Wednesday, August 17, 2022

Why America is Uniquely Stupid

Social Psychology professor Jonathan Haidt writes:
This spring, The Atlantic published my essay “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” in which I argued that the best way to understand the chaos and fragmentation of American society is to see ourselves as citizens of Babel in the days after God rendered them unable to understand one another.

I showed how a few small changes to the architecture of social-media platforms, implemented from 2009 to 2012, increased the virality of posts on those platforms, which then changed the nature of social relationships. People could spread rumors and half-truths more quickly, and they could more readily sort themselves into homogenous tribes. Even more important, in my view, was that social-media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook could now be used more easily by anyone to attack anyone. It was as if the platforms had passed out a billion little dart guns, and although most users didn’t want to shoot anyone, three kinds of people began darting others with abandon: the far right, the far left, and trolls.

He has a worthwhile theory. He has put his finger to what may be driving much of what is wrong with modern society.

The Atlantic has a story on The secret history of the U.S. government’s family-separation policy. The USA dcoes separate families far more than any other country in the world. But that is not what the article is about. It ignores the millions of citizens who get separated, and focuses on illegal aliens who smuggle in kids with them.

Much of the magazine is filled with left-wing garbage. It has articles by David French, who is known as a cuckservative, and has a deranged hatred for Donald Trump and for Trump supporters. It has an article about how feminists are dissatisfied with the sexual revolution. It has an article about people who would by an AR-15 rifle and a rosary to pray. Most of it is behind a paywall, so I haven't read it.

Tuesday, August 16, 2022

The Corruption of Medicine

Heather Mac Donald writes:
The post–George Floyd racial reckoning has hit the field of medicine like an earthquake. Medical education, medical research, and standards of competence have been upended by two related hypotheses: that systemic racism is responsible both for racial disparities in the demographics of the medical profession and for racial disparities in health outcomes. Questioning those hypotheses is professionally suicidal. Vast sums of public and private research funding are being redirected from basic science to political projects aimed at dismantling white supremacy. The result will be declining quality of medical care and a curtailment of scientific progress.

Virtually every major medical organization—from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) to the American Association of Pediatrics—has embraced the idea that medicine is an inequity-producing enterprise. ...

According to medical and STEM leaders, to be white is to be per se racist; apologies and reparations for that offending trait are now de rigueur. ...

Surely, sensible medicos will speak up against this? No, not allowed.
University of Pennsylvania professor of medicine Stanley Goldfarb tweeted out a fourth possibility: “Could it be [that the minority students] were just less good at being residents?”

Goldfarb had violated the a priori truth. Punishment was immediate. Predictable tweets called him, inter alia, possibly “the most garbage human being I’ve seen with my own eyes,” and Michael S. Parmacek, chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Medicine, sent a schoolwide e-mail addressing Goldfarb’s “racist statements.” Those statements had evoked “deep pain and anger,” Parmacek wrote.

Sunday, August 14, 2022

Law Against Hatred in Canada

Canada does not have free speech.

Canadian law:

Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • Marginal note:Wilful promotion of antisemitism

    (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

    • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • Marginal note:Defences

    (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

    • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

    • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

    • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

    • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

  • Marginal note:Defences — subsection (2.1)

    (3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)

    • (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;

    • (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

    • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or

    • (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

  • I wonder if Salmon Rushdie might have violated this. I certainly do not agree with him being stabbed, or the fatwa against him. But he started it all by writing a book saying that the Koran was the work of the Devil, and his novel did appear to incite hatred against Islam. Maybe it would qualify as a good faith opinion about a religious text, except that he wrote it as a novel and I doubt that he even believes in the Devil.

    These laws make it a lot more difficult to get the truth about the Jewish Holocaust. No one wants to risk two years in jail, just to point out that someone else is wrong.

    Saturday, August 13, 2022

    Decolonize by Accepting Equality with Bacteria

    Scientific American has an essay on decolonizing the search for alien intelligence:
    Cultural Bias Distorts the Search for Alien Life

    “Decolonizing” the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) could boost its chances of success, says science historian Rebecca Charbonneau ...

    As for “intelligence,” that’s certainly a dangerous word, and it has been used in very harmful ways. Eugenics, for example, used the limited concept of “intelligence” to justify genocide. I’m therefore sometimes troubled by the word intelligence in SETI. For one thing, we might not even be able to identify what intelligence is. And because of this, maybe we [will] someday make contact and [won’t] even recognize that we’ve done so. But it’s also important to think very critically about why we search for intelligence. Is there something special about intelligence? Does intelligence deserve more respect than whatever we might perceive to be nonintelligence? We might perceive microbes as nonintelligent life, for example. Does that life have a right to exist without us bothering it? Or is it just germs—just bugs that we are going to just bring back and study and pick apart?

    A Quanta magazine video on Exploring the Deep Mystery of Life's Origins starts by saying that there could be life on other planets that is just bacteria, but we are wrong to think that we are any more evolved than bacteria.

    It used to be conventional wisdom that White people were more evolved than Blacks. Nobody says that anymore. But do we have to accept equality with bacteria?

    SciAm has an article about the controversial new Democrat spending bill, What Scientists Say about the Historic Climate Bill.

    Robert Bullard, an environmental policy and justice expert and director of the Bullard Center for Environmental & Climate Justice at Texas Southern University

    The IRA has some good things in it that are greatly needed by low-income people, people of color and environmental justice communities ...

    He is not really a scientist, but calls himself the Father of environmental justice. No opinions against the bill were quoted.

    Here is an example of the concept of intelligence being dangerous:

    “In 2022, how can you possibly think that another human being comes out of the womb with less cognitive ability? It’s just impossible to believe that that can be true,” Jenkins said. “It’s unspeakable.”
    They come out of the womb with a lot of other differences also.

    Friday, August 12, 2022

    Psychologists have to make DIE Statements

    Here is more evidence Psychology is evil. Academic researchers have to display their leftist views in order present a paper at a conference!

    Lee Jussim reports:

    Jonathan Haidt ... had emailed a letter to Laura King, President of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP is a high-profile professional society for this group) protesting SPSP’s mandate that its members produce DEI statements if they wish to present at its prestigious and influential annual conference.2

    No longer would acceptance of proposals be based exclusively on evaluations of scientific merit. Everyone had to state how their work advanced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI); and this would be included in evaluations of which proposals SPSP would accept for presentation.

    Who Discovered Natural Selection?

    Of the several independent assertions that constitute Darwin’s “theory of evolution” in On The Origin of Species, Darwin regarded the idea of natural selection as his most important and original. After all, it alone explained how naturalistic processes could lead to the remarkable adaptations of animals and plants heretofore seen as some of the strongest evidence for God. And although the idea of evolution itself had been broached by others before Darwin, including his own grandfather Erasmus, natural selection seemed to be sui generis.

    Well, not entirely.  It was anticipated by several people, including the Scottish polymath James Hutton in 1794. But the most remarkable precursor to the idea of natural selection was published by Scottish horticulturalist and agriculturalist Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) as an appendix to his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). Although the book was about how to build ships using wood, and what kind of wood to use, Matthew added a 28-page Appendix. In that Appendix were 29 sentences that laid out what he called “selection by the law of nature”, which bore a striking similarity to the idea made famous by Darwin 28 years later.

    There are other claims to discover natural selection, notably Alfred North Wallace.

    A new book says Darwin stole the idea from Matthew.

    The obvious explanation is that natural selection is an obvious idea that independently occurred to a lot of people. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a theory of life on Earth without natural selection.

    What Darwin did was to articulate natural selection as a unifying principle for his other theories. My guess is that Darwin independently had the idea of natural selection, but got from Wallace the idea of using it as a unifying principle.

    It is not really a scientific hypothesis that can be proved or disproved:

    Creationists have long argued that natural selection has no predictive value and thus is a mere tautology stating the obvious fact that organisms that 'survive' are thereby decreed to have been the 'fittest.'
    See also criticisms by Karl Popper and others.

    Wednesday, August 10, 2022

    Emmett Till Case is Still Dead

    AP reports:
    A Mississippi grand jury has declined to indict the white woman whose accusation set off the lynching of Black teenager Emmett Till nearly 70 years ago, most likely closing the case that shocked a nation and galvanized the modern civil rights movement.

    After hearing more than seven hours of testimony from investigators and witnesses, a Leflore County grand jury last week determined there was insufficient evidence to indict Carolyn Bryant Donham on charges of kidnapping and manslaughter, Leflore County District Attorney Dewayne Richardson said in a news release Tuesday.

    If you Believe All Women, then she was the victim of the story.

    It appears that some people want to revive the Till case, because it was the last American lynching. However it was not really a lynching. Perhaps a revenge killing.

    On the subject of justice, we dodged a bullet by not getting Merrick Garland on the US Supreme Court. He has turned out to be the most partisan and most racist US Attorney General in many years.

    Tuesday, August 09, 2022

    Alex Jones Loses Right to Criticize Sandy Hook

    AP reports:
    Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words "Save the 1st" scrawled on tape covering his mouth.

    Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.

    The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones' far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.

    Jones took the stand Aug. 2 in his own defense.

    Here's a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:

    Are all defamation lawsuits First Amendment cases?

    They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isn't protected speech.

    The defamation was only $50,000 out of the $50,000,000 verdict. Defamation was just the excuse to try to bankrupt and silence Alex Jones.

    It is all part of a broader leftist plot to censor the Right. Slate writes:

    Of course, any expectation that any given legal proceeding—such as the Mueller probe, Trumps two impeachments, and even the very effective Jan. 6 committee hearings—might lift us out of the misinformation quagmire in which we find ourselves has proven again and again to be too fanciful.
    They will never be satisfied until Trump and all Trump supported are jailed or silenced.

    This is how it was put in court:

    “I am asking you to take the bullhorn away from Alex Jones and all of the others who believe they can profit off of fear and misinformation,” Wesley Ball said in his closing argument Friday. “The gold rush of fear and misinformation must end, and it must end today."
    Sandy Hook was a huge public news event, and the people involved, politicians, and others used it for advocating changes in the law. The public needed the truth, but important details were concealed. A free society needs skeptics to challenge the official narrative.

    Alex Jones lost this case on some legal technicalities. The opposition lawyer admitted that he improperly obtained all Alex Jones' cell phone data, beyond what he was entitled to, and used that to embarrass Jones. So Jones got out-lawyered, and the judge obviously did not like him. But he still should not be silenced for expressing an opinion about a public event.

    Monday, August 08, 2022

    Dick Cheney Goes Full Anti-Trump

    From an ad to save Liz Cheney:
    "In our nation's 246 year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump," Dick Cheney said in the ad.

    "He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He is a coward," Cheney continued.

    Says the guy who arguably stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, and started two wars.

    These Trump-haters have completely lost it. Trump is out of office. How is he a threat? He gives speeches, makes political endorsements, and may run for President. He can only be elected if he has popular support.

    Trump was President. If he was really so bad, why cannot the Cheney name something bad that he did? The ad fails to find anything. Liz Cheney for Trump's programs nearly all the time.

    Friday, August 05, 2022

    New Studies on the Transgenderism Fad

    There has been a huge increase in child transgenderism in the past few years. Is it a big fad? Is it because a previously unrecognized illness is being treated? Is it a contagious disease?

    NBC News reports:

    The “social contagion” theory can be traced back to a 2018 paper published in the journal PLOS One. Dr. Lisa Littman, who at the time was a professor of behavioral and social sciences at Brown University, coined the term “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” which she described as adolescents experiencing a conflict between their birth sex and gender identity “suddenly during or after puberty.” These adolescents, she wrote, “would not have met the criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood” and are experiencing dysphoria due to social influence.  

    Littman also hypothesized that adolescents assigned female at birth are more likely to be affected by social contagion and, as a result, are overrepresented in groups of adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria when compared to those who were assigned male at birth.

    After intense debate and criticism, PLOS One conducted a post-publication reassessment of the article, and issued a correction that included changing the headline to clarify that Littman did not survey transgender or gender-diverse youth themselves, but actually surveyed their parents. The correction also noted that, “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is not a formal mental health diagnosis at this time.”

    Now a new study, by some prominent transgenderism advocates, claims to refute this.
    The deleterious effect of unfounded hypotheses stigmatizing TGD [transgender and gender diverse] youth, particularly the ROGD hypothesis, cannot be overstated, especially in current and longstanding public policy debates. Indeed, the notion of ROGD [rapid-onset gender dysphoria] has been used by legislators to prohibit TGD youth from accessing gender-affirming medical care, despite the considerable methodological limitations underlying the generation of this hypothesis, as well as the unequivocal support for gender-affirming medical care by multiple major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association.8
    Cannot be overstated? The bias shows. The study shows no such deleterious effect.

    Their main argument is that females would be more subject to social contagion, but his study found more males.

    They also say that the transgender kids reported bullying, while that would not be expected if the kids were doing what is popular.

    This is not a refutation of anything. Maybe boys and girls have different reasons for being transgender. Maybe transgenderism is popular with some but not others.

    It says other studies found bullying, but I do not see that the data prove anything. Suppose you discovered that kids with tattoos report more bullying. Would that prove that there is no social pressure to get tattoos? Certainly not.

    This whole subject is politicized. A good paper is forcibly corrected. Stupid papers get published if they promote transgenderism. The major medical associations are on board with it.

    Here is a criticism of an earlier paper by the same authors.

    You know they have biases when you use phrases like "those assigned male sex at birth (AMAB)". They have male sex from the moment of conception until they die. They are male. The sex is noticed at birth, but also before birth and after birth.

    There is no solid science backing up any of the transgender affirming treatments.

    Saturday, July 30, 2022

    NY Times Touts White Replacement Again

    The NY Times has an article endorsing White Replacement Theory about once a week.

    It reports:

    “What the left really wants to do is change the demographics of this country,” Mr. Masters said in a video posted to Twitter last fall. “They do. They want to do that so they can consolidate power and so they can never lose another election.” In May, he told an interviewer that Democrats were “trying to manufacture and import” a new electorate.

    What Mr. Masters calls an “obvious truth” is what experts in extremism describe as a sanitized version of the “great replacement,” a once-fringe, racist conspiracy theory that claims that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to replace white Americans with immigrants to weaken the influence of white culture. ...

    “It is obvious to everyone that Democrats see illegal immigrants as future voters,” he said in a statement. “No ‘theory’ is needed to observe that.” He criticized “fake experts” who claimed otherwise.

    Mr. Masters is widely expected to win in the Arizona primary on Tuesday.

    The experts do not say that the theory is wrong. They only say that it is a fringe theory. That is true in the sense that most mainstream politicians do not say it.

    If the NY Times were to say that the theory were wrong, then it would explain why Jews and Democrats want to bring in so many immigrants and illegal aliens. Why do they? No other explanation is given.

    The NY Times regularly has articles about how demographics shift favor Democrats and marginalize Whites.

    The United Nations announces:

    The global population is projected to reach 8 billion on 15 November 2022, and India is projected to surpass China as the world’s most populous country in 2023, according to World Population Prospects 2022, released today on World Population Day.

    “This year’s World Population Day falls during a milestone year, when we anticipate the birth of the Earth’s eight billionth inhabitant. This is an occasion to celebrate our diversity, recognize our common humanity, and marvel at advancements in health that have extended lifespans and dramatically reduced maternal and child mortality rates,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

    Saying "celebrate our diversity" is just a way of celebrating White Replacement.

    Friday, July 29, 2022

    Audobon to be Canceled

    AP reports:
    The Seattle chapter of the Audubon Society says it is dropping "Audubon" from its name because the man the organization is named after was a slave owner and opposed abolition.
    It is bizarro that a bird-lover would find a need to pass judgment on the political views of another bird-lover who lived two centuries ago. Why would anyone care?

    I think we are witnessing a strange mental disorder. These folks have profound brain malfunctions. Admiring bird art has nothing to do with the death of George Floyd. Adubon Society members are not trying to bring back Negro slavery. Thinking these things is crazy.

    Wikipedia says Jews are not Smart

    Jews run the world more than any other ethnic group. The leading explanation for this was that Jews were smarter, and therefore more successful.An anonymous Quillette essay reports:
    In October 2020, Wikipedia’s “Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence” article was nominated for deletion the seventh time. ...

    After the article’s deletion, this stated plan to recreate it turned out to be a false promise. Instead, references to high average IQ among Ashkenazi Jews were subsequently removed from every other Wikipedia article in which this topic had been discussed, including the “List of Jewish Nobel laureates” article and the general “Ashkenazi Jews” article, with edit summaries stating that the various papers, articles, and books discussing this topic were no longer reliable sources.

    So why do Jews run the world? If it is not their intelligence, the next leading theory is that there is international conspiracy of Jews favoring their own kind.

    Thursday, July 28, 2022

    Language Police do not Like Groomers

    Epoch Times:
    One of the world’s most influential newspaper writing stylebooks on July 22 advised against quoting people who use the word “groomer” to describe those who teach children about transgenderism, homosexuality, and other mature sexual issues.

    The guidance is part of a lengthy transgenderism update by the Associated Press to its voluminous stylebook. Similar to other sensitive issues, AP’s new transgender guidance aligns with the language used by the political left.

    For example, the stylebook now advises journalists to avoid writing descriptions like “biological male” when covering transgenderism.

    Groomer is the term for adults who encourage children to be queers. Is there a better term?

    The term "biological male" should be unnecessary, but is used because of women who choose to identify with a male gender.

    “Avoid terms like ‘biological male,’ which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to oversimplify sex and gender, is often misleading shorthand for assigned male at birth, and is redundant because sex is inherently biological.”“Avoid terms like ‘biological male,’ which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to oversimplify sex and gender, is often misleading shorthand for assigned male at birth, and is redundant because sex is inherently biological.”
    This is nonsense. I do not think anyone uses the term "biological male" to mean assigned male at birth. It refers to his sex being male, and not to some decision made many years ago.

    Update: For an example of school groomers in action, Christopher Rufo writes:

    In Portland, the Sexual Revolution Starts in Kindergarten
    The city’s public schools teach K-5 students to subvert the sexuality of “white colonizers” and begin exploring “the infinite gender spectrum.”

    Portland Public Schools has launched a war against the “gender binary” and adopted a radical new curriculum teaching students to subvert the sexuality of “white colonizers” and begin exploring “the infinite gender spectrum.” ...

    The premise is simple: privileged white heterosexuals have created an oppressive gender system in order to dominate racial and sexual minorities. As the curriculum explains, “gender is colonized,” and Western societies have used language to erase alternative sexualities. “When white European people colonized different places, they brought their own ideas about gender and sexuality,” the curriculum reads. “When the United States was colonized by white settlers, their views around gender were forced upon the people already living here. Hundreds of years later, how we think and talk about gender are still impacted by this shift.” ...

    The curriculum begins in kindergarten with an anatomy lesson featuring graphic drawings of children’s genitalia. The lesson avoids the terms “boy” and “girl” in favor of the gender-neutral variants “person with a penis” and “person with a vulva,” because, according to the curriculum, some girls can have penises and some boys can have vulvas. “Any gender and kid can have any type of body,” a related presentation reads. ...

    By the end of fifth grade, the curriculum explicitly asks students to make a “commitment to change,” according to the dictates of gender ideology. Students receive a list of six commitments, including: “I commit to learning more about what LGBTQIA2S+ words mean and how they have changed over time”; “I commit to learning about the history and leadership of Black trans women”; “I commit to practicing pronouns and correcting myself EVERY time”; “I commit to attending QSA/GSA and being a leader at my school”; and “I commit to watching and reading books, movies, and TV shows that have LGBTQIA+ characters.” In other words, they commit to becoming political activists for queer theory and the broader sexual revolution.

    This is sick and perverted. This is what Democrats want to do to your kids.

    Wednesday, July 27, 2022

    Mongolian Schools Still have Virginity Tests

    PBS TV exposes the latest UN human rights violation:
    As a debate continues in the U.S over reproductive rights, teenage girls in the Republic of Mongolia are fighting for the right not to be subjected to so-called "virginity tests" in schools. The practice was officially banned by the government last year but it continues nevertheless.
    According to the show, there are ten schools in Mongolia doing these tests, and one girl was discovered to be concealing a pregnancy. I guess the girl was supposed to have a human right to conceal the pregnancy.

    Mongolia is the home of Ghengis Khan. He is still a her there, He violated some human rights. He probably raped a thousand women.

    Now the biggest gripe is that some girl had to take her clothes off for a medical exam, and got caught concealing a pregnancy. If that is the worst, then life must be good in Mongolia today.

    Here is China, similarly oppressing women:

    A Chinese court has overruled a rare legal challenge brought by an unmarried Beijing woman seeking the right to freeze her eggs.

    The Chaoyang intermediate people’s court in Beijing said in a judgment that the hospital did not violate the woman’s rights in denying her access to freeze her eggs.

    Teresa Xu received the court judgment Friday, almost three years after she first brought the case.

    In China, national law does not explicitly ban unmarried people from services like fertility treatments, and simply states that a “husband and wife” can have up to three children.

    In practice, however, hospitals and other institutions implement the regulations in a way that requires people to show a marriage license. Unmarried women who choose to have children have struggled to access public benefits like maternity leave or coverage for prenatal exams.

    A few years ago in the USA, it would have been normal to expect fertility treatements to be for married women. And benefits like maternity leave would be for married women.

    The USA has systematically removed incentives for children to be within marriage. Chine, not yet.

    Tuesday, July 26, 2022

    Why Evangelical Christians Voted for Trump

    This is an easy question. Why wouldn't anyone vote for Trump? It is now painfully obvious that Trump was a much better President than Biden. Better for Christians, and better for everyone.

    Besides all that, the Democrat Party is run by folks who hate evangelical Christians.

    On the contrary, Trump likes them. He is not one of them, but he genuinely likes them. He is not trying to marginalize them.

    Half of Americans expect a second U.S. civil war within YEARS, more than 40% agree with 'great replacement theory' and nearly a fifth expect they will choose to bring a gun to a violent political row, alarming poll shows

    50.1 percent expect to see a second American Civil War within years
    More than 40 percent favor a 'strong leader' over democracy and adhere to immigrant takeover belief
    One fifth expect to be gun-toting at a January 6 Capitol riot-style melee in the coming years
    California university researchers say results 'exceeded our worst expectations'

    LA Times:
    Almost 23% agreed somewhat, strongly or very strongly with this statement: “The government, media and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation.
    If we are going to war, then you want to avoid those who are trying to destroy you. Also the Satan-worshiping pedophiles.

    Monday, July 25, 2022

    Teenaged Transgenderism is All a Big Fad

    Wikipedia defines:
    The rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy centers around the concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), proposed to be a subtype of gender dysphoria caused by peer influence and social contagion.[1] It has never been recognized by any major professional association as a valid mental health diagnosis, and its use has been discouraged by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and other medical organizations due to a lack of reputable scientific evidence for the concept.[2][3]
    Apparently a lot of people believe that teenaged transgenderism is all a big fad, and this controversy has been invented to rebut that.

    If the rapid onset never happened, then I would expect some scientific papers measuring how long it takes to acquire gender dysphoria. However, the references have none of that. Instead, they harass those who write about the rapid onset, and complain that discussion of rapid onset dysphoria leads policymakers to rush to castrating teenaged boys, and other irreversiable damage.

    This whole subject has been overly politicized, with the major psychological associations on the side of mutilating children. There no good science to back up what they say and do.

    Sunday, July 24, 2022

    Aggressive Work on Monkeypox

    CNN reports:
    Buttigieg: Biden admin taking the spread of monkeypox 'very seriously'

    Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg tells CNN's Jake Tapper that the Biden administration is working "aggressively" to improve access to monkeypox vaccines and taking steps to limit the virus' spread within the United States.

    Why is the Transportation Secretary talking on TV about monkeypox concerns? Does he know something that we don't know?

    Update: I guess so. CNN:

    Anyone can get monkeypox, but in the latest outbreak, the virus is predominantly spreading among gay and bisexual men. Officials noted Monday that most of the people affected reported some level of sexual activity.

    That doesn't mean the virus is sexually transmitted, but officials say it shows that prolonged skin-to-skin contact is one of the major ways monkeypox is now spreading.

    Okay, I guess that is why we have a homosexual Transportation Secretary.

    Update: Report from the frontline of leftist philanthropy:

    Sebastian Köhn (He/Him), George Soros Open Society Foundations Division Director in sexual health, recounts in The Guardian:
    I got monkeypox and it’s been a total nightmare

    When New York Pride festivities kicked off I was aware that monkeypox was an emerging issue – especially for gay men – but … I had sex with several guys over the weekend.

    Then a week later, on 1 July, I started feeling very fatigued. I had a high fever with chills and muscle aches, and my lymph nodes were so swollen they were protruding two inches out of my throat. …

    I’m a 39-year-old man from Sweden, living in Brooklyn and working in philanthropy. For the past decade, my work has primarily focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights, so I followed the outbreak from the very beginning.

    And then a whole bunch of Sorrows of Job happened to this 39 year old Swedish immigrant named Kohn living in Brooklyn and working for George Soros in sexual health, which must totally be the fault of the NYC health bureaucrats as opposed to him showing his New York Pride pride by having sex with several guys over the weekend.
    So I guess "Pride" is a euphemism for spreading monkeypox.

    Update: The NYC Health Dept writes:

    NYC joins many public health experts and community leaders who have expressed their serious concern about continuing to exclusively use the term “monkeypox” given the stigma it may engender, and the painful and racist history within which terminology like this is rooted for communities of color.

    “Monkeypox” is a misnomer, as the virus does not originate in monkeys and was only classified as such due to an infection seen in research primates. And we know alternative terminology is possible and entities are starting to use terms such as “hMPXV” and “MPV.”

    Racist? I thought that homophobia was the problem. Does the term suggest that gay Blacks have sexual relations with monkeys? Get ready for some propaganda terminology.

    Saturday, July 23, 2022

    Low Serotonin does not Cause Depression

    Psychology Today reports:
    For the last half-century, the dominant explanation for depression has centered on serotonin. The basic idea: low levels of brain serotonin or serotonin activity leads to symptoms of depression. This theory, which is known as the “serotonin hypothesis,” is based on several data points, including animal research and the effects of antidepressants that are supposed to work by increasing brain serotonin levels. But, in the last several decades, a number of researchers have challenged the idea that serotonin plays a principal or even major role in depression.

    In recent days, the serotonin hypothesis of depression has been explicitly challenged by a number of scientific publications. Most notable (at the time of this writing), a paper published in Nature Molecular Psychiatry reviewed several lines of evidence on the subject of the serotonin-depression connection and concluded that “the main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations.”

    Millions of people are taking drugs because they have been told that the drugs are correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain. That has never been proved.

    Friday, July 22, 2022

    Why Blacks are Uppercased

    The Princeton Alumni Weekly magazine explains:
    If you read the story in PAW’s September issue about history professor Jacob Dlamini, you might have noticed an curious editorial convention: When we used the word “Black” to describe a community or someone’s race, we used uppercase — but we lowercased “white.” In a letter to the editor published in November, Bruce C. Johnson ’74 asked why: “I would have thought rules of grammatical consistency and considerations of racial equality would have indicated treating the two terms the same and capitalizing both or neither. Is there a grammatical rule at work here of which I was unaware?”
    That was not enough, so it got a Black professor to elaborate.

    Carolyn Rouse writes:

    If we wanted to do more to fully represent the subjectivity of the people we are writing about we would have to open ourselves up to more, not fewer, style variations. The new demand to complicate pronoun usage is a case in point. Just as the racial descriptor “Black” has been adopted to highlight the inescapability of structural racism, the pronoun debate is asking for the de-essentialization of sex and gender.
    This doesn't make much sense. So Black is capitalized to highlight racism? And that is somehow like switching pronoun usage?

    The word black just emphasizes the obvious skin color. The pronoun is some weirdo preferance that can be different from appearance.

    Racism is often translated as “misrecognition.” By this I mean that culturally competent members of society playfully signify who they are through their dress, consumption, work, aesthetics, and speech. Racists, however, refuse to — or cannot — read the cultural performances of those they hate. They misrecognize the other. The debates around whether or not to capitalize the “b” in “Black,” the “w” in “White,” or the “b” in “Brown” when identifying someone’s race strikes me as a concern with cultural competence and misrecognition. The person who uses the current capitalization, “Black,” does so in order not to be seen as a racist given the zeitgeist. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history by writing “black” instead of “Black” or (God forbid) “African American” (how 1990s!). And who wants to be blown up by a Twitter terrorist who identifies you as a closeted White supremacist because you used a “W” rather than a “w”? The stakes of misrecognition have become too high across the political spectrum, so perhaps there are more productive ways for a writer to express their novel ideas rather than insisting on “White”?
    I think I am starting to get it. Blacks are taking over. Blacks are cool. White supremacists would use uppercase W. Getting this capitalization wrong is like putting a knee on George Floyd's neck.

    At least she didn't try to claim that Whites have no ethnic identity or culture.

    Perhaps it’s time to use all the racial descriptors: Negro, Afro-American, Colored People, People of Color, BIPOC, Black, black, African American, and of course Nigerian/Ghanaian/Jamaican American, and so on. ... They are also all associated with different negative stereotypes, accretions built up over time with use. But these accretions can also be helpful when trying to describe negative racialized experiences. Even the taboo use of the plural “Blacks” is perfect when identifying Blacks for Trump.
    All those terms are negative? And the plural "Blacks" is not to be used unless describing Trump supporters? Weird.

    Wednesday, July 20, 2022

    Senate Admits that Trunp was Right on Jan. 6

    USA Today reports:
    Bipartisan group of senators announce deal to reform Electoral Count Act

    Following months of negotiations, a bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday introduced two new bills meant to install new safeguards for the certification of presidential election results.

    The reforms to the Electoral Count Act includes new protections for presidential elections and the transition of power, clarifying a contentious question in the White House in the lead-up to the certification of the election by Congress: could the vice president overturn the election? ...

    During negotiations, senators received input from state election officials, election experts and legal scholars about what changes could be made to the Electoral Count Act of 1887, a law the senators called "archaic and ambiguous."

    I guess all those senators agree that Trump was not trying to overturn an election. They would say that he was interpreting ambiguities in the law in order to get an Electoral College vote in his favor. Trump would say that he was following the law in order to determine the election winner.

    A lot of Democrats and Trump-haters have argued that on Jan. 6, 2020, Trump was asking Pence and the Congress to do something that was forbidden by law. But if that were clearly true, then there would be no need to amend the Electoral Count Act.

    This new bill is an admission that Trump had a legitimate legal argument that Pence and the Congress could have rejected some electoral votes as being tainted by massive improper voting in certain states.

    Amy Wax on the Chopping Block

    Penn law professor Amy Wax is likely to be fired, based on this report. Most of the charges are for off-campus opinions, but here is one of the most damning:
    Inviting on campus Jared Taylor, one of the world’s most prominent white supremacists, for a mandatory lecture in her Law School course.3 To prepare for this class, Wax assigned an interview with Enoch Powell, a man who was ousted from his leadership role in the British Conservative party over fifty years ago ...

    According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Taylor hosts the annual American Renaissance Conference, where racist intellectuals rub shoulders with Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists” and edited the discontinued American Renaissance magazine, which “regularly published proponents of eugenics and blatant anti-black and anti-Latino racists.”

    Note that it does not actually quote Taylor. It is just guilt by association. Wax is bad for inviting a speaker who also participated in a conference with intellectuals with bad views. They are actually Klansmen or neo-Nazis or even white supremacists, as that is just leftist name-calling.

    If students are going to learn about immigration law, then they need to hear the pros and cons. All arguments against immigration are censored by the Left.

    The report keeps saying that she has caused "harms" to faculty and students, where the supposed harm consists only of being exposed to other views.

    It lists an assortment true facts that she said. No attempt at rebuttal is made. In most cases, the gripe is that students, and even faculty, are made uncomfortable by certain facts.

    In other college wokeness, Jonathan Turley writes:

    There is an interesting controversy brewing in anthropology departments where professors have called for researchers to stop identifying ancient human remains by biological gender because they cannot gauge how a person identified at that the time. Other scholars are calling for researchers to stop identifying race as a practice because it fuels white supremacy.
    This sounds like a joke, but it is not.

    Tuesday, July 19, 2022

    Pope Apologizes for What Never Happened

    Reuters reports:
    Pope Francis said on Sunday his trip to Canada next week will be a "pilgrimage of penance" that he hopes can help heal the wrongs done to indigenous people by Roman Catholic priests and nuns who ran abusive residential schools.

    The July 24-30 trip will include at least five encounters with native people as Francis makes good on a promise to apologise on their home territory for the Church's role in the state-sanctioned schools, which sought to erase indigenous cultures. ...

    The recurring schools scandal broke out again last year with the discovery of the remains of 215 children at the former Indian Residential School in Kamloops in the Western Canadian province of British Columbia. The school closed in 1978.

    Wait -- that story was a hoax. No bodies were found at all. See Wikipedia.

    Apparently this Pope thinks that it is noble to do a lot of apologizing. The Catholic schools offered education to Canadian Indian kids. It is not known that the schools did anything wrong.

    People often assume that a crime was committed, if someone admits wrongdoing. But this Pope has no idea what is buried on the school grounds. Even if some kids died and were buried there, it does mean anything unnatural occurred.

    Update: The NY Times reports that the CIA got taken in by a fake noose story:

    The C.I.A. director, William J. Burns, issued a warning to the agency’s work force last week after what appeared to be a noose was found outside a secret facility used by the agency in Virginia, according to people familiar with the matter.

    In the message, Mr. Burns said that racism and racist symbols would not be tolerated in the agency.

    Questions surround the incident. The object was found near a small agency facility located in a building that houses businesses and other organizations. Some people briefed on the incident said it was not entirely clear that the object was even meant to be a noose, or if whoever placed it there knew that the C.I.A. secretly operated in the building.

    If you want to see what top-secret woke agencies are operating in your neighborhood, just drop a few fake nooses around.

    Saturday, July 16, 2022

    Evolutionists and Christians Battle over Free Will

    Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:
    Why would two members of the ID creationist Discovery Institute keep attacking me for rejecting libertarian free will? After all, that issue has very little to do with evolution. But they keep on trying to land blows, for the real object of the Discovery Institute goes way beyond the promotion of ID creationism in schools. Their goal is the elimination of materialism and naturalism as the basis of Enlightenment Now. (Read about the Wedge Strategy.) They’re upset at me because I adhere to views that don’t require or are associated with a God — and determinism (I’d call it “naturalism”) does just that. If we don’t have spooky free will, and, as I claim, all our behaviors and decisions occur according to the laws of physics, then you can’t “choose” whether to be good or evil, and choice of that sort is essential for the Abrahamic religions to function.
    Free will is essential for Christianity, but not Islam or Judaism. Islam is fatalistic. Judaism is based on heredity and customs, not beliefs.

    Does free will have anything to do with evolution? I might have said not, but there are scholars who go around promoting evolution in the schools as a way of affirming naturalism, and they mostly deny free will as contrary to that naturalism.

    Coyne says his views are misstated here:

    Michael Egnor: Well, one of the points about Coyne’s denial of free will that I find in some ways the most frightening is that Coyne has suggested in several of his posts that, because he believes that there is no actual free will, we should change our approach to criminal justice — so that the approach to criminal justice does not entail retribution, but instead entails correction. That basically sort of like training animals. You’d want to train people to do better. Of course, how one could define “better” in a world with no moral good or evil is a question Coyne doesn’t address.
    Coyne replies:
    We ARE animals, and can be influenced by environmental circumstances—like jail. Sadly, our criminal justice system is, by and large, not set up to reform people, but to punish them. ...

    If you consider “morality” to be a subjective set of guidelines about what things are good and bad for society or individuals, as I do, then yes, the Nazis were immoral. However, I prefer to avoid the term “moral responsibility”, which presumes, as Luskin and Egnor believe, that people always have a choice between acting morally or immorally at any given moment. They don’t. I prefer the word “responsibility,” which means “the person did it; caused it to happen.” And you can be responsible in ways that mandate punishment, including imprisonment. “Moral responsibility” adds nothing to “responsibility” construed in this way.

    Okay, Coyne believes in moral responsibility, but it does seem fair to say that his belief in naturalistic evolution leads him to conclude that humans are just animals with no free will. They have no ability to choose between acting morally and immorally.

    I am all for teaching evolution in the schools, but can it be done without teaching leftism, atheism, and determinism? The evolutionists want to teach that we are the moral equivalents of trained dogs, with no ability to act morally.

    In a separate post, Coyne argues:

    I cannot think of a single feature of organisms, nor can other non-ID biologists, that could not in any way have evolved by naturalistic processes. Behe and his DI friends have suggested several in the past, like blood-clotting and the bacterial flagellum, but all of these have been shown to have possible origins through naturalistic processes including natural selection. True, we don’t understand the origin of some features, but the most parsimonious explanation for these is that we don’t have the historical evidence (we weren’t there when they evolved), not that we should give up trying to explain them scientifically, go to church, and thank the Lord God for his Intelligent Design.
    Okay, everything has a possible naturalistic origin. But it is a big leap from that to say that we have no free will.

    Friday, July 15, 2022

    How Some Women Hate Incel Freaks

    Scott Aaronson is a famous computer science professor, former nerdy incel, and popular blogger. He is now married with two kids. Apparently he still matches the nerdy incel stereotype, and some despise him for it. See this in the name of a female grad student who has since disavowed it:
    Annnnnndddd now the famous free-speech-defending rationalist blogger with all his “principles” stoops to the level of doxxing commenters on his site who call him out on his sexist bullshit. Who would have guessed.

    FYI, I do have a friend who knows somebody who was at a workship with Scott, and yes, he is a bit creepy. The word on the street is that he wears the same dirty T-shirt pretty much every day. Personal hygiene leaves something to be desired, to put it lightly. And does give off a weird/awkward/creepy vibe. At least that’s what people tell me.

    I know his type. I’ve been harassed and flirted with by a (well-known) professor at CalTech. It fucking hurts. It’s so gross. I’ve had professors where—yeah, I could just tell they were oggling me, even if it didn’t rise to the level of overt harassment. And the other men in your program. I don’t want to be looked at, I don’t want to be oggled, I don’t want comments on my appearance. Imagine walking into a room of 90% guys and seeing them turn to oggle you. Imagine the awkward flirting and desperate attempts to ask you out. And they’re always so awkward and weird about it. They never have any confidence. You hear the heavy breathing and the “uhmmmm…ex…ex…excuse me, uh…I was wondering if…” 🤮 It’s like get some fucking confidence guys. It’s so awkward and gross and creepy. I’ve had many uncomfy moments, guys trying to ask me out or compliment me on my appearance or make awkward small talk, and I’ve had the occassional moment where I felt actively unsafe. There are so many of these weird/awkward creeps who are so desperate and don’t know how to fit in or socialize or even ask a girl out without sounding creepy. It makes working in STEM a living hell.

    So yeah, I know Scott’s type. I can smell the unwashed T-shirt with the orange soda stain and the BO from here 🤮 I can hear his creepy breathing and stuttering “uhmmm, A…Aida…I was uhmm wondering if uhmmm maybe you uhhhh…” 🤮 These incel freaks need to get the fuck out of science. Maybe go work in Russia where they’re all sexist men like you.

    As another comment summarizes:
    “I hate it when people judge me based on my appearance” … “You look like a creep.”
    “I hate it when guys compliment me on my appearance” … “Here’s an insult about your appearance.”
    “I hate it when guys stereotype” … “I know his type.”
    She says that someone appears to be impersonating her, but does not say that someone is impersonating her.

    Whether the grad student comment is properly attributed or not, it does demonstrate some female attitudes. She pretends that her life is made miserable by incidents that are quite trivial. She complains when men flirt with her, but only if those men do not measure up to her expectations in some way. She complains that some men do not know how to socialize, but she is obviously terrible at socializing herself.

    Most of all, she despises the "incel freaks" so much that she wants them to get out of science!

    Even more vile hatred comes from a deranged man turned trans woman signing as "Typical Scott". Read them yourself for examples of crazy woke destructiveness.

    Aaronson said he was considering restricting comments to be non-anonymous, but then he got a bunch of forged comments from Computer Science professors. Some of the comments were very innocuous, such as vacation recommendations. Apparently some people will go to a lot of trouble to bully someone perceived as a nerdy incel type.

    Aaronson is a leftist Trump-hater who goes along with 95% of the Leftist agenda, and is hated because he refuses to go along with the last 5%.

    If any of these people had any real grievances, they would be targeting the causes.

    Another comment:

    I’m having a hard time believing a PhD at CalTech would be so foolish as to post a comment like Aida’s, but if it *is* her, I can only imagine she felt safe in doing so due to having been “harassed and flirted with by a (well-known) professor”. What a world we live in.
    Yes, that is the crazy world we live in. An intelligent woman can post something very foolish because she has her own trivial MeToo grievance.

    We used to have feminists who claimed that they wanted equality with men. Just give them the opportunities, and they will do what the men do.

    It was always a lie. These women whine endlessly about things that no man would ever complain about.

    Update: I posted this comment to Aaronson's blog, referring to him going to work for OpenAI to study the ethics of AI:

    Scott, in your new job, I hope you consider that we could be witnessing the AI of the future. Companies like Disney will hire unscrupulous marketing firms that create intelligent bots to promote their products. The bots will scan your blog, figure out what triggers you, select impersonations that might plausibly post comments, determine how to get comments past your moderation scheme, drive you into a rage, and ultimately sell you on a vacation cruise to get away from the madness. If done well, no one will ever know what is real and what is not.

    Or maybe someone did this to you just to open your eyes to what an evil AI might do.

    For more from the grad student, see this essay trashing physicist R.P. Feyman:
    When family friends heard that I wanted to be a physicist, I was gifted not one but two copies of “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: (Adventures of a Curious Character). Mainly autobiographical, Surely You’re Joking is a collection of anecdotes from the physicist Richard Feynman that span his youth, work on the Manhattan project, and experiences as a Caltech professor in the 60’s and 70’s, at which point he was well-established as one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. ...

    Either I had misjudged Feynman, or others weren’t judging him enough. I borrowed a copy of Surely You’re Joking from the Caltech library (there are 11 available) to investigate. In my second reading, I learned that Feynman enjoyed doing research at topless bars near Caltech, where he also picked up a habit of drawing nude portraits of women.1 ...

    We must condemn harassment and discrimination, wherever they occur—our lab meetings, our conferences, our scientific spaces.

    So she lost her copies, and needed library copies? Things that did not offend her before, suddenly became offensive after taking a women's studies class?

    She has no examples of actual harassment or discriminiation. If anything, she has benefitted from policies favoring women, and she is harassing incel types.

    Update: She wrote:

    But we must consider Feynman in all his manifestations—a brilliant scientist, but also a narcissist whose sexist behavior did undeniable harm.
    I do deny that his behavior did any harm. She gives no examples of harm. She just has a feminist belief in restricting what he can do.

    Some messages suggested that she is Iranian and anti-Israel, and that may have caused hostility towards Feynman and Aaronson, as they are Jewish. I doubt it. I think she is just following the feminist MeToo playbook, and trying to sexually punish men in misguided pursuit of female sexual advancement. This is what feminism is all about.

    Update: Here is a video on Ben Shapiro Explains the REAL History of Feminism. It is pretty good, leading up the trans denial of sex. But he bypasses the MeToo anti-male feminism that I think is the dominant form today. It seeks to expand female freedom and choice, while constricting men's.

    Thursday, July 14, 2022

    Ukraine is the Lastest Neocon Disaster

    Essay:
    The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles. ...

    Currently, the top three State Department officials (Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland) are all Zionist Jews. The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hot on the trail of domestic “terrorist” dissidents, is also Jewish as is the Attorney General and the president’s chief of staff. They and their boss Joe Biden do not seem concerned that their client Ukraine is no democracy. The nation’s current government came into power after the 2014 coup engineered by President Barack Obama’s State Department at an estimated cost of $5 billion. The regime change carried out under Barack Obama was driven by State Department Russophobe Victoria Nuland with a little help from international globalist George Soros. It removed the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who was, unfortunately for him, a friend of Russia.

    Ukraine is reputedly both the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, witness the Hunter Biden saga. The current President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish and claims to have holocaust victims in his family tree, is a former comedian who won election in 2019. He replaced another Jewish president Petro Poroshenko, after being heavily funded and promoted by yet another fellow Jew and Ukraine’s richest oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is also an Israeli citizen and now lives in Israel.

    It all sounds like deja vu all over again, particularly as many of the perpetrators are still around, like Nuland, priming the pump to go to war yet again for no reason. And they are joined by journalists like Bret Stephens at the New York Times, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper at CNN, and also Max Boot at the Washington Post, all of whom are Jewish and can be counted on to write regular pieces both damning and demonizing Russia and its head of state Vladimir Putin, which means it is not only about the Middle East anymore. It is also about weakening and even bringing about regime change in nuclear armed Russia while also drawing some lines in the sand for likewise nuclear armed China. And I might add that playing power games with Russia is a hell of a lot more dangerous that kicking Iraq around.

    To put it bluntly, many US government and media Jews hate Russia and even though they benefited substantially as a group

    Some will say that this is unfair, because some Jews are anti-war. Jews have high IQ and are naturally good at diplomacy and journalism, so we should not be surprised that they rise to the top. The rest of us dummies should just shut up and accept that Jews know what is best for us.

    Wednesday, July 13, 2022

    Ukraine Needs Pride Parades

    Why are we fighting a war in Ukraine? RT reports:
    A petition calling on Volodymyr Zelensky to legalize gay marriage will be considered by the Ukrainian president after it attracted 25,000 signatures. While Ukrainian flags have been flown at pride parades throughout the Western world, gay marriage is extremely unpopular in Ukraine itself.

    Filed in early June, the petition recently passed 25,000 signatures, a threshold that means Zelensky must respond. Referencing the current conflict in Ukraine, the petition reads “at this time, every day can be the last. Let people of the same sex get the opportunity to start a family and have an official document to prove it. They need the same rights as traditional couples.” ...

    Although Ukraine under Zelensky has been pursuing greater integration with the West, gay rights activists at home seem unhappy with the comedian-turned-president. For instance, while Zelensky signed a joint statement with US President Joe Biden last September promising to “fight…discrimination against the LGBTQI+ community,” activists in Kiev have demanded that he fire one of his top advisors, Alexey Arestovich, for calling them “deviant.”

    We are sending Ukraine $50 billion. I am guessing that the aid will be used to force LGBTQI+ laws.

    Tuesday, July 12, 2022

    Seeing Nazis and Bias Everywhere

    Jewish writer Jonathan Chait writes in NY Magazine:
    As the Republican Party has moved further and further right, the distance between its right wing and Nazism has grown disconcertingly close. The latest evidence of this evolution can be seen in Blake Masters, the party’s leading candidate for its Senate nomination in Arizona.

    Masters, a protégé of Peter Thiel — the Silicon Valley billionaire and quasi libertarian who wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible” — has floated a variety of insane and racist theories. He has straight-up said Donald Trump won the 2020 election and suggested January 6 was a false flag directed secretly by the FBI. He blamed gun violence on Black people. (“We do have a gun-violence problem in this country, and it’s gang violence,” he said. “It’s people in Chicago, St. Louis, shooting each other. Very often, you know, Black people, frankly.”) He has endorsed the “great replacement” theory. And he has echoed far-right positions on foreign policy, opposing American entry into World War II and blaming American entry into World War I on a secret plot directed by the “Houses of Morgan and Rothschild.”

    Comments like these attracted the admiration of not only Trump, who endorsed him, but also, predictably, the Nazis. Neo-Nazi blogger Andrew Anglin gave Masters a fulsome endorsement on the white-supremacist site the Daily Stormer. ...

    To be clear about this, Anglin is not just kind of racist, nor is he appealing to racists with Tucker Carlson–like dog whistles. He is an obsessive advocate of eliminationist antisemitism. “This is the Jews for you, people. They are a vicious, evil race of hate-filled psychopaths. When you do something they don’t like, they will use the power of the media to come down on you, assassinate your character,” Anglin wrote in what the New Times called “a 30-article series that advocates genocide of Jewish people.”

    Let me get this straight. Anglin is a hateful person because he says Jews use the power of the media to come down on if they don't like what you say. So the Jew Chait uses the power of the media to launch the above character assassination.

    In particular, Chait attacks Masters because of something Anglin said, even though Masters had never even heard of Anglin.

    Anglin writes in a code that Jews do not understand. See this endorsement of Masters' opponent.

    Jews like Chait have a blind spot where they see Nazis everywhere. Here, he acts as if only Nazis would notice that Blacks have a gun violence problem. Of course everyone notices it.

    Racial bias has turned out to be an insoluable problem in artificial intelligence. Even when you try to train robots to be liberals with no stereotypes, researchers find:

    Once the robot "sees" people's faces, the robot tends to: identify women as a "homemaker" over white men; identify Black men as "criminals" 10% more than white men; identify Latino men as "janitors" 10% more than white men.
    This is inaccurate as Black men are criminals at a rate much more than 10% more. The bias is towaqrds Blacks being less criminal then they really are.

    Monday, July 11, 2022

    How Biden Stole the Election in WIsconsin

    Slate complains:
    On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Republican majority outlawed ballot drop boxes by a 4–3 vote, abolishing a reform that had made voting easier and more accessible in the state. The lead opinion—authored by the notorious fringe-right reactionary Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley — contains alarming language casting doubt on the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. It also grants credence to the GOP’s collapsing “investigation” to prove that illegal votes put Biden over the top in Wisconsin. Without a shred of evidence, the court has thrown its weight behind a dangerous conspiracy theory that helped to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection. ...

    In her opinion for the court in Teigen, Justice Grassl Bradley declared that every single drop box was illegal, and every citizen who used this method cast a ballot illegally.

    The court determined that Wisconsin law required voters to deliver their votes in person to the clerk. The votes cannot be collected by bundlers, or put in drop boxes.

    The law is a good law, because the bundlers and drop boxes are not authenticated.

    In other words, Biden stole the election in Winsocsin, and the Democrats were about to steal another. Pennsylvania and other states also used illegal vote collection methods.

    Okay, you may say, didn't the J6 committee find that AG Bill Barr advised Trump that he had insufficient proof of fraud to reverse the official vote counts?\

    Yes, he said that, but the WSJ just reported his explanation:

    Former Attorney General Bill Barr told a podcast recently that Mr. Trump was duly warned to get solid lawyers working to defend business-as-usual voting processes. “One of his aides went in and said, look, you need to set up a fund of $20-30 million in escrow, because lawyers don’t trust you to pay their bills, and you need to get a top-flight firm in here,” Mr. Barr said. “He ignored that advice. He did not have a legal team prepared to go and fight around the country. So a lot of these, bending of the playing field, were his own fault.”
    Got that? Barr was in charge of the US DoJ, and knew that the states were violating election law. But instead of using the DoJ to enforce election law, he told Trump to use his campaign money on a team of lawyers to privately enforce election law!

    In retrospect, Trump should have filed a bunch of lawsuits before the election to enforce election law. He probably thought that it was unnecessary, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would surely obey their own election law, and Republicans in those states were better positioned to see to it.

    Back to Slate:

    Electoral outcomes obtained by unlawful procedures corrupt the institution of voting” and “pollutes the integrity of the results.” Bradley complained that “hundreds of ballot drop boxes have been set up in past elections” and “thousands of votes have been cast via this unlawful method.” The alleged “illegality of these drop boxes weakens the people’s faith” in the election and calls “the results in question.”

    She then went further: “If elections are conducted outside of the law,” she asserted, “the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful and their results are illegitimate.” The implication here could not be more obvious: The 2020 election was “unlawful,” so the results—and, specifically, Biden’s victory—are “illegitimate.”

    Then Bradley drew a comparison between Wisconsin’s 2020 election and undemocratic, rigged contests in authoritarian nations. “Throughout history, tyrants have claimed electoral victory via elections conducted in violation of governing law,” she wrote, continuing:

    For example, Saddam Hussein was reportedly elected in 2002 by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters in Iraq (11,445,638 people). Examples of such corruption are replete in history. In the 21st century, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was elected in 2014 with 100% of the vote while his father, Kim Jong-il, previously won 99.9% of the vote. Former President of Cuba, Raul Castro, won 99.4% of the vote in 2008 while Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was elected with 97.6% of the vote in 2007. Even if citizens of such nations are allowed to check a box on a ballot, they possess only a hollow right. Their rulers derive their power from force and fraud, not the people’s consent.
    This is correct. Even if you favor bundlers and drop boxes as legitimate ways to get more voters, they were not clearly auth orized by law, and they are not accepted by the public as being free and fair.

    Sunday, July 10, 2022

    The African Population Bomb

    Steve Sailer reports on the world's most important graph:
    In 1950, there were three Europeans for every sub-Saharan African. By 2005 the ratio was one to one. In 2022, there are 1.55 Africans for every European, and by 2050 there should be three Africans for every European. And out in the mists of 2100, the UN is projecting almost six sub-Saharans for each European.
    At the end of this century, which will have been more important? That sea level went up three feet, or that Black African demographically replaced Europeans?

    Remember the story about US Border Patrol agents on horseback whipping illegal aliens to keep them out? The NY Times now reports that investigation proved the claim to be completely false, but agents are being punished anyway because:

    Some accused the United States of discriminating against Black migrants in its immigration system, which the administration has denied.

    Mr. Magnus said one particularly denigrating comment stood out. One of the agents on horseback was recorded telling a Haitian migrant, “This is why your country’s shit because you use your women for this.”

    I am surprised the NY Times prints that word. Here is the NY Post, with a worse word:
    The woman goes on to say “I’m gonna bring my n– down here and he gonna f–k you up. My n— is gonna come down here right now and f–k you up!” ...

    Then Simon can be seen walking in and going immediately behind the counter.

    “What’s up with you? N—-r what is wrong with you?” he demands.

    Alba, 51, who was in the middle of ringing up a woman, holds out his left arm as Simon approaches him. The female customer reaches across the counter as if she’s trying to get Simon’s attention.

    The fatal stabbing was edited from the tape obtained by The Post. But previously released video showed Simon push Alba into a chair before the two men start tussling and Simon was stabbed.

    The video shows a bloody Simon laying on the bodega floor and his girlfriend crying out, “That was over $3. Three f–king dollars. He snatched something out of my daughter…please help him.”

    NYPD officers arrive and led Alba away.

    I am not sure why that N-word is considered so offensive. It is obvious that Black people use it all the time, and see nothing particularly offensive about it. Only White liberals consider it offensive.

    The story is about two Blacks attacking a store clerk who then used a knife in self-defense. Yes, a man is dead because two Blacks attacked a clerk instead of paying for a $3 item.

    The clerk has been arrested for murder. The video clearly shows that it was self-defense.

    Update: Surveys show that most Africans want to move to the West. Get ready for a billion Black immigrants.

    Fight over Christian Power in America

    The NY Times has a hysterical article about Christian nationalism:
    Declaring the United States a Christian nation and ending federal enforcement of the separation of church and state are minority views among American adults, according to the Pew Research Center. ...

    The fight over Christian power in America has a centuries-long history, dating to the country’s origins, and it is again in sharp relief as the makeup of the nation shifts. For generations, the United States has been made up mostly of Christians, largely white and Protestant. In recent years, Christianity has declined at a rapid pace, as pluralist and secular values have risen.

    Since the Jan. 6 attack, which blended extremism and religious fervor, the term “Christian nationalism” is often used broadly to refer to the general mixing of American and white Christian identities. Historically, however, Christian nationalism in America has also encompassed extremist ideologies.

    The Library of Congress has a page detailing some of the history:
    It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example,
    As you can see, these supposedly extremist Christian nationalist ideologies are tame compared to what was accepted by Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, and they were not even considered particularly religious.
    In a livestream on Rumble, a video site popular with the far right, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, urged followers to be proud of “Christian nationalism” as a way to fight “globalists,” the “border crisis” and “lies about gender.” “While the media is going to lie about you and label Christian nationalism, and they are probably going to call it domestic terrorism, I’m going to tell you right now, they are the liars,” she said.
    We need more politicians fighting globalists, the border crisis, and lies about gender.

    Saturday, July 09, 2022

    Freedom to Control One's Own Destiny

    Here is an old-fashioned desccription of American freedom:
    This is probably the most basic of all the American values. Scholars and outside observers often call this value individualism, but many Americans use the word freedom. It is one of the most respected and popular words in the United States today.

    By freedom, Americans mean the desire and the right of all individuals to control their own destiny without outside interference from the government, a ruling noble class, the church, or any other organized authority. The desire to be free of controls was a basic valuehttps://vintageamericanways.com/american-values/ of the new nation in 1776, and it has continued to attract immigrants to this country.

    There is, however, a cost for this benefit of individual freedom: self-reliance. Individuals must learn to rely on themselves or risk losing freedom. They must take responsibility for themselves. Traditionally, this has meant achieving both financial and emotional independence from their parents as early as possible, usually by age eighteen or twenty-one. Self-reliance means that Americans believe they should take care of themselves, solve their own problems, and “stand on their own two feet.” Tocqueville observed the Americans’ belief in self-reliance in the 1830s:

    They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to4 imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.
    This strong belief in self-reliance continues today as a traditional American value. It is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of the American character to understand, but it is profoundly important. Most Americans believe that they must be self-reliant in order to keep their freedom.

    This new New Yorker magazine essay by a Black feminist professor uses similar language, but note the differences:
    But the right to abortion is an affirmation that women and girls have the right to control their own destiny. Without the ability to control when, where, how, and if one chooses to become pregnant or give birth, no other freedom can be achieved.
    Now pregnancy is all up to the women and girls. If they want to get pregnant, it is their choices. If they want to abort it, or give birth, it is their own choices. The father is not consulted, and has no say. Even a married man has no right to even be notified of his wife killing their unborn child.

    Any talk of self-reliance is missing. If the woman decides to get pregnant and give birth, then she expects the man to support her in every way. Because it is her choice and her freedom. No other female freedom can be achieved, unless she has the freedom to control her pregnancy. And control the man that she holds responsible.

    In case you think the New Yorker is being transphobic, it traces the threats on women to threats on trannies:

    The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has brought old feelings of astonishment and disgust back to the surface. The Court’s utter disregard for the rights of women and of trans and nonbinary people who have the capacity to become pregnant is shocking in the twenty-first century. ...

    The Supreme Court’s reversal of the right to abortion has usurped the rights and freedom of people who have the capacity to become pregnant. But anyone — including lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people — whose freedoms are not directly enshrined in the Constitution could see their rights threatened. ...

    The recent flurry of attacks on trans youths’ access to prescriptions and medical care has helped to legitimize the power of the state to control the bodies of women and girls when it comes to pregnancy. We are quickly being thrust into a nightmarish web of authoritarian, theocratic rule. The right wants to assert control over an array of non-normative sexualities, family units, and ways of being in the world. And in allowing for some discrimination, largely against trans youth and athletes, the door to rank bias has now been kicked in, legitimizing all of it. Today we reap the whirlwind.

    If evil Republicans get away with blocking the chemical castration of children, then they will be emboldened to deny abortion to women, er I mean, to people who have the capability to become pregnant. Men too will suffer, if they get pregnant and want to kill the fetus.

    Theocracy is not the word for it. The arguments against chemical castration are not primarily religious. Most of the arguments against Roe v Wade are not either. No, we live in a femocracy.

    Friday, July 08, 2022

    Feminism is a Jewish Religious Belief

    Wikipedia has a breakdown of Category:Feminists by religion:
    Atheist, 54
    Baháʼí, 8
    Buddhist, 20
    Christian, 57
    Hindu, 5
    Islamic, 87
    Jewish, 318
    Sikh, 3
    Wiccan, 14
    Note that one fairly small religion has more than all the others put together.

    While most of modern civilization is a Christian invention, I think that we should regard feminism as a Jewish religious belief.

    Wednesday, July 06, 2022

    Ex-comedian is just a Partisan Hack

    The Hill reports:
    Comedian Jon Stewart blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on his podcast Thursday, arguing that the ruling was based in ideology rather than constitutional reasoning.

    “In my mind, the idea that this was based in any kind of reasoned debate or philosophical education — the Supreme Court is now the Fox News of justice in my mind,” Stewart said on an episode of “The Problem with Jon Stewart.”

    “It is a cynical pursuit in the same way that Fox News would come ou with ‘we’re fair and balanced’ under the patina of what would be a high-status pursuit to the betterment of society, journalism. They are a cynical political arm,” the comedian argued.

    It should say the former comedian Jon Stuart Leibowitz, as that is his real name, and he hasn't done any comedy in seven years.

    When he did have a TV show, he was much less fair and balanced than Fox News. He was Jewish Leftism, all the time.

    [Justices] have been criticized for dodging questions about the landmark 1973 decision or saying they regarded it as an important precedent during the confirmation process.
    Every nominee if either party refused to answer questions about deciding future cases. All nine just wrote or joined opinions saying that the 1973 decision was an important precedent.
    “I think the thing that struck me was, you know, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ Right? And I think we’re all sort of steeped in that ethos. What you don’t realize is there is a goodly amount of individuals who are trying to bend it back.”
    Now we get to the real issue. He has no criticism of the actual legal reasoning. He merely has a Jewish Marxist belief that Leftist political gains should never be reversed. He does not believe in Democracy.

    The pro-abortion Jewish Atheist moral philosopher Peter Singer writes:

    Yet I find it hard to disagree with the central line of reasoning of the majority of the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established a constitutional right to abortion. This reasoning begins with the indisputable fact that the US Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and the possibly disputable, but still very reasonable, claim that the right to abortion is also not implicit in any constitutional provision, including the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The reasoning behind the decision in Roe to remove from state legislatures the power to prohibit abortion was clearly on shaky ground. Justice Byron White was right: The Roe majority’s ruling, he wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case, was the “exercise of raw judicial power.” ...

    The lesson to draw from the Court’s decisions on abortion, campaign finances, and gun control is this: Don’t allow unelected judges to do more than enforce the essential requirements of the democratic process.

    Tuesday, July 05, 2022

    How Schools Dishonestly Encourage Trannies

    From a Slate advice column:
    Dear Care and Feeding,

    We recently learned through a third party that my 16-year-old daughter changed her name at school and is claiming she is transgender. When we approached her, she broke down and confirmed it to us. My husband was and is devastated; she was our youngest baby girl and was always dressing up girlish and loved posing for pictures. He’s not willing to accept it, and I do not know how to deal with this. The school has been calling her the name she wants and addressing her as a “he” for a year, which I never knew about. They say they want to be accepting and encouraging. But shouldn’t the school tell the parent so that the parent can keep an eye on their child? Shouldn’t the school ask the child to think things through before making decisions, as this is a lifelong change? I approached the school to question them, and they said it’s not their place to tell parents until the child does something to themselves. Really? I worry the school’s approach of encouraging, rather than questioning, is influencing my child. I will love my child for whoever she wants to be but how do I talk to her to think this through? What if down the road she feels confusion about whether she was trans in the first place?

    — Gender Confusion

    Dear Confusion,

    Your feelings of uncertainty and shock are normal, and they are ok. But you do need to find a way to support your child. In terms of the school’s decision to not tell you about his pronoun and name change, you need to understand that for many LGBTQIA+ kids, it is incredibly dangerous to come out at home. Children coming out to their parents encounter any number of hardships, from ridicule to violence to abandonment. But moreover, it is the law. Title IX requires the schools observe the gender identity of a child, including chosen name and preferred pronouns, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prevents them from “outing” a student, even to their parents. So, while it feels totally baffling to you that you didn’t know this aspect of your child’s identity for an entire year, do understand that this decision was made in order to keep him safe. ...

    Finally, please explore a gender-affirming therapist who can constructively help your child through this chapter of his life, and if you can afford one for yourself and your husband, all the better (if you can’t, make ample use of the resources above).

    Slate is full of bad advice, and it legal interpretation is questionable. That is not the point here. The point is that your local public school could be secretly turning your child into a tranny, and justify it by citing obligations of federal law.

    What possible justification could there be for a school to conspire with a child to deceive the parents? For calling the child by a differnet name?

    Note also the horrible advice for a gender-affirming therapist. The school may have already done that. The child has been turned over to sick perverts. The teachers and therapists who participate in this should be treated like criminal child molesters.