limited to sane voters.

Here is some typical liberal commentary:

America’s story is threaded with racial bias. Does anyone seriously question that we would move forward more effectively if we all move together? Does Texas really think it can suppress its non-white majority in coming elections? ...

South Africa confronted apartheid. Germany acknowledged the Holocaust. We Americans have a tragic history of racism that began with slavery and has never ended. We cannot be afraid to look at our own past.

I recently came across a photo from the 1940s of a young boy of 8 or 9 drinking from a “colored” water fountain in North Carolina. That is the definition of systemic racism, and proof that racial bias and the American legal system have been intertwined during our ongoing fight for equality in the United States.

Really? While Germany was gassing the Jews 80 years ago, America was providing separate drinking fountains for young boys. It is all just systemic racism, right? Today, we have school programs to teach those boys to hate Whites, and then segregated graduation ceremonies.

Here is another, from the London Guardian:

Food injustice has deep roots: let’s start with America’s apple pie

From amnesia about apple pie to burger battlefields, author and academic Raj Patel says today’s food justice fights have long, bloody histories

So some Indian guy hates America, as symbolized by apple pie. Maybe I will write an essay on why I hate Indian food, and on how everyone in India is to blame for it.

These essays are increasingly common, and appeal only to liberals suffering mental illnesses.

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Donald Trump has been proven correct

Matt Margolis writes:
Ten Media Lies Trump Has Been Proven Right About Since the Election

1. Hydroxychloroquine works

2. The Virus came from a Chinese lab

3. Hunter Biden’s laptop was real

4. Lafayette Square was not cleared for a photo op

5. The “Russian bounties” story was fake

6. We did produce vaccines before the end of 2020, in record time

7. Blue state lockdowns didn’t work

8. Schools should be opened

9. Critical race theory is a disaster for our schools and our country

10. Our southern border security program was an unprecedented success

He does not even mention the election being stolen, or Pres. Biden being incompetent.

As one example, the NY Times had dozens of stories about how Trump was evil because he cleared out protesters for a photo-op. The story was fake news. Not that there would be anything wrong with the President of the USA crossing the street for a photo-op, but the press reports were mostly false.

There were many bigger press lies about Trump, but this one is particularly revealing.

Saturday, June 12, 2021

Gallup reports increase in same-sex marriage support

I posted some comments on public opinion about same-sex marriage, and now I see a new Gallup Poll:
Today's 70% support for same-sex marriage marks a new milestone in a trend that has pointed upward for a quarter of a century. A small minority of Americans (27%) supported legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages in 1996, when Gallup first asked the question. But support rose steadily over time, eventually reaching the majority level for the first time in 2011.

20. Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

This appears to be a dramatic change, but notice the strange wording of the question. When California voted twice on the issue, the question was whether marriage is between a man and a woman. This question assumes that same-sex couple can get married, and asks about legal recognition and rights.

It does appear that politicians and other public figures making arguments for traditional marriage have totally evaporated. I do not believe that they were persuaded. They were intimidated and harassed. In part by the gay lobby, but also by feminists and others who oppose marriage.

There are even some factions that pretend to support traditional marriage, but don't. For example, consider:

Angelina Jolie reportedly will 'never forgive' Brad Pitt after he was awarded joint custody of their children last week.

According to reports from US Weekly on Tuesday, the actress, 45, was left 'bitterly disappointed' by the result and feels their legal battle is 'far from over'.

Advocates of traditional marriage should be siding with Brad Pitt on this. But they don't. Even some very religious advocates believe in a mom-custody rule that is contrary to traditional marriage.

We see something similar with transgender issues. I have never heard of anyone persuaded by transgender arguments. But a great many people have been intimidated and harassed. You can get canceled for saying a simple truth like "a man is a man". So now most politicians and public figures will not say it. Were they convinced that a man is not a man? Of course not. They just don't want to get sucked into some stupid transgender debate where they get persecuted for saying the obvious.

Update: Another Gallup poll says more LGBT adults are married to a spouse of the opposite sex (11.4%) than to a spouse of the same sex (9.6%). Overall, less than 1% of U.S. adults are married to a same-sex spouse.

Some of those classify themselves as bisexual (B of LGBT). Of the T for transgender, it is possible that one could have an opposite-sex spouse who is also same-gender. Or same-sex and opposite gender, as transgenders change gender but not sex.

Friday, June 11, 2021

Biden replaces Mothers with Birthing People

This sounds like a joke, but is serious.

Newsweek reports:

The White House's 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding, prompting ridicule Monday from President Joe Biden's conservative critics.

The Biden administration's budget includes a public health section which addresses efforts to "reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality." The budget specifically addresses racial disparities between Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and other women of color.

The biggest race-based disparity is the low Hispanic mortality.

The NY Post reports:

A white New York City psychoanalyst is under fire after publishing a report decrying his skin color as a “malignant, parasitic like condition” without a “permanent cure.”

Dr. Donald Moss — a published author who teaches at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute — published “On Having Whiteness” last month in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association.

“Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has — a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which ‘white’ people have a particular susceptibility,” an abstract of the article on Sage Journals says.

“The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world.

“Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse,” states the paper, also published on the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed site.

Okay, but he is not a "white New York City psychoanalyst". He is Jewish.

I know, he looks white, and would be considered white in a lot of contexts. But not this.

The whole practice of psychoanalysis is a Jewish anti-white ideology. When Jewish psychoanalysists attack whites, they are attacking their biggest enemy, White Christianity.

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Republicans need to resist the Democrat election control

A bunch of Democrat professors have posted an open letter:
We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. ...

We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary — including suspending the filibuster — in order to pass national voting and election administration standards

No, that Democrat measure, H.R. 1, is the most radical change to election law in American history.

It is telling that Democrats want to abolish traditional Senate voting rules in order to impose its idea of Democracy.

It is also telling that they complain about "intentionally destructive allegations". It is not really possible for allegations to be destructive. An election should be demonstrable free and fair. It should not be dependent on no one making any allegations.

Donald Trump won a majority of the verifiable votes cast on election day. Democrats want us to accept Biden's win based on secret vote casting and counting. We should not. If allegations lead to fairer elections, so much the better.

But H.R. 1 is just a Democrat power play. For the most part, Republicans just want to return elections to the fairer procedures of several years ago.

The NY Times says it is all about race, as usual. The whole point is to import non-white voters to displace White voters. It says the Democrats want to counteract what Tucker Carlson said:

In a democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter.
Democracy is not compatible with open borders, or with identity politics.

Wednesday, June 09, 2021

Russia calls out American Racism

Robert Hampton writes:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov apparently shows more concern for ordinary white Americans than the average Republican lawmaker. ...

Lavrov’s purpose was to skewer the United Nations dedicating a day to acknowledging the horrible threat posed by “white supremacy.” The Russian diplomat said that the decision reflects the UN operating as the “the Organization Promoting American concepts, or American trends.”

This position contrasts sharply with that of our own diplomats. Joe Biden’s UN Ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, went before the international body twice this Spring to denounce white Americans and the Founding Fathers.

Four-hundred-and-two years ago, African slaves were forced onto the shores of the colony of Virginia. Two years ago, the 1619 Project brought attention to this anniversary, and put the consequences of slavery, and the contributions of Black Americans, back at the center of our history and of our national narrative. As the project detailed, slavery is the original sin of America. It’s weaved white supremacy and black inferiority into our founding documents and principles.

She repeated those remarks again a month later. American media outlets praised her comments as a “powerful” rebuttal against racism.

America is fond of calling out Russia’s alleged human rights abuses and disregard for democratic norms. Lavrov responded to these claims with a reminder of America’s own record, particularly its persecution of Trump supporters involved in the Capitol protests.

“We are following with interest the persecution of those persons who are accused of the riots on January 6 this year,” Lavrov said last week, stressing that Vladimir Putin will press Biden on this issue when the two meet this summer. “A lot of really interesting things are happening from the point of view of the rights of the opposition and protecting those rights,” the Russian diplomat added.

It is rich for America to attack other countries that suppress protesters and dissidents when our regime does the same thing. We attack China for denying bail to non-violent election protesters while we deny bail to non-violent election protesters here. We criticize Belarus for diverting a flight to arrest a dissident while we don’t even allow dissidents to fly here. We denounce Russia for firing government workers for their political beliefs while every corporation and institution does the same thing here. This isn’t the Land of the Free anymore.

He is right that we criticize suppression of protesters in other countries, while the USA has jailed 500 pro-democracy protesters from Jan. 6. Many of those have been held without bail, and sometimes in solitary confinement. Most of them were just peacefully expressing a political opinion to lawmakers.

Meanwhile our elite universities have gone fully anti-white. The Sun reports:

THE psychologist who confessed to fantasizing about shooting white people during a talk at Yale has defended her comments.

Dr. Aruna Khilanani says her words were taken out of context to “control the narrative" after it was reported she had discussed her "fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person".

In an email to The New York Times Khilanani said: "My work is important. And, I stand by it. We need to heal in this country.” ...

The Yale School of Medicine said in a statement that leaders there "found the tone and content antithetical to the values of the school".

Apparently she has been mad at Whites for many years because a White therapist observed that she was psychotic. Why are these people even allowed into the USA? Or Yale?

Tuesday, June 08, 2021

LGBTQ Lobby uses Intimidation, not Persuasion

I mentioned a NY Times article that explains that the gay lobby won legal victories by intimidation and harassment, not persuastion.

With a contrary view, Greg Mayer argues:

Issenberg is just flat wrong here. Marriage equality was achieved not through shaming and boycotts of its largely conservative opponents, but by convincing judges of the arguments for marriage equality. Andrew Sullivan, a tireless campaigner for marriage equality, summarized his argument for it at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges:

Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central — more definitive — of that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. ... We are not disordered or sick or defective or evil ... the exclusion of gay people from this institution was a statement of our core inferiority not just as citizens but as human beings.

I doubt that anyone was persuaded by Sullivan's argument. I even doubt that Sullivan was. He identifies as a gay Catholic who likes anonymous sex with strangers. His real complaint is that his Church declares that homosexual acts are sins.

The court decision did not affect church marriage. It was more narrowly focused on who can file a joint tax return, or avoid inheritance taxes, or request a death certificate. Sullivan obviously has some kind of psychological self-esteem problem, and I doubt that anyone thinks that we needed a change to civil marriage law to boost his self-esteem.

No, we have same-sex marriage licenses for other reasons.

Another hysterical NY Times guest essay complains about Republicans trying to undo trends in LGBTQ rights. Some states have passed laws supporting girls' sports and bathrooms, to protect practices that have been customary as long as anyone can remember. There are also laws limiting surgery on children.

The essay makes little attempt to persuade, and encourages "defiant intervention" and "active resistance". I guess that means breaking the law to enforce an LGBTQ ideology on everyone. It compares the laws to law legitimizing slavery, and says those were struck down by defiant interventions.

I guess this means that the LGBTQ lobby is threatening civil war to expand the castration of underage boys. They are looking for a fight.

Monday, June 07, 2021

Professors defend Eugenics

Philosopher Peter Singer is famous for arguing that some animals should have more rights than handicapped people, and other outrageous ideas, and now co-authors this paper:
In recent years, bioethical discourse around the topic of ‘genetic enhancement’ has become increasingly politicized. ... Here, we address the question of whether ‘eugenics’ can be defended ...

The term ‘eugenics’ (which means ‘good birth’) was coined by Francis Galton in 1883 to capture the idea that we should use insights from the new science of hered-ity to improve the welfare of future people (Levine 2017). But as Galton understood the term, eugenics involved both the study of heredity, and the use of this knowl-edge to by parents to shape their reproductive choices. It is more common now to sharply distinguish the study of genetics (a term that wasn’t coined until 1905) from eugenics. For example, in their recent book The Ethics of the New Eugenics MacKellar and Bechtel define eugenics as involving ‘strategies or decisions aimed at affecting, in a manner which is considered to be positive, the genetic heritage of a child, a community, or humanity in general’ (2016, p. 3). If we use this definition, many contemporary bioethicists support eugenics ...

The important conclusion is this: everyone who considers pre-natal testing justifi-able, or who thinks women should be free to weigh genetic information in the selec-tion of a spouse or a sperm donor is a eugenicist.

This is becoming a hot issue because of CRISPR, but the debate goes back 140 years. For decades, it was an obvious good that most sensible intellectuals endorsed. Then it became so unpopular that few dared to even use the term. For decades, the subject was considered unworthy of debate.

It is worthy of debate. As the paper notes, many eugenics ideas have quietly become accepted without using the term.

Population control is similarly controversial. Libertarian Jacob Sullum writes:

In a 2015 HuffPost essay titled "In Praise of China's One-Child Policy," Israeli environmentalist Alon Tal cited the famines that killed an estimated 45 million Chinese in the late 1950s and early '60s as evidence that strict population control was necessary. ...

The assumption that coercion was necessary to reduce China's birth rate is contradicted by trends in other developing countries that never adopted such a policy.

The Libertarian view seems to be that people have a right to make a billion excess starving babies if they want to. The better strategy is to make all the women fat and lazy, so then they would not want kids.

China is a horrible Communist country, but at least they make long-term planning for the good of their nation.

Sunday, June 06, 2021

How the gay lobby wins

A NY Times "guest essay" (they don't call them op-eds anymore) explains:
Cancel Culture Works. We Wouldn’t Have Marriage Equality Without It.

By Sasha Issenberg
Mr. Issenberg the author of “The Engagement: America’s Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage.”

Anyone looking to understand how same-sex marriage went from legal in one state to the law of the land a decade later ...

Long before the phrase “cancel culture” entered the lexicon or Republican senators complained about the power of “woke capital,” Mr. Karger refined a digital-era playbook for successfully redirecting scrutiny to the opposition's financial backers. The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is often understood as one of civil rights test cases. And indeed, savvy legislative lobbying, fortuitous demographic change and pop-culture influence all played their part, too. But a largely forgotten story is the way a group of political entrepreneurs changed the economic terrain on which cultural conflict was waged. They demonstrated that shaming and shunning could amount to more than an online pile-on and serve as a potent tactic for political change.

The article tells the story of the homosexual lobby getting political wins by intimidation, harassment, outing, and other scumball tactics. Networks of homosexual activists were extremely nasty.

The public was never really convinced of same-sex marriage, but the opposition was bullied into silence. Even California, the more liberal big state, passed a referendum to add to its constitution that marriage is between a man and woman. The amendment is still there, but not enforced.

This reminds me of how Scientology got status as a religion. It personally harassed all of the sensible people with opinions on the issue, until no one wanted to fight them anymore.

Buoyed by this success, what is this gay lobby doing next? It appears that their next target is transgender children. Say anything sensible on the subject, and you will be targeted with all sorts of threats.

I expect most organizations to cave into the extortion on this subject. It is not worth the fight, to them.

This is no way to make social policy. It means that the most immoral factions have the most say.

Another NY Times opinion column argues:

The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on a case that could upend, in the name of religious freedom, 50 years of progress in the effort to provide better support for L.G.B.T.Q. children in the foster system. Such a decision would be a devastating setback for all children in foster care, and set a dangerous precedent that could have broad repercussions.

The question the court has been asked to decide is whether the city of Philadelphia can bar Catholic Social Services from screening future foster parents. The agency claims a religious right under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to exclude lesbian and gay couples as foster parents. ...

When the case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, was argued before the Supreme Court in November, lawyers for Catholic Social Services maintained that the city should grant it an exemption from Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination law and simply allow it to refer lesbian and gay couples to another agency.

That seems reasonable, but the article argues that the LGBTQ movement will get a setback unless they can erase any possible LGBTQ stigma, and use every opportunity to support foster kids becoming LGBTQ.

We are way beyond tolerance of what consenting adults do in private. The object here is to de-stigmatize child abuse. I wonder what they next plan is, after they win that battle.

Friday, June 04, 2021

Pupil Size Is a Marker of Intelligence

SciAm reports:
Our pupils respond to more than just the light. They indicate arousal, interest or mental exhaustion. Pupil dilation is even used by the FBI to detect deception. Now work conducted in our laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology suggests that baseline pupil size is closely related to individual differences in intelligence. The larger the pupils, the higher the intelligence, as measured by tests of reasoning, attention and memory. In fact, across three studies, we found that the difference in baseline pupil size between people who scored the highest on the cognitive tests and those who scored the lowest was large enough to be detected by the unaided eye.
Some day AI programs and surveillance cameras will automatically detect such things, and decide what we can and cannot do.

A new TED Talk on The science behind how parents affect child development | Yuko Munakata claims that parents have no measurable effect on how their kids turn out.

That sounds bizarre, but here is a new study out of Finland concluding:

Associations between childhood family income and subsequent risks for psychiatric disorders, substance misuse and violent crime arrest were not consistent with a causal interpretation.
If true, and applicable outside Finland, then it is foolish to believe that monetary subsidies to families will have any effect on those problems.

Thursday, June 03, 2021

Biden compares three historical events

I am learning that the three most important events in American history were:
  • The Tulsa race riots of 1921.
  • The Charlottesville statue protest of 2017.
  • The Capitol vote-counting protest of 2021.

    Pres. Joe Biden has been promoting the importance of all three. The Hill reports:

    President Biden on Tuesday compared the white mob that attacked Black residents in Tulsa, Okla., in 1921 to the "white supremacists" who marched in the far-right "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Va., four years ago. ...

    “Just close your eyes and remember what you saw in Charlottesville four years ago on television,” the president continued. “Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the KKK [were] coming out of those fields at night in Virginia with lighted torches, the veins bulging as they were screaming.” ...

    Biden when announcing his presidential campaign in April 2019 cited the violence in Charlottesville, as well as then-President Trump’s response to it, as the defining moment that prompted his decision to launch his White House bid. ...

    “And in that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime,” the then-presidential candidate explained. ...

    “Mother Fletcher said when she saw the insurrection at the Capitol ... it broke her heart,” Biden said Tuesday. “A mob of violent white extremists, thugs.”

    “She said it reminded her of what happened here in Greenwood a hundred years ago,” the president added.

    Here is how Encyclopedia Britannica explains the start of the Tulsa riot:
    On May 30, 1921, Dick Rowland, a young African American shoe shiner, was accused of assaulting a white elevator operator named Sarah Page in the elevator of a building in downtown Tulsa. The next day the Tulsa Tribune printed a story saying that Rowland had tried to rape Page, with an accompanying editorial stating that a lynching was planned for that night. That evening mobs of both African Americans and whites descended on the courthouse where Rowland was being held. When a confrontation between an armed African American man, there to protect Rowland, and a white protester resulted in the death of the latter, the white mob was incensed, and the Tulsa massacre was thus ignited. ...

    When the massacre ended on June 1, the official death toll was recorded at 10 whites and 26 African Americans, though many experts now believe at least 300 people were killed.

    I thought that the movement to believe all women was a recent one. Obviously not, as a riot was caused by an overreaction to a MeToo story.

    How does this relate to Charlottesvilles 2017 and Jan. 6 Capitol protests? The only death directly related to the Jan. 6 event was a non-white police officer shooting and killing an unarmed white woman visiting the Capitol.

    Meanwhile, I see video of Vice President Harris Swears In Eric Lander as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology. No, he was not sworn in on a Bible. Being a scientist, he could have chosen some great scientific work, such as a book by Newton or Darwin. Instead, he was sworn in on a 500-year-old book on a Jewish conspiracy to repair the world to their liking. He calls it Tikkun olam, and says that it is the Hebrew version of "build back better".

    Update: Here is more info about Tulsa 1921. Apparently no one has been able to figure out what happened in that elevator. Previously Tulsa lynched white men, not black. The black rioters were well armed.

  • Tuesday, June 01, 2021

    Americans unconvinced by WWII history

    The London Dail Mail reports:
    The question was asked: 'Do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to fight in the following wars?'

    The poll considered conflicts spread over more than 100 years including both World Wars, the Vietnam War and the more recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Some 14 percent of Americans said they believed sending troops to fight the Nazi-led Axis powers during World War II was a mistake and an additional 18 percent weren’t sure, although the support for the decision to send troops to fight the Nazis received more support than any other war at 68 percent.

    However, one third of Americans were still unsure if President Roosevelt made the right decision.

    Of those supporting the war, their reasons could be based on defending against Japan, as Japan attacked the USA.

    The more interesting question is whether the USA should have joined the war in Europe, for WWI and WWII.

    Vox Day writes:

    resident Roosevelt didn't make the right decision. In fact, it is now obvious and well-documented that both President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were very clearly taking orders from someone, presumably someone connected to the small group of Jews who declared war on Germany in 1933, and that both elected leaders were instructed to back Stalin without question, even to the direct and material detriment of their own soldiers, countries, and national interests. The treasonous subservience of Roosevelt, in particular, eventually resulted in the attempted mass murder of 28 million Germans by US Secretary of State Henry Morgenthau, and also created the industrial Soviet Union by propping up the Soviet economy for 40 years despite the intrinsic economic dysfunctionality of communism. ...

    The undeniable historical fact is that D-Day was totally unnecessary, as Germany attempted to surrender more than TWO YEARS before its surrender was finally accepted in May 1945. In other words, every single American life lost in the campaign on the Western Front was a needless sacrifice and a tragic waste.

    Happy Memorial Day.

    This is heresy. WWII was the last good war, with very broad public support, and in the history books.

    Some say that FDR deliberately provoked Japan into attacking us, as he was secretly supplying war goods to the European allies, and wanted an excuse to enter the war.

    I have heard these stories for a long time, but I am surprised that so many Americans question WWII.

    Monday, May 31, 2021

    Facebook users are being silenced

    Facebook has turned overtly partisan. It has banned Donald Trump, even tho he got 74 million votes, and its own supreme court ruled that it violated all its own rules in doing so.

    NBC News reports:

    Facebook is grappling with a reputation crisis in the Middle East, with plummeting approval rates and advertising sales in Arab countries, according to leaked documents obtained by NBC News.

    The shift corresponds with the widespread belief by pro-Palestinian and free speech activists that the social media company has been disproportionately silencing Palestinian voices on its apps – which include Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp – during this month’s Israel-Hamas conflict. ...

    The low approval ratings have been compounded by a campaign by pro-Palestinian and free speech activists to target Facebook with 1-star reviews on the Apple and Google app stores. The campaign tanked Facebook’s average rating from above 4 out of 5 stars on both app stores to 2.2 on the App Store and 2.3 on Google Play as of Wednesday. According to leaked internal posts, the issue has been categorized internally as a “severity 1” problem for Facebook, which is the second highest priority issue after a “severity 0” incident, which is reserved for when the website is down.

    “Users are feeling that they are being censored, getting limited distribution, and ultimately silenced,” one senior software engineer said in a post on Facebook’s internal message board. “As a result, our users have started protesting by leaving 1 star reviews.”

    Why haven't Trump voters done this?

    Maybe the Palestinian Arabs are more motivated, as they are being bombed and killed, and they may blame their suffering on distorted reports in the news media, including Facebook.

    I don't know what Facebook did to the Palestinian Arabs, but it deserves this treatment. If it is going to take sides in political disputes, as it now does, then it deserves the 1-star reviews.

    Sunday, May 30, 2021

    Comparing the virus in Germany and Sweden

    We now have almost 1.5 years of experience with different strategies for dealing with COVID-19, and we ought to know something about how well masks, lockdowns, and other strategies worked. Unfortunately the evidence is pretty weak. See this chart.

    Friday, May 28, 2021

    Shoplifting is destroying California Cities

    San Francisco is one of the richest cities in the world. It is also one of the most Leftist, as Republicans never get elected to anything. It is 80% White and Asian. It is also getting worse all the time.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

    Last year, burglaries increased in most San Francisco neighborhoods. ...

    The cost of business and shoplifting led Walgreens to shut 17 locations in San Francisco in the past five years ...

    Theft in Walgreens’ San Francisco stores is four times the average for stores elsewhere in the country, and the chain spends 35 times more on security guards in the city than elsewhere, Cunningham said. ...

    A statement from Safeway read at Thursday’s hearing blamed Proposition 47, which lowered penalties for thefts under $950, for “dramatic increases” in shoplifting losses. ...

    Professional shoplifters can work the system by stealing items under the threshold from one store and hitting several retailers in the same day.

    Thursday, May 27, 2021

    NYT still trying to blame Anti-Semitism on Trump

    The NY Times reports:
    U.S. Faces Outbreak of Anti-Semitic Threats and Violence

    In the wake of clashes in Israel and Gaza, synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been threatened and attacked.

    This is a paper that hates Donald Trump all the time, so it finds a way to blame him.

    Trump was one of the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel Presidents ever.

    Until the latest surge, anti-Semitic violence in recent years was largely considered a right-wing phenomenon, driven by a white supremacist movement emboldened by rhetoric from former President Donald J. Trump, who often trafficked in stereotypes.

    Many of the most recent incidents, by contrast, have come from perpetrators expressing support for the Palestinian cause and criticism of Israel’s right-wing government.

    The right-wingers are blamed for "rhetoric". The actual crimes came from Leftists and Moslems.
    The New York Police Department arrested 27 people, and two people were hospitalized, including a woman who was burned when fireworks were launched from a car at a group of people on the sidewalk.

    The Police Department opened a hate crimes investigation into the beating of a Jewish man, and a Brooklyn man, Waseem Awawdeh, 23, was charged in connection with the attack.

    The next day, federal prosecutors charged another man, Ali Alaheri, 29, with setting fire to a building that housed a synagogue and yeshiva in Borough Park, a Brooklyn neighborhood in the city’s Hasidic Jewish heartland. Mr. Alaheri also assaulted a Hasidic man in the same neighborhood, prosecutors said.

    No Trump supporters did anything like this, but the paper gets back to blaming them.
    In Charlottesville, activists at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 chanted “Jews will not replace us!” as they protested the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee. ...

    Jews and others were particularly stung by comments by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has spent the past week repeatedly comparing mask and vaccine mandates to the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany, and by the Republican leadership’s slow response to her remarks.

    Wow, are you following this? Israel kills a bunch of Arabs in Gaza. Leftists and Moslems in the USA protest and harass Jews.

    And somehow this relates to some right-wingers protesting a Civil War statue removal four years ago?

    And then the NY Times, which has probably called Trump a Nazi 100 times over the last 5 years, is offended that a right-winger used a Nazi analogy!

    Update: Law professor David Bernstein writes:

    Back in January, I wrote, "I can't say I've ever fully trusted the Times to be accurate, but until recently I generally felt fairly confident that even if a story was slanted in perspective, the facts that were reported were basically accurate. Not anymore." ...

    Here is what the Times itself reported in February 2020: "Most of the anti-Semitic incidents in New York have not been perpetrated by jihadists or far-right extremists, but by young African-American men." In fact, I believe that none of incidents were ultimately traced to "far-right extremists." ...

    Third, like much of the American media, the Times seems utterly incapable of acknowledging that radical anti-Israel activists, be they motivated by Islamism, pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, self-described anti-colonialism, and/or antisemitism, are hostile to Israel's very existence, not "Israel's right-wing government."

    Instead, the NY Times finds a way to blame right-wingers, who are mostly pro-Israel.

    It is particularly telling that this article is about those wishing to exterminate Israel, and ends up blaming Trump, a handful of anti-immigration protesters in 2017, and a Republican Congresswoman who used an unapproved Nazi analogy.

    Update: This article describes something similar in Germany, where a pro-Jewish political party gets blamed for anti-Semitism just because it is right-wing.

    On the subject of supporting Israel, see this fascinating debate on YouTube, featuring Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, and Robert Barnes. I thought that all those guys have been banned. Watch it before it gets taken down. There is nothing particularly offensive about it, except that it gives arguments for and against supporting Israel being in Amreica's interest. I am not sure who has the better argument.

    Update: The NY Times published an opinion column entitled “Attacks on Jews Are a Gift to the Right”. The message seems to be:

    People should stop physically assaulting Jews in America for being Jewish, because that makes it harder for us to criticize Israel and its “apartheid” government.
    The NY Times does criticize Israel, but for all the wrong reasons.

    Wednesday, May 26, 2021

    How would you feel ... taking over?

    I found this posted. There are a couple of ways of reading this. I am guessing that he is appealing to those who do not want refugees taking over their country, and they do not want Jews taking over either.

    Here is a video of Ben Shapiro reacting to Anti-Semitic protestor chants. The press has complained for several years about Christians and White Supremacists being Anti-Semitic. But there are no stories of Christians or White Supremacists doing what Shapiro is complaining about. Anti-Semitism exists almost entirely among Leftists and Moslems.

    Dennis Prager is another radio host and podcaster with view similar to Shapiro. They are both Orthodox Jews and extremely pro-Israel. They both spend most of their time denouncing Leftists as threats to civilization as we know it. They both denounce White Supremacists and Anti-Semites at every opportunity, but see the White Supremacists as being of no consequence. The Leftists are the real enemy. The Leftists are the enemies of Jews and Israel, but also much more widely, the enemies of America, freedom, truth, civilization, and everything good.

    The result is that Shapiro and Prager are really attacking a lot of Jewish Leftists, and Jewish-led Leftist movements.

    Shapiro is also attacking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for tweeting “Vaccinated employees get a vaccination logo just like the Nazi’s forced Jewish people to wear a gold star.” Other Jews want her expelled from Congress. Apparently the Jews like to regulate Nazi analogies.

    The NY Times is so eager to blame Trump that it ran an editorial opinion under the headline, “Attacks on Jews Over Israel Are A Gift To The Right”. No, right-wingers are not the ones attacking Jews, except that some might be using unapproved Nazi analogies.

    Tuesday, May 25, 2021

    Google sells out Americans again

    ABC News reorts:
    Google has taken a public stand in support of immigration rights via a court filing Friday that seeks to protect the ability to work in the U.S. for some 90,000 immigrants, the vast majority of whom are women.

    Google led a coalition of tech companies in filing an amicus brief (or so-called "friend of the court" document) that supports work authorization for the partners of high-skilled workers who enter the U.S. on H-1B visas. ...

    "The pandemic has already disproportionately impacted women and ending this program would only make things worse, leading to disrupted careers and lost wages," Lacavera added. "Furthermore, if the program is lost, the practical effect is that we welcome a person to the U.S. to work but we make it harder for their spouse to work."

    "That hurts their family, impacts our ability to compete for talent, and harms our economy," she wrote.

    More than two dozen companies -- including Amazon, Apple, IBM, Microsoft and Reddit more industry leaders -- have joined the amicus brief.

    The pademic has hurt Americans, and yet these companies only want to help foreigners.

    Monday, May 24, 2021

    Biden got to be legitimate thru unfair processes

    The Wash. Post reports:
    “I don’t think anybody is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election,” McCarthy said on May 12, 112 days after Biden was inaugurated. “I think that is all over with. We’re sitting here with the president today.”

    Except Republicans have continued to do exactly that — even after McCarthy’s remarks.

    It then posts a series of video clips of Republicans being asked that.

    Watch the video. Every single Republican accepts that Joe Biden is legitimately the President. Kevin McCarthy is right that no one is disputing it.

    There is also no dispute about the facts that election procedures were changed in a way that favored Biden, and there were irregularities that make it impossible to determine how many votes were stolen. Some Republican want these matters investigation.

    Sunday, May 23, 2021

    Leading Science Journal Rejects Darwinian Evolution

    Religious believers have attacked the Darwin theory of evolution for 150 years for various reasons, and now it is getting new attacks from establishment academics.

    The London Daily Mail reports:

    Charles Darwin's famous book The Descent of Man was 'warped' by his racist and sexist views, expert claims, 150 YEARS after its publication

    Charles Darwin published his book The Descent of Man on February 24, 1871
    This explored the concept of evolutionary theory and how it applied to humanity
    An anthropologist said the thinking is presented through racism and sexism
    He said teachers should tell students about Darwin's views alongside his theory

    This refers to an AAAS Science article by Agustín Fuentes saying:
    “The Descent of Man” is one of the most influential books in the history of human evolutionary science. We can acknowledge Darwin for key insights but must push against his unfounded and harmful assertions. Reflecting on “Descent” today one can look to data demonstrating unequivocally that race is not a valid description of human biological variation, that there is no biological coherence to “male” and “female” brains or any simplicity in biological patterns related to gender and sex, and that “survival of the fittest” does not accurately represent the dynamics of evolutionary processes.
    This is heresy. Darwin's most famous book was titled, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    So yes, races were essential to his theory. So is the difference between male and female brains, as corresponding differences in mating strategy are crucial to much of what he wrote.

    As Wikipedia defines:

    "Survival of the fittest"[1] is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection.
    Rejecting this is another way of saying that Darwin's main theory, the theory of natural selection is wrong.

    The above article is the most anti-evolution article I have ever seen, and it appears is the world's most prestigious science journal.

    Darwin was wrong about this prediction, from Decent of Man:

    At some future period, not very distant from as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
    The opposite is more likely.

    Evolutionist Professor Jerry Coyne has written excellent books on evolution, and details errors in the above Science article:

    Here’s a Fuentes whopper about “survival of the fittest,” a term that Darwin didn’t invent and generally avoided, using it only a handful of times in his writings: ...

    For 30 years I’ve told my classes that “reproduction of the fittER” is a more accurate characterization of how natural selection works, and an even more accurate representation would be that “the genes that become more numerous over evolutionary time are those that leave more copies of themselves.”

    Okay, the slogan is an oversimplication, but the underlying idea is essential to the theory, and rejected by Fuentes.

    This is about like a major Science journal publishing a creationist rant, only worse. The creationists are fairly benign, as they mostly just suggest God as an explanation for what science cannot explain. And they are presumably guided by a belief that Christianity is a good thing.

    But Fuentes is obviously driven by evil left-wing beliefs. He seeks social change that will make us all worse off. And he is thoroughly dishonest about the known science of evolution.

    All of the major journals have gone leftist, I am afraid. If AAAS Science is the most prestigious, the second is British Nature, and the current issue editorial opinion says:

    The protests following the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, by police a year ago built on those that came before — in response to the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland and far too many others. The global reckoning ...

    After a police officer shot Michael Brown in 2014 in Missouri, one-third of articles emphasized disruption and confrontation. Fewer than 10% described protesters’ demands for reform, and then did so shallowly.

    The Michael Brown protesters were primarily trying to excuse him for trying to murder a police officer. The press coverage was overwhelmingly much too sympathetic to him.

    More importantly, there is no science here. No facts. No data. No objectivity. Just a stupid leftist racist rant. Scientists used to make a lot of effort to keep this junk out of their journals. No more.

    Update: Robert Wright criticizes Agustín Fuentes, picking up where Coyne left off.

    Saturday, May 22, 2021

    Why Germany Attacked Russia in WWII

    Conventional wisdom is that Hitler made a big mistake by attack USSR during WWII, and that is what eventually doomed the Germans.

    Here is another view:

    Suvorov’s thesis can be summed up as follows: on June 22, 1941, Stalin was about to launch a massive offensive on Germany and her allies, within days or weeks. Preparations had started in 1939, just after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and had accelerated at the end of 1940, with the first divisions deployed to the new expanded Soviet borders, opposite the German Reich and Romania, in February 1941. On May 5, Stalin announced to an audience of two thousand military academy graduates flanked by generals and party luminaries that the time had come to “switch from the defensive to the offensive.” Days later, he had a special directive sent to all command posts to “be prepared on a signal from General Headquarters to launch lightning strikes to rout the enemy, move military operations to his territory and seize key objectives.” New armies were being raised in all the districts, with mobilization now reaching 5.7 million, a gigantic army impossible to sustain for long in peacetime. Close to one million parachutists — troops useful only for invasion — had been trained. Hundreds of aerodromes were built near the Western border. From June 13, an incessant movement of night trains transported thousands of tanks, millions of soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition and fuel to the border.

    According to Suvorov, if Hitler had not attacked first, the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty and then, in the context of the war, to take control of the continent. Only Hitler’s decision to preempt Stalin’s offensive deprived him of these resources by piercing and disrupting his lines and destroying or seizing about 65% of all his weaponry, some of it still in trains.

    I have no idea if this is correct or not. If it is, then Germany had to attack in order to survive.

    Even tho Germany ultimately lost the war and was destroyed by Allied forces, it could have been worse off under Communist occupation.

    History books are written by the winner, and so we know WWII as the last great battle between Good and Evil.

    Friday, May 21, 2021

    How Oregon Creates Racial Animosity

    Ever wonder why Portland Oregon has so much Black-White animosity, when it is mainly populated by White liberals and there aren't even very many Blacks living there?

    Apparently Jewish groups there make of big effort to raise awareness:

    PORTLAND, OR (KPTV) – On Monday groups unveiled a billboard campaign to raise awareness about gun violence in Portland, with a focus on the Black community.

    Founder of nonprofit The No Hate Zone, Sam Sachs helped organize the effort with several other leaders in the community.

    This is based on some Jewish belief, according to a 2015 article in a Jewish Weekly:
    Sam Sachs, 46, calls his volunteer efforts on behalf of minority rights tikkun olam, healing the world. He’s been called an advocate, activist and even an agitator.

    When he sued the Oregon Public Safety Academy in 1996 for anti-Semitic comments during his training there as a corrections officer, it launched a state task force investigation. ...

    Racial tensions between police and minorities have soared recently in the wake of grand jury decisions not to indict police officers who killed an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, MO, and an asthmatic black man in New York, who was put in a chokehold. In the wake of Ferguson, Sam’s says his immediate reaction was, “We still have work to do, and we’ve made progress.” ...

    He says his father, Eral Sachs, z”l, would take his children to Corvallis, where Sam attended religious school at Beit Am for a time. The family celebrated most holidays in Portland with his grandparents, Ralph and Florence Sachs, at Congregation Shaarie Torah. When he was 11, Sam says he started to wear a Star of David necklace visible outside his shirt. That first star is now buried with his grandmother in the Shaarie Torah cemetery, but Sam has replaced it with a second Star of David that he still wears. ...

    When Sam’s parents divorced, his father felt that raising 7-year-old Sam and his older brother, Hiram, and sister, Rachel, was all he could handle. He felt toddler Eli would be better off with a family who had more time for him. So Eral put Eli up for adoption on the condition that he keep his first name and be adopted by a Jewish family.

    So it is pretty clear that he is pursuing a Jewish religious belief.

    Note: This is not intended to imply anything about the current conflict in Israel. I am leaving that to the people who live there.

    PBS TV also tries to create racial animosity with a story about How colorism haunts dark-skinned immigrant communities. It tells us that Somalis in Minnesota consider the lighter-skinner Somalis to be more beautiful that darker-skinned Somalis. Not just in Minnesota, but in Somalia and "in almost every corner of the planet".

    If this is really universal, then you might think that it is based on objective standards or innate human preference. But no, PBS tells us that sociologists have traced it to European colonization, slavery, class, and caste. In other words, it is all the fault of Whites that some Minnesota Somalis are prejudiced against other Minnesota Somalis. Those people could have stayed in a non-white country, if they really think that White influence is so bad.

    Thursday, May 20, 2021

    2017 Mortality was Worse than 2020

    A lot of people have complained that the Wuhan coronavirus was the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu, but this PNAS paper tells a different story:
    Because it has captured a great deal of national attention, the number of deaths from the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 forms a timely basis of comparison. On 20 February 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 376,504 deaths ascribed to COVID-19 had occurred in the United States in calendar year 2020 (10). That figure is similar to but below the estimated total number of excess deaths of 401,000 in the United States in 2017 (Table 1).

    The comparison is more striking when years of life lost is the measure used. Goldstein and Lee (11) estimate that the mean loss of life years for a person dying from COVID-19 in the United States is 11.7 y. Multiplying 377,000 decedents by 11.7 y lost per decedent gives a total of 4.41 My of life lost to COVID-19 in 2020, only a third of the 13.02 million life years lost to excess mortality in the United States in 2017 (Table 1). The reason that the comparison is so much sharper for YLL than for excess deaths is that COVID-19 deaths in 2020 occurred at much older ages, on average, than the excess deaths of 2017.

    That is, 2017 was three times worse than 2020! Who knew?

    I don't know what to make of this. The data come from a reputable source, and the article is published in a reputable journal. I don't remember a lot of people dying in 2017, but maybe I didn't notice.

    The CDC is still listing excess deaths, and also says:

    For over 5% of these deaths [involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)], COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death.
    So many of those would have been killed by those 4.0 additional causes, even without COVID-19.

    Wednesday, May 19, 2021

    NPR purges men, even if leftist kooks

    The LA Times reports:
    In a statement Monday, NYPR said, “New York Public Radio has terminated the employment of Bob Garfield, co-host of On the Media, as a result of a pattern of behavior that violated NYPR’s anti-bullying policy. ...

    Garfield, journalist, author and podcaster, responded via tweet Monday: “I was fired not for 'bullying' per se, but for yelling in 5 meetings over 20 years. Anger mismanagement, sorry to say. But in all cases, the provocations were just shocking. In time, the story will emerge ... and it is tragic. On the Media was the pride and joy of my career.”

    I think he was the last cis-gendered male host at NPR Radio.

    NPR has systematically replaced all its male hosts with females.

    Garfield was a lunatic Trump-hater. He had one entire program devoted to complaints that the news media was supporting the Trump agenda. The only examples in the hour were from Sean Hannity. Another whole program complained that the news media was reluctant to call out Trump as Hitler, when he argued that Trump really was literally the same as Hitler.

    His show never had a balanced treatment of any issue. In all of NPR Radio, I have never heard a balanced treatment of any Trump-related issue.

    Here is a PBS TV video celebrating 50 years of women dominating NPR radio.

    Update: The NY Times has some details:

    Then this spring, Mr. Garfield suffered a shoulder injury. During a virtual meeting with his colleagues, he said he needed surgery sooner than planned. He said he then faced 15 minutes of what he viewed as “bullying” from Ms. Gladstone and their executive producer, and which they viewed as him bullying them, according to a spokeswoman.

    Depending on whom you ask, WNYC is experiencing either an epidemic of bullying or an epidemic of whining....

    Even by the standards of our fraught media moment, public radio — and the parts of the podcast industry that emerged from it — has been beset by seemingly constant clashes that can be difficult for outsiders to make sense of.

    The reasons are partly structural. ... And radio stations filled with idealists who view themselves as working for the public good are often led by people whose greatest skill is raising millions of dollars from affluent donors.

    I would expect more of this in businesses that allow themselves to be dominated by leftist ideologues.

    Tuesday, May 18, 2021

    Why Melinda took her billions and left

    The NY Times reports:
    Long Before Divorce, Bill Gates Had Reputation for Questionable Behavior

    By the time Melinda French Gates decided to end her 27-year marriage, her husband was known globally as a software pioneer, a billionaire and a leading philanthropist.

    But in some circles, Bill Gates had also developed a reputation for questionable conduct in work-related settings. That is attracting new scrutiny amid the breakup of one of the world’s richest, most powerful couples.

    So I guess it is clear that Melinda is the one who bailed. Melinda is the one who filed the divorce papers.

    Jeff Bezos was also divorced recently, and his wife was the one to file the divorce papers with the court.

    Some of the employees said that while they disapproved of Mr. Gates’s behavior, they did not perceive it to be predatory. They said he did not pressure the women to submit to his advances for the sake of their careers, and he seemed to feel that he was giving the women the space to refuse his advances. Even so, Mr. Gates’s actions ran counter to the agenda of female empowerment that Ms. French Gates was promoting on a global stage. On Oct. 2, 2019, for example, she said she would spend $1 billion promoting “women’s power and influence in the United States.”

    “Even though most women now work full-time (or more), we still shoulder the majority of caregiving responsibilities; we face pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination; we are surrounded by biased and stereotypical representations that perpetuate harmful gender norms,” she wrote in a column in Time magazine announcing the pledge.

    This is all very strange for her to complain about. They lived in a $100 million house. And she complains that she had to do some caregiving?

    By her own accounts, Bill Gates was her boss as he asked her out at Microsoft, and she refused to go on a date with him the first couple of times he asked. By current standards, that was sexual harassment:

    Rather than harshly regulate every step of this sexual-legal minefield, Facebook preferred to lay down basic guidelines. Delicately, but unambiguously, our HR Man stated that we could ask a coworker out once, but no meant no, and you had no more lets after that. After one ask, you were done, and anything beyond that was subject to sanction.
    So is she really saying that it was wrong for her to have dated Bill Gates? Was she harmed somehow?

    She married the world's richest man, and lived like a queen. The NY Times recites some petty complaints about Bill, but he remains one of the most respected, influential, and admired men in the world. But not good enough for Melinda, it appears. Feminism convinces women that no man is ever good enough for them.

    Monday, May 17, 2021

    Apple fires a star employee for book

    Left-wing journalist Matt Taibbi writes:
    Garcia-Martinez is a brilliant, funny, multi-talented Cuban-American whose confessional memoir Chaos Monkeys is to big tech what Michael Lewis’s Liar’s Poker was to finance. A onetime high-level Facebook executive — he ran Facebook Ads — Antonio’s book shows the House of Zuckerberg to be a cult full of on-the-spectrum zealots who talked like justice activists while possessing the business ethics of Vlad the Impaler:
    Facebook is full of true believers who really, really, really are not doing it for the money, and really, really will not stop until every man, woman, and child on earth is staring into a blue-framed window with a Facebook logo.
    He goes on to explain that Apple has just fired Garcia-Martinez because some employees complained about that 2016 book.

    The book had been a bestseller, so Apple was happy with the book when it hired him.

    Apple is run by evil men.

    Many other companies are just as bad. Newsweek reports:

    Leaked documents from The Walt Disney Company ask employees to complete a "white privilege checklist" and to "pivot away from "white dominant culture." ...

    The document ends with a 21-day challenge for employees to reflect on the effects of being "raised in a society that elevates white culture over others." ...

    In February, leaked documents from Coca-Cola showed diversity training materials from the professional networking site LinkedIn that encouraged staff to "try to be less white, less arrogant, less certain, less defensive, less ignorant and more humble."

    So why does Apple behave like this? I see three explanations.

    (1) It is profitable.

    (2) Apple employees are sincerely so offended by this book, that the author's presence in the company would cause a lot of unnecessary stress and conflict.

    (3) No one is really offended, but SJWs are just carrying out a power play against someone they don't like.

    I am inclined to believe (3). It is hard to believe that Apple snowflakes are really so fragile that they would be bothered by this book. It is more plausible that they are simply lying to promote their political goals.

    Dr. Dre is a Black rapper on the Apple board of directors, and he has said much more offensive things. I do not see an employee petition to fire him.

    Update: Stewart Baker explains:

    Nick and I cross swords over Apple's firing of Antonio García Martínez, author of Chaos Monkeys, in my view one of the funniest and most insightful Silicon Valley books of the last decade. Part of its appeal is Garcia Martinez's relentless burning of every bridge in his past business and personal life. How, you keep asking, can he recover from telling all those truths about Morgan Stanley, Facebook, Y Combinator, and the adtech business? Turns out, he can't. But it wasn't any of those supposedly potent institutions that nailed him. Instead, it was his claim that the women of Silicon Valley are mostly "soft and weak, cosseted and naïve" and possessed of a "self-regarding entitlement feminism."

    That's all it took. Apple employees demanded that they be protected from anyone with those views, and he was summarily fired. Way to go, Apple employees! Nothing rebuts a stereotype of female soft weakness and entitlement like demanding to be protected from someone who doesn't share your feminist entitlement.