Schumer Asks Senate to Censor Fuentes

Sen. Chuck Schumer introduced this in the US Sentate:

RESOLUTION Condemning white supremacy, hate, and antisemitism, and efforts to give a platform to these dangerous ideologies.

Whereas Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist leader, organizer, and podcaster; ...

Whereas Fuentes used the 2017 ‘‘Unite the Right’’ rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which hundreds of torch-bearing demonstrators chanted ‘‘Jews will not replace us’’, to mainstream his ideology; ...

the ‘‘Great Replacement REALITY’’, an antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews are orchestrating the replacement of native white Europeans from their countries by non-white immigrants;

Schumer is very pro-Jew and pro-Israel, and in this commentary:

I have always admired Senator Chuck Schumer. He has long presented himself as one of Israel’s staunchest allies in the US Congress. He’s spoken with pride about being the “Shomer Yisrael,” the “guardian of Israel” — a clever play on his name and his self-proclaimed role in protecting the Jewish state. He has addressed AIPAC conferences, authored a book on antisemitism, and often cites his Jewish upbringing as the moral compass guiding his political choices.

You might think that Schumer would argue that Jews are not replacing White with non-white immigrants. No, he does not argue that at all. He is a big advocate of letting migrants into the USA. And it is not because of a belief in open borders, and he is firmly against it in Israel. His complaint is that Fuentes has a platform for his views.

The resolution continues:

Fuentes perpetuated antisemitic conspiracy theories, including— ...

(4) advancing the dual-loyalty trope by saying that Jewish Americans are loyal first to Israel and that ‘‘they have this international community across borders, extremely organized, that is putting the interests of themselves before the interests of their home country’’; and

(5) claiming that he sees ‘‘Jewishness’’ as the defining trait of his political opponents;

Yes, I think Jewishness is the defining trait for Fuentes' opponents, and Schumer's resolution proves it. Furthermore, Schumer is a good example of someone loyal first to Israel. He brags about it, to his Jewish constituency.

The resolution goes on to condemn the "platforming of Nick Fuentes". In other words, censor him.

In other Jewish news, Bari Weiss has promoted Tony Dokoupil to CBS evening news anchor. His name is Czech, not Jewish. He seems to be best known for this essay:

My adult circumcision: how I made the cut for my new religion

To remain uncut, I was told, is to remain spiritually cut off from the Jewish people.

By Tony Dokoupil ...

I came to this knowledge on the way to the altar, of all places. I was engaged to a nice Jewish girl, taking some free conversion classes at a big, progressive Manhattan synagogue. I wanted to learn about something that mattered to her, and the more I learned the more it mattered to me, too.

This wasn’t a fur-coat-in-summer kind of congregation. It was part of the Reform movement: only game for the high holidays, mostly casual about pork, always down with gay female rabbis.

So these Jews eat pork and get led by a lesbian rabbi, but he had to get his foreskin cut to please an Israeli girl. He implies that he was already circumsized, but had to get cut some more for ritualisic submission to matriarchal Jewish customs.

According to Wikipedia, they divorced a couple of years later, and he married another Jew.

Bari Weiss is fanatical Jewish and Zionist. Is this all a coincidence? Did he have to subordinate his manhood to the Jewish cause to get this job? This is so weird, I do not know what to say.

Update: Weiss is also a lesbian. She quit the NY Times because it was not Jewish enough for her.

Update: I saw a claim that Weiss spends $10,000 per day on bodyguards. I find this hard to believe. She should not have to spend anything, as her views are not even particularly unusual.

Online Debate on Child Spanking

Stefan Molyneux and Malcolm Collins have Debate: Is Hitting Children Good?!?. Molyneux subsequently posted his debate prep.

This is a funny topic. Among the general public, people overwhelmingly believe that spanking is beneficial, and even a necessary part of childrearing.

But among experts, meaning academics, child psychologists, and pediatricians, only opposition to all spanking is acceptable. Must never be done.

In the history of human civilation, all successful societies have used corporal punishment.

I have run across commentary by social scientists, where they are not only opposed to spanking, but do not understand the purpose to it. This baffles me. Social science researchers are supposed to be able to look at data, and deduce causes for behavior. If they want the reasons for spanking, they could just ask any parent. And yet they cannot figure it out. This causes me to doubt any research that they do.

Both Molyneux and Collins have unusual personal stories that color their views. Molyneux emphasizes Libertarian principles, while Collins talks a lot about evolutionary principles.

They do not talk about the published research much. It is mostly anti-spanking, but not really convincing as the studies not have good controls, and only really show that extreme and frequent beatings are harmful. They do not show that any method of discipline is better than any other.

They both have unusual and well-thought out philosphies that are worth considering, even if you disagree. Both have their own podcasts where they expound on their views at great length.

Wikipedia says:

The Collinses also employ corporal punishment in disciplining their children, which is based on Simone's personal observation of lions and tigers during a safari trip, despite clinical consensus that it impairs childhood development.

This is Wikipedia bias. His view is based on a great many things, including published research, as you can see in the debate. No, there is not a clinical consensus. Wikipedia is essentially saying that Collins is impairing his kids based on seeing lions on a safari.

Molyneux started to lose me when he talked about how abolishing spanking was a step in a multi-century project to adopt the Non-Aggression Principle and reach a libertarian utopia. Collins had more immediate concerns, such as keeping his child off the street.

One of the main arguments against spanking is that emotional manipulation is more effective. The idea is that mom smothers the baby with love and affection, and then discipline the child by withdrawing affection. Doing this makes the child loyal and obedient, better than spanking. That may be correct, but I do not agree with it.

Thank the Christian Dark Ages for Modernity

I found this on Twitter.

This view is widespread, but I have criticized it many times. It is anti-Christian propaganda. Most of what created the modern world was invented during the period labeled the Christian Dark Ages on this chart. Christian Europe advanced centuries ahead of the rest of the world.

The chart gives the impression that Europe would have done better without Christianity, or that Europe was falling behind the rest of the world. Not true. The opposite is more accurate.

It is true that when the Roman Empire moved east, some areas got left behind. But Christians were playing the long game, and making changes that would take centuries to pay off.

Everyone agrees that scientific advancement skyrocketed in Christendom after about 1500, while the rest of the world lagged far behind. That built on earlier advances, such as those described in Renaissance of the 12th century.

I get the impression that a lot of educated people think that Christianity somehow held back scientific progress, and that we might have advanced farther without it. That is completely crazy, as all Christian countries did much better than all non-Christian countries. The difference is so dramatic that it is hard to imagine Christendom doing better than it did.

Swedes are getting dumber

I found this online. Could be fake, I don't know. The cause for getting dumber is probably AI and other technologies.

Zionist Takeover of the Republican Party

News:

Hatred of Jews threatens Western civilization itself, Fine said.

U.S. Rep. Randy Fine says antisemitism serves as a “canary in the cold mine” when it comes to destructive hate.

“Jews have been around for 3,000 years. In fact, we’re the oldest civilization that has existed,” the Atlantic Coast Republican said, “and the antisemitism was around for most of that 3,000 years. What we have seen over that history is that every civilization that has hated Jews has not stopped at hating Jews.” ...

“I serve with two antisemites in Congress. Of 220 Republicans, two of them are antisemitic,” Fine said.

This is all nonsense. The Sumerians, Egyptians, and Chinese had older civilizations. Judaism did not even become a religion until about 500 AD. Israel only since 1948.

Jews are not particularly hated. Jews have high-status positions thoughout the West. Those two Congressmen do not hate Jews. Fine called Tucker Carlson "the most dangerous antisemite in America", after Carlson hosted Nick Fuentes. Glenn Greenwald says Fine is more anti-Islam than Fuentes is anti-Jew.

Fine is Jewish, and has a $30M fortune from Las Vegas gambling fees. He was probably doing slimy things that Christians do not do.

Fine is leading a Jewish effort to purge the Republican Party of those who do not fully support the Jewish agenda. 80% of Jews vote Democrat, and yet the Jews want to take over the Republican Party as well. And not just the majority. Any dissent must be silenced.

I found this online comment:

There have always been two large groups of Jews.

The secular and the religious.

The secular group is where the globalists, marxists, fascists, censors etc come from. Globalists who demand multiculturalism for everyone except the Jew.

The religious is filled to the brim with Zionists and where the child sacrifices, blowing mosques and churches, and killing Palestinian children come from. Nationalists who demand multiculturalism for everyone except Israel.

There is some truth to this. The secular and religious Jews sometimes seem to be opposites. Then they agree on certain things.

Controlling Subscription Costs

I am trying to control subscription costs, and finding it more difficult than expected.

When you buy something online with Visa or Mastercard, the merchant is prohibited from saving the 3-digit security code. Unless it is a recurring subscription.

You might think that the fees will terminate when the card expires. Nope. Mastercard Automatic Billing Updater (ABU) and Visa Account Updater (VAU) are services that provide merchants with the info from a replacement or updated charge card. So the charges continue without your notice or approval.

If you paid on your phone with Google or Apple Pay, then you can use those services to cancel. However Google will typically charge your card 1-2 days in advance of renewal, on the excuse of trying to maintain uninterrupted service. If you cancel before the renewal date, then presumably Google will undo the charge.

If you subscribed to Twitter/X on Google Play, then you cannot even use Twitter to manage the subscription. Google owns the payment contract. Twitter does not even see the charge card number. You can only cancel or renew on Google, not Twitter. When I tried, Twitter gave me this message:

Premium -- Expiring soon
Your features will be available for the remainder of your billing period. Looks like you bought this subscription on the X Android app. You’ll need to manage or cancel your subscription from there.

I knew that Google and Apple take big commissions on their app store sales, but I had no idea that they own the renewal rights.

I guess I will have to lose my blue check mark until I free myself from Google.

Some banks offer virtual credit card accounts. These used to have the advantage that you could set them to expire in a money, and with a low credit limit. Then you use one to buy some online services, and then let it expire with the confidence that any unwanted charges will be severely limited.

However, no more. Visa and Mastercard now block these services. You can still get a virtual card, but Visa and Mastercard will renew it and send the updated info to the merchants.

It appears to me that I can still open a vitual charge account, allow it to be scheduled to expire in three years, and then manually cancel it after a month. This should be a way to avoid the card updater service.

Another alternative is Privacy.com. It is not a bank, but it can create virtual charge accounts and let you manage them online. It has a free plan, with premium plans starting at $5 per month.

I find that I have to have multiple bank cards, because charges are sometimes inexplicably declined. Sometimes I have to call the bank and ask them to unfreeze the card. Often I cannot figure out why a completely routine charge was questioned.

All in all, these charge accounts are extremely good deals for consumers, but some of the rules are baffling. If a purchase is declined, why can't the bank app tell me why? If I am buying with the phone on a merchant card terminal, why can't the phone let me approve the amount of the purchase? Who decided that restaurants should be able to add tips after I approve the bill and get my card back? Why isn't easier to control expenses?

Stanford Students are Mentally Disabled

News:

The students at America's elite universities are supposed to be the smartest, most promising young people in the country. And yet, shocking percentages of them are claiming academic accommodations designed for students with learning disabilities. 

In an article published this week in The Atlantic, education reporter Rose Horowitch lays out some shocking numbers. At Brown and Harvard, 20 percent of undergraduate students are disabled. At Amherst College, that's 34 percent. At Stanford University, it's a galling 38 percent. Most of these students are claiming mental health conditions and learning disabilities, like anxiety, depression, and ADHD. 

Obviously, something is off here. The idea that some of the most elite, selective universities in America—schools that require 99th percentile SATs and sterling essays—would be educating large numbers of genuinely learning disabled students is clearly bogus.

I would think that colleges would want a reputation for rigorous standards and mentally competent graduates. Instead they have DEI admissions, mentally disabled students, and easy A grades on all the courses.

How Drug Companies Manipulate Research

Dr. Josef explains Study 329: Why I Stopped Trusting Medical Research.

Briefly, a drug company manipulated a study to claim that the anti-depressant Paxil was good for children, and then made $11 billion in sales. It later paid $3B to settle govt claims about fraudulent research.

A p-value of 0.11 was moved to less than the required 0.05 by restructuring the data.

He ends by saying that the journal should retract the publication. There must be a better solution. The study data were not faked. They were just artfully presented, with some relevant data omitted. This was considered acceptable at the time. Possibly someone could figure that out by reading the study.

We need higher standards for medical study publications.

In the meantime, you should know that the research behind psychiatric drugs is questionable.

Superiority in applying organized violence

From an interview, Palantir C.E.O. Alex Karp Defends Aiding Trump’s Immigration Policies:

You wrote a book last year called the technological republic and you quote Samuel Huntington in it and 2:45 you that argues the following argues that the rise of the west was not made 2:50 possible quote by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

3:01 What do you mean by that? And is that what Palantir ultimately does?

3:06 Well, I I I think one of the most interesting about that, about the quotes, that quote, is it's indisputably and obviously true.

Some of those European and American ideas, values, and religion did contribute to the ability to apply organized violence.

Europe had to fight a lot of wars to get where it is today. So did the USA.

one of the biggest one of the biggest problems we have in our 3:39 elite institutions especially our ivy leagues is this indisputable truth that 3:44 no one would listen to the superior of our ideas if our ability to organize in violence was inferior

that every single 3:52 person in the world believes outside of the faculty of Harvard and certainly all of our adversaries know to be true is 3:59 viewed as something that's kind of worthy of great discussion and dispute.

And the primary reason they dispute it 4:05 honestly is because at their core they they want to undermine the superiority of western values which are meritocracy, 4:13 rule of law, accepting that inputs and outputs are not the same, that are the 4:18 basis of building the superiority on the military on the military plane. Yo

He has gotten rich from supplying AI to military contractors.

Immigrants did not build this country

News:

Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal says immigrants from Somalia, India, Latin America, and Africa “built this country and make this country what it is today.”

She is from India.

No, East Indian immigrants did not build USA. There are many hard-working and productive Indian-Americans, but on balance, Indians are a net negative.

It is much more accurate to say that Britain and the USA built India. Without that help, India would not even be a real country.

The situation with Somalians is much worse. The news out of Minnesota makes it appear that all the Somalians are criminal parasites.

Constitution not to Advance Mohammedanism

Constitutional scholar Clayton Cramer writes:

Joseph Story was an early Supreme Court justice. His Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States have been cited repeatedly by the Supreme Court. There are 172 citations in federal court decisions since 2021. Concerning freedom of religion, let me quote from there:

1877. The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism;, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. [2 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 606 (1873).

If you examine the laws of the early Republic, you will see that this appears repeatedly. The dominance of Christianity was simply assumed. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, section 10, includes this requirement for officeholders: ...

He goes on to give examples of requirements to be Christian or Protestant.

Some people act as if the First Amendment means an obligation to admit Mohammedans or Jews into the USA. No, the truth is more nearly the opposite.

NPR Radio reports:

President Trump's extensive new travel ban took effect just after midnight on Monday, barring nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. and partially restricting those from another seven. ...

The ban mostly affects countries in Africa and the Middle East. ...

The 2017 ban — initially targeting Muslim-majority countries — prompted immediate outcry and legal challenges, forcing the first Trump administration to make a number of revisions. The Supreme Court upheld a revised version in 2018, but former President Joe Biden promptly rescinded it on his first day in office in 2021, calling it a "stain on our national conscience." ...

The full ban applies to foreign nationals from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Heightened restrictions apply to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

No, it was not a "stain on our national conscience." It was a stain that we admitted so many Mohammedans.