Lead With A Lie, Bury The Facts

I used to be a fan of the NYT. I grew up in an age when serious students were required, for example, to read and summarize an article in the science section of the NYT. Now, I would only use the NYT to clean my cat box litter. Yes, they have fallen that far off. The NYT I grew up with wouldn't touch a person who would state, publicly, that a race of people ought to be eliminated. Yet today's times has not a few of these individuals drawing a paycheck. It is not much unlike Counterpunch since the passing of Cockburn. Shrill voices calling any and everyone to their right nazis and fascists for simply pointing out easily observable facts rule these kinds of publications. But this is not a gripe session about periodicals I used to like. No, this is evidence of The Narrative. So here's the deal.

Headline:Can We Finally Stop Talking About ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ Brains?

Sure it's an "opinion" so it's not supposed to be technically "news". But still, "prestige" publications ought be careful about what they allow in their pages. Anyway? Why, when we know there are statistical differences in the way men and women utilize their noggins, should such an opinion even be worth printing. Surely there are better things to write about. Long ass quote 'cause I really don't care about traffic to NYT.com

At its core is the persistent belief that men’s and women’s natures can be usefully and meaningfully carved into two categories or “natural kinds,” that are distinct, timeless, and deeply biologically grounded. Today’s version of this idea continues a centuries-long quest to find the source of this hypothesized divergence in abilities, preferences, and behavior in the brain: You can find this notion at work, for instance, in popular books like John Gray’s “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” in the 1990s, Louann Brizendine’s “The Female Brain” and “The Male Brain” the following decade, and last year’s “Results at the Top: Using Gender Intelligence to Create Breakthrough Growth” by Barbara Annis and Richard Nesbitt.

But a version of the same assumption is also sometimes subtly present in scientific research. Consider, for example, Cambridge University psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen’s influential Empathizing-Systemizing theory of brains and the accompanying “extreme male brain” theory of autism. This presupposes there is a particular “systemizing” brain type that we could meaningfully describe as “the male brain,” that drives ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving that distinguish the typical boy and man from the typical “empathizing” girl and woman.

Or consider studies that report sex differences in brain structure in terms of two different classes of brains. Thus, a globally publicized study by Madhura Ingalhalikar and colleagues on the human connectome — that is, the enormous set of connections between the different regions of the brain — which concluded that “male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.”

The problem with these approaches is the implicit assumption that sex differences, whether in brain structure, function, or behavior, ‘add up’ consistently in individuals to create “male brains" and “female brains,” and “male natures” and “female natures.”

Three paragraphs in order to get to what the "problem" is. Lefty types always have a "problem". One of their "problems" is "implicit" this and 'implicit" that. Shit cannot be just "this" or "that". If you say you are a nationalist you MUST be implying you are a "white nationalist" and want to enslave and exploit poor people of color around the world.

But no, see, the point here is that there are sex differences and if there are sex differences then some man or group of men somewhere will exploit these differences for their own benefit because only men exploit their differences to get ahead.

But that last quoted paragraph shows the clear lie of the piece. That there are statistical differences between men, as a group and women, as a group, it does NOT mean that any individual in either group MUST be a certain way or another. No one has ever made such a claim. Just as it is entirely true that though black people in America commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime when compared to whites, such a fact tells you very little about any particular black person you meet.

And so the author of this "opinion" piece undos their own point with:

In other words, humans generally don’t have brains with mostly or exclusively “female-typical” features or “male-typical” features. Instead, what’s most common in both females and males are brains with “mosaics” of features, some of them more common in males and some more common in females.

That is what we've known all along. So basically this entire piece is a waste of space.

: Not a single person had only feminine or only masculine scores on these variables. Rather, what was typical of both men and women (70 percent of them, to be exact) was a mosaic of feminine and masculine characteristics

No shit sherlock. Nobody said that these characteristics were mutually exclusive. The bell curve distribution of IQ for example shows that most men and women are "the same". The outliers at each end are where the differences are pronounced.

The key point here is that although there are sex differences in brain and behavior, when you move away from group-level differences in single features and focus at the level of the individual brain or person, you find that the differences, regardless of their origins, usually “mix up” rather than “add up.”

Again, no shit. We who have been following this have known this all along. And we know it is the same for other observable human phenomenon like IQ. There are group differences and there are individual differences. The mistake is to think that because you know a few individuals that you have a grasp of how millions of them generally operate. That's "the problem".

Don't Work, Don't Get Paid

Only in America, or maybe in other parts of the world where that which is obvious is not to be stated, can there be a report published in which what was already known is seen as "new" and "news".

So this morning on CBS there was a report in which it was "found" that the Pay Gap(tm) between men and women was larger than we "thought". Apparently, women are making somewhere around 38 cents for every man's dollar. Shocking. If such slave wages were possible to have a successful business I would expect the male unemployment rate to skyrocket. I mean what sane manager would pay a man $10/hour when he can have a chick do the same shit for $3.80?

So how did they get to this startlingly bizarre conclusion? Well see, they looked at 15 year data. In that time they found that women had children or cared for presumably elderly parents and thus we not working for a significant amount of time. Apparently, the researchers were SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you to discover that if you don't work, you don't get paid!

This is totally unsurprising when grievance studies takes over "research". People need to find reasons to be upset. Hence, we should now get mad because women don't get paid when not at work. That men also do not get paid when they don't work is not a problem you see. Fuck men.

Also, in a sane society, we wouldn't see a problem with, you know, taking care of your children. Only in fucked up countries that pander endlessly to those in possession of a vagina, is child rearing less important than going to work for a large corporation where you make the CEO extremely wealthy, while abandoning your children to daycare centers who may or may not indoctrinate your children in shit you don't agree with.

Look, I don't have a problem if the state wants to encourage family formation by providing financial support to families. I DO have a problem when people think that a private enterprise ought to be Daddy Warbucks and be held financially responsible for the financial support of women who decide to have children. It's your body, not the company's or the state's. Keep them out your body and you keep out of their bank account. But this is what happens when in order to "not be dependent on no man" becomes the reality of "dependent on some business/government".

Notes On The Mid-Terms

1) It is quite normal for Congress to change hands in mid-term elections. Generally speaking, the electorate prefers that Congress be oppositional to the executive. A party that has the Executive, Senate and House will soon not have all three. So to me some of the results were not unexpected. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans, under Newt Gingrich thought they had the "infinity stones" to rule in perpetuity.

2) I also expected, in the increasing partisanship of the electorate that the House would see more changes than the Senate. House districts are gerrymandered by law in order to create "super majorities" on either political grounds or on racial grounds. So we have in some cases persons who lost their races because their districts were redrawn in a manner that stripped them of their "usual" supporters. That said, the rapidly changing demographics of the country is going to be seen on the district level first and then flow upwards. This is inevitable. Getting back to partisanship as the de-platforming wars continue where people's livelihoods will be dependent upon whether an employer can stomach negative press and tweetstorms, persons with views, lifestyles that are not supported will move to other places more conducive to their views.

3) The increase in R Senators is not too surprising. After the Kavanaugh hearing, the public got a good look at the Senate and I think that moved some/many undecided voters. Like Trump or not, seeing a person's reputation dragged through the mud in the vicious way it was done and realizing it could be you or your loved one, could not have sat well with people who are not consumed with "orange man bad". This also puts the spotlight on Ginsberg. Now that Republicans do not need any Democrats to approve the next Supreme Court judge, should Ginsberg pass before 2020 at the least, The Supreme Court goes very conservative for a very long time. No doubt this is why Trump has called the results a big win.

Also, Senators benefit from being statewide decisions. Unless you have a huge metropolis like NYC, the voters in urban districts can be balanced out by those in suburban and rural districts. In places like NY State, not so much. Basically, for statewide office all you need to do is win NYC and the rest of the state doesn't matter.

4) Abrams and Gillum are bigger winners than Republicans may realize. The Democrats have a long term vision that the Republicans either do not understand or are unwilling to counter. They are not called the stupid party for no reason. The Democrats plan is and has been Power Through Population Replacement. The first meaningful and deadly shot was the 1965 immigration act. The second deadly venom was the immigration amnesty that Reagan signed in the 1980s. Aside from the whole "cheap labour for big business" thing, the game was this:

New immigrants, aside from Cubans, lean Democratic by large margins. Their children, not wanting to betray their parents and heritage will likely continue that leaning. So you have a time "bomb" of 18 years.

The next deadly venom was non-enforcement of immigration law. This in combination with a misapplication of the 14th Amendment meant that you had an "unpredicted" number of new citizens being born to people seeking to protect themselves from being deported by becoming a parent of said citizen. More 18 year fuses.

The next deadly venom was control of the education system. This indoctrinated white students into thinking that they are racists and the receivers of unearned benefits of being white. Slowly but surely this attitude went from Universities on down. The effect of this was to split the ever shrinking white population into two groups: Good (guilt-ridden) and Bad (not-guilt ridden). When combined; dwindling white population, growing non-white population, split white population, The Democratic time bombs have been going off. They need not win *this* election or *that* election. What each election allows them to do is gauge the rate of change in the target areas. Neither Gillum nor Abrams could have even made it past primaries in the America of even 40 years ago. And that is not based on race. That is based on stated policies.

What changed was that the demographics of GA and FL have changed (This is Hilea!) to the extent that such persons *and* policy positions are acceptable. Recall that an article about Abrams flatly said that white voters were essentially not something she was even concerned with. It was the "Black Girl Magic" of the growing non-white population that would carry her into office. And lets be clear from the results: It nearly happened. The only reason she is not governor-elect at this very moment (she has not conceded as of this writing) is because the time bomb has not gone off yet. It will.

Gillum was and is similarly situated. If anything his views were to the left of Abrams. No way his positions would have flown in Florida of even 2000. But again, the only reason why he is not governor-elect is that the time bomb has not gone off. It will.

And really, we don't even have to take Race into consideration with these analyses. Look at Texas. How did Beto do so well? Again, his positions would not have flown in even year 2000 Texas. Again the demographic time bomb hasn't quite gone off but it will.

Republicans as a national and eventually statewide party is a dead man walking. They are on the "Green Mile" and they don't even know it. The future of the Republican party is on display in California. Why is this a bad thing? One party rule is not good for democracy. Not at all. There needs to be principled opposition in every government. You cannot have "checks and balances" when all those involved agree on the same things. A dictatorship of The Party is no less a threat than the dictatorship of one person.

Narrative Smashed

If a narrative falls down in a forest and nobody is there to witness it, does it matter?

NY Times:

If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.

Say what?

If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.

Well, every talking head left of Fox News told me that Trump, the Alt-Right, The Proud Boys and White Nationalists, were the biggest threat to, well, everybody since Hitler trimmed his mustache. Say, Did you see this rather, important, news on the telly?

Of course, not everyone is caught. And, obviously, white supremacists are driving anti-Semitic rhetoric online. It is just that sort of hate speech that the Anti-Defamation League views as largely responsible for the near doubling in bias incidents toward Jewish children in schools across the country last year.

Wait...wait.... if white supremacists are not among the caught or at least identified, then why are they the focus of "anti-Semitic rhetoric online"? One would think that you'd want to worry about whoever else? No?

In fact, it is the varied backgrounds of people who commit hate crimes in the city that make combating and talking about anti-Semitism in New York much harder.

Because then you'd have to admit that perhaps the biggest threat to Jews in NYC are not white supremacists. Narrative Go Boom!

But did it make a sound?

Who Does This Help

Found at Unz.com in the comments section of an excellent article by CJ Hopkins

Birthr-itis

Itis: forming names of inflammatory diseases.

Yesterday Trump threw the birthright gauntlet down, no doubt in response to the pending invasion, that's what it is, headed to the US's southern border. One does not need a military to "invade" a space. In fact the common refrain about someone 'invading one's personal space" is probably the easiest way to understand this. In order to understand the importance of this issue we need to understand where it came from.

Understand that the US is one of two countries that has "birthright citizenship". Every other country requires that either at least one parent (sometimes only the male) to be a citizen or requires both parents to be citizens. In some countries entire racial groups are explicitly denied citizenship. So generally speaking having the citizenship of the country you happened to drop out the womb in is extremely unusual.

So why does the US have birthright citizenship? The answer lies in the Civil War (The War Between States). One of the major issues of the Civil War was slavery. Slaves were considered the property of whomever owned them. Since property has no citizenship, slaves were not citizens of any state or of the Federal body. Upon emancipation, you had a literal stateless population. By 1865 a large proportion of Africans was no longer attached to any particular African state that they could be removed to. It also assumed that any African who WAS attached to a particular state wanted to return. This was a part of the debate at that time about "repatriating" Africans to Africa and the set up of Liberia. This is outside the scope of this entry though.

So what to do with these stateless persons who could not be removed? Grant citizenship to them. Hence the 14th Amendment which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "born" portion covered all previously enslaved Africans since they had been born in the US (note that a good proportion of Africans at that time were NOT born in America). Emancipated Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the US just as they were when they were legal property.

There was no, zip, zero intention of this law applying to Native Americans who were considered members of their respective Nations. There was zip, zero intentions of this law applying to persons not in the country legally. Previous legal cases testing this have been those who had been granted some sort of permission to enter.

Today it is fashionable to say that opposition to birthright citizenship is a "White supremacist" talking point. The fact show that generally speaking, even at the height of the Jim Crow era, it wasn't much discussed. Why? Because prior to VERY recently, the US government kept a lid on immigration, both legal and illegal. It was common for both Democrats and Republicans to speak in favor or deportation. Of limiting the growth of immigrant populations. People who arrived at Ellis Island were regularly denied entry. It was understood, across the spectrum that no foreigner had any rights to enter the country without permission from the proper representative authorities.

Now that Democrats, as demonstrated in the previously posted video, want to use immigration as an electoral weapon against their political enemies, they support the idea of foreign nationals being able to use birthright citizenship to change the electoral map. Democrats in some locations want to dispense with the privileges of citizenship altogether.

So the question comes down to whether foreign nationals who were not granted permission to enter the US qualify as "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? I've seen legal arguments that they do not because foreign nationals who are in the US illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That a foreign national who enters without permission is no different, legally speaking as someone who is at the border. That is, they are not legally present in the US, therefore, the "birth" is not "legally" in the US.

I propose a better way to evaluate this situation. In a nod to the gun control people, I'll call it the "common sense" approach.

If a person enters your home without your permission are they automatically regarded as the same as the lease or mortgage holder? I don't know any jurisdiction that would say "yes" to that.

If that person then had a baby in your house that they entered without your permission would that baby now be considered "one of the family" with both baby and parents holding legal rights to inhabit your house? I don't know any jurisdiction that would answer "yes" to that.

This is the exact same argument. the US is the house of the citizens. Foreign nationals enter with our, the citizen's permission. Failing to get that permission does not entitle you to the rights extended to those who were given permission.

And this doesn't include recognition of the birth tourism that is clearly fraudulent means of getting citizenship. Most recently in Queens NY a Chinese birth tourism ring was busted. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment was ever intended for that.

So Trump's proposed "end" to birthright citizenship may or may not be on shaky constitutional grounds. Certainly no executive order can undo a constitutional amendment. Certainly the lawyers advising Trump (They ARE doing that right?) know this. However; if there is a legal foundation that the 14th never meant to cover foreign nationals who have illegally entered the country. Then the executive order becomes like Obama's DACA. it's not LAW and it doesn't contradict the letter of the law but it is surely right up there on the line and subject to reversal by any other executive order.

How Much Democrats Changed On Immigration

From Praeger U

The October Surprise

This is the followup to the About Those "Bombs" posting.

As expected, the not only have none of the devices failed to detonate. The person who mailed them (who should never have been given the media attention he is now getting) declared that he didn't mean to harm anyone. Indeed, a cursory glance at the evidence shows this to be the case. In particular the device sent to DeNiro was delivered two days before the retired NYPD officer called in the bomb squad. If that was the case, when was the timer set to go off? It has been many days and we still have not been told when the "bombs" were supposed to detonate. If it had a timer or alarm, this would be known. Secondly we have not been informed of what the explosive material was. Hence it is irresponsible to refer to these devices as bombs. Yes we had a "bomb scare" but we had no bombs.

Since these devices were not intended to actually harm their targets then they could only be thought of as intended to invoke fear in the targets. Isn't it odd that a person who claims that he supports Trump, to the extent that he plastered his van with multiple images of Trump and Pence, would then go and do something so spectacularly stupid? As stated earlier, this event did and does nothing to help Trump or any other Republican. It DOES provide evidence for the continued narrative of crazed, violent Trump supporters.

But then we had the shooting in Pittsburgh, PA. Here had a person who like many of the supposed white nationalists out there, did not support Trump and who had a dislike of Jews. Feeling that his people were under attack, he decided less than two weeks ahead of the mid-term elections to make his way to a Synagogue and shoot it up.

Two separate incidences of political and "racially" motivated crimes that happen prior to a mid-term election. Talk about an October surprise! Personally I'm suspicious. Nothing these two individuals did could not have waited until after the elections. But then again, that supposes that these individuals were really *thinking*.

But shortly after there was a twist I did not see coming. Gab.ai.

The PA shooter had an account on Gab. There he, like many others said his things about Jews. Now, as of this writing, numerous internet companies have no-platformed the company. Strange isn't it? A white male who thinks that Jews have "control over the media and the like" shoots up a synagogue and an array of companies come out and act together to destroy a company simply because the shooter expressed himself there. Way to go providing evidence of "Jewish Power". When BLM member/sympathizer shot up police, nobody went after Facebook which has and had plenty of people calling for police murder. No one called for a shut down of Twitter over the multiple accounts calling for the killing of police and white people in general. If hosting content calling for murders of a race of people, is a no-platforming offense why is Facebook and Twitter even in existence? Do some peoples lives matter more than others? Do some people get a pass on their murderous tirades while others don't? Who and why?

There was recently an election in Brazil. The alleged "far right" candidate won. One of the commentaries I was hearing prior to the election was that many Brazilians were getting their info (and I'm sure, mis-info) from Gab sources. This was because Twitter and Facebook (and no doubt others) were busy de-platforming, censoring and otherwise meddling in the election in Brazil. Hence Gab has been seen as a "credible" threat to the information control exercised by Twitter and Facebook and thee media giants that use it to determine The Narrative(s)

I'm not saying that the "powers that be" knew about the shooting in advance and wanted to use this as a means of shutting down Gab, but I would be surprised if it was NOT the case that shortly after the event, it was seen as the perfect pretense to use the "Constitutional Censor".

But back to the actual events. I'll say this again: The government needs to deal with the political violence. When the Charlottesville police refused to do their duty and allow the Unite The Right Rally to proceed without interference and refused to arrest and prosecute those who assaulted people, they not only contributed to the death of Heather, but they let it be known that political violence was OK so long as it was the "right kind of violence".

When media outlets like the NYT seriously debate whether it's OK to punch a Nazi, you have a serious problem. "Nazi" grew to be Trump supporter. That grew to be Republican. That grew into any white person. Recently in Oregon we had Anti-fa take over a street and assault a man with North Carolina plates because he was trying to go somewhere. The police and authorities did NOTHING. In NYC Anti-fa vandalized a building and sent a note threatening bodily harm to persons who would attend a private meeting. That is *THE* definition of terrorism. Yet the governor of NY blamed the targets of terrorist threats simply because he disagreed with their supposed speech. None of us have heard the speech so we have no idea what exactly was objectionable about it.

And that's the thing now. People can be shut down, threatened and indeed physically assaulted simply for having alleged opinions that are allegedly disagreeable. Brent Kavanaugh was called a rapist for nearly two weeks by all the national media, even though there was zero evidence of any such behavior. Why? He was a conservative [white] male. How is any of this acceptable?

Right now there is a low level civil war going on. It stays low level so long as people think there is a non-violent means to a resolution (and that there is a resolution that allows for staying a single polity). If [more] people think that violence is how they get their way, synagogue shootings and bomb scares will be the least of our worries.

About Those "Bombs"

I don't pretend to know more about the actual facts on the ground in regards to the devices sent to various left persons. What transpires here is mostly educated speculation on the matter.

First it seems highly likely that these devices are in fact fakes. They were never meant to explode or harm the alleged target. It does seem to be a literal terrorist incident much like Anti-fa's vandalism and threatening letter to the Republican club in NY. We will know whether the items were in fact explosives soon enough. Either the relevant agencies will have a press conference in which they tell us what kind of explosive was in the device along with either a demo of the destructive force it would have when exploded; OR there will be radio silence. You should take radio silence as an admission that these were fakes. There is also a chance that the relevant agencies will tell us that they are fake (if they are). I have seen commentary online by alleged experts in bombs who say that these devices are clearly fake because:

1) Pipe bombs don't have wires at both ends.

2) The "Alarm clock" was an LCD bedside clock available from Amazon and has no alarm function.

I cannot verify either one of these statements so take them with grains of salt.

What is important here is to think of who benefits. Lets first go with it's a Trump/Republican supporter who has been riled up by Trump's commentary on the media and Democrats and therefore decided to "do his part" (assuming it's a he). Let's do a pro and con analysis:

Pro: What does he gain? Media attention. Ego gratification. Perhaps some kudos from random internet people. That's all. Cons: He certainly has not eliminated any "enemies" from the field. He hasn't changed any minds. He has given the MSM a talking point to blame Trump for "the environment". Politically it doesn't do much to help Trump or Republicans. This will be particularly true if he is found out prior to the elections.

Now let's assume that this is a false flag perpetrated by a leftist, though not necessarily a Democrat:

Pros: By framing the event as an attack by "far right" and "Trump supporters" (often synonymous in MSM), He manages to push forward the prevailing MSM narrative of violent fascists vs. innocent put-upon liberals. Indeed the head of CNN already went there. Schumer et-al already rejected Trump's condemnation of the devices. Every left-wing media outlet has discussed how Trump's "attacks on media" are the cause of the "environment" and "climate". This will work to motivate left-leaning persons to [further] support Democratic candidates.

Cons: The only real con to this is like the other prospect. Being found out prior to the election would be a devastating blow to Democrats. Not because Democrats are behind the apparent hoax. But because it would be clear to the public that isn't necessarily supportive of Trump that the far left is increasingly out of control and supported by Democrats. It would be the Kavanagh Bump on steroids.

Also it is likely that if the person is discovered after the elections, Trump would be handed a hammer with which to [continue] to hammer the MSM and various politicians.

That said, I believe that if the person does NOT turn out to be a Trump supporter or Republican, that the event will quickly be memory holed with an adjusted narrative which removes the event but keeps up the chatter about "climate". As what happened with Congressman Scalise and Rand Paul

Again, this is speculation based on the current limited information. [update 4:13PM] The NYT is reporting as follows:

The packages have shared the same traits: a manila envelope containing a 1-inch-by-6-inch length of PVC pipe filled with powder believed to be a pyrotechnic substance and packed with shrapnel. The pipes were also equipped with a small battery, a digital clock as a timer and an initiator, which causes the bomb to explode, a law enforcement official said.

"Powder believed to be a pyrotechnic substance".

I think by this time we would know whether it was a pyrotechnic substance. The device found this morning was transported to a secure location. It doesn't take long to determine if the powder was explosive or not.

But Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said on Thursday that the devices were functional explosives.

“They are bombs capable of detonation. That has been established,” Mr. Cuomo told CNN. “Was that purposeful or incidental? Was it a poorly constructed bomb?”

Sorry but Governor Cuomo has shown himself to be a liar. His commentary regarding Anti-fa's recent behavior shows he is given to political machinations. The governor is not an explosives expert and neither am I. I will take the word of actual experts over Cuomo any day of the week.

More Inconvenient Charts

So the other day investigations into Elizabeth Warren's DNA produced a chart in which there was apparently a way to see the allegedly non-existent different races. Today's chart is the average ACT scores from 1996 on.

That black bar at the bottom...the one that has been at the bottom for the last 20 odd years? Black average results. Asians, once again, reign supreme. Clearly, the results have been manipulated to make black people look bad.

There Is No Race...?

There is no race, except when we need to identify Elizabeth Warren as a Native American. In such cases we find that we can find "African" and "European" genes.

If there is "no such thing as biological race" then how did this highly distinguished geneticist managed to isolate chromosomes by "race"? That should be totally impossible. And think that's ONE [1] chromosome. Who knows what could be found on the other 22.

And what is this thing called "admixed individuals"? I thought one drop meant you were fully "not white"?

This is sooooooo confusing!

New Adventures in One Drop Rule Land

From the NY Daily News:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren – ridiculed by President Trump with the nickname “Pocahontas” – released a DNA test Monday showing “strong evidence” of Native American heritage dating back six to 10 generations.

"Six to 10 " eh? So what does that come out to?

The largest segment involving Native American ancestry was located on chromosome 10 and is “clearly distinct” from Warren’s European ancestry...

The segment size suggests “an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the pedigree at approximately 8 generations before the sample, although the actual number could be somewhat lower or higher,” Bustamante wrote.

So let's see. 8 generations:

1) Mom= 1/2
2) Grandmom: 1/4
3) Great-grandmom: 1/8
4) Great-Great-Grandmom: 1/16
4) 2nd great-grandparents: 1/32
5) 3rd great-grandparents: 1/64
6) 4th great-grandparents:1/128
7) 5th great-grandparents:1/256

So at a minimum, we're talking 1/256 part Native American.

Going to the 9th place or 7th great-grandparent we are at 1/1024th Native American.

If we're going to call someone "Native American" because they have 1/1024th Native American genes, then I suggest that all white people take gene tests and if anything comes back as non-white, they start asking for reparations, Affirmative Action quotas, small business loans and apply for whatever scholarship they now "qualify" for.

I'm pretty certain that the first white person not named Rachel, who attempts to claim "black" due to 1/1024th black ancestry will be laughed out of court.

That White Death

Long form report on [white] people who shoot up in Philly. One of the themes I've noticed is:

Mark got addicted to oxycodone after he was injured by an I.E.D. while on deployment in Iraq. A friend taught him to shoot up heroin because it was a lot cheaper than taking painkillers. And the heroin in Kensington was very cheap. As little as $5 a bag.

A suggestion: If a person is put on strong painkillers as a part of his medical care, then weaning the person off the medication should be a standard part of the process. If that means a week (or however long it usually takes) where the patient is in a care facility, then that should be done. If after having gone through the process, they decide to go get high then that's on them.

I also find it absolutely unacceptable that a person who has served in the military and been harmed while on duty, gets into a situation where they cannot afford the medication (assuming this part of the story to be true).

Also I think that perhaps the dosages are way too high. When I had a tooth extracted, I was given 4 large pills. I took one and I only took it when the pain got too much to bear. For the rest of the time I simply dealt with it. I'm no expert, so take my opinion with the requisite amounts of salt, but perhaps medication should be given per morphology and patients made to understand that pain will NOT be eliminated, only reduced. This could possibly prevent people from getting that "total high" that leads to Heroin.

Jewish Conspiracy?

Now if you say something like "Jews run the media" you'd be denounced as a racist and anti-semite (two-fer). This despite the fact that Jews make up 2% of the US population but make up a rather large proportion of heads (or higher ups) in the media universe (print, movies, etc.). As mentioned in my last post, noticing things that are unpopular with certain populations will get you labeled.

Anyway, as is usual for a group with a rather large amount of power and who have very little to fear from outsiders, they occasionally let slip just how much power and influence they have:

Troy also looked at what he describes as “the disproportionate frenzy surrounding the Jewish vote,” when bearing in mind that Jews comprise just 2 percent of the US electorate.

The reason for such intense scrutiny is the outsize contributions of Jewish donors to US political campaigns, with Jewish donors contributing a whopping 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party, Troy says.

Don't get mad at me for noticing this. Tell me, if someone was responsible for 50% of your income, would you do things that would threaten that income? What wouldn't you do to protect that income? Whom would you throw under the bus to maintain that income?

I'm pretty sure this is a case of "nothing to see here, move along."

There Is No Such Thing As "Racist" AI

In the continuing War On Noticing, those afflicted with self-imposed cognitive dissonance have declared that AI is or can be "racist". Let's put this nonsense to rest. First. AI has no survival instinct. It is not alive. AI is concerned with one thing and one thing only: recognizing patterns and modifying it's behavior to better recognize said patterns. That pattern may be how a human player plays a First Person Shooter. It may be on how a cell divides when it is healthy vs. when it is not. It may be recognizing certain proteins in a biological experiment. All the AI cares about is recognizing the pattern. Period.

However; in today's world, recognizing patters has become "problematic". If you notice that certain populations commit more crimes, then you are racist. If you notice that certain populations do poorly in standardized tests, you are racist. If you notice that certain populations have vaginas, uteri(?) and ovaries, you are "transphobic". You can be fired for stating obvious shit like: "there are males and females." It is "bullying" to assert documented facts. AI could care less about your attitude about these things. If there is a pattern, there is a pattern. Here's the latest nonsense:

The company’s experimental hiring tool used artificial intelligence to give job candidates scores ranging from one to five stars - much like shoppers rate products on Amazon, some of the people said.

So what would you feed this program?

That is because Amazon’s computer models were trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry.

So the data, which we've discussed on this blog repeatedly, is that males dominate the hard sciences including the higher end of the computing fields. This is because these fields require high IQ's and males dominate at the far right and far left sides of the IQ curve. That is, there are more utterly stupid and stupendously brilliant men than there are women. On top of that, women's revealed preferences show that they are more inclined to engage in careers where there is more empathy and less competition. This is known stuff. It is only controversial to those who are suffering from self-imposed cognitive dissonance.

Thus the AI wasn't given "biased" data. The data is, what it is. If it were fed data that was manipulated to "balance" the numbers, then the data would be wrong. Why would we want to feed a neutral program wrong data?

In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word “women’s,” as in “women’s chess club captain.” And it downgraded graduates of two all-women’s colleges, according to people familiar with the matter. They did not specify the names of the schools.

No, Amazon's system discerned the pattern that males are, generally speaking, the better candidates based on the data. Notice that the Amazon system did not outright reject women because they were women. If the AI wanted to reject women outright, it would have flagged every "female" name it came across. It would have flagged every candidate who self-identified as female. Nowhere in this report does it indicate that the AI did so. Hence, the AI wasn't biased against women, it was biased against women who displayed certain patterns.

Noticed that it downgraded persons who graduated from two all women's schools. Were these schools known for their STEM credentials? Wouldn't YOU want to know what these schools were so that you don't send your children there? Is it "strange" that an AI would discover that certain schools produce a pattern of sub-par candidates?

I'm not here to say that AI is perfect. The fact of the matter is that AI is imperfect and it gets better as it refines its pattern recognition. The problem for many people infected with self-imposed cognitive dissonance is that AI will eventually see the most obvious (and not so obvious) patterns. The question is whether society will accept that these patterns exist or if they will purposely pollute the data in order to make themselves feel better about their false beliefs.

Disparate Impact, Meet Disparate Performance

The LA Times has a piece out on the recent state standardized tests. It has this nifty chart:

20% of black students met state standards in math. So 80% of black students are deficient in math. Meanwhile, 69% of Asian students met state standards in math. So when you look at tech companies that rely on high math ability and see nothing but Asian and White faces are you really sure it's some discrimination?

Worse still, 32% of black students met state standards in English. Never mind that English is the native language of black-Americans.

“It looks like the standards that are being set are reasonable if three-quarters of the Asian kids … and two-thirds of the white kids are meeting or exceeding them. We want the same for all children,” she said.

You can want whatever you like. The data says that "the same for all children" is simply not possible. Yes, not possible. Why? Because even with the highest performing group there is this thing called "variation". You will never, ever get "the same for all children" or "the same for all people". These educators have been doing all kinds of trickery and the results have been the same for decades and decades now. The solution is not magic dirt or magic tests.

It Was Better Before We Attained Democracy

Title a quote from a recent NYT piece on the continued fall of the ANC:

Mr. Magaqa’s province, KwaZulu-Natal, is the deadliest of all. Here, 80 A.N.C. officials were killed between 2011 and 2017, the party says. Even relatively low-level ward councilors have bodyguards, and many politicians carry guns themselves.

“It was better before we attained democracy, because we knew the enemy — that the enemy was the regime, the unjust regime,” said Mluleki Ndobe, the mayor of the district where Mr. Magaqa and five other A.N.C. politicians have been assassinated in the past year.

“Now, you don’t know who is the enemy,” he said.

The enemy has always been the man in the mirror.

This statement about "before democracy" is only one in a long string of reports where Africans have been calling for a return to colonial times. Those old enough to have lived prior to various liberation movements have seen what the liberators have done in many places.

The second part, in regards to knowing the enemy, is exactly what is described, by the likes of Steve Sailer as the coalition of the fringes, united by a hatred of white people. See once you eliminate the White Man(tm) and you see that the situation has not materially changed, it is at that moment you realize that it never really was about The White Man(tm). And being that "false middle class" of Fanon's description: Fully unable to replace what was removed, the only thing left is gangsterism and pillaging of government for personal enrichment.

In America's near future, when white people are "sufficiently" marginalized, black folks will come to understand this. Thus far they have lived under a people they've managed to guilt trip into suicide. The Replacements(tm) will not be so disposed (witness Hileah). People appreciate rule of law....after it's been removed.

Anyway, in regards to South Africa, the above is why I said that the real reason for the killings of white farmers has little to do with actual racial animus and is instead a means of distracting the people from the rot in the ANC. 'Cause it's quite clear they're not particularly concerned with the color of who they "have to" kill to keep power.

Rachel Mitchell's Analysis

As posted by the Washington Post. Interesting parts:

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.

When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

This bit is interesting since not all physical abuse is sexual assault.

Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.

o Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.

This is actually quite significant. "As the crow flies" means that the club is 7 miles if you drew a straight line from her home to the club. Since that's not possible, the 20-minute drive is significant. Assuming that the vehicle could not go over 35 MPH due to local street speed limits (something we can find out). 35mph/1/3hour= 10.5 miles. By foot, with the average person walking 3MPH, that's a 3-hour walk. Certainly, if she had walked home she would have remembered that long walk. Furthermore; I'm quite certain that her parents (if home) would have wondered why their 15 YO daughter arrived home well after midnight. Hence the testimony that she had been driven becomes pretty important. Who drove her home?

o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.

o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

• According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.

Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. o It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

There is a photograph of Ford taking the polygraph. The camera was in plain view of her. Also, the point about polygraphs being done while someone is grieving is one reason why polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

A National Disgrace

So I watched the "hearings" if you want to call it that. What they were consisted of Senators largely making campaign speeches. Democrats, Booker and Harris in particular, were particularly hostile to the presumed innocent Kavanaugh as if they were personal witnesses to what allegedly transpired over 30 years ago.

I watched because I also so distrust media that I did not want second or third hand reports. Here are a couple of things that stood out to me:

1) To Fly or Not To Fly.

When this whole thing came to public light, Ford refused to come to DC because she claimed she was afraid of flying. We now know that not only did she fly to the area in late July, but that she also has traveled extensively, by plane to various vacation locations. You'd think that someone who thought her "civic duty" to report would have mustered up the courage to take THAT flight. Are flights to Tahiti more important than "civic duty"? I wouldn't think so.

Ford also stated that she had no knowledge of the offer to either interview her remotely OR for members of the committee to come to her location. This offer was known on the internet within an hour of it being made. So if Ford is not lying, then her council did not inform her of this offer. If not, why not?

Well; the obvious answer is the reason for this entire disgrace in the first place. Democrats have wanted to stall this hearing from the get go. The plan is and has been to push this nomination past the mid-terms. Democrats expect to take up majorities in both the House and Senate (something that happens often when the presidency switches parties). Once that has happened they would plan on stalling or not approving of any nominee that is, in their opinion, "extreme". That's the plan. That is what is underlying everything we are witnessing.

In a court of law, under rules of evidence, the plane trips and lack of knowledge of the "come to you" offer, would be used by the defense to great effect. But that's not even the worst of it.

2) Not A Care About Other Women:

Let's assume for a minute that Ford's story is 100% accurate. Let's assume she was in fact assaulted by Kavanaugh at the house, in the manner that she says. She stated that she was so traumatized by the experience that it gave her PTSD, which she apparently has not healed from. Under questioning, she said that there was no other "environmental" cause for her PTSD and that everyone has underlying biological factors. Since this event was SO traumatic, we should be asking why, as an adult, it took her until late July to come forward.

By her own admission and testimony of her husband, she knew that Kavanaugh was a judge and may have known he was involved in high levels of government by at least 2012. That's 6 years ago. Having revealed to her husband and therapist that Kavanaugh assaulted her, why didn't she do her "civic duty" and inform her congressperson? Why didn't she inform the Bar Association? Had she seen fit to do her "civic duty" and report a man who had so egregiously assaulted her as to cause 30 years of PTSD, Kavanaugh wouldn't have even been on the SCOTUS shortlist in 2018.

The only logical reason for her not reporting then, is that she didn't see the assault as badly as she now says. If Kav had put a knife to her throat and attempted to kill her would she have sat on that? What if he had burned down her house? No the reason is she had politics on the brain and she admitted as such. She said that she was OK with sitting on the claim so long as it seemed that Kavanaugh was going to fail during the hearings or the Democrats would have succeeded in delaying the vote until after the mid-terms. She said that once she saw that he was highly likely to get past the hearings that she decided to move.

After that May 2012 therapy session, I did my best to ignore the memories of the assault, because recounting them caused me to relive the experience, and caused panic and anxiety. Occasionally, I would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session, but talking about it caused more reliving of the trauma, so I tried not to think about it or discuss it. But over the years, I went through periods where I thought about the attack.

FORD: I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett’s assault. And some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of the Washington Post story on September 16th, 2018. But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.

This changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of a list of very well-qualified Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault.

On July 6th, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president as soon as possible, before a nominee was selected. I did not know how, specifically, to do this.

Her own words. She did not feel a "sense of urgency" until July 2018. She didnt' feel that someone she thinks is a rapist should be reported before then. She wasn't bothered by his government work, where he would be in contact with women, be judging women was important enough to report.

This stinks. It stinks. And this is assuming her claims to be 100% true. And we don't even know that.

Previously I posted about the innocence project. I quoted from a case where the witness was 100% sure that her attacker was a particular man:

On February 7, 1978, a 19-year-old student at the College of William and Mary was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. As soon as the rapist left, the victim called the police. When investigators arrived, the victim told them that her assailant weighed 145 pounds and was 5’6” tall. There had been a number of other rapes in the area during this time.

One week after the attack, the victim was shown a photo array. The victim picked Barbour’s photo out of the lineup, and then picked him out of two live lineups (consisting of the same people in different orders). The next day, Barbour was arrested.

At the trial, the principal evidence against Barbour was the eyewitness testimony of the victim, though he did not match the victim’s initial description, and no physical evidence tied him to the crime. His alibi, that he was watching television with his family and neighbors that night, was corroborated by three witnesses at trial. In spite of all of this, Barbour was convicted of rape on April 14, 1978 and sentenced to ten years in prison. According to the post-sentence report, the investigators from the case still had doubts about Barbour’s guilt, and were reportedly continuing investigation.

Here is a victim. Who reported right after the event and yet still she picked the wrong man. This is just one example of many where the victim or alleged victim was "100% sure it was him" and the facts and the evidence showed that it was 100% NOT HIM.

This is why we have courtrooms and trials held by legal professionals rather than approval seeking politicians like Booker, Harris, Flake and Hinosa.

How bad can "victim testimony" be? Check this Ted Talks video:

So we have people who are induced to believe they have had traumatic events that did not happen. We have people who were assaulted under stressful situations who fail to identify who actually attacked them. We have professionals who just by using certain words can get people to "remember" details that never happened or things that were never present. Yet if you were to hook them up to a lie detector, they would pass because they believe 100% in what they said they saw, heard and felt.

This is why you don't simply believe a claim made by anyone.

This whole shit show is a disgrace. It shows clearly that Democrats are only concerned with power. They don't care about Ford. They don't care about Kavanaugh. They don't care about you either. As I've said before, the very principle of innocence until proven guilty was tossed aside by every Senator in that room who failed to use the word "alleged". By every senator who spoke to Kavanaugh as if he was guilty and had to prove his innocence. They repeatedly claimed, correctly, that the hearings were not a trial. Well since it wasn't a trial, then it wasn't about getting to the truth was it? No. It was not. This was a smear campaign that made the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings look like an episode of Mr. Rogers.

Tell It To Allen Brooks, Emmett Till and Bennett Barbour

The spectacle that is the current news on the Kavanaugh hearing has me mad. All over the place I see people talking about "The Victim" as if a jury had ruled that there was a crime committed. I head people talking about "The Victim" as if they actually saw the alleged incident for themselves. If it was just your run of the mill civilian with little power I would not be mad. What has me mad is that the people spouting this nonsense are government officials. These people have the power to make, unmake and wholly disregard the law.

Not once, in the amount of reading and viewing I have done, have I see one of these government officials say "alleged victim" as is the proper legal standard. Since there has been absolutely no evidence provided of an actual event occurring, nobody outside of the claimant and her lawyer should be using the term "victim" without "alleged" ahead of it. This speaks to the depths that the US system of government has fallen.

On top of this nonsense you have people claiming that we should "believe women". Really? We don't [shouldn't] be running a government based on "belief". We should be running government on proof. This is particularly the case where it comes to crime and punishment. Should we take allegations seriously? Absolutely. But taking allegations seriously requires that we also take a critical look at the claims being made. Democrats like to tell us about "who we are". Well presumption of innocence is "who we are". Why has this not been central to the reporting? Why hasn't that been the center of the so called hearings?

Go check the Innocence Project if you think "women should be believed".

On February 7, 1978, a 19-year-old student at the College of William and Mary was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. As soon as the rapist left, the victim called the police. When investigators arrived, the victim told them that her assailant weighed 145 pounds and was 5’6” tall. There had been a number of other rapes in the area during this time.

The Investigation and Trial

One week after the attack, the victim was shown a photo array. The victim picked Barbour’s photo out of the lineup, and then picked him out of two live lineups (consisting of the same people in different orders). The next day, Barbour was arrested. He weighed only 115 pounds at the time of his arrest. Furthermore, Barbour suffered from a brittle-bone disease and had a pin in his elbow at the time, making rape seem unlikely.

Hair taken from the scene did not match Barbour’s, and tests performed on the semen revealed only the presence of Type A blood. The victim had Type A blood, while Barbour had Type B.

At the trial, the principal evidence against Barbour was the eyewitness testimony of the victim, though he did not match the victim’s initial description, and no physical evidence tied him to the crime. His alibi, that he was watching television with his family and neighbors that night, was corroborated by three witnesses at trial.

In spite of all of this, Barbour was convicted of rape on April 14, 1978 and sentenced to ten years in prison. According to the post-sentence report, the investigators from the case still had doubts about Barbour’s guilt, and were reportedly continuing investigation.

That's just one example and in this case we had an actual crime reported! In the Kavanaugh case, there is no report. There is over 30 elapsed years and people who are making claims, each way, none of which is evidence.

Why is the Congressional Black Caucus so quiet? Keith Ellison maybe? Shouldn't the CBC, with it's origins in the civil rights struggles be uniquely sensitive to the spectacle of kangaroo court-ism, the presumption of guilt and this wholly un-American idea that the accused must "prove his innocence"?

To all the men (and women who care about them): You should take names of every public official who fails to uphold the founding principles of the country:

The presumption of innocence.
The right of the accused to face his or her accuser.
The burden of proof on the state/accuser.
And put them out of office.

3 Great Untruths

An excellent podcast from The Art of Manliness

Dear Black Folks: This Is Hileah

[Be warned: Salty language ahead] When I heard about the incident at the Taco Bell in Hileah Florida, I assumed that the customers were white. It was later that I discovered they were black. I'm glad it was the case. I'm not saying that white people should be discriminated against but generally speaking, it is white people who are fucking up the country by making government decisions based on feelings of white guilt and a determination to not be labeled racist, even if that means..fucking up the country.

Black people, on the other hand, specifically Black Americans of slave-era stock have been on some revenge fantasies in which they take up whatever positions they think fuck with of fuck up white people. Not thinking long term, these decisions have been leading to all kinds of bad things. One, in particular, is the displacement of blacks by Hispanics in many neighborhoods. Also, the displacement of blacks in low skill/low wage jobs by Hispanics. Whole neighborhoods have been cleansed of blacks. There are many reports of people, Americans, who cannot get jobs because they do not speak Spanish. In fucking America.

But you know what? I'm not sorry for these folks anymore. Not one bit. Vote Democrat, year after year. Decade after decade. And what did they get? The first black president who was so unconcerned with the plight of black folks that he allowed a company in his own home state, his own home TOWN, to hire illegal workers for his entire two terms. And in the first term of Trump's presidency, the illegal workers were largely gone with black people getting the jobs. And still. And STILL I gotta listen to folks tell me how Trump is a danger to black folks. It what world?

You wanna see the threat to black folks? Welcome to Hileah!:

About 89 percent of its residents speak Spanish as their first or second language and more than 94 percent consider themselves Hispanic or Latino, according to the 2010 census.

See there was a time when black folks couldn't expect to be served in parts of the country. Welcome back to THAT SHIT. And you keep voting for the people who let this happen. And understand, this is not the only place in the country where no English is becoming normal. We have places where government business is done in languages other than English even though English proficiency is a requirement of citizenship. We have many cases of people running for office who say one thing to the English speakers and an entirely different thing to whatever language "constituency" they are seeking votes from. They are usually secure in the fact that the English speakers will never know what was said and that their fellow "linguist" will not "betray" them by pointing out the message.

So nope. Not even sorry for these folks (and others) who continue to vote for people who are fucking up the country and then get bit by the same policies. And that worker who was fired? Likely to be back once the media attention is gone (or will be hired elsewhere) because these folks aren't stupid, they support their own.

Democrats Reach New Low

So Last week Sen. Dianne Feinstein dropped an anonymous letter on the SCOTUS hearing with charges of sexual assault from 35 years ago when Kavanaugh was 17 years old and in high school. This "shadow of Thomas" was a new low in the escapades of Democrats (and Republicans who should know better).

Allegedly Feinstein had this letter for at least 2 months. If Democrats were so concerned with "protecting women" and whatnot, why did she wait 2 months to drop this? And what exactly was to be expected? Generally speaking, crimes committed by minors are sealed and usually have no bearing on anything that person does as an adult. Generally speaking, we do not hold adults responsible for things they did as minors because we do not expect minors to have the same responsible judgment as adults. However; since there was no charge brought at the time, or near the time, there is no criminal case that could be pursued. Furthermore, any civil case would be hard to prove, even on the lower "more likely than not" because it was 35 years ago. Exactly what evidence is going to be presented?

None. That's what.

This is what happens when "allegation culture" becomes the norm. Now anyone, but lets be real here, any man is liable to have any interaction with any female become a potential ticking time bomb waiting to go off when he becomes rich [enough] or famous [enough] and may have [political] views that the female in question does not like.

This is extremely dangerous ground. This cannot be understated. This should not be allowed to happen under the principle of fairness. Are we seriously going to accept a standard where someone's childhood can be mined for behavior for extortion (that's what it is) 30 to 40 years later?

And this right here:

….As the story snowballed, Ford said, she heard people repeating inaccuracies about her and, with the visits from reporters, felt her privacy being chipped away. Her calculation changed. “These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said, explaining her decision to come forward. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”

She felt her privacy being chipped away? Really? Fuck her. This woman thought that she could just up and smear someone with allegations she knows cannot be proven and expect him to be the only person who has to deal with fallout? She thinks she should be immune from scrutiny? She's supposed to walk around in anonymity while Kavanaugh is called everything this side of the devil incarnate? That's a whole lot of entitlement.

Dealing with Confirmation Bias

The Dalai Lama Is Garvey's Ghost

From France 24:

Speaking at a conference in Sweden's third-largest city of Malmo, home to a large immigrant population, the Dalai Lama -- who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 -- said Europe was "morally responsible" for helping "a refugee really facing danger against their life".

"Receive them, help them, educate them... but ultimately they should develop their own country,"...

"I think Europe belongs to the Europeans," he said, adding they should make clear to refugees that "they ultimately should rebuild their own country".

Marcus seh:

Africa for the African, Europe for the European, Asia for the Asian.

The Least Attractive And The Worst Off

Back is 2014 there was an article in Psychology Today onthe attractiveness of black women in general. It used to be here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201105/why-are-black-women-rated-less-physically-attractive-other That page is a 404 error now. Perhaps it has been disappeared like other items on the internet of late. The followup piece still exists though. The general finding being:

At the time I objected to the conclusions because I objected to the way the survey was done. It claimed objectivity when attractiveness is clearly subject, in part to the culture one is raised in. For example, finding large(r) women more attractive than thin(er) women. That said though, even across cultures there are common themes of attractiveness. Symmetry of facial features and a general "feminine" face for whatever race that person belongs to. But still it comes down to the beholder or in the dating world, the chooser. When you live in a multi-racial society, then you're subject to the standards of other people when they are choosing with whom to mate. You cannot get mad when you are NOT what they want. So now the economist goes and posts an article that underscores the conclusion of the original Psych Today piece:

Once again black women find themselves at the bottom of the desirability scale. Mind you that's not the same as "attractiveness" scale since one can be attractive but not desirable (i.e.: you smoke). Of particular interest though is that "Hispanic" females rate the second highest, behind Asian women who have historically been on the pedestal as "most feminine". Since "Hispanic" can be of any or combination of races, it would be interesting to see *what phenotype* of Hispanic female this represents. Given that white women are ranked closely behind, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these Hispanic females are not "indios" or "Afro-latinas" of the very dark skin type. Speaking of, I'd also like to see the breakdown of the "black women" category. How many of the low scoring black women were light skinned?

Lest you think this post to be about the woes of black women, you'd be wrong. What actually jumped out at me was this:

Men on Tantan, he says, tend to like about 60% of all the female profiles they see, but women like just 6% of the male ones. The least attractive women receive similar levels of attention to the most attractive men, says Mr Wang; all can find someone reasonably attractive. Men at the bottom of the ladder end up completely matchless. This fits with the work by Ms Bruch and Mr Newman. In general, both men and women concentrate on people that the common opinion of the site rates as 25% more attractive than they are. Even for women not seen as desirable, that can work. For the least desirable men, nothing works. “I don’t expect that final 5% to be that easy to help,” says Mr Wang.

Socially this is probably a larger problem. Women of all levels of attractiveness get more attention than the least attractive men. But men at the very bottom of attractiveness get nothing. We have had recent shootings in which frustration of not being able to get/keep women are expressed by the shooter. 5% may not seem like a large number but in a population of 300 million, half of which are men, it's 7.5 million men. If even only 1% of them act out on their frustrations...

How ridiculous is it that women (at least online) only consider 6% of males? Clearly then, the "apex males" are getting a lot of attention from (and access to) women "10" on down while the women across the stratum are getting attention from most males but denying access to 94% of them. Will we see more "incel" violence in the future?

The Real Reason For Land "Redistribution" in South Africa

While the idea of reclaiming land in South Africa is not new (or original) to South Africa, one has to wonder why this has moved front and center. We saw that Zimbabwe ramped up it's efforts at land redistribution as a means of propping up Mugabe during the election [sic] where he had serious challenges to his party. With this in mind two things:

First Employment

The world’s biggest unemployment crisis is right here in South Africa‚ according to economist Mike Schussler.

Delivering the UASA trade union’s 17th South African Employment Report (SAER)‚ he said the number of unemployed had increased from 6-million to 9.6-million between 2001 and 2018.

This was a 60% increase in the broader rate of unemployment‚ which had had a devastating effect on inequality and poverty in the country‚ said Schussler.

“South Africa is one of the few countries in the world where there are more adults not at work than adults at work.

Pretty bad isn't it. Idle hands. Idle hands.

To attempt to solve the problem of unemployment‚ Schussler said accelerated economic growth was the only sustainable way to tackle it.

“No country in the world can tell its citizens that there will be massive unemployment for decades to come.”

Or tell them that the problem is farmlands owned by the minority population...

Second: Xenophobia: In what is a cut nose, spite face, kind of report:

Immigrant-owned shops, belonging to people from Somalia, Bangladesh, China and Pakistan, have been closed since Monday last week after they were looted by residents protesting over poor services from the Lesedi municipality. “We are trying to come up with a solution … The majority of community members say they will starve if the Somali shops remain closed,” said Sibanyoni.

Many in the Ratanda community rely on foreign-owned shops. Now they have to travel further afield.

“Travelling all the way to town to buy bread or a cold drink is absurd. People should swallow their pride and allow the Somalis to operate,” said Mojabang Radebe, a salon owner.

It sure is absurd. I mean, why open your own shops rather than wait for immigrants/foreigners to do it?

Some residents were xenophobic. They said foreigners should leave the community permanently. “They should give us some space to breathe. Everywhere you go there is a Somali, Pakistani or Chinese shop. We are tired of them,” said Bafana Khumalo. He operates a shisa nyama stand next to a Somali-owned shop in Ratanda extension 7. Khumalo said: “The problem is that they sell expired tinned food and fake goods. After that, they expect the community to be quiet. l think it’s a good thing that they be permanently removed from our area.”

Again, why not open your own shops? I mean how is it that foreigners have so much retail power in your own country?

Thabo Mokoena, living in Ratanda extension 23, said, “Their [immigrants] problem is that they do not create job opportunities for us. Why do they not teach us the same business skills so we can fend for ourselves … They only care for themselves. They do not bank money; at least that way they would be taxed in order to help the economy.”

Give us [enter thing you should be doing for self]! Expecting foreigners who open up shop to make money off of you, to "care" about you further than your ability to transfer wealth to them is stupid.

But yo! If you get those farmers....

Woodward and The New York Times Reveal The Deep State

Up until this week, those of us who discussed the fact that there is an unelected "cabal" of Washington insiders who set and enforce policies that are for their own interests rather than that of the people via their elected officials, were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. As of this week none other than mainstream persons and agencies have revealed that such dismissals to be the distractions that they were intended to be. Without a doubt, we can now say the Deep State exists and it is entirely against the will of the will of the electorate as expressed in the Nov 2016 election. First lets look at the anonymous insider published by the NY Times:

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Firstly I'll say this directly to Mr. Trump:

That's what you get.

Many of your supporters have written that you have surrounded yourself with vipers who are either in it for their own gain (financial and otherwise) or who are, as this person said, hell bent on derailing your agenda. These persons include Ivanka and Jared but are not limited to those persons. You have made poor decisions on who to trust (for reasons only you really know) and it is reflected in many ways. So this entire situation is an own goal.

That said, we, the electorate, the citizenry, regardless of party should be VERY bothered by the idea that an unelected employee of the executive branch, who ultimately works for us has taken upon his or herself to determine what part(s) of the president's agenda (which was approved of by the citizenry via our electoral process) should and should not be enacted.

Fuck that person.

So long as said policies are not unconstitutional or illegal, that person has no rights whatsoever to obstruct the will of the electorate. I don't care if this was Trump or Obama or Bush. If this person felt that they could not in good conscience carry out the orders of the president, he or she should have resigned immediately and gone public. If the actions are so bad, we have a legal and political process by which the people, via their representatives can remove such a bad actor. How dare these persons who claim to be acting in the best interests of the country, bypass the very institutions we have to deal with these issues.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The "do what we can" is a link to Woodward's book. I'll get to points of that later, but I question the entire "democratic institutions" argument when their actions in fact undermine the democratic institutions which they claim to uphold. Never mind that there is no specific example of "democratic institutions" given.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

It is entirely possible that Trump is amoral, defined as: unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something. I doubt that though. It think that Trump has a set of morals that differ from those who are in this "resistance". Since calling Trump "immoral" would probably lead to libel or defamation, I think the "amoral" charge was the safest charge to make. However; I still think that this "amorality" charge is one of actual "differences in philosophy" rather than I don't care about right or wrong. And if I am correct, then this underscores the charge that these people are substituting their wishes and "morality" on the rest of us in stark contradiction to the wishes of the people as expressed in the election. This is NOT "protecting democratic institutions".

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

This statement here represents why this individual and others in his or her group should be removed from whatever positions of power they have. Anyone who has followed the public moods since the election of Obama, knows full well that the reason Trump won was specifically because he was NOT a Republican. He ran as a Republican because that was the path best suited to him just as Bloomberg did his fake Republican thing to get into office in NYC.

Furthermore, the large portion of Trump supporters do not care for Republicans. Not. One. Bit. If you live under the Democratic rock you may not know this. There is a reason why many Republicans and "Conservative" organizations are called "Conservative Inc.". They are seen as a wholly occupied party that are not actual conservatives because these conservatives have conserved nothing at all. They couldn't even keep marriage as defined as between a man and woman. That's some basic shit for a "conservative movement". These conservatives are merely Liberals of a few decades ago. Much of the Trump supporting electorate know this and they believe (rightly or wrongly) that Trump knows this and that is why he is in office and not Clinton or Jeb!

If this is the "amorality" then these people do not only have a problem with Trump, but they have a problem with half the country. They are, indeed undoing the duly elected wishes of the country. Isn't this treason? Seriously.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

If we needed any more proof that this is really about Democrats (and Republican "Conservative Inc. types) trying to undo an election, this is it. Trump may get the media attention for saying the press is the "enemy of the people" but it is not just Trump saying this. Again this is a feeling (and a fact) of many of his supporters. The media has set a new high water of antagonism against a president unseen in my lifetime (I am not young). The media has gone out of it's way to deem anyone who is not in agreement with Liberal policies as white supremacist (etc. To the extent to doxing people. It has covered up rank political violence against non-liberals by groups such as Antifa and has conspired with social media companies to deplatform and censor non-liberal voices in public social media spaces.

Secondly, To paint Trump, an international business man as "anti-trade" has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read. Trump made his money on trade. How do you think those hotels and condos were built? It takes a special kind of stupid to state that Trump the international business man, is against trade. He appears to believe that tariffs against countries he believes to be ripping off the US would address the very real drop in manufacturing, etc. in America. He may be wrong on that, he may be right on that. That is a political decision and political risk. It is not the place of non-elected groups to decide this.

To the charge of "anti-democratic", the writer has leveled no specific charge. His lashing out at a press that has been proven to be generally hostile to him, is not "anti-democratic". He doesn't lose HIS first amendment rights just because he is in office. Name a single thing Trump has done thus far on the domestic front that is "anti-democratic" and/or outside the bounds of the constitution.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

I don't know how Trump behaves in office. But "petty" is a judgement call. And seeing what is being written this week, I have reason to believe that this pettiness is warranted. Perhaps Trump sees that he has snakes around and it bothers him. But that's his own fault. As for it's effectiveness, it is little wonder that it is "ineffective" when the people tasked with carrying out his decisions are busy doing whatever it is they think should be done. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

Without knowing what specific "policy decisions" are being discussed, I cannot make an informed commentary on how bad or good this is. I can say that I've seen some bad policy decisions made such as the bombing of Syria based on some picture of a dead kid and unproven charges of use of chemical weapons in Syria, a country allied with a nuclear power. But that decision was cheered all around. I could also cite the trespass (migrant) crisis which was wholly manufactured with aide from agencies in the US (who should be charged). The flip flop on detention in the face of a photo of a crying kid, which turned out to be literal fake news, is another example which I too, fault Trump. But I think many flip flops are due to the vipers in his circle. So I'll agree with anonymous here that Trump has many self owns, but we should be given examples so we can judge for ourselves.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

This is another clear example of Deep State. This so called "Preference for autocrats" is really not their business. First of all, North Korea is not a threat oto the US. Period. The US has been provoking Russia for decades now with the expansion of NATO and the fomenting of Color Revolutions in former Soviet block countries, most recently Ukraine. Many of the electorate have had enough of this world wide mischief making. We want an end to the provocations with Russia and the money involved in doing so. We also believe that South Korea, a very rich country should defend itself against North Korea and wonder why we are still there. Secondly, we have seen that the way things have been done so far has not lead to an end of conflict with North Korea so why not do something very different? Why do we have to be antagonistic to Kim and Putin? Is this some law that we are not aware of? No, this is a case of Deep State operatives wanting to make sure that their preferred means of doing things remain unthreatened.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Once again this shows a clear "we didn't like the election outcome" reasoning behind the letter. Trump has not done anything "to us". The media sat by silent as Trump supporters were literally assaulted for trying to attend rallies. It was Democrats, Hillary in particular who called Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables". Any desire of the citizens to have their borders secured has been labelled nazism and white nationalism by people who wouldn't allow people to trespass on their private property. The constant vilification, censorship and violence engaged in by the Left (and covered up by the media) is not what Trump has done to the country but what the Deep State has done to the country. And if they think that by removing Trump from office that some "civility" is going to re-appear, they are in for a rude awakening.

Now lets get to Woodward.

WASHINGTON — President Trump so alarmed his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, during a discussion last January of the nuclear standoff with North Korea that an exasperated Mr. Mattis told colleagues “the president acted like — and had the understanding of — a ‘fifth or sixth grader.’”

It's September. We're all here. Trump met Kim. Kim did some walking around in South Korea and Singapore. Hasn't happened before. I remember when everyone was saying that the end was near. They were shocked that Kim relented (or seemed to). I knew then as I know now that there are ways you deal with bullies (which Kim is). Trump knows that as well. I figured his way would work. A lot of people said it was childish. Thus far, it's worked. It may not in the long term, but then again, nothing else has either. Point being that what actually bothered Kelly was that someone not doing what was normally done. This is why we say "Deep State". They expect every president, etc. to do what the Deep State says should be done (because they know best). Trump is the first president since.... to not only ask "why should I?" but to do what he thinks should be done. Deep State is not used to that.

At another moment, Mr. Trump’s aides became so worried about his judgment that Gary D. Cohn, then the chief economic adviser, took a letter from the president’s Oval Office desk authorizing the withdrawal of the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Mr. Trump, who had planned to sign the letter, never realized it was missing.

First, I'm glad Cohn is gone. If he committed a crime by removing the papers from the executive he should be prosecuted. It was not his place to remove the paper from Trump's desk. During the campaign Trump made many comments about South Korea. The people who elected him knew his position on South Korea. By meddling with Trump's trade decision vis-a-vis South Korea, Cohn took it upon himself to undo the democratic will of the people and substituted his own. Maybe Trump's policy would have lead to a better trade agreement. Maybe not. It was NOT Cohn's decision to make. We did no elect him.

Cohn's actions underscores the fact that Trump has vipers in his circle.

In the North Korea meeting, during a period of high tension with the country’s leader, Kim Jong-un, Mr. Trump questioned Mr. Mattis about why the United States keeps a military presence on the Korean Peninsula. “We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,” Mr. Mattis responded, according to Mr. Woodward.

That was total bullshit answer by Mattis. The US has been in a state of war with North Korea for 50 odd years. In that time we have developed this thing called "satellite" that allows us to look any and everywhere within the limits of technology. Those troops on the border to 'prevent NOKO from invading SOKO" is all show. South Koreans can do that themselves. We know they have the tech and manpower.

In April 2017, after President Bashar al-Assad of Syria launched a chemical attack on his own people, Mr. Trump called Mr. Mattis and told him that he wanted the United States to assassinate Mr. Assad. “Let’s go in,” the president said, adding a string of expletives.

Oh I believe this happened. This is why I brought up Ivanka and Jared. The vipers have had it in for Assad for a long time. That there were not real allies in office to underscore that Assad is fighting Al-Qaeda and therefore we should mind our business and not get sucked in by the propaganda of the "white helmets" is why Trump made that dumb as shit demand. Many of Trump's supporters disagreed and disagree with the US involvement in Syria and see it as highly influenced by Israel.

Mr. Cohn, Mr. Woodward said, concluded that Mr. Trump was a “professional liar.”

Trump is a saleman. His life is negotiations. In negotiations you make offers that you don't necessarily actually indent to abide by. For example, car salesman says that the bottom line is $1500. They actually mean $1000 but they want to induce you to accept the deal that is better for the car salesman. That $1500 is a lie. Flat out. negotiators lie for a living. This is why you must understand the "art of the deal" in order to deal with salespersons. Most importantly, such sales techniques are rarely personal in nature. The process is adversarial. Sound familiar? This goes back to the beginning of the piece where anonymous says that Trump is amoral and antagonistic. That is the world that he became a success in. The voters ALSO knew that when they picked him over all other Republican candidates and Clinton. We should consider whether Trump's position as "liar" is actually a plus in light of how some cultures work:

For one example of where it has not fully taken root, social anthropologist Roberto DaMatta sums up his country, Brazil: If I am buying from or selling to a relative, I neither seek profit nor concern myself with money. The same can happen in a transaction with a friend. But, if I am dealing with a stranger, then there are no rules, other than the one of exploiting him to the utmost. underlines original

Trump has repeatedly stated his view that the US has been taken advantage of in [recent] trade negotiations. Perhaps he is actually right and we [being the general public] are too gullible to know or to "rule bound" to do anything about it. Or maybe Trump is wrong. He was elected to try his way by the citizenry via our democratic process. It's not the place of Cohn to obstruct that.

In the end the only thing presented here that remotely bothers me about Trump is his alleged desire to assassinate Assad. The US has a non-assassination policy, particularly as it applies to heads of state. We'll just overlook Obama's weekly kill list for the time being. The rest of the op-ed and the examples from the book indicate a set of unelected persons who disagree with Trump's policies and feel that they have the right to obstruct and interfere with implementation of these policies. That is not "defending democratic institutions" at all. It is deep state and they admit it.