text:
Until bad luck is randomly distributed
In a YouTube panel discussion, titled "A Day of Reckoning - 4 - Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Maajid Nawaz, Douglas Murray", one of the Weinstein brothers says:
Until bad luck is randomly distributed, we really do have to err in the direction of
taking seriously claims of structural oppression and what we do about them. [1:37:50]
This is a peculiarly left-wing view. It is nearly incomprehensible to a right-winger.
First, all bad luck is randomly distributed. The words "luck" and "random" mean the same thing here. Presumably he means that the bad luck should be uniformly randomly distributed, so that everyone has the same chances of incurring bad luck.
Eric Weinstein is a mathematician who surely understands that the concept is still not well-defined. There is no way to say how much of someone's ill fortune is due to bad luck, and how much is due to more acceptable causes, and no way to say how that luck should be distributed.
Second, why should we even have a goal of redistributing the luck? If you think that way you will eventually wonder if it was just luck that you were born a human instead of a cockroach. Once you get to that point, there is just no way to say that luck is unfair, and no way to resolve the unfairness.
Right-wingers accept the fact that many things are beyond our control. They have no grand plans to redistribute luck, most of which is unknowable and unchangeable anyway.
Jewish UN plans to brainwash us
The United Nations published:
The unanimous adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of Holocaust Remembrance resolution ...
Tikun Olam (Repairing the World)
The future of Holocaust memory and education lies in its ability to be relevant to the students of coming generations. While study about the Holocaust is important in and of itself, it is even more important to learn from the Holocaust in terms of promoting global citizenship, human rights, religious tolerance and multiculturalism to ensure that such evil does not occur again.
In many locations worldwide, the Holocaust has become a universal symbol of evil. Just as the story of the Exodus from Egypt from the Bible, and the catch cry "Let my people go" epitomises moving from slavery towards freedom, the Holocaust is now the defining symbol of the most terrible denial of basic human rights — an evil that we struggle to comprehend.
Yes, the Holocaust has become a universal symbol of evil, like the Bible story of Exodus.
We have extremely detailed histories of ancient Egypt, and there is no trace of a Jewish Exodus. It is just a Jewish fairy tale.
This UN document explains how Jews want to "repair the world" based on their own self-interests and fairy tales. The phrase is just a euphemism for Jews subjugating non-Jews.
According to the Exodus story, the Jews got out of Egypt by threats, by trickery, and by murdering the first-born sons of the Egyptians. Then God parted the Red Sea for the Jews to escape.
Jewish Holocaust education could be a mistake.
First, reciting certain facts and opinions about the Jewish Holocaust is illegal in many European countries. So it is nearly impossible to get an objective account of what happened.
Second, any thorough education will have to explain why the Jews were singled out for mistreatment. It was not for theological reasons, nor were the Jews just a powerless scapegoat. Hitler had a bunch of specific reasons for hating the Jews. Those reasons must be understood if you struggle to understand the evil.
Third, some people will draw lessons opposite to what is intended. While the above Jewish UN document says that the lesson is global citizenship and multiculturalism, others may see that as part of the problem. That is, if German Jews did not consider themselves German citizens, then maybe the Nazis were justified in expelling them. Maybe admitting some alien culture into your country is just leading to another holocaust some day.
Any Jewish Holocaust education will surely disallow anything antisemitic according to the Working Definition of Antisemitism:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
I am not sure what this even means, except that Jews will call anything they don't like to be antisemitic.
If you are wondering what Tikkun Olam is, here is an explanation from a Jewish publication:
The community's secular religion of tikkun olam, or supposedly Jewish social justice, is a fraud.
As Jonathan Neumann puts it in his excellent book To Heal the World?, American Jews have been led to believe that "the purpose of the Jews in the world is to campaign for higher taxes, sexual permissiveness, reduced military spending, illegal immigration, opposition to fracking, the banishment of religion from the public square and every other liberal cause under the sun — all in the name of God".
It's not Jewish, just, or even very social, constituting a mish-mash of Marxism, moral relativism and paganism.
So three-quarters of American Jews have contracted a kind of religious auto-immune disease, which has caused them to junk the stuff that will protect their spiritual health while eagerly embracing the stuff that will destroy it.
Judaism is funny that way. It has official beliefs, as explained by their sacred books and orthodox rabbis. And then there are the beliefs of the great majority of Jews, who consistently follow a coherent set of beliefs that are contrary to those official beliefs.
For the most part, nobody cares about the beliefs of those orthodox rabbis. It is the beliefs of most Jews that characterize Judaism.
Labels: religion
Lesbian denied parental rights in Kentucky
A parents rights organization complains:
A recent appellate court decision in Kentucky casts doubt on the future of parental rights for unmarried same-sex partners.
Teri Whitehouse and Tammie Delaney were partners. The mutually agreed that Delaney would become pregnant via a sperm donor.
In her Circuit Court ruling, Judge McDonald had found that Teri Whitehouse and Tammie Delaney were in a romantic relationship and both fully participated in the decision to have a child, jointly chose a sperm donor, and held themselves out to the public as the child's parents. The women had a commitment ceremony after the birth of the child, who referred to Whitehouse as "Momma."
So Delaney was biologically related to the child, but Whitehouse was not. On that slender reed, Whitehouse was ruled to have no parental rights to custody or parenting time.
Slender reed? We have well-recognized legal processes for marriage and adoption.
Parents should have the rights and responsibilities over their kids. A parents rights organization should recognize that. A lesbian co-habitant is a not a parent unless she did an adoption.
That organization does a good job of promoting shared parenting, and I applaud them for that, but it appears that I do not agree with their underlying reasoning. They appear to rely too much on what the state believes is good for the child.
Some states have common law marriage, where you are legally married if you act as if you are married. Not as many states as there used to be. No states have common law adoption, as far as I know.
The leftist and LGBTQIA authoritarians are disrupting family law to the point where judges and social workers will have the power to dole out parental rights and responsibilities as they see fit. Kentucky will be considered backward for being slower than big states to adopt the trends.
After all, plenty of people – adoptive parents, stepparents - who raise kids don't have a biological relationship to them. ...
The child in the Delaney-Whiteside case called Whiteside "Momma," doubtless because she saw her that way. That the appellate court disagrees shouldn't be what decides the child's ability to maintain a relationship with the woman she considers one of her parents.
The child may call the nanny "Momma", but that should not nullify the rights of the legal parent.
There is a leftist plot to destroy the family. Same-sex marriage was just one step in the process.
Labels: court, homosexuality, marriage, parenting
Jews hate comparison to lizard people
Apparently the Jews now consider it anti-Semitic to promote lizard conspiracy theories.
Leftist-atheist-Jewish-evolutionst-blogger professor has all the opinions that you would expect, except that he criticizes what he calls the Regressive Left (and I call the Ctrl-Left), and supports free speech. Here is an example:
Here we have one more example of "intersectionalism" that, instead of dealing with combined oppressions, pits one marginalized group against another. This, of course, has fractured the Left in the last few years. There are two notable examples of how liberal values have collided. The first involves the collision between Muslims on the one hand, and feminists, Jews, and gays on the other. Since many Muslims and virtually all Muslim-majority countries oppress women and gays and often call for the killing of Jews, this pits sympathy for Muslims, seen as a "people of color", against sympathy for women, Jews, and gays, also seen as marginalized groups.
The other is the collision between black and Jews, seen most prominently in the Women's March fracas. Jews have long been oppressed (they're the biggest victims of per capita hate crimes in the U.S/),
No, Jews have not been oppressed. That is just some crazy Jewish myth. In terms of money, power, and influence, they are the highest status group in the world.
It is not true that Jews are victims of hate crimes. The Jewish ADL says so, but that is only based on counting Jewish hoaxes. Someone did shoot some Jews in Pittsburgh, but that guy said that he was mad at them because they were bringing criminals into the USA, not because they were Jews.
while blacks of course are marginalized and have experienced a long history of segregation. But Jews are now seen as pawns of the hated state of Israel, and so have been demonized by the Women's March organizers and by Black Lives Matter. I see this as a great shame, as African-Americans and Jews have often been allies, most notably in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
These conflicts have been resolved by a simple rule: favor the most pigmented groups — Muslims in the first case and blacks in the latter. In other words, it's become largely okay on the Left to ignore the oppression of minority groups by Muslims, with that oppression justified by the Qur'an and its interpretations.
It's also okay, at least for the Women's March and their sympathizers, to ignore the fact that Women's March leaders are great admirers of a homophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic bigot, Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam. I hasten to add that there are plenty of people who have called out the "bigotry of low expectations", but there's no denying that the Collision of Oppressions has not only enervated the Left (the Women's March is no longer seen as a completely progressive movement, and other women's marches are splintering off), but also made our side look fractious and sometimes ridiculous to centrists and those on the Right.
Now we have another collision — again between blacks and Jews. This involves Alice Walker, a beloved black writer who deservedly won both a Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award for her book The Color Purple. She's now been accused, justifiably, of not only promoting anti-Semitism but of being an anti-Semite herself.
This all started with this "By the Book" interview in the New York Times, in which Walker was asked to name and discuss the books she's reading now.
The NY Times is run by mostly Jews for the benefit of its largely Jewish customers, so it is a little funny to accuse it of anti-Semitism.
Its crime here was to quote Walker saying that she was reading "And the Truth Shall Set You Free," by David Icke. Coyne then quotes Jewish critics of Icke:
Walker's reference to Icke was first called out by Tablet Magazine, pointing out his book's numerous anti-Semitic statements. Among those are claims that Jews are "programmed to see themselves as God's 'chosen people'" and that they are to blame for the prejudice and oppression they have faced. He calls the Talmud "among the most appallingly racist documents on the planet." Despite the evidence, he maintains he is not an anti-Semite.
Jews are programmed to see themselves as God's 'chosen people'. That is an obvious fact. If that is anti-Semitic, then so is the Bible.
Making a name for himself on his conspiracy preaching, Icke is a major proponent of the belief that lizard people control the world, a myth that began entering the news roughly 10 years ago. In 2015, Vox called his 1998 book, The Biggest Secret, "an important tome in lizard people theory." In 2012, Icke spouted his theories in an extensive interview with Vice in which it was noted he's convinced the moon is actually a hollow sphere used as a space station that manipulates the minds of the public. ...
More than anyone else, the British conspiracist David Icke has popularized the Alien version of New World Order conspiracy. The former sportscaster's elaborate theory is the Sgt. Peppers album-cover of the genre, featuring the Masons, the Vatican, the Illuminati, the House of Windsor — everyone is there. At the center of the theory is an alien race of lizard people from the fifth-dimension. Though Icke has always denied trafficking in anti-Semitism, he has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — the famous forgery and foundational text of modern anti-Semitism — choosing to call it "The Illuminati Protocols." ...
The Illuminati are the descendants of a race of shape-shifting, blood-drinking, child-sacrificing alien lizard people. "In simple terms, there is a predator race which take a reptilian form," Icke told Vice in 2012. "They're feeding off humanity. They're turning humanity into a slave race. They demand human sacrifice — that's where Satanism comes in. They feed off human energy. They feed off the energy of children."
Many but not all of these evil lizard people are Jewish. Icke is fond of saying that the Rothschilds, a prominent wealthy Jewish family, are lizards. But he has also said that the British royal family the Windsors are too, and so is former President George W. Bush, neither of whom are Jewish. ...
Tablet lays out more of Icke's anti-Semitic writings. What's funny is that, as Vox notes, "Icke maintains that he is not an anti-Semite, and that he is criticizing not real Jews, but 12-foot-tall alien lizard people, many of whom seem to be posing as Jews." I can't stop laughing when I read that sentence.
The NY Times readers were so upset by this that it had to publish a couple of more articles defending itself quoting Walker.
When Jews complain about being an oppressed people, they usually mean that someone like Icke is promoting conspiracy theories. If lizard people could be plotting to take over the world, then maybe it is plausible that Jews are.
I don't know anything about Icke, but it is bizarre to see Jews complain about this stuff. Usually when Jews want to censor something, it is because there is a truth that they want to suppress.
If Icke were to somehow convince people of his lizard conspiracy theory, who would suffer? Surely George Soros would be fingered as a lizard man, and prosecutor Mueller would be seen as a tool of the lizard people. President Trump would be seen as a hero to the lizard resistance. That must be why Jews see Icke as dangerous.
Coyne summarizes:
it's emblematic of what happens when the American Left, which seeks to regain political power in two years, turns on itself because it can't decide who is more oppressed. It's also typical of the hypocrisy of much of the modern Left. If, for example, some right-wing American writer was asked what books she was reading, and the list included Mein Kampf or some modern anti-Semitic text, the Times would be all over her like ugly on a frog. But this is Alice Walker, a much admired black writer, and so the Times doesn't bother to criticize her, and only writes about the controversy when its hand is forced. This is just what the paper did when the leaders of the Women's March were accused — by Tablet again — of being anti-Semitic. Don't expect to see any discussion of this in the New Yorker!
Yes, the NY Times Jews would be triggered by an interviewee reading Mein Kampf, but the book is actually essential reading for anyone who want to understand World War II. It is not adequately summarized anywhere as far as I know.
Jews are always pushed for more education about the Jewish Holocaust. It is bizarre that they complain about reading primary documents on the subject.
Coyne says Walker is "much admired", but she is just a tool of the Ctrl-Left for attacking White men. She gains her status more from being a black woman, than for the crap she writes. No one would pay attention to a White man with her writing skills.
This story seems like just a case of Jews criticizing other Jews, but it reveals a lot. Coyne is an atheist who has written a whole book on how religion is factually incorrect. He opposes orthodox Judaism. So why would he defend the Talmud and Biblical beliefs about the Chosen People? Why would he even care about anti-Semitism?
One possibility is that Coyne is a lizard person himself. He wears just the sort of boots that you would expect a lizard person to wear. He conceals it because he is an evolutionist who understands that lizards are evolutionarily inferior ectotherms.
Another is that, even tho he has formally repudiated all supernatural beliefs and Biblical teachings, he has been programmed to identify with the Chosen Tribe. He does not even believe in free will, so he thinks that all people are programmed. His programming pre-dated his learning about atheism-evolutionism.
Regardless, Coyne has brilliantly exposed what the dominant media manipulators do to denigrate White Christian males and to undermine Western Civilization at every opportunity. Whether you call those media and culture manipulators the Regressive Left, Ctrl-Left, Jews, or lizard people is just terminology. There is an evil plot to destroy the world, and it surfaces as attempts to promote supposedly marginalized groups.
Labels: Americanism, evolution, religion
Free speech for white people
A Change.org petition demands the right of free speech to white people:
can't say, "'Diversity' means chasing down the last white person." (goo.gl/SG3FGd)
I can't say, "EVERY white country and ONLY white countries are being flooded with third worlders, and whites are forced by law to integrate with them so as to 'assimilate,' i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence."
I can't say, "Diversity is a code word for white genocide." (goo.gl/3H136D)
I can't say "White self-hatred is SICK!" (goo.gl/bkVLTC)
The enforcers of no-free-speech-for-whites say they're anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
But if I say "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white," I'm fired. (goo.gl/4HvCFw)
Free speech is denied to whites so that white genocide (goo.gl/6a6e25) can masquerade as "diversity."
I do think that white people should be able to talk about what is happening to whites, without getting fired.
Labels: free speech
Differences between Christians, Jews, and Moslems
People often minimize the differences between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They say that there is broad agreement on central issues like the Ten Commandments, and that the differences are obscure theological points, or opinions about the divinity of Jesus. You often hear "Judeo-Christian", as if there isn't much difference.
The differences are huge. The biggest differences between Christianity and Judaism are:
1. Tribalism. Jews are primarily concerned with what is good for the Jewish tribe, and others may as well be dogs. Christianity is universalist, and strives to save all mankind.
2. Forgiveness. Christians believe in forgiveness, to the point where all sins can be forgiven, and Christians are encouraged to forgive their enemies. Judaism's biggest holidays and beliefs center around hatred for their persecutors, and how those persecutors should never be forgiven.
3. Materialism. Jews are preoccupied with money and material goods, while Christians believe that the soul and afterlife are much more important.
The biggest differences between Christianity and Islam are:
1. Fatalism. Christians believe man has the free will to do good works and avoid sin. Moslems are fatalists who say Allah has willed whatever they do.
2. Jihad. Moslems believe in killing infidels, while Christians can co-exist with many different belief systems.
3. Government. Christians believe that religion is separate from government, law, and business. Moslems object to any such distinction, and believe that Islamic law should control government and everything else.
These differences are so great that I wonder whether the concept of "freedom of religion" makes any sense. The concept was invented to protect Christian denominations from each other. Christians can tolerate other theological beliefs, but the above beliefs of Jews and Moslems are not even legitimately religious, in the view of many Christians. They are mostly just non-religious excuses for taking advantage of Christians.
Jews and Moslems do not choose their religion. They are born that way, or they accept it as a condition of marriage. To deny free will is to accept the life of a slave. Beliefs in taking over government and killing infidels are not compatible with freedom of religion. Many American Jews do not believe in God or have any beliefs that Christians would recognize as religious.
The USA First Amendment should be reinterpreted to understand religion in a Christian context. And we should be reluctant to accept immigrants who belong to a religion that is hostile to Christianity and to American freedoms. There are about 50 Moslem countries already. One of the requirements for naturalization is good moral character, and that requirement used to be taken more seriously.
Jews find Muslim to attack Christianity
When the Jews at the NY Times want to attack Christianity, they often find non-Jews to do their dirty work for them. This time it is a Muslim named Wajahat Ali. He claims his expertise based on attending a Catholic high school where he read the King James Bible and got As in religious studies classes. I am skeptical about this, because Catholic schools do not use the King James Bible.
He brags about the compassion shown by his selfless service, where he did the 100 hours of community service that his school required. No, that is not selfless service. That is just doing required homework to get a degree.
He complains about "the hypocrisy of white Evangelical Christians" who support Trump, even tho the Bible says that faith alone will not save them. Actually those evangelicals do believe that faith alone with save them.
His main message is to say that Jesus would have favored unlimited illegal immigration for Muslims and gays into the USA, and therefore reject President Trump.
What does Trump have to do with gays? Muslims are the ones who believe in killing homosexuals. My guess is that the word was inserted by a Jewish editor. It is the non-orthodox leftist Jews who always bring up sodomy to show how enlightened they are. No other culture does that.
Muslim countries do not allow immigration from other religions. They do not allow gays either.
Christianity does not favor unlimited immigration. It does not favor suicidal policies either. Muslims and Jews are just pushing for Christian suicide, and the evangelicals who support Trump are not fooled.
This yet another hate article. The goal here is White Christian extermination. Jews know that they don't have enough bodies to displace Christians, so they use Muslims for the purpose. As long as they can manipulate the Muslims to insert pro-gay propaganda into their essays, I guess.
Jordan Peterson is leading a lobster cult
Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychology professor who has developed an amazing cult following. Millions have heard his message, and thousands say he changed their lives.
A lot of what he says is very sensible, and I think he is doing more good than harm, so I don't want to criticize him too much. But he is a slippery character.
He seems to have mastered mind control techniques that make a great cult leader. He convinces right-wingers that he is a right-winger, left-wingers that he is a left-winger, and Christians that he is a Christian. He is none of those things. He appears to be wired into a great many sources of wisdom, such as academic research, the Bible, great literature, great thinkers, and psychotherapy experience. Some of this is interesting, but often he is just bullshitting. He is expert at appearing reasonable, decisive, and emphatic all at the same time.
He apparently honed these techniques with 20 years of being a professor and psychotherapist.
He first got wide attention by protesting a Canadian law about use of gendered pronouns. But seems like a principled political stand is really just a combination of his stubbornness and his antiquated worldview. Ten years ago almost everyone would have objected to the Canadian law, so he is getting credit for being ten years behind everyone else.
Nevertheless, I am in awe of how he has used the issue to gain publicity for himself. I am also in awe of his use of mind control techniques. He says he now makes about $1 million a month from his videos, speeches, books, and interviews.
To a flavor of Peterson, here is a sample from his most famous interview:
Newman: "Let me get this straight. You're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?"
Peterson: "That is so untrue that it's almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters' evolutionary history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it's part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn't."
This is genius. His followers love this stuff. He smoothly blends science with psychobabble, and does it with a style that impresses you that he is the master and the interviewer is a novice student. He is the cult leader, and others are mere lobsters.
Labels: psychology
Insurance company pushes miscegenation
I just got this Blue Shield of California ad in the mail.
I am wondering what the intended message is here. A black man is holding the hand and abdomen of a white woman. Does that somehow symbolize "the coverage you want, the care you trust"?
In the USA today, when a white woman is impregnated by a black man, he disappears about 95% of the time. Not that the man necessarily deserves more blame than the woman, but the child is extremely unlikely to reach age 18 with both parents in residence.
So the image seems to symbolize an insurance company that will disappear at the first sign of trouble. It does not symbolize trustworthy coverage or care.
Before you comment that interracial marriage is legal, that is beside the point. Blue Shield made a very deliberate decision to identify its image with a very black man sexually dominating a pretty young white woman. In the old South, a black man might be lynched for sexually violating a pretty young white woman.
It seems to me that Blue Cross is making a political statement here. It is celebrating the fact that the white society can no longer protect its women from black men. To prove it, we have millions of mulatto kids being raised by single moms. Barack Obama was one.
Emerging White Identity leaving Democrats
Thomas B. Edsall writes in the NY Times:
In the 1950s, the Democratic coalition was 87 percent white and 13 percent minority, according to the American National Election Studies; it is now 59 percent white and 41 percent minority, according to Pew Research. ...
For Democrats to counter Trump effectively, a number of scholars believe it is essential to understand the motivations — the needs, beliefs and agendas — of those whites who have moved into the Trump camp.
Edsall explains that white identity political position is developing. Furthermore, research has shown that it is not based on animosity towards other races. In surveys, the Whites might say "blacks should work their way up without any special favors", but they say the exact same thing about Lithuanians.
Whites are being driven to the Republican party by anti-white-male hatred among the Democrats. Elizabeth Warren is embarrassed to be White, and pretends to be Cherokee. Kamala Harris looks black enough to qualify as a white-hater, so she is also considered a presidential candidate.
According to this recent Fox News poll, the group scoring the highest approve for President Trump is Republican women, at 93%. This is even higher than Republican men, at 85%. White score 53%. Even Trump voters only rate him 91%.
87% of Democrat women disapprove of Trump.
The poll does not separate married and unmarried women.
Apparently Whites are bifurcating into Whites who are proud of their identity, without animosity towards other races, and Whites like Warren who are ashamed of who they are, and own political debts to white-haters.
Women are bifurcating into Trump lovers and haters. Happily married white women usually like Trump, while bitter feminist unmarried women hate him.
Labels: demographics, politics, poll
Six MeToo Lessons in 2018
The MeToo stories of the last year have convinced me of many things.
1. Most people judge men by whether they gain the approval of women. Both men and women place great value on getting the approval of women.
For example, do you ever hear some man recite some ridiculous feminist opinion? No it is not really his opinion. He has just been trained like a dog to seek the approval of women.
Not everyone, of course. Many alpha men, like Donald Trump, seem utterly indifferent to the approval of women.
2. Many will accuse a man of autism or possibly being a criminal predator if a interaction with a woman is botched.
Autism is widely described as a communication disability. But even when a man clearly and unambiguous declares someone about himself, and a woman misunderstands him, people will say that there must have been something wrong with the man that he did not make himself understood.
No, most of the time it is the woman with the communication problem.
3. Most people do not seem to understand that flirting is inherently ambiguous. If done right, you cannot be sure of the intentions of whoever is flirting.
Often a man will be accused of attempting a seduction just because he made a flirting comment.
To see how absurd this is, a woman wearing lipstick is a form of flirting. The main purpose of lipstick is for a woman to advertise her sexual availability. But women also wear lipstick when they are not looking for a sexual encounter.
4. Few believe in "innocent until proven guilty". In today's MeToo stories, no man gets the benefit of the doubt. If a story sounds like it could have happened, then the man is guilty until proven innocent.
5. You cannot resolve a dispute by listening to one side of the story. Alan Greenspan likes to make this point. A criminal indictment often sounds very convincing, until you hear the alibi or the proof that someone else committed the crime.
6. MeToo complaints will accelerate as long as women can get away with bogus accusations. It is analogous to spammer sending spam as long as it is cheap and easy. You cannot expect it to stop just because it is immoral or damaging. It can only be stopped by active measures to shut it down.
For another analogy, there is an old joke: "Why does a dog lick his testicles? Because he can." It is the same with women. They make MeToo accusations because they can.
Labels: crime, sex
Boycotting Tucker Carlson is racist
Tucker Carlson is getting heat for this:
"It's obvious that we need more scientists and skilled engineers, but that's not what we're getting. Instead, we're getting waves of people with high school educations or less. Nice people. No one doubts that. But as an economic matter, this is insane. It's indefensible, so nobody even tries to defend it. Instead, our leaders demand that you shut up and accept this. We have a moral obligation to admit the world's poor they tell us, even if it makes our own country poorer, dirtier and more divided."
It is amusing to see holier-than-thou leftists calling him a racist for this.
Anyone who criticizes Carlson, without actually defending what he says is indefensible, is just making his point.
Also, the negation of a racist opinion is usually racist. If it is racists to say that importing Mexican immigrants is bad for the USA, then it is also racist to say that it is good for the USA. Neither opinion is really racist, because there are a lot of immigration factors besides race, but to the extent one view is racist, so is the other.
Argentine Ants
Wonder what strong ethnic identities lead to?
An example in the animal world is Argentine ants. They are all very closely related. They get along with other Argentine ants, even if not from the same colony. But when they enounter other ants, they fight to the death.
The result is that Argentine ants displace other species of ants. If an area has a diverse population of ants, with different species in different colonies, the Argentine ants will eventually take over and wipe out the other ants.
If you were a non-Argentine ant in charge of an ant colony, would you tolerate Argentine ants? No, that would be suicidal. The sensible strategy for non-Argentine ants is to kill Argentine ants at every opportunity.
Evolution is described as "survival of the fittest", but "fittest" means having a winning survival strategy. That's what the Argentine ants have, as long as they are tolerated by others.
Labels: evolution
The nature-nurture war is over
Professor Robert Plomin writes in SciAm:
During the past four decades, scientists have conducted long-term studies on special relatives like twins and adoptees to test the effects of nature and nurture. This research has built a mountain of evidence showing that genetics contributes importantly to all psychological differences between us. In fact, inherited DNA differences account for about 50 percent of the differences between us, in our personality, mental health and illness, and cognitive abilities and disabilities. ...
A second crucial discovery is that the environment works completely differently from the way environmentalists thought it worked. For most of the 20th century, environmental factors were called nurture because the family was thought to be crucial in determining environmentally who we become. Genetic research has shown that this is not the case. We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family. ...
The nature-nurture war is over. Nature wins, hands down.
Yes, that is generally accepted research.
The puzzling thing is that you probably assume that if DNA accounts for 50% of differences, then the environment accounts for the other 50%. The environmental causes in development would include whether you were spanked as a kid, whether you went to fancy schools, whether you played video games, etc. But the truth is that almost nothing is attributable to those measurable environmental factors.
To the extent that scientists can measure your psychological and behavior trait causes, they are maybe 50% genetic, 5% environmental, and 45% unexplained. You can think of the unexplained part as "random", but that is just another word for unexplained.
The genes in a population change slowly. A schooling policy towards a particular group is not likely to have noticeable effect. On the other hand, genetic changes can evolve over a millennium or so. So groups can have positive or negative qualities based on centuries of culture.
If you want to change a group for the better, you have to change the culture, start a eugenic plan, and wait a few centuries.
Who can do this today? No one in the West. Maybe China or Singapore or North Korea. The USA spends many billions of dollars on short-term plans that will do no good, and nothing on long-term plans that might do some good.
Labels: nature, nurture, psychology
Evolving definition of domestic violence
Think you know what the term "domestic violence" means? Now it includes verbal coercion, which means talking somebody into something.
A parents group reports:
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act will be considered by Congress in 2019. The reauthorization bill, H.B. 6545, is dangerously flawed and must be substantially amended. It contains a definition of domestic violence that is almost certainly unconstitutional, makes behavior actionable that non-violent couples routinely engage in and that can be part of healthy adult relationships. It likely would worsen domestic violence by overburdening police and courts with non-serious claims while increasing state intervention into family life.
Here is the definition proposed by H.B. 6545:
The term 'domestic violence' means a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim…
This definition does not include a one-time murder, because that is not a pattern of behavior. It does include nagging and a lot of completely normal behaviors.
If you hear some statistic like 10% or 50% or whatever of women or refugees or whatever have suffered domestic violence, remember this definition. I expect that nearly 100% of men and women have suffered years of domestic violence. Anything less than 100% means someone is amazingly conflict-free.
The actual US Constitution does mention the term:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. [sect. IV.4]
That was back when citizens had the liberty of the state not intervening in marriage or family life. A woman could leave or get a divorce of course, but not litigate marital life.
Labels: crime, marriage
Autism and schizophrenia are opposites
Autism and schizophrenia are severe mental illnesses, but they can also be just a bunch of personality traits in high-IQ high-functioning people.
Psychiatrist Slate Star Codex writes:
There's been a lot of discussion over whether schizophrenia is somehow the "opposite" of autism. Many of the genes that increase risk of autism decrease risk of schizophrenia, and vice versa. Autists have a smaller-than-normal corpus callosum; schizophrenics have a larger-than-normal one. Schizophrenics smoke so often that some researchers believe they have some kind of nicotine deficiency; autists have unusually low smoking rates. Schizophrenics are more susceptible to the rubber hand illusion and have weaker self-other boundaries in general; autists seem less susceptible and have stronger self-other boundaries. Autists can be pathologically rational but tend to be uncreative; schizophrenics can be pathologically creative but tend to be irrational. The list goes on.
We might finally get some hard science:
For the past two decades, scientists have been exploring the genetics of schizophrenia, autism and other brain disorders, looking for a path toward causation.
It may turn out that some positive brain traits can be credited to Neanderthal genes:
On Thursday, a team of scientists revealed that two pieces of Neanderthal DNA may have another effect: They may change the shape of our brains.
The study, published in the journal Current Biology, wasn't designed to determine how Neanderthal genes influence thought — if they do so at all. Instead, the value of the research lies in its unprecedented glimpse into the genetic changes influencing the evolution of the human brain.
Someone commented:
Neanderthals were ethnically cleansed from Europe by the invaders from the South. Neanderthals had lower fertility rates than the invading Home Sapiens from Africa, thus were overwhelmed demographically. The peak population of Neanderthals was just 150,000, they had a low fertility rate and could not maintain their species when faced with an invasion of thousands of fertile Africans , who were set on raping all the neanderthal females and killing off the males. Some of the DNA from the few female neanderthals who mated with the invaders can still be found in the DNA of Europeans today.
The same process can be observed today in Europe. The aboriginal Europeans are declining in population, because they have a low fertility rate, they are being invaded from the south by more fertile ethnic clans and thus the aboriginal peoples of Europe will be extinct. It will take just another 200 years at the current rate..in 5,000 years the people living in Europe may well have traces of DNA from the caucasians who once populated Europe. Just as the people of Europe today have some trace DNA from the Neanderthals who once populated Europe.
It is commonly remarked that the African invaders had greater Darwinian fitness, but that just means that they reproduced more.
Labels: evolution, mindreading, psychology
Jews fail to control feminist group
Feminism has been dominated by Jews over the last 60 years. Most of the leading feminists were Jewish women trying to force their Jewish values on everyone. For the most part, Jews have successfully concealed this connection.
Sometimes this is explained by saying that Jews may be found among the leaders of most of the anti-Christian social movements, such as Communism and other leftist causes, and even causes like libertarianism. There is some truth to this.
Now it appears that Jew-hating feminists have taken over the Women's March. The Jews are upset about this.
It is amazing that Jewish control of the feminist movement lasted so long. When feminists have complained about marriage, family, sex roles, etc., they were really just making a Jewish argument of questionable relevance to non-Jews.
If you mention Jewish involvement, you get accused of racism or anti-semitism:
Speaking on Fox News about the emerging left, Ann Coulter manages to offend everybody with her rant.
'They all hate one another,' she began.
'I mean you have the Muslims and the Jews and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with the college queers.'
The only thing that keeps the Democratic base together is for them to keep focusing on: "No, white men are the ones keeping you down, you must hate white men." It's the only thing they all have in common.
On Ingraham's Fox News show, Ann Coulter describes her version of the Dem party
"I mean you have the Muslims and the Jews and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with the college queers … you must hate white men. It's the one thing they have in common"
Needless to say, her racist rant was not received well
'This has to be one of the most racist things ever said on television. Advertisers, are you really going to support this?' one Twitter user wrote.
What she says is factually correct. The main thing holding the Democrats together is hatred for White Christian men.
Update: For more on how Jews are losing control over the White-hating feminists, see this.
Update: According to this, the Jewish feminists brought on women of color in order to have a broader attack on white men, and were surprised by the anti-semitic and pro-sharia baggage. So they hired a public relations firm to tell Jewish journalists to delete their tweets citing a Jewish mag story criticizing the Women's March. It said: "Promise to delete your tweet about an article we don't like, and we might send you 'facts' you're not allowed to publish because journalism."
James Fields is sentenced to life
In August 2017, Mr. Fields traveled from Ohio to attend the Unite the Right rally, where swastika-toting white supremacists swarmed the streets and clashed with counterprotesters. In an attack that killed a 32-year-old woman, Heather Heyer, Mr. Fields sped down a narrow street packed with counterprotesters, many who were on their way home after the authorities shut down the demonstration.
The jury's complete sentence recommendation included life in prison for first-degree murder, as well as 419 years of prison time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for the lesser charges. Mr. Fields faces a second trial on federal hate crime charges, which could result in the death penalty.
I wonder if Fields had a competent defense. He did not testify in his own defense.
Usually defendants do not testify, but what did he have to lose? Even if he is a lousy witness, he might convince jurors that this was not premeditated murder.
I saw the video recording, and it was ambiguous as to whether he was acting deliberately, or responding in panic to rioters.
Heyer stood out as 4'11" and 330 pounds, but I doubt that Fields was trying to hit her.
Organizers chose Charlottesville as the site of the Unite the Right rally as a rebuke to the proposed removal of monuments to Confederate generals in the city. The protests started on the University of Virginia campus with a march of hundreds of torch-bearing demonstrators, many of them shouting phrases like, "You will not replace us," and "Jews will not replace us."
Those organizers were gone by the time of the Fields car incident, because the city canceled the rally.
The NY Times frequently complains about someone saying "Jews will not replace us." It refers to Jews at the NY Times and elsewhere advocating importing millions of non-whites to replace the white population.
Cucked Democrats favor Moslems
Poll Shows Huge Democrat Bias Toward Muslims Over Christians
Sixty-eight percent of Democrats say employers should grant a request for prayer space by Muslims — but only 45 percent say employers should grant a similar request by Christian employees, says a survey by Grinnell College. ...
Thirty percent of Republicans say employers should provide a prayer space for Muslim employees and 40 percent say employers should support a similar service for Christians, according to the Grinnell College poll of roughly 500 people.
This is amazing. There are not enough Muslim or Jewish voters to account for these kind of differences.
If there were no bias, Christians would expect Christian perks in a Christian society. We can't have holidays for every religion, so we have holidays in accordance with the dominant religion.
Democrats have apparently been brainwashed to accept overtly anti-Christian policies. Presumably even Christians are so cucked that they want to give superior religious rights to a hostile religion.
Labels: politics, religion
Save us from all the foolish Psychology beliefs
The Atlantic mag reports:
Over the past few years, an international team of almost 200 psychologists has been trying to repeat a set of previously published experiments from its field, to see if it can get the same results. Despite its best efforts, the project, called Many Labs 2, has only succeeded in 14 out of 28 cases. Six years ago, that might have been shocking. Now it comes as expected (if still somewhat disturbing) news. ...
That failure rate is especially galling, says Simine Vazire from the University of California at Davis, because the Many Labs 2 teams tried to replicate studies that had made a big splash and been highly cited.
When is anyone going to admit that Pychology is a just a pseudoscience like Astrology?
I am beginning to think that Psychology is just a goofy belief system that Jews have.
Sigmund Freud was the most highly revered psychologist of the XX century, but none of his major theories had any scientific merit. And yet Jews treat him as a great scientific genius, and lots of psychiatrists and psychologists make their money by treating Jewish neuroses.
Psychologists are mostly leftist, effeminate, and mentally unstable. Their beliefs and practices are mostly quackery. When they get involved in some social issue, it is usually something twisted like promoting sexual identity confusion or attacking parental rights.
Intellectually, the fields of Psychology and Psychiatry are dominated by Jews and Jewish values.
Maybe it is time to say that Psychology is a form of Jewish madness like Marxism or Kosherism, and should be regarded as a Jewish religious practice that should have no bearing on non-Jews.
Leftists are now the evolution opponents
Leftist-atheist-evolutionist professor Jerry Coyne writes:
Evolutionary biology gets squeezed from both the Right (many of whose adherents simply deny evolution) and now from the Left as well. A moiety of the Left, as I've written here frequently, has ideological reasons for attacking parts of evolutionary biology, especially those parts that involve genetics and behavior. So, for example, we see these kinds of views:
1.) Psychological and behavioral differences between men and women are culturally based without evolutionary underpinnings.
2.) There are no meaningful genetic differences between ethnic groups, or "races", if you will.
3.) In a recent development, there are now common claims that there are not two sexes in humans: that sex is a spectrum, with the implication that it's continuous.
The evolutionists are fond of attacking those who believe in the Bible, or in intelligent design. But these beliefs don't really have direct practical consequences.
Meanwhile, the Ctrl Left denies evolution in a way that does have direct consequences. Currently, they use bad science to attack the Trump administration.
Update: Coyne also notes that the NY Times published an op-ed saying male and female brains are the same, without mentioning that the cited research has been rebutted:
Ideology trumps science once again: Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine deny the notion of "male vs. female brains" ...
Yet on the same page of Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. where their article appears, there is a note that there are four rebuttals to the paper of Joel et al.:
This article has a reply. Please see:
Multivariate revisit to "sex beyond the genitalia"
Yes, there is a female and a male brain: Morphology versus functionality
Patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females
Joel et al.'s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences
The titles more or less tell you what's going on: multivariate analyses are actually quite good at discriminating male and female brains into two groups.
NY Times trashes whites again
The NY Times has another Jewish rant about how everybody hates the Jews. It is by their editor Bari Weiss:
Nearly a quarter of the [European] respondents said Jews have too much influence in conflict and wars. More than a quarter believe that Jews have too much influence in business and finance. Nearly one in five believe that most anti-Semitism is a response to the behavior of Jews. Roughly a third say Jews use the Holocaust to advance their own goals. Just 54 percent say Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.
It's no wonder that to be a Jew in Europe today is to live your life in the closet.
This is like blacks complaining about how many blacks are criminals.
Only 54% are pro-Israel? What percentage of Jews say that France or England has a right to exist as a White Christian state? It would be far less than 54%. Maybe even 0%.
Her examples show that European Christians are far more tolerant of Jews than Jews are of Christians.
All of the links to anti-Semitism in the essay are to Muslims and leftists. And yet she says:
The biggest threat is on the far right. This is the anti-Semitism of "Jews will not replace us" marchers in Charlottesville, Va.
Here she reveals the main goal of herself and her fellow Jews is the extermination of White Christians. If White Christians declare that they are against a program of Jews plotting to replace them, then she announces her hatred for those whites.
Yes, she says she is concerned about Muslims killing Jews, and about Leftists denouncing Israel. But the biggest threat to Jews is the right-wingers who object to Jewish plans to demographically replace whites.
This is not a KKK publication saying this. This is the Jewish NY Times saying that it is anti-Semitic to object to White Genocide. The NY Times has previously published essays with Jews advocating replacing whites.
The whole essay is based on the premise that Jews are better than everyone else. There is no argument that Jews are treated worse than any other group. It pretends to give some scientific-sounding data, but there is no comparison to facts, and no control group.
Consider her statement that "Nearly one in five believe that most anti-Semitism is a response to the behavior of Jews." Okay, but it appears to be true that most of what she calls anti-Semitism is indeed a response to the behavior of Jews. She gives no evidence to the contrary.
If there were a control group, a comparison would be made to attributing anti-Moslem attitudes to behavior of Moslems. Without such a control group, it is pretty meaningless to poll attitudes towards Jews.
But Jews don't believe in comparing to control groups, because Jews believe believe that they are so special that they cannot be compared to any other group. In some European countries, Jews have even made it a crime to compare the Jewish Holocaust to any other historical tragedy.
Anti-Semitism is mainly just some sick delusion that Jews have. It is hard to find any examples of actual anti-Semitism.
For example a lot of people complain about George Soros, but 99% of the time there is no mention of the fact that he is a Jew seeking White Genocide.
The NY Times Jews say that Israel is entitled to be a Jewish ethno-state, but no country can be a White Christian ethno-state. Anyone who objects is called anti-Semitic. CNN even fired someone for saying Israeli Jews should share power with non-Jews. The NY Times Jews say that Jews are entitled to demographically replace whites with non-whites. Again, anyone who objects is called anti-Semitic.
Meanwhile, Christians are being persecuted:
Christians who were the first founders of the church are on brink of "imminent extinction", the Archbishop of Canterbury is warning.
Describing the "daily threat of murder" faced in the Middle East, the Most Reverend Justin Welby says Christians are experiencing "the worst situation since the Mongol invasions of the 13th Century".
CNN fires black for not being Zionist
CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill for a statement siding with Palestinian Arabs against Israel. He said that he favored a one-state solution. He said:
We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grass-roots action, local action and international action that will give us what justice requires and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.
The obvious explanation: The Jews control the news media. Hill was a black professor who got large amounts of air time as long as he was trashing white Americans. But as soon as he says something that displeases his Jewish slavemasters, he is fired.
CNN complains constantly about supposed Russian influence on the 2016, but that was a small fraction of 1% of the Jewish influence on the election.
I have never liked Hill. I've criticized him on this blog. I disagree with most of what he says. I don't agree with his support of Palestinian Arabs either.
But advocating a single Arab-Jewish country of Palestine is not a particularly unusual position.
CNN cried free speech when its misbehaving reporter did not get to ask all his questions at a White House press conference. But CNN opposes free speech whenever it offends Jews, such as here.
Labels: race, religion
Science journal denies sex has scientific basis
Nature, the leading British science journal, editorializes:
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based solely and immutably on the genitals they are born with. Genetic testing, it says, could be used to resolve any ambiguity about external appearance. ...
The memo claims that processes for deciding the sex on a birth certificate will be "clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable".
The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour.
This distinction between sex and gender does not seem like progress to me. But assuming that distinction, the HHS memo is only about sex, not gender, so all the gender gripes are irrelevant.
Determining sex by genitals and genetic testing certainly does have a basis in science, as that is how scientists usually make the determination.
The idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person's sex or gender is fundamentally flawed. Just ask sports organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which have struggled with this for decades.
The IOC certainly does make definitive conclusions about the sex of competitors. It only gives female medals to females.
This just proves that the science authorities have gone nuts with political ideology.
For another example, see how physicists are censoring facts about the job market for men and women physicists:
But the CERN suspension wasn't enough for some members of the academic physics community. A public letter condemning Strumia, co-authored by 18 mostly U.S. based physicists, was posted on a website calling itself Particles for Justice. To date, the letter has received thousands of scientists' signatures.
I've read a lot of public statements by far-left intellectuals, but I think this one might be the most unhinged I've ever seen. It begins with a histrionic assertion that the "humanity of any person, regardless of ascribed identities …" is "not up for debate." ...
Strumia's basic argument is that when feminists claim that something must be done about physics' so-called woman problem, and when it can be shown that less-qualified women are being hired in place of more qualified men, then feminist policies are causing discrimination against men in physics.
For examples of how far gone our cultural transgender sickness has gone, see this:
Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don't expect it to. That shouldn't disqualify me from getting it.
See also this:
A Texas father is fighting for his son in court after pushing back on his ex-wife's claim that their six-year-old is a transgender girl.
According to court documents, the young boy only dresses as a girl when he's with his mother, who has enrolled him in first-grade as a female named "Luna." The father, however, contends that his son consistently chooses to wear boy's clothes, "violently refuses to wear girl's clothes at my home," and identifies as a boy when he is with him.
The Federalist reports that the mother has accused the father of child abuse in their divorce proceedings "for not affirming James as transgender" and is looking to strip the dad of his parental rights.
There is no evidence that transgendering a six-year-old has ever been beneficial.
Now saying simple facts like "men aren't women" can get you permanently banned from Twitter, with the approval of the NY Times.
Labels: sex
Crazy opinions from bioethicists
Professional medical ethicists have very strange opinions. Here is an example:
A 70-year old man with advanced cancer was expected to die imminently and was admitted to a hospital pallative care ward in severe pain. While being assessed by a junior doctor, the man expressed a wish to talk about "his life and some of the choices he had made".
After being assured that what he said would be kept confidential, patient reported that he had been involved with gangs in his youth, and that he had murdered 'several people' in contract killings. According to Tincknell et al., "he thought the bodies of some these people may not have been found." The patient expressed guilt over what he had done, and said that he had spent the last 40 years of his life trying to atone for his crimes. ...
It seems that the doctors did, in the end, tell the police about the patient's confession, after his death – at least I assume this is what the lawyer means by "The team was permitted, but not obliged, to disclose. The discretion was exercised."
No, this is crazy. A cancer doctor may have an obligation to keep the cancer diagnosis confidential, but not to cover up murders. If the patient wanted to do a confession, they should have called a priest or a cop.
Here is another bioethicist, writing in the NY Times:
Do You Have a Moral Duty to Leave Facebook?
The platform has been used to disrupt elections, disseminate propaganda and promote hate. Regular users should ask if they are implicated in these failings.
I joined Facebook in 2008, and for the most part, I have benefited from being on it. Lately, however, I have wondered whether I should delete my Facebook account. As a philosopher with a special interest in ethics, I am using "should" in the moral sense. That is, in light of recent events implicating Facebook in objectionable behavior, is there a duty to leave it? ...
For those of us who do not engage in such objectionable behavior, it is helpful to consider whether Facebook has crossed certain moral "red lines," entering the realm of outright wickedness.
I personally think that it would be great if millions of ppl left Facebook, and joined rival services, but this is ridiculous.
The author seems to be sucked in by NY Times propaganda that Donald Trump only won the 2016 election because Russians or data brokers somehow tricked Facebook. Facebook is run by leftists, and the NY Times thinks that it should have done a better job of supporting H. Clinton.
The chief complaints are that FB users are able to communicate with each other, with messages that might be disagreeable to the Left. Or that political candidates might to some targeted marketing.
If FB became unavailable, there are many other ways of doing those things. What is bad about them anyway?
FB is bad for censoring conservatives, but that is not mentioned.
I cannot remember the last time I heard a bioethicist say something sensible.
Update: I didn't even mention all the silly complaints about China practicing eugenics with CRISPR this week.
Labels: ethics
Jews want to censor Bible and Koran
The London Daily Mail reports:
Jewish leaders are calling for new editions of the Bible and Koran to carry warning messages which highlight anti-Semitic passages in the holy texts.
The recommendations have been made in a new document called 'An End to Antisemitism! A Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism'.
It was produced following an international conference organised by the European Jewish Congress, at which academics gathered to discuss how prejudice and discrimination can be tackled. ...
There are several themes in the New Testament that have come under fire for their use as justification for anti-Semitic attitudes.
These include the blame of Jews for the death of Jesus and the seemingly stubborn nature of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
While there are some negative remarks about Jews in the Koran, and negative portrayals of the people.
It is not enough to censor history textbooks and pass laws against criticism of their religious beliefs, I guess.
I have never heard of other religions trying to change Jewish holy books. Only Jews are so determined to control what everyone else thinks.
Comparing immigration to nuclear power
Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan compares immigration to nuclear power:
Immigration has the ability to double the wealth produced by all mankind. But only 3% of people on Earth are migrants.Why is something so great so rare?
Because government strangles immigration with regulation.
Why do governments strangle it?
Because immigration is unpopular.
Why is it so unpopular?
First, innumeracy. The gains of immigration vastly outweigh all the complaints put together, but the complaints are emotionally gripping. Deaths from immigrant crime are horrifying; vastly higher fatalities from native crime are not. Even immigrant outrages that kill zero people get worldwide media attention, fueling draconian populist regulation.
Second, spookiness. Economically illiterate people can imagine endless far-fetched dangers of immigration. And at risk of sounding elitist, almost everyone is economically illiterate.
Okay, so I am against immigration because I am innumerate and economically illiterate. I am just too dumb to understand the proof of net benefits to immigration.
So I looked at his paper on the subject, so I could educate myself:
In the United States, housing prices and rents rise by roughly 1 percent when immigration raises a city's population by 1 percent (Saiz 2007, 2003). Gonzalez and Ortega (2009) find an even larger effect for Spain. Since Americans own almost all American residential real estate, immigration is a quiet but massive transfer from immigrants to native homeowners. In an era of massive bailouts for underwater mortgages, taxpayers benefit too. ...
Vaguer cultural complaints are harder to evaluate. However, if we equate "culture" with "high culture" or "popular culture," we see a curious pattern. America's top two cultural centers, California and New York, have the largest foreign-born populations in the country - 26 percent and 20 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). While states with few immigrants-like Alabama (2 percent foreign-born), Arkansas (3 percent), Montana (2 percent), North Dakota (2 percent), South Dakota (2 percent), and West Virginia (1 percent)-enjoy great natural beauty, even their tourism bureaus would not paint them as cultural meccas. ...
Millions of Haitians want to move here. Millions of American landlords, employers, and stores would be happy to house, hire, and feed them. For the U.S. government to criminalize these transactions for no good reason is not merely uncharitable. It is unjust.
No, raising housing costs is not a benefit.
I guess some could benefit. If you own your house and have no kids, then rising housing prices makes it profitable to sell out and retire to South America. But the vast majority of Americans are not helped by rising housing prices. On the contrary, it puts them in debt and makes it very difficult for their kids to ever own a home.
Most Americans do not envy the culture of New York City, Los Angeles, and San Jose. California culture was much superior 50 years ago when it was 85% white.
Maybe some employers would be happy to hire Haitians, but most people do not want their neighborhood turned into something resembling Haiti.
Caplan says we could make the Haitians learn English, or charge them a tax for whatever inconveniences they cause. No, that is just crazy talk. Go visit Haiti if you think Haitians are so desirable.
All these arguments that immigration is a net economic benefit are just nonsense. The reasoning is backwards. He does not accept that there is a cost to making America more like Haiti.
On the other hand, nuclear power is a net benefit, especially if you believe that carbon emissions are harmful.
Left celebrates the subjugation of whites
The graphic was splashy by the Census Bureau's standards and it showed an unmistakable moment in America's future: the year 2044, when white Americans were projected to fall below half the population and lose their majority status. ...
For white nationalists, it signifies a kind of doomsday clock counting down to the end of racial and cultural dominance. For progressives who seek an end to Republican power, the year points to inevitable political triumph, when they imagine voters of color will rise up and hand victories to the Democratic Party. ...
"It was conquest, our day has come," he said of their reaction. "They wanted to overpower them with numbers. It was demographic destiny."
If you are wondering what this means, you don't have to wait. Just visit Detroit, which went from 90% white to 10%, or California, which went from 85% white to 30%.
It is common for non-whites and non-Christians to celebrate this change, and advocate increased immigration in order to accelerate the change. Jewish publications like the NY Times regularly say that using demographics to destroy white society and culture is a good thing.
Anyone with an opposing view is denounced in the strongest terms.
The Daily Stormer trolls Jews a lot, so I don't know if they are serious about this, but they write:
And the bottom line is that the Jews are right: anything right-wing eventually leads to them being purged, pogromed, and at this point, probably just outright exterminated completely. That is what is at stake for them. They know that, I know that, anyone who knows anything knows that.
No, I don't know that, and I don't believe it. But everyone at the NY Times, Wash. Post, and CNN acts as if it is true. If Pres. Trump says anything right-wing, he is immediately compared to Hitler. They refuse to publish any right-wing views.
It is hard to find any right-wingers who have any hostility towards Jews. It is also hard to find Jews in the mainstream news media who are not aligned with policies for the extermination of white Christians.
Labels: demographics
Trashing Jordan Peterson
Milo Yiannopoulos trashes Peterson:
Jordan Peterson has repeatedly betrayed everything he says he believes in for his own expediency, convenience and profit, at precisely the time it mattered most, and then lied about it all.
Milo and Vox Day take Peterson way too seriously. Vox Day writes:
Jordan Peterson is believed by many to be the greatest thinker that humanity has ever known. He is Father Figure, Philosopher-King, and Prophet to the millions of young men who are his most fervent fans. He is the central figure of the Intellectual Dark Web, an academic superstar, and an unparalleled media phenomenon who has shattered all conceptions of what it means to be modern celebrity in the Internet Age.
He has, by his own admission, thought thoughts that no one has ever thought before. He has dreamed dreams that no one has ever dared to dream before.
But Jordan Peterson is also a narcissist, a charlatan, and an intellectual con man who doesn't even bother to learn much about the subjects upon which he lectures. He is a defender of free speech who silences other speakers, a fearless free-thinker who runs away from debate, difficult questions, and controversial issues, a philosopher who rejects the conventional definition of truth, and a learned professor who has failed to read most of the great classics of the Western canon. He is, in short, a shameless and unrepentant fraud.
His fans also take him way too seriously. Peterson now has an amazing cult following, but he is just a psychology professor. The farther he gets from the subject of psychology, the more dubious his opinions.
Even some of his psychology is a little wacky, as he is a big believer in Jung and says:
I learned as a psychotherapist not to solve my clients' problems. You're a bad therapist if you offer advice. [Slovenia talk, at 0:52:40]
I just saw a conversation between two other public intellectuals, Steve Pinker and Michael Shermer. Their training is in psychology also. Why does anything think that a psychologist would have any wisdom outside psychology?
Psychology is a field that is overrun by kooks. Much of the textbook knowledge is based on sloppy research, and is probably false.
Here is a recent debate between psychologists over whether parenting practices have any beneficial effects on children:
But what if it's all bunk? What if parenting doesn't make much of a difference at all to the way our kids turn out? That's the argument that will be made by the genetics experts in this major Intelligence Squared debate. We all know about the nature vs nurture argument, but it's only recently that evidence has emerged revealing just how much of who we are is influenced by our DNA – from our personality and our likelihood of developing mental illness to how well we do at school. We might think that certain parenting styles produce certain kinds of children – for example, that overprotective parents cause their offspring to be anxious. But in fact, research suggests that these traits are manifestations of the same genetic influence working in both the parents and children.
See this summary or wait for the podcast to be available.
Isn't this one of the most basic questions of psychology? If psychologists cannot agree on an answer to this, then why would you listen to their answers to other questions, like global warming?
Left is inverting the natural order
Roosh V. writes:
We are now living in the last stage of a plan to invert the individual and society from natural order. The plan will be deemed a success when most human beings on the planet live inverted to their biology and nature, and come to believe that an inverted reality has always been a normal state of affairs.
The elites are performing the inversion to weaken man to such an extent that their rule will never be threatened. In effect, they are creating a permanent slave class that will be as incapable of overthrowing their masters as a herd of cows is incapable of killing the farmer who owns them, even though those cows descended from powerful bulls that could only be handled with specialized training or weapons.
1. Heterosexual sex is rape
2. Nuclear families are fascism
3. Merit is privilege
4. Pedophilia is natural
5. Beauty is ugly
6. Feminine is masculine
7. White is not right
8. Science is God
Amazon has banned some of his books. Too bad. His stuff is worth reading.
Labels: fat, feminism, religion
New journal for controversial papers
Haixin Dang and Joshua Habgood-Coote attack anonymous publications:
The Journal of Controversial Ideas is Barthes' idea made manifest – it proposes to allow academics to publish papers on controversial topics under a pseudonym. The hope is that this will allow researchers to write freely on controversial topics without the danger of social disapproval or threats. Thus the journal removes the author's motivations, conflicts of interests and worldview from the presentation of a potentially controversial idea. This proposal heralds the death of the academic author – and, unlike Barthes, we think believe this is a bad thing. ...
The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – the world's longest-running scientific journal – was initially published without the names of researchers who carried out the experiments. It was only after the development of the legal institution of authorship in the 17th century that named authors become the norm.
The Victorian bestseller, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which put forward an early version of evolutionary theory, was initially published anonymously. Its readers had to wait 40 years and 12 editions to discover that it was written by Robert Chambers. Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population, which develops his theory of population growth, was also first published anonymously.
More recently, there are some notable examples of pseudonymous authorship. Starting in 1939, a rotating group of mathematicians have used the collective pseudonym "Nicolas Bourbaki" to publish the ongoing Elements of Mathematics series, which has 11 volumes published over 70 years. ...
But the most important function of having authors is to facilitate responsible publishing. If the 1998 Lancet paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism had not listed Andrew Wakefield as its lead author, it would not have been possible to hold him to account for producing fraudulent work, or for contributing to a dangerous anti-vaccination narrative. Authorial responsibility has both an intellectual and a moral flavour: we want to hold people responsible both for producing shoddy research, and for the moral consequences of their publications.
Really? Wakefield is their best example?
Wakefield had some legitimate reasons for linking MMR vaccination to autism. Instead of just doing the research to test his hypotheses, much of the vaccine industry instead focused on personal retaliations against Wakefield, such as stripping him of his medical license.
The above authors are obviously part of the Ctrl Left that has taken over academia, and seeks to use name-calling and shaming in an attempt to control what gets published. There is legitimate research that might be published, except that it would make enemies among the Ctrl Left.
Labels: free speech, research, vaccines
Woman wants laws to regulate online hookups
I am convinced that legal trends will result in legalized prostitution.
A female law professor found her second husband on an online hookup site, and now writes a scholarly essay and Wash Post op-ed arguing that lying on online hookup sites is a form a fraud that ought to be prosecuted under the law.
Anyone who uses an online dating site — Tinder, Bumble and the rest — quickly learns that people don't always look like their photos, they sometimes add an inch or two to their height and maybe they fudge their weight. One study found that 80 percent of people lie in their profiles. Many falsehoods are mild, easy to see through within seconds of meeting someone in person and do little harm.
But other lies are more dangerous: They become instruments of sexual fraud. A 44-year-old woman in Britain, for example, fell in love with a man who told her he was a single businessman who often traveled for work. A year later, she learned that he was a married London lawyer using a fake name to sleep with several other women whom he had apparently tricked in the same way. ...
Currently, the law only haphazardly penalizes misrepresentations in the context of sex. ... How to handle sexual fraud in the age of Tinder should be a part of those debates.
She has a point, but only if you assume that she was selling her sexual favors online.
Fraud means getting cheated out of money somehow. She is not talking about the cost of a dinner. She means getting into a sexual relationship without the expected financial rewards.
Online dating is increasingly popular, and a lot of other women may feel the same way. The only way to resolve these concerns is to have contracts that cover exactly what is given in exchanged for sexual favors. In another era, marriage law and religion filled that role, but now we need short-term contracts that cover just a few romantic hours.
I am not saying that such contracts are desirable, or preferable to marriage or other options, or good for society. I am saying that cultural and legal trends are making them inevitable.
Our society is not coping with #MeToo very well. No one wants to say that the accusers are stupid sluts who got what they deserved. The actresses who seduced Harvey Weinstein were presumably seeking movie roles. Did they get what they expected? Maybe they did, but there were no written contracts so we don't know. Because of prostitution laws, it would have been hard to have written contracts. If prostitution were legal, and Weinstein required his clients to sign the appropriate waivers, then everyone would be happy according to the way our law currently works.
Labels: law, marriage, sex, women
Investigation shows Facebook Leftism
The Jewish newspaper NY Times has published an investigation of the Jewish social media monopoly, Facebook. It complains:
Mr. Zuckerberg considered it — asking subordinates whether Mr. Trump had violated the company's rules and whether his account should be suspended or the post removed. ...
Mr. Trump's post remained up.
That's right, the NY Times complaint is that Facebook did not censor Donald Trump.
It also complains:
In fall 2016, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, was publicly declaring it a "crazy idea" that his company had played a role in deciding the election.
In fact, the company was doing everything it could to elect Hillary Clinton. The NY Times complaint is that it did not block a small number of pro-Trump postings.
The NY Times controls its newspaper enough that all 15 columnists are Trump-haters. No pro-Trump columns are allowed.
Facebook faced worldwide outrage in March after The Times, The Observer of London and The Guardian published a joint investigation into how user data had been appropriated by Cambridge Analytica to profile American voters.
This was manufactured outrage.
We would be better off if Facebook were not a Leftist monopoly, and if it had some healthy competition. For competition to be practical, users and others would have to have some practical way of extracting their data and using it on another platform. Any such attempt is likely to be met by Facebook lawyers claiming that it violates the terms of service.
My hunch is that this so-called Cambridge Analytica scandal was actually beneficial to Facebook. Now, if govt regulators or anyone else demand that Facebook allow data exports for competitors, Facebook will that it cannot do that because we would probably have another Cambridge Analytica breach. Facebook must keep all the data to itself, it will argue, and the Jewish leftists at the NY Times will agree.
Meanwhile, the Jewish TV network CNN is suing Pres. Trump claiming that its reporter has been denied his free speech rights to hog the microphone during a press conference!
CNN has repeatedly supported censoring Alt Right advocates who really are exercising their free speech rights to express political opinions to the public.
Yes, NY Times, Facebook, and CNN are all enemies of the people. They seek to censor everything contrary to their Jewish Leftist politics.
Labels: free speech, tech
Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat again
Jewish news:
The overwhelming majority of American Jews voted Democrat in Tuesday's elections, a CNN poll found.
Nearly 80% of Jewish voters polled voted Democrat, while 17% voted Republican. Jews also voted Democrat at the highest rate of any other religion included in the poll, which included several denominations of Christianity. The poll did not include a large enough sample size of Muslim voters to make a determination for the religion.
It was a banner night for Jewish candidates, five of whom picked up Democratic seats in the House as the party retook control of the chamber. Some of the candidates also staged upsets in suburban areas that went for Trump in 2016.
A lot of orthodox Jews vote Republican.
Some Jews say that it is anti-Semitic to generalize about the political opinions of Jews. CNN is controlled by Jews, and is not anti-Semitic.
Labels: poll, religion
Jews enable felons to vote Democrat
A Jewish mag brags:
An amendment to Florida's constitution that would restore voting rights for felons passed Tuesday with the help of Jewish groups that campaigned for the measure.
Amendment 4 won 64 percent of the vote, passing the needed 60 percent threshold for passage.
A number of Florida branches of Jewish groups, including the Reform movement's Religious Action Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Jewish Women and Join for Justice, campaigned for the amendment, which excludes felons convicted of murder and sex crimes.
Florida, long a swing state, could go more decidedly Democratic: Minorities, who form a substantial portion of the 1.4 million newly enfranchised voters, tend to vote for Democrats.
"'Kol hakavod' to the Reform Jewish communities in Florida — and across the U.S. — who organized and mobilized to make this happen," the national Religious Action Center said on Twitter, using the Hebrew term for "well done." "This is huge. 1.4 million Floridians will have their voting rights restored."
A number of major Jewish philanthropists contributed to the campaign, including George Soros, Seth Klarman and Stacy Schusterman.
Are there a lot of Jews in Florida prisons? I don't think so.
Anything to help destroy white Christian civilization, I guess.
A lot of Jews retire in Florida, but not enough to control elections. For that, they need more white-haters.
The NY Times says that it is anti-Semitic to blame stuff like this on Soros, but I guess it is okay for a Jewish magazine.
Companies like attractive applicants
Some research has shown that job applicants are much more likely to get called for an interview if they are physically attractive. The study used identical resumes, and only the pictures were different. The effect was more pronounced for female applicants. Sorry, I lost the link.
They authors suggested some subconscious invidious discriminination to the detriment of the hiring company.
Maybe not. Here are other explanations.
1. Maybe beautiful people have superior genes that make them better workers. Evolution would predict this, as the beautiful applicant probably had a beautiful and choosy mom who only mated with a man who was superior in multiple ways, including heritable job skills.
2. Maybe beautiful ppl are happier, better adjusted, and better socialized because they have always been treated with the respect that beauty draws, while ugly ppl are lonely, bitter, uncooperative, and distrustful.
3. Maybe beautiful and ugly applicants do equivalent work, but the beautiful workers inspire co-workers to do better work. Maybe the guys work harder to impress the pretty girl.
If any of these theories is true, then it makes sense for companies to try to hire beautiful applicants. Otherwise, companies could save time and money by hiring the ugly applicants.
Other research shows:
"Our research shows that people infer a wide range of personality traits just by looking at the physical features of a particular body," says psychological scientist Ying Hu of the University of Texas at Dallas, first author on the research. "Stereotypes based on body shape can contribute to how we judge and interact with new acquaintances and strangers. Understanding these biases is important for considering how we form first impressions."
Previous research has shown that we infer a considerable amount of social information by looking at other people's faces, but relatively little research has explored whether body shapes also contribute to these judgments.
Certain psychological traits make ppl much more suited for some jobs over others, so maybe employers should be judging physical appearance more.
Labels: correlation, incentives, research
Atlantic mag endorses Nazi opinions
Jewish organizations are claiming that there has been a recent increase in anti-Semitism. The evidence for this consists almost entirely of Jewish-perpetrated hoaxes.
The mainstream news media, like the NY Times, reports this supposed anti-Semitism as if it were a fact.
It is almost impossible to find any example of anti-Semitism in the USA. For example, the recent trial over Harvard's admissions policy has shown that the main biases are in favor of Jews and against Asians.
I am beginning to think that anti-Semitism is just some weirdo religious belief that Jews have.
Yes, some lone wolf shot up a Pittsburgh synagogue. But contrary to many news reports, he was not shooting his victims because of who they were or how they pray. He was mad at them for importing criminal migrants. There is no support anywhere for what he did.
The most anti-Semitic site I know is The Daily Stormer. It claims to be the most censored publication in history, as it has been aggressively blocked by Google and other internet companies for its political content.
It is mainly an Alt Right political site, with the distinction that it uses memes, humor, exaggeration, and trolling to make its political points. And it blames the Jews for almost everything bad.
It just does political commentary, and is very much against any violence like the Pittsburgh shooting.
The Daily Stormer writes:
Atlantic Jew: Yes, We Do Support Massive Nonwhite Immigration, And That is Why People Hate Us
So the Jewish response to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting – commonly known as "The Gunfight at O.K. Synagogue" – has been very… strange.
The shooter wrote about opposition to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that is flooding America with the lowest form of life on earth from the entire third world.
Whereas the Jews have typically refused to answer or even acknowledge the question of "why do people hate the Jews?", in the wake of this shooting, many are coming out and saying "oh yes, many people hate us because we are flooding them with brown people – it's evil for them to disagree with us on this issue."
The most shocking "yes, we did that" article thus far is from Peter Beinart, a Jewish professor of journalism at City University of New York. ...
This is a Jew, in The Atlantic – a magazine that once put me on their cover calling me evil – admitting that everything the Daily Stormer says about Jews is true.
The Atlantic magazine article explains that Jews really are overwhelmingly in favor of importing Third World migrants to destroy white Christian America, and therefore any American conservative movement like Trump's is necessarily anti-Semitic.
Yes, the Daily Stormer is anti-Semitic. Their excuse is that they are going to be called Nazis anyway, for taking their political positions, so they embrace the insult and move on. It is probably not a good strategy, as it gets them banned from Google, Facebook, and PayPal.
Jews control much of the news media (like NY Times and CNN), Hollywood, and internet giants (like Google and Facebook). So they can censor the Daily Stormer. But they can't hide the fact that they really are working to destroy white Christian America. Here is how the Jewish Atlantic explains it:
The segregationist anti-Semites of the mid-20th century and the nativist anti-Semites of today are wrong about Jews' motives. Jews didn't support civil rights then — and they don't support immigrants' rights now — because they want to subjugate white Christians. They're just predisposed — because of their understanding of Jewish history — to identify with outsiders and fear ethnically and religiously exclusive definitions of Americanism.
Got that? Secular Jews oppose Trump's efforts to make America great again. No question about that. It is anti-Semitic to say that those efforts are motivated by wanting to subjugate white Christians.
Instead we are supposed to say that Jews are just acting out their historical prejudices against Americanism!
It is usually foolish to attribute motives to people. Most people are pre-programmed automatons who cannot explain why they do what they do, and lack the free will to do anything but what they have been told. Their behavior is complicated combination of nature and nurture, and it is very difficult to separate the genetic and cultural causes.
In the case of Jews, certain beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors have persisted for centuries. They even persist in Jews who do not appear otherwise to be religious. Why? Ask scholars who have studied the matter. There is no simple answer, as far as I know.
On this blog, I regularly criticize unjustified attempts to attribute motives to people. There is something about the human mind that wants to attribute motives, and sees motives when they aren't there.
So I am agreeing with the Jewish Atlantic article that Jews are not necessarily motivated by wanting to subjugate white Christians. Likewise, Trump supporters and Alt Right activists are not necessarily anti-Semitic or have any motivation to harm Jews. From what I have seen, most of them don't care about Jews at all, and are happy to see orthodox and Israeli Jews support Trump.
Secular Jews have abandoned what we normally think of as religious beliefs. Instead they maintain their social cohesion by calling everyone else anti-Semitic and working to undermine white Christians. This is confirmed by the Jewish Atlantic article. Just don't call it a motivation, and assume that Jews are pre-programmed to behave that way because of their peculiar understanding of Jewish history.
Labels: Americanism, mindreading, religion