Saturday, January 30, 2016

Trump is no "Alpha"

"There is nothing more common than the wish to be remarkable" - Dostoevsky

One of the more onerous aspects of being smarter than 99.9% of the True Believers of the Manosphere is having to debunk their nonsense - which is a bit tiresome but not hard.

Let's take the delusion that Trump is an "alpha." He's not. I've heard him referred to as a "short-fingered vulgarian." Which he is. He has a godawful haircut, and he wouldn't get the women he does if he wasn't super-rich. And he's rich because he was born rich.

Imagine if he was just some regular guy who acted as he does. He'd be nowhere.

But guess what? None of that matters. He connects with people and says the right things, and those are the only things that matters. He's going to be President, taking 46 to 48 states.

The first person I saw calling himself an "alpha" was the buffoon Ted Nugent. I know people who know him, and guess what? He's completely unlikeable, and a complete screwup who just had enough musical talent to become rich.

Maybe we need a President who is short-fingered vulgarian, one who insults and sees though all the lying globalist traitors of both parties - who want to destroy the United States. He makes fools of of them, which is easy, and which they deserve.

It's better to describe him as a national and populist, which he is. No one smart takes Manosphere babble seriously, anyway ("Roissy," who is a Jew - which means "leftist cultural destroyer") was hallucinating about Trump hiring him - to give horrible advice, of course (he thinks Trump reads his site).

So, of course I'm going to vote for Trump - and I don't vote.

And all you Trump haters out there? Shove it.

"The deepest principle of human nature is the craving to be appreciated." — William James.

Friday, January 29, 2016

"The Rejection Election And The Crisis Of The Regime"

I've said this before: both the Democratic and Republican parties are traitorous and I want them dead, dead, dead. I want "National Review" out of business or else everyone on it fired. I want the senile George Will in a nursing home.

I want no more Third World immigration and most of the ones here removed.

This is from VDARE and written by Patrick Buchanan.

With the Iowa caucuses a week away, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, who leads in all the polls, is Donald Trump.

The consensus candidate of the Democratic Party elite, Hillary Clinton, has been thrown onto the defensive by a Socialist from Vermont who seems to want to burn down Wall Street.

Not so long ago, Clinton was pulling down $225,000 a speech from Goldman Sachs. Today, she sounds like William Jennings Bryan.

Taken together, the candidacies of Trump, Sanders, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz represent a rejection of the establishment. And, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, other Republican campaigns are now channeling Trump’s.

This then is a rejection election. Half the nation appears to want the regime overthrown. And if spring brings the defeat of Sanders and the triumph of Trump, the fall will feature the angry outsider against the queen of the liberal establishment. This could be a third seminal election in a century.

In the depths of the Depression in 1932, a Republican Party that had given us 13 presidents since Lincoln in 1860, and only two Democrats, was crushed by FDR. From ’32 to ’64, Democrats won seven elections, with the GOP prevailing but twice, with Eisenhower. And from 1930 to 1980, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 46 of the 50 years.

The second seminal election was 1968, when the racial, social, cultural and political revolution of the 1960s, and Vietnam War, tore the Democratic Party asunder, bringing Richard Nixon to power. Seizing his opportunity, Nixon created a “New Majority” that would win four of five presidential elections from 1972 through 1988.

What killed the New Majority?

First, the counterculture of the 1960s captured the arts, entertainment, education and media to become the dominant culture and convert much of the nation and most of its elite.

Second, mass immigration from Asia, Africa and especially Latin America, legal and illegal, changed the ethnic composition of the country.

White Americans, over 90 percent of the electorate in 1968, are down to 70 percent today, and about 60 percent of the population.

And minorities vote 80 percent Democratic.

Third, Republicans in power not only failed to roll back the Great Society but also collaborated in its expansion. Half the U.S. population today depends on government benefits.

Consider Medicare and Social Security, the largest and most expensive federal programs, critical to seniors and the elderly who give Republicans the largest share of their votes. If Republicans start curtailing and cutting those programs, they will come to know the fate of Barry Goldwater.

Still, whether we have a President Clinton, Trump, Sanders or Cruz in 2017, America appears about to move in a radically new direction.

Foreign policy retrenchment seems at hand. With Trump and Sanders boasting of having opposed the Iraq war, and Cruz joining them in opposing nation-building schemes, Americans will not unite on any new large-scale military intervention. To lead a divided country into a new war is normally a recipe for political upheaval and party suicide.

Understandably, the interventionists and neocons at National Review, Commentary, and the Weekly Standard are fulminating against Trump. For many are the Beltway rice bowls in danger of being broken today.

Second, Republicans will either bring an end to mass migration, or the new millions coming in will bring an end to the presidential aspirations of the Republican Party.

Third, as Sanders has tabled the issue of income equality and wage stagnation, and Trump has identified the principal suspect—trade deals that enrich transnational companies at the cost of American prosperity, sovereignty and independence—we are almost surely at the end of this present era of globalization.

As in the late 19th century, we may be at the onset of a new nationalism in the United States.

A vast slice of the electorate in both parties today is angry—over no-win wars, wage stagnation and millions continuing to pour across our bleeding borders from all over the world. And that slice of America holds both parties responsible for the policies that produced this.

This is what America seems to be saying.

Thus, given the deepening divisions within, as well as between the parties, either an outsider prevails this year, or Balkanization is coming to America, as it has already come to Europe.

For the Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Carson voters, the status quo seems not only unacceptable, but intolerable. And if their candidates and causes do not prevail, they are probably not going to accept defeat stoically, and go quietly into that good night, but continue to disrupt the system until it responds.

Unlike previous elections in our time, save perhaps 1980, this appears to be something of a revolutionary moment.

We could be on the verge of a real leap into the dark.

Where are we going? One recalls the observation of one Democrat after the stunning and surprise landslide of 1932:

“Well, the American people have spoken, and in his own good time, Roosevelt will tell us what they have said.”

If I Was President - or Better Yet, King

The problems in this country are not that hard to fix. It would cause some discomfort at first - maybe a few months - but after that things would start roaring again.

First, no more immigration from the Third World. We don't need anymore 80 IQ Africans, or 90 IQ Mexicans or 90 IQ Muslims. All their welfare is to cut off, and if anyone hires them they go to prison. They will self-deport, and some should be put on planes - which they will pay for - and off they go to the hellholes they came from.

Bye bye.

Close down the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a Constitutionally illegal bank. Let no bank issue its own currency (which is what they are doing now). That's the Treasury Department's job.

Poof, no more inflation. After all, the dollar has lost about 98% of its value since the Fed was created 100 years ago. I can remember when gas cost 30 cents a gallon and you got change back from spending a dollar for a meal at McDonalds.

The banksters who avoided prosecution - off to prison they go.

Default on the national debt. It may be mathematically impossible to pay it off. Maybe not, but why take the chance? After all, any child born automatically owns tens of thousands of dollars. Isn't that indentured servitude?

No more welfare for corporations. It's one of the biggest outlays of the federal government. Let McDonalds and Wal-Mart pull their own weight.

Close down the American Empire. Why do we still have military bases in Germany? And I don't give a shit about the Middle East. When that inborn moron Bush attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein I predicted the mess he was getting into.

I'd close down about 80% of the federal government. All those "non-essential" federal employees can find real jobs, like being carpenters, like I did at 13.

A federal Department of Education? I mean, what the hell?

That's what I would do in my first week. After that I would take a break, maybe play some golf, fool around with the royal floozies (which I why I should be King) and maybe play some blackjack at a casino while dressed in my black tie dinner jacket. Like James Bond.

Being President - what an easy job! And King - even easier!

Thursday, January 28, 2016

How I Used to Hynotize Myself

I have never had any great interest in hypnosis. I do understand how it works, though - imagination and a very relaxed state.

When I was about 11 years old I ran across science fiction - and found reading it was being in a different world.

When I was reading it someone would call to me - and I wouldn't hear it at first. I was engrossed in what I was reading. I was lost in my imagination.

I had actually hypnotized myself. Self-hypnosis. Imagination and being totally relaxed. That, basically, was it.

Because of this (and other things) I know you cannot hypnotize people into doing what they don't want to do. There is no Manchurian Candidate brainwashing, no government-created assassins, none of that. That's Conspironut nonsense (the belief in impossible conspiracies is the American disease).

I consider television to be hypnotic. It puts people into a trance. I don't think that's a good thing. Why do you think there is so much advertising on TV?

Companies wouldn't spend billions on advertising unless it worked.

I have a great interest in propaganda techniques, because I know how they work. I also care about persuasion techniques, because they work, too (watch Trump sometimes, and you'll see a master at it).

People are always trying to change their consciousness. It's as if our baseline consciousness isn't go great. Often they use drugs and alcohol.

Governments and businesses want to change our consciousness, too - rewire our brains - to benefit themselves. Not to benefit us, but them.

They want to manipulate us, to persuade us, to hypnotize us - which is fine as long as people know what they are doing.

The most famous scholar who studied the principles of influence is Robert Cialdini. He identified six:

Reciprocity – People tend to return a favor, thus the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing. In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The good cop/bad cop strategy is also based on this principle.

Commitment and Consistency – If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment because of establishing that idea or goal as being congruent with their self-image. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. Cialdini notes Chinese brainwashing on American prisoners of war to rewrite their self-image and gain automatic unenforced compliance. See cognitive dissonance.

Social Proof – People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments.

Authority – People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites incidents such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s and the My Lai massacre.

Liking – People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed. See physical attractiveness stereotype.

Scarcity – Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a "limited time only" encourages sales.


My father was born about 1932, dropped out of high school (but got his GED) and spent his life as a general contractor - which is why I can build a house, which I learned starting at 12.

Long after he retired he told me "If I tried to do today what I did years ago, I could not do it. The opportunity is no longer there."

I know a bunch of kids today who make minimum wage or slightly higher. Some of them are 35 years old.

Neither party gives a damn. If they did they would have fixed the problem - and the problem isn't that hard to fix. I know to fix it.

I've said it before: both parties can go to hell, "liberals" and "conservatives" both.

This is from Bizarro Theater.

There is only one candidate whose campaign theme is this: The USA exists for working-class Americans who are citizens. That candidate's name is Donald Trump.

Trump has what Margaret Thatcher called key to politics — conviction — and avoids what loses to the left — consensus. In, A BRILLIANT LADY AND WHY DONALD TRUMP IS MOST POPULAR WITH AMERICANS, I wrote about that back in early October when most pundits were surprised by Trump's early dominance.

Almost all of the GOPher candidates are internationalists openly. As internationalists, they will continue to swell the working-age population through immigration.

Their policy lowers wages permanently and increases profits in the short-term. Over years though, it decreases capital investment in the USA and puts the economy in a capitalism death spiral. I wrote about that in JASON X AND LEW ROCKWELL'S CULT OF MISES. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY AMERICANS ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

The internationalist candidates are: Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kaisch, Carly Fiorina.

Those candidates will continue on the path of both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. That is the path of stripping Congress of power and make you subject to international governing agencies that you cannot vote out of office. I wrote about that in TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP OF ESTABLISHMENT INTERESTS TO SCREW YOU OVER.

One candidate likely is a libertarian open-borders candidate, which is the same as the internationalists, in effect: Rand Paul.

The remaining candidates are cryptic about where they stand: Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, Rick Santorum.

Ted Cruz's wife, Heidi S. Cruz, is an international energy investment banker with Merrill Lynch in Houston, Texas, and an ex-GOP establishment internationalist. Heidi Cruz is a task-force member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a pro-internationalist body.

Heidi Cruz served in the Bush White House in three jobs — 1) under Condoleezza Rice as the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council; 2) as the Director of the Latin America Office at the U.S. Treasury Department; 3) and as Special Assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative.

So it's quite likely that Ted Cruz is an internationalist who stands against working-class Americans.

On the Democratic Party side, all of the candidates are internationalist sellouts — Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. All of them hate white, working-class Americans. All want to implement immigration policies that make whites a minority in our own country.

Foreign Trade is good when Americans can buy products that aren't made by Americans in the USA. Foreign trade isn't good when foreigners operate at lower-to-them cost structures owing to a different legal scheme.

When foreigners can throw bodies at the production and sell into the USA at massively lower prices than Americans, doing so kills the return to capital in the USA and thus kills capital investment itself. When capital investment shrinks, wages falls. The country goes into the capitalism death spiral. In SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH and in CAPITALISM. BECAUSE WITHOUT IT, YOU WOULD BE LIVING AS A BARE SUBSISTENCE SAVAGE, I explained in detail all of this for you.

That is why import taxes (tariffs) should exist. Import taxes ought to be levied at the rate of the inverse of the ratio of foreign per capita GDP to USA per capita GDP. So for example, because Canadian GDP per capita is $50,271 while American GDP per capita is $54,629, a tax of 7.98% should be levied on imports coming from Canada

Here is the math:

(1 - ($50,271 ÷ $54,629)) × 100 = 7.98%

Likewise, Mexican GDP per capita is $10,361. So a tax of 81% should be levied on imports coming from Mexico!

Foreigners should compete against Americans through efficiency under capitalism as capitalism is the only way to get a high living standard. What is killing the USA and our economy and capitalism itself is importing goods taxes-free from third world countries whose means of competition is a mass of workers with little capital.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

“Conservatives” Blast Trump

Trump will take 48 states. Who cares about "conservative"? It means nothing anymore, and as far as I'm concerned they can go to hell. Both parties can go to hell.

Trump is an American nationalist and an American populist, and that is good enough for me. He stands for working-class Americans and the rest of the Republicans and Democrats are globalist whores.

This article is from the American Renaissance and was written by Jared Taylor.

National Review spins even further into irrelevance.

National Review has published a collection of short blasts against Donald Trump by 22 “conservatives.” They worry about some of his policies, but mainly they call him names. In an introductory essay called “Against Trump,” the editors set the tone: The Republican front-runner is “heedless and crude,” “a huckster,” “a menace to American conservatism,” and “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist.”

Their writers then get to work. Mr. Trump is a “con man” (Mona Charen), a “know-nothing demagogue” who suffers from “raging egomania” (Mark Helprin), “the politicized American id” (John Podhoretz), a “glib egomaniac” and “bombastic showoff” (Thomas Sowell), a “political conman” (Katie Pavlich), a “narcissist” (Cal Thomas), a harbinger of “two-bit Caesarism” (William Kristol), a peddler of “know-nothing protectionism,” “nativism,” and “one-man rule” (David Boaz), etc.

You know you’ve won the argument when your opponents are reduced to name-calling.

But there are a few substantive complaints amidst the roaring. One is that Mr. Trump is too ignorant to run the country. According to Mark Helprin, Mr. Trump “doesn’t know the Constitution, history, law, political philosophy, nuclear strategy, diplomacy, defense, economics beyond real estate,” and so on. This is true of almost the entire political class. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were genial ignoramuses, but Reagan is a hero to National Review.

Andrew McCarthy sniffs that Mr. Trump doesn’t know who Hassan Nasrallah is. I doubt Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Chris Christie or John Kasich know who he is either, and Ben Carson thinks the pyramids were built to store grain.

Several NR writers think Mr. Trump wants to be a dictator. David Boaz of Cato says that Mr. Trump “is effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini . . . and govern by fiat.” Mr. Trump is certainly full of promises about what he will do, but so is every other candidate. They say “I will (fill in the blank).” They don’t say “I will persuade Congress to pass legislation that will (fill in the blank).”

Many of these “conservatives” say they worship limited government and the separation of powers, and perhaps they do, but I can’t think of a recent president who hasn’t attacked another country without a declaration of war, and Barack Obama has run wild with executive orders. The NR “conservatives” may not like that, but why are they angrier about what Mr. Trump hasn’t done than what others have done? According to their precious Constitution, the Supreme Court and the threat of impeachment will curb Mr. Trump’s imagined excesses.

But Donald Trump is guilty of worse than Ceasarism and bombast. National Review considers itself the tabernacle of conservatism, and its high priests have declared that Mr. Trump is not a conservative. They say he’s a closet liberal on abortion, gun control, socialized medicine, and big government.

For me and for millions of Americans, the answer to that is a resounding “Who cares?” Most of the time, Donald Trump doesn’t even claim to be a conservative. He cares deeply about the well-being and happiness of Americans, and is the first major candidate since Patrick Buchanan who understands that South-of-the-border illiterates don’t make good Americans. So long as he sticks to that message it won’t make any difference whether he’s “liberal” or “conservative” or a conman or a showoff or any of the other names National Review calls him. People of all political persuasions will vote for him.

There is nothing partisan about wanting your people to survive and prosper. What does the saying “politics stops at the water’s edge” mean but that when the survival of the nation is threatened we set aside disagreements and fight the common enemy. Our survival is threatened, and Mr. Trump is the only candidate who seems to understand that.

But NR’s sniffing about Mr. Trump not being a conservative highlights the most inexplicable and pathetic thing about “conservatives.” They don’t realize that the one thing that must absolutely be conserved is something they pride themselves on pretending doesn’t matter: the race of people who make what they call conservatism even possible. Do they really believe that Mexicans and Haitians and Guatemalans and Vietnamese and Bangladeshis and Chinese are ever going to be made to care about the Second Amendment or Madisonian democracy or limited government?

This is why these people are cuckolded conservatives or “cuckservatives.” Just like a man with a faithless wife, they are lavishing care on somebody else’s children. Their beautiful Constitution and elegant libertarianism are wasted on Third-Worlders, for whom these things are alien and meaningless. The institutions National Review thinks it is preserving will be kicked aside by people whose ancestors had no hand in building them.

What cuckservatives are determined not to understand is that without the historic American people, there is no America, no Western culture, no civilization fit for white men. Anyone who stands for the European people and traditions of America is our comrade, whatever his politics.

There is something grotesque about people who sacrifice Americans to abstractions, who put principle over people. And if they think that pronouncing Donald Trump “not a conservative” will move the electoral balance by even a hair they are deluded. Do they imagine people all across America saying to themselves, “I was going to vote for Trump, but NR says he’s not a conservative so I guess I’ll vote for Jeb Bush”?

Liberals are just as deluded about the insignificance of race, of course. Their vision of the perfect society requires a population of Danes, not Mexicans. The only part of “liberalism” Third-Worlders understand is government handouts. Feminism, gay rights, “diversity,” “tolerance,” environmentalism, yoga and fruit-juice drinking–you don’t see much of that in “communities of color.” But liberals are at least consistent in their madness. They want to change everything, so it is more excusable that they not realize that changing the population makes their kind of change impossible.

But back to the anti-Trump blasts, I almost forgot: Not one of the NR 22 dared call Mr. Trump a “racist” on the record, but there were plenty of hints: “Trump’s vitriolic–and often racist and sexist language–language” (Russell Moore), “the unavoidable issue of racism” (Michael Medved), and “racial and religious scapegoating” (David Boaz). Keep it up, National Review. You’re beginning to sound just like the Washington Post; Dana Milbank titled one of his columns “Donald Trump is a bigot and a racist.”

When both National Review and the Washington Post agree that the Republican front-runner and probable nominee–a man who could well become the president of the United States–is a “racist,” we know that a new day is dawning in America.

"The science of sex - the most important recent book? Sexual selection under parental choice, by Menelaos Apostolou"

I've been around long enough to know it's about Associative Mating. I've had half a dozen women who look like me look at me and instantly go, "Hmmm." I knew what was going on and had to explain it to them.

I've also found it's true that women look for a man like dad (if they got along with him) and men look for mom (if they got along with her).

This article in from Bruce Charlton.

The work of Menelaos Apostolou, a young Assistant Professor from Nicosia University in Cyprus - collected and explored in this recent book, turns-out to be the most significant 'paradigm shift' in the evolutionary psychology of sex since the modern field began in 1979 with Don Symons The evolution of human sexuality.

Apostolou's work means that this whole area of work - many thousands of papers and scores of best-selling books (not to mention the theoretical basis of the online Manosphere and PUA movement) - now need to be reframed within a new explanatory context.

In a nutshell, and with exhaustive documentation and rigorous argument, Apostolou establishes that parental choice is primary in human evolutionary history: for many hundreds of generations of our ancestors it was primarily parents who chose and controlled who their children would marry and reproduce-with; and the individual sexual preferences of both men and women were relegated to a secondary role.

This means that it was mainly parent choice that shaped human mating preferences - and personal choice would have been relegated to a subordinate role within and after marriage (e.g. infidelity choices; and the choice to end marriage - e.g. when to divorce).

Most of this book is taken up by the collection and discussion of a mass of empirical data - hundreds of references, and the detailed working-through of the implications; but the take home message is relatively simple and clear.

Apostolou shows that in most societies in human history, and continuing in most modern societies outside of The West, individual men and women had very little choice of their mates - and that this choice was nearly always made by their parents. In other words, marriages were arranged by the parents of the husband and wife - especially the daughter's marriage, and usually by their fathers more than their mothers.

Parents preferences for a marriage partner differ from those of their offspring. In general, parents (relatively to their children, especially daughter) prefer delaying sexual relationships until an early marriage with early onset of child-bearing and little or no extra-marital sex. And parents have been generally hostile to divorce.

The characteristics parents prefer (compared with individual preferences) include good character, ability to provide resources (especially men), coming from a 'good family' - with high status and wealth, and pre-marital chastity (especially in women).

The characteristics individuals prefer (compared with their parents) include beauty and good looks (hair, face, figure etc. in a woman; muscular physique in a man), a charming and entertaining personality, the ability to provide sexual excitement and so on.

The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans - which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates.

More exactly, the ancestral system was probably (to simplify) that two sets of parents controlled who their children married - the individual preferences of the prospective husband and wife may or may not have been consulted. Individual choice was probably important mostly after marriage - since there was the possibility of extra-marital liaisons (although Apostolou documents that these were extremely risky, and generally very harshly punished, up to and including death - especially for women).

But all the ancestral societies permitted divorce (while strongly discouraging it - since this undermined parental decisions) - although mainly in a context where one of the spouses turned out to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of providing grandchildren (eg. men who did not provide sufficient resources - due to their behaviour or from illness or injury, or women who were barren). Probably since women are more controlled in arranging marriage, it is mainly women who initiate divorces.

Apostolou summarizes this as: Parents decide who gets married, children decide whether they stay married.

Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses - and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population - and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation.

Therefore human evolutionary history has left modern individuals, in a world where parental choice and control has been all-but eliminated from mainstream life, woefully ill-equipped to manage their sexual lives.

This affects both men and women adversely - but in partly different ways. men and women share a common problem of not being worried-enough about the problem of finding suitable long-term mates, marrying and having children - precisely because this whole business was managed for them by parents through hundreds of preceding human generations.

Women delay and delay marriage and child-bearing, and seem unconcerned about their genetic extinction - because their deep inbuilt expectation is that these matters will be arranged for-them. men worry too much about attaining high status among men, and becoming a good provider - when these were selected for in a world where prospective in-laws wanted these attributes from men; but in the modern world they are an ineffectual strategy for getting a mate. In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women.

So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers.

Modern single people therefore are much too happy about their living in a state of unattached childlessness, than is good for their reproductive success. And this (biologically) foolish happiness is at least partly a consequence of evolutionary history: people are behaving as if mating and marriage will be sorted-out by parents - but it isn't.

However, as is usual in works of evolutionary psychology - in a subject where the professionals are almost 100 percent atheists (and militant atheists at that!), in this book there is a too brief and conceptually inadequate consideration of the role of religion.

The subject gets about three pages, and religion is treated as merely a trumped-up rationalization for enforcing biological imperatives. However, it is not mentioned that in modern societies it is only among the religious that we can find biologically viable patterns of mating, marriage and family - and indeed only among some particular religions that are traditionalist in ethics and patriarchal in structure: which fits exactly with the evolutionary predictions.

My point is that religion needs to be regarded as a cause, not merely a consequence, of sexual behaviour and selection pressure; in sum, religion (more exactly, some specific religions) is the only known antidote to the pattern of maladaptive modern sexuality which is trending towards extinction.

Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants - and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve.

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

So, from a biological perspective, I would contend that there is no reason to suppose we can solve the biological problems of modernity outwith religion (especially since the social system of religion has in practice been replaced by... the mass media - see my book Addicted to Distraction). Biological knowledge can diagnose the problem - but science cannot provide a solution nor the motivation to implement it; since humans are not evolved to structure their sexuality according to biological principles.

We are 'set-up' to seek our own gratification and try to avoid suffering with reproductive success as a by-product - we do not seek directly to achieve optimal personal/ or tribal/ or national/ or species-level reproductive fitness.

Such omissions and other imperfections do not detract from the exceptional originality and importance of this book and the empirical research and theoretical discussion which it summarizes. In a world where actual scientific achievement was the primary determinant of professional success; Menelaos Apostolou would be among the most prestigious, most cited, and most intellectually influential people in evolutionary psychology.

I hope that this deserved outcome will, sooner or later, come to pass.

Dropping Dead From Venereal Disease and Childbirth

When I was a teenager I used to wonder about that Biblical curse on women to bear children in pain. I hadn't seen it - and my mother worked for years in OB-GYN at the hospital. Of course, the answer immediately occurred to me - science and technology.

My mother told me she only saw one woman die in childbirth. I don't remember the reason why, but I suspect today she could have been saved.

My sister had three kids. With an epidural she didn't feel a thing.

I do know women were dropping like flies in childbirth in the past. I remember thinking how awful that was. That doesn't happen anymore.

Children and babies were also dropping like flies in the past. Laura Ingalls Wilder, she of the Little House on the Prairie books, only had her first daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, survive. The rest of her children died. The one after Rose, a little boy, died of seizures at probably a few months old. The rest she apparently never wrote about. She also never wrote about a hospital.

Rose never had children. She got pregnant, something went wrong, the baby was never born - and Rose could never have children after that. Today the problem, whatever it was, could probably be fixed. So the whole family line has died out.

Again, science and technology is what saved those people.

People were also dropping like flies from disease in the past. People were dropping dead left and right from cholera in Chicago until one man decided to sneak chlorine in the water supply without telling anyone - and poof, no more cholera.

The same with venereal diseases. They killed people left and right (Nietzsche and Al Capone lost their minds from syphilis). But that doesn't happen anymore.

It was Voltaire, I believe, who cured himself of gonorrhea (perhaps syphilis) by drinking several gallons of lemonade (perhaps the Vitamin C did the trick).

But today, we have antibiotics and birth control and painkillers.

Venereal diseases have pretty much been wiped out. By the way, I know a woman who had syphilis at 19 (which she got from sleeping with a Romanian) but the doctor cured her of it after giving her holy hell.

Who cured these diseases and gave us relatively painless birth? Those goddamn awful white men - you know, those patriarchal slave-owning woman-hating sonsofbitches. At least in the minds of the deluded.

They cured diseases, along with making childbirth safe. They created safe and effective birth control, along with safe and effective abortion. All those things together, along with no fault divorce, is what created the sexual "revolution," which wasn't exactly a revolution, since it took a very long time. I'm not sure if anyone exactly predicted all of these problems, which were created by people behaving irresponsibly and abusing their freedom. And I find that strange.

Women are completely, 100% dependent on men. I can't remember who wrote it, but he said women were about as independent as tropical flowers in a hothouse in Iceland.

How many times do I have to write this? Carl Jung (not the first to notice this) said that women were biologically indispensable because they gave birth, and men were culturally indispensable because they created everything. Like that advanced science and technology that cured those venereal diseases and took away most of the pain and death of childbirth.

What's going on here? Are these attacks from envy? That's usually what happens when innocent people are attacked and denigrated. Since there is no gratitude it probably is envy - because the more envy, the less gratitude. You can't feel both at the same time.

Is the white man that envied? Is that why there is no gratitude for what he's done? Do so many people feel that inferior to him that they have to try to destroy him so they won't by eaten alive by their envy?

And do they not realize without the white man most of the advances in the world would come to a screeching halt?

Charles Murray, he of Human Accomplishment (a must-own book), pointed out Europeans and their descendants throughout the world, were responsible for 98% of the all inventions and discoveries for over the past 500 years. If not longer.

That's not just chance. There's something genetic going on here. I don't exactly know what. I know it was something to do with curiosity and imagination and abstract thought (which are my strong suits).

Those are overwhelmingly Western traits.

So, the more the West contracts, and men are denigrated and destroyed, the worse it's going to be for the entire world.

Will the day every come when people are crying, "Save us, white man!" That's what is starting to happen in Africa.

Someday, it might start to happen in the rest of the world.

As far as I'm concerned, they can go to hell. After all, they're trying to send us there.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

"What is the best system for finding and choosing a wife or husband?"

When my sister told me she was getting married I threw a fit. The fool she was marrying, who I went to high school with, was an alcoholic and crackhead. He told her he would quit. She believed it. I didn't. He didn't quit until they were divorced and he joined AA.

Women should not be allowed to choose their own mates without parental approval - or of the brothers (my parents said nothing about the piece of shit she married).

Of course, they got divorced after three kids - and only one turned out right. Sort of, considering one son's wife is an alcoholic.

A lot of what we are is genetic. So choose your partner carefully, considering your kids are going to inherit your idiot genes.

A lot of people are lousy at choosing mates.

The Mansophere, as always, is completely wrong about this Alpha/Beta/Gamma bullshit. Only liars and fools such as Roissy (who is a Jew) and Roosh (who isn't white) and Vox Day (who left the U.S. and lives in Italy) believe it. Such beliefs only destroy marriage and societies.

This article is from Bruce Charlton's Notions.

I have become convinced that a system of primarily parental choice (with a veto from participants) is overall the best human basis of a loving, strong, effective marriage:

Individual men and women are not equipped (neither by instinct, nor - in modern societies - by training: quite the opposite) to make wise choice of a husband or wife, unaided.

In practice, this means that the primary (although not final) choice should often be out of the hands of the potential married couple - as was original and natural to Men.

This is the consensus of human history.

Individuals are seldom validly able to choose their own spouses in isolation from a community which provides reputational background knowledge on the other person and is or her family, over a period of time - and which takes into account long term aspects.

Now - this is not the society we live in, in The West - and it would take a couple of generations to re-establish even if we wanted to (which, clearly, the mass of people currently do not).

This is not about to change for the better - all indicators are that overall marriage trends are for the worse.

But it is worth thinking-about in order to understand:

1. That the system we have at present for finding a spouse not only does not work (overall, on average), but cannot work.

2. What kind of system ought to replace it.

3. That we need to be on guard against the vast tide of hard-line and soft-sell propaganda to the contrary (the thousand daily mass media inputs and conversations from un-loving and mis-guided friends and lifestyle advisers, from love stories and pseudo-science, from fools and fiends - all of which takes for granted that individual husbands and wives ought-to select each other autonomously, in defiance of family - and 'nobody else has any right to interfere').

4. The question is not one mainly of vetoing unsuitable spouses - but more importantly of the first step - which is choosing another particular person as a possibility for marriage.

5. In a sense, the parent's role (ideally) would be to a choose a field of potential candidates, and within that field enable individual choice to operate.

How Propaganda Works

"Words, of course, are the most powerful drug used by mankind." - Rudyard Kipling

All politics is based on a friend/enemy distinction. That dichotomy is narcissistic - "I am right and good, and you are wrong and evil. So if we get rid of you things will be great."

Propaganda is based on our narcissism. It is, however, possible to use propaganda for good purposes. Rarely.

It's best to know how propaganda works (that it is based on our narcissism, our ability to split things into all-good and all-bad), to immunize yourself against it.

Edward L. Bernays, who was Sigmund Freud's nephew, was nicknamed the Father of Spin, since he was the creator of modern propaganda techniques. Which he used to muster public support for President Woodrow Wilson's war - World War I. The one that ushered in the destruction of the 20th century.

Bernays found propaganda had three characteristics:

Stress emotion over logic (but make people think they are logical).

Demonize the enemy (make them think the enemy is evil).

Promise a "war" that will make the world safe for goodness (a better world, one without evil).

Notice that propaganda bypasses reason. More accurately, reason is in about third place.

Scott Adams, he of "Dilbert" fame, claims that in first place is identity, that is, getting people to emotionally identify with you. That means they have to identify with you as the good guy who will do good things for you.

Second is metaphor, then third is reason.

When Trump called Bush "low energy" he was saying, "He is [metaphorically] a sloth." He was ridiculing him. (Voltaire once wrote, "Lord, please make my enemies ridiculous.")

Propaganda can be used for good or bad. Hitler, for an example, was a master of propaganda (the section on propaganda in Mein Kampf is essential reading).

Hitler claimed groups are feminine, that is, ruled by their feelings - which means they aren't using their reason. Groups never do.

Trump is a natural master of propaganda, although I'm sure he has studied it to get the techniques right. He is getting people to emotionally identify with him (emotion over logic).

He is mocking his opponents as fools. Not exactly evil, but incompetents, buffoons. Bad in all ways for the country.

He's claiming America will be a better place with him as President - not that evil will cease to exist, but America will be "great again." With a minimum of "evil."

Since people are emotionally identifying with him (seeing him as the good guy), they are automatically seeing the people he attacks as anti-American. The "bad guys." This helps him because most of them are - and when they attack Trump they are cutting their own throats. Hillary found that out the hard way.

Trump is refusing to let people define him as a liberal or conservative. This is a good thing. Don't let people define you.

He is in fact a populist and a nationalist. He's getting people to define these things as good things - which means "conservatism" is in complete disarray - which is a very good thing. Now leftism needs to be destroyed.

When you let people define you when they are your enemies they will always try to define you as evil. Then the rest of those propaganda techniques kick in - emotion over logic, demonization, attempts at destruction.

It's what Trump's opponents are trying to do to him - define him, see him as dangerous, try to destroy him. Guess what - it's not working.

If you put all these techniques together this is what you get: get people to emotionally identify with you as the good guy. They will automatically see your opponents as the bad guys.

Attack your opponents through ridicule (one of the main techiques used by the anti-American commie Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals (this is where metaphor comes in). People will see them as oppressors only out for themselves - which means against you.

Your opponents will end up demonizing and destroying themselves.

Identifying through emotion, demonization and ridicule of enemies, then destruction of them to create a better world. It's that simple.

Monday, January 25, 2016

"The Voters’ Trump Love Affair Explained in Terms Even Beltway Pundits Can Understand"

I've written several times before pointing out propaganda appeals to the emotions, not reason. As for Trump's "emotional bond," that is what Scott Adams, he of Dilbert fame, refers to as "identity."

Trump is an American populist and an American nationalist. The hell with both parties. I want to see them dead, dead, dead. Traitorous bastards.

Trump will take 47 or 48 states.

This article was written by Selwyn Duke and is from the American Thinker.

Donald Trump’s rise this election season has been historic, amounting to something heretofore unseen in the annals of American politics. Given this, it’s perhaps not surprising that many are still befuddled by the phenomenon. Pundit Charles Krauthammer is bewildered, saying that “for some reason” Trump “is immune to the laws of contradiction.” (In reality, Democrats get away with contradiction continually; the only difference is that the media actually report on Trump’s.) Also in the news recently is that some find his appeal among evangelicals “inexplicable.” Of course, it’s all quite explainable.

Trump is tapping into anger against the Establishment and over immigration and is a plain-spoken breath of fresh air. sounding a nationalistic note in an age where it is not the “elite” norm.

He's not campaigning as conservative but a populist, which, almost by definition, tends to make one popular in an era of mass discontent.

He's a crusader against hated political correctness, which has stifled tongues and killed careers nationwide. And in being the first prominent person to defeat the thought police (at least for now) — and by not cowering and apologizing to them — he has become a hero. And as I wrote, “[W]hen you have a hero, leading the troops in the heat of battle against a despised oppressor, you don’t worry about his marriages, past ideological indiscretions or salty language. You charge right behind him.” This is largely why Trump’s contradictions don’t matter. Yet more can be said.

I often mention the fault of “mirroring,” which most everyone exhibits and is when you project your own ideals, values, priorities and mindset onto others. It’s particularly amusing when pundits and politicians comment on the electorate and speak as if everyone is a politics wonk who analyzes issues logically within the context of a broad knowledge base (pundits themselves often lack erudition and reason; of course, they’re blissfully unaware of it when thus guilty and nonetheless consider those qualities ideals). But man is not Mr. Spock, and logic and reason play less of a role in people’s decision-making than most of us care to think.

This brings us to what Trump now has. It’s something all successful politicians have to a degree and that every iconic one has in spades: an emotional bond with his supporters.

Trump has been criticized for speaking in vague generalities and not providing specifics on the campaign trail. This misses the point. If advertising a product on TV, do you willingly provide mundane details about its ingredients or describe the intricacies of its manufacturing process? That’s more the stuff of documentaries, and, insofar as the vendor goes, would only be found on an Internet product-information page (tantamount to a politician’s policy-position page) provided for those interested. No, you say “Look 15 years younger!” or “Lose 20 to 30 pounds in 6 weeks!” Or think of the circa 2000 Mazda commercial with the young boy whispering “Zoom, zoom!” It was advertising an expensive, hi-tech machine but was invoking the unbridled joy of childhood, thus endeavoring to pique people’s passions. And that’s the secret: capture your audience on an emotional level and they’re yours.

Or think about affairs of the heart. If you’re truly bonded and in love with your wife, it’s not because you first looked at her and, rendering a logical analysis, thought “Well, she’s vibrant and seems to have good genes, so we’d likely have healthy kids; and she’s a darn good cook, and I relish a fine pot roast.” Rather, a true romantic bond is somewhat inscrutable, an emotional phenomenon, not an intellectual one. And it’s powerful enough to cause a woman to follow a man into a life of faith or a life of crime (Bonnie and Clyde); it explains the enduring good marriages — and the bad ones.

Likewise, playing on emotion is not the sole province of morally bad or good politicians — only of successful ones. Hitler did it and Churchill did it; Huey Long did it and Reagan did it. When a candidate stands on a podium expounding upon policy nerd-like or has little to say beyond touting his “accomplishments” (John Kasich comes to mind), they’re proving they don’t get it. Create an emotional bond with the people, and they’re yours. And they will remain yours in the face of others’ intellectual appeals for their affections, for as Ben Franklin observed, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Note that while this relates the futility of trying to shake a person from passionately embraced error, people can also have an emotional attachment to correct beliefs, for the right or wrong reasons and with or without an intellectual understanding (e.g., Plato spoke of inculcating children, who are too young to grasp abstract moral principles, with an “erotic [emotional] attachment” to virtue).

And this is what Trump does so masterfully. When he repeats his slogan “Make America Great Again,” says we’re going to “win” under his administration or speaks of building a border wall and getting “Mexico to pay for it,” it’s silly to wonder why it resonates despite the lack of detail. He’s marketing, not doing R&D; he’s not trying to appeal mainly to the intellect, but the emotions. And you do this with the slogan, not by reciting the list of ingredients. Again, this isn’t a commentary on the validity of his recipe, only on the principles of effective campaigning.

Having said this, if a candidate is the real McCoy, he’ll also have a quality product with a list of ingredients (again, a policy-position webpage) for the discriminating shopper. But if he’s smart he’ll understand that most people are impulse buyers with relatively short memories and recognize the importance of branding himself. Coca-Cola has “Coke is it!” Nike “Just do it!” and Barack Obama had “Yes, we can!” (no, he couldn’t — but it worked). Now, can you think of a GOP candidate other than Trump identifiable by way of a catchy and popular slogan? And it’s no coincidence that “Make America Great Again” was also Reagan’s slogan in 1980.

Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trump’s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is “an act of love” and John Kasich with “Think about the [illegals’] families, c’mon, folks!” which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration — despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism — which certainly will appeal to Da’esh (ISIS).

It’s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.

The Strong Independent Woman Grocery Store

I've met a dozen of these women. At the least.

Oh, That's Right - David Bowie Kicked the Bucket!

David Bowie was big for a few months when I was 16 - he burst on our school scene with a moderately good album called "Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars." I bought it and have no memory of what happened to it.

None of us had seen anything like Bowie. He was clearly some androgynous pervosex weirdo (I still have my doubts about Mick Jagger). Like another moderate talent - Madonna - he spent his career reinventing himself.

After his album, he just disappeared for us, except for his hard-core fans.

Alice Cooper, on the other hand, was a different story. His album, "Love It to Death," also appeared when I was 16, and he was clearly about ten time more talented than Bowie (I now have the CD for "Love It to Death").

I smiled when I saw Wayne and Garth bowing before him, claiming, "We're not worthy!" (We played Alice Cooper at parties, but never David Bowie.)

I still think the music from the late 50's and 60's and early 70's is far superior to most of the music of today.

About 20 years ago I was walking by a van that was bouncing up and down. There were three teenage girls in the front seat listening to the Beach Boys. I smiled, since the Beach Boys were popular before the girls were born (by the way, Brian Wilson was a transcendent, although mentally ill, genius - listen to the essential "Pet Sounds" sometime).

I have CDs by Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole, so it's not like I'm trapped in the music of my teenage years. My mother had the Greatest Hits of Nat King Cole, which I never listened to until I was 21, and I thought, "Who is this guy? He's great!" (She had the .45 of "Rambling Rose," which was probably his worst song - and it didn't help she played it all the time, which to me became painful listening to it.)

I do know one guy who is still a big fan of Bowie - and he's a sex-pervert drug addict lunatic. I, on the other hand, still have Carole King's "Tapestry" CD - which was the best-selling album ever until replaced by Michael Jackson's "Thriller."

I don't understand at all why music has such a drug-like effect on people, especially teenagers (we enhanced it, of course, though marijuana). What culture does not have music and partying?

Saturday, January 23, 2016

"Chinese Reflections on Europe"

I keep telling people that no one makes wars like Europeans and those Muslims infecting that continent are either going to be lined up against a wall and shot or else jump in terror in the ocean and swim back to the shitholes they came from.

This is from American Renaissance and was written by David Zhang.

Why have Europeans lost their racial consciousness?

It has been five years since I moved to France from China for my studies. During that time, I have witnessed how this great European country has lost her traditional values and gradually become a shelter for Third-World immigrants. This article is about my personal experiences as a non-European foreigner.

I was born in 1986 and grew up in a middle-class family in China. I believed that I was living in a beautiful era, in which people did not have to suffer from disease, wars, or racism. I was happy to see how this old Asian country had finally opened her arms and welcomed people from all horizons. We were so eager to be part of the free, modern world that it had become almost “an honor” to speak English with foreign people. In Shijiazhuang, my hometown about 190 miles southwest of Beijing, there were many students from Cameroon and South Korea. I met some of them in the downtown bars and soon became friends with them. I quite enjoyed this exotic experience. I truly hoped that people from all over the world would come and live in China. However, I never wondered what it would be like if they decided to stay there and try to become Chinese.

Five years ago, I came to France on an engineering scholarship. I was attracted to Europe because of the beauty of European civilization. However, I am not European and can never be European.

French society tolerates only anti-white and, to a lesser degree, anti-Asian racism. I have learned that being an Asian foreigner can be a double negative. Many French people consider us annoying tourists or business competitors. I have generally been treated very well, but I once had a confrontation with a Frenchman.

I was waiting for a bus around midnight. Two young men–obviously drunk–were walking towards me along the deserted street. They stopped, and one asked in English where I came from and I answered, also in English, that I was Chinese. The other one got in my face and asked if I was tourist. I didn’t answer. He started slapping me, saying “you like this?” I lifted my arm to protect myself, and the other guy stopped him, saying this wasn’t funny. They went away just before the bus came.

I still don’t understand that encounter. I could have told them in fluent French that I was studying and living here, but I don’t talk to drunk strangers, and I don’t know if it would have made a difference. In any case, that was an exceptional experience, and I didn’t generalize this sad encounter to the entire French people. They were both drunk and bad-tempered. But if that could happen to me, I suppose it sometimes happens to blacks and Arabs.

This said, my guess is that Asians, especially tourists, are probably picked on more than anyone else, though not by the French. Arab and Gypsy thieves seem to concentrate on Asians, and blacks like to rob us. Each group has its own specialty. It is well known that Asian tourists like to pay cash, even for expensive products, and that since they don’t speak French, many of them don’t call the police.

Even Chinese who live in Paris are often victims. One, a hard-working and gifted engineer, decided to go back to China, telling me he was extremely disappointed that France allowed massive immigration from Africa. He is not the only one I know who left for that reason, and I know what they are talking about. Once in Geneva, in a dimly lit restroom at the bus station, an Arab-looking man came up to me and started talking about China and Chinese dancing. He tried to take me in his arms and dance a few steps, and I quickly pushed him away. It was only after I had gone out of the restroom that I realized that he and another man with him had picked my pocket!

Immigration means constant racial friction. One evening I went home by tram. When I got off at the station, a middle-aged Arab-looking man stopped me and began to insult me because he thought I had been laughing at him in the tram. I told him he had the wrong person. He then began to complain that people treat him badly every day. I was angry about his rudeness but I still felt sorry for him. Why didn’t he go back to his country, where nobody would mistreat him because of his appearance?

Again, though, it is hard to know what to make of this incident. He looked like a tramp, and people sometimes make fun of tramps. Native-born French tramps don’t get the red carpet treatment, either. The fact that he got angry at a fellow “foreigner” for laughing at him got me thinking. Maybe he thought that all immigrants should stand shoulder to shoulder against French “racism.” And, in fact, Africans and Arabs sometimes open up with me about what they think of Europeans.

One day, I met a schoolmate in a dining hall, and we decided to eat together. He was from Cameroon, and told me angrily about how his country had been exploited by white colonizers and how mean whites are to Africans. I told him all that was in the past and that now everyone wanted to live in peace, and that he was lucky to be able to come and study in France. He told me that this was the least the French people could do for Africans, and that he wanted to kill all white people. I was frightened by his anger–he seemed like such a peaceful person.

Africans and even some Arabs and Chinese have unloaded on me this way. I try to stay away from people like that.

I have talked about race and immigration with French roommates. I sensed that they were very worried about how blacks and Arabs have changed the face of France but they are afraid that if the National Front took power, France would be pulled towards Nazism. They tend to blame the government for segregating blacks and Arabs instead of treating them equally. It is certainly true that, whether or not it was conscious government policy, immigrants have clustered in low-cost housing in suburbs that have become bywords for violence and poverty.

When I talk to the French, every time I use the word “race” to try to explain that different groups have different natures, they get frightened and tell me that “race” does not exist. They insist that we are all part of the human race.

Of course, occasionally someone speaks frankly–and is punished for it. Last September, a UMP Euro-deputy and former cabinet member, Nadine Morano, said that “France is a Jewish-Christian country of the white race that welcomes foreigners.” This remark, which would have made absolute sense in every African and Asian country, resulted in her being ostracized within her own party, and she was forced off the list of candidates in the regional elections. In France, any discussion of race and religion must be banned because it evokes the Third Reich or the war in Algeria. The French government has even tried to eliminate the concept of race in all government records and activity–yet still tries very hard to fight racism.

I began to wonder why Arabs and black Africans were so hostile to Western people, yet so eager to come and live in Western countries. I first heard about race differences in intelligence in a critical account of Richard Lynn’s work in the Chinese media. I then found both Chinese and French translations of Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior. I also read The Bell Curve. It has not been translated into French, so I had to order it from Amazon and read it in English. I also read some books by the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, some of whose books have been translated into Chinese and are on the Internet. I therefore learned that many people believe there is a genetic component to lower black performance, but I still felt it might be because African people, on average, live in more miserable conditions.

At the end of my course of study, every student was supposed to participate in a complex academic project with a real-world application. I was assigned to lead a group with two other members, a student from China and a student from Cameroon. The Chinese did not speak French very well. At first, I was afraid he would be confused by the difficulty of the language and the complexity of the project and give up. What actually happened surprised me very much. The African student quickly grasped the main issues of the project. But every time he ran into a difficulty, he complained, and worked on something else instead. I tutored him and gave him papers in which similar solutions were clearly outlined, but he was unwilling to read them because they were too long. It took the Chinese student a long time to figure out the problems, but instead of complaining or taking shortcuts, he concentrated and worked hard until the problems were solved. It was the African student who gave up, and the Chinese student who succeeded.

This story sounds like a fable for children but it set me thinking about the problem of Africa. I have come to believe that the chaos and lack of economic progress in Africa are the result of their lack of motivation when faced with complex problems. I also think they tend to be satisfied with little and therefore do not work very hard to get ahead. The French welfare system also makes them apathetic. They survive on a small income rather than strive for a better life.

Racial preferences are now practiced in France–even though they should be an insult to anyone who works hard to get ahead. This, combined with a generous welfare system is what, in my view, explains why so many Africans come to France. The idea that they were colonized and suffered from discrimination is just an excuse. Muslims enslaved black Africans for thousands of years, but not very many blacks want to live in Algeria. African people also choose Europe because of its cultural influence. They see the Western lifestyle as the gateway to success.

The West has promoted “democracy” and “universal values” in Africa, but the result has been military dictatorship, corruption, and violence. Western values are clearly not suited to Africa. Western values, without the absolute authority of white rulers, appear to destroy African societies.

Different races should live under the different political structures that suit them. Asians have also come under the influence of Western culture and politics, but have not adopted them completely. In Asia, absolute political authority, strict social/family hierarchy, and hard work are what make a country run correctly. This is why Singapore and, now, China have been so successful. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are more similar to the Western political model but they, too, are distinctly Asian in their respect for authority, hierarchy, and family.

As for race, most Chinese people are taught from childhood to be proud of being Asian. The idea that the races are equal is unimaginable. It is almost impossible to find any discussion in China about the idea that Asians and blacks even could be equal. Most Chinese simply have no interest in Africans. In Mao’s time, “Afro-Asian-Latin American” was an alternative for “Third World.” Africans were supposed to be our faraway brothers in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism, but no one really cared about them.

In Africa, the Chinese government finances countless infrastructure, energy, and construction projects every year. Thousands of Chinese engineers and technical workers are sent to help develop Africa, and they send back natural resources in return. This has not improved our impression of Africans. The news from Africa is always about extreme poverty and social instability. Also, the Chinese who return from projects in Africa have many stories about incompetent black workers who nevertheless always want higher pay. That is why sometimes we take over Chinese workers to Africa rather than hiring workers locally.

Still, I truly hope that Africa’s economic takeoff will be achieved with China’s help, and Africans will finally stay on their own continent.

Why have Asians kept their sense of race while whites have not? Perhaps there is a genetic difference that protects Asians. The explanation may also lie in what is, for me, an important difference between whites and Asians, and that is the European scientific mind. Europeans showed their superiority to other races by their brilliant manipulation of abstractions–abstractions that have led to a better world through science and philosophy. Let me remind you that it was Europeans who invented the concept of race–but it is also Europeans who try to prove through science that race does not exist and that humanity is universal. Alas, errare humanum est. The white man, the master of abstraction, has gone on to invent an abstraction that may yet annihilate him: multiculturalism.

For Asians, there is no artificial separation between man and nature. In that sense, what is human does not end with human beings but includes everything with which we interact: animals, the earth, water, air, and the sun. One finds these ideas in Asian religions. However, this does not mean that Asians do not distinguish between a Turk and a Japanese. Cultural differences are manifestations of racial differences. At the same time, Chinese do not care very much about what happens outside their own circle–whether cultural or biological–and that leaves them with the strong sense of cultural and family identity common to Asians. We are not so easily misled by abstractions.

Despite the general acceptance among race scholars in the West that East Asians are more intelligent than whites, very few Chinese consider themselves superior to Europeans. The huge success of Europeans in modern times and the darker coloring of Asians easily lead Chinese people to think that they are situated between Europeans and Africans in terms of intelligence and social capacities.

At the same time, China wants to have more influence on the modern world. The sense of having lived in the “Celestial Kingdom” for thousands of years has pushed China into a kind of intellectual competition with Europeans. This desire to catch up with the West has contributed to the economic boom of the last 30 years. Without the heavy burden of liberal ideology and a history of colonization, China could play a leading role in the developing world and become the new hegemon while maintaining a majority-Asian population.

Whatever role China plays in the world, I am deeply pessimistic about the future. Conditions are evolving and will continue to evolve but it is not easy for me to imagine a realistic solution.

Without the constant socialist and human-rights propaganda directed at whites and their children, whites would not face today’s cruel reality. The ideology of multiculturalism and the hatred of European culture are two sides of the same coin and come from the same sources. And they are found everywhere.

In France, the Left and the far Left are behind the daily blasts of hatred directed against the state of Israel. Israel is the favorite target of those who hate colonialism, racism, European culture, and, ultimately, whites. It always boils down to the same arguments. To attack Israel is to attack a Western country that has an identity it chooses to defend. In attacking Israel, the French lose the capacity to defend their identity as Europeans and Frenchmen–while the bosses get cheap labor and the Left gets more voters and clients. All this, despite the fact that just one of the many riots and disturbances on both sides of the Atlantic should have been enough to prove that the concept of multiculturalism, invented in Leftist laboratories, is a fraud.

In this context, I note Eastern European countries, even those in the Schengen free-travel zone, have very few non-whites. Ironically, it may be that for whites, poverty is the only guarantor of separation and homogeneity.

In the richer West, whites do not understand the seriousness of the threat, but as Mao Tse-Tung used to say, “a single spark can start a prairie fire.” With information today so easily available on the Internet it is possible for today’s young whites to learn the truths the media always try to hide.

In France, the Paris attacks of last November prove once again the failure of multiculturalism. These attacks, together with the onslaught of Syrian refugees, will no doubt push the French towards greater resistance against Islam. This will encourage more Muslim immigrants to engage with the Islamic State. A race war in Europe is not out of the question. For those who wonder whether today’s feminized Europeans still have the backbone to fight for their civilization, I note that the rooster is the symbol of France, and the French often say that “he crows even with both feet in shit.” One must never underestimate the potential of an awakened people.

Complaining About the MSM Does Work

I used to know a left-wing buffoon whom I will call John. John worshiped Howard Stern and wanted to be a radio personality just like him.

John was confident and ambitious and had absolutely no talent, of which he was clueless. Occasionally he'd con someone into giving him a radio show, and each time the complaints were so horrendous he was kicked off the air. I once read a article about him in a small local newspaper and a columnist - himself pretty bad - just savaged John.

John was about 11 years old emotionally. Once he interviewed Elizabeth Dole - wife of Bob Dole - and asked her if her husband was a "Master debator."

Finally he gave up, after years, of trying to get on the air, because no station would ever put him on because of his history.

One popular internet newspaper used a run the articles of twisted, demented little nerd named Benjamin Shapiro. I wrote them and said, "So now you're running the articles of a chickenhawk chickenshit little coward like Benjamin Shapiro? I'm going to write every one of your advertisers about him."

He's no longer there.

Complaining does work, especially when you target the advertisers.

I'm a bit mystified about the MSM. Why has not the senile old fart George Will not been terminated? He's clueless. He once wrote an article about how Trump should just "go away."

No one pays any attention to him, so why is he still there?

Advertisers do bow to pressure. They don't want to lose their customers. It really is hard to retain them. Advertising isn't so much about getting new customers but retaining old ones. After all, if McDonald's quit advertising people would think something was wrong with them.

The MSM media lost all credibility for me a long time ago. They tried to destroy the career of of the late Sam Francis. William Buckley, whose "National Review" used to make sense decades ago, pretty much banned Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn from his magazine, even though KL was one of his earliest writers. And do any of them understand that a lot of Trump's popularity is because he is a American nationalist and not a traitor, as both parties are?

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They can both go to hell and both need to be destroyed completely, since they're busy trying to destroy America.

I no longer read political magazines. "National Review" and "Commentary" and all the rest of them can go out of business for all I care.

Hooray for the Internet! The MSM media never saw it coming. They still don't have much of a clue.

Friday, January 22, 2016

"No, It Ain’t Gonna Be Like That"

The reason stereotypes exist is because there is truth in them. "Whites create, Asians copy, and blacks sing and dance." Old saying.

This was written by Satoshi Kanazawa and is an excerpt from his book. It's from

I have noticed whites are much more superior in abstract thought than other races. Certain individuals can engage in abstract thought, but not enough to create much of anything.

Abstract: For cultural, social, and institutional reasons, Asians cannot make original contributions to basic science. I therefore doubt Miller’s prediction for the Asian future of evolutionary psychology. I believe that its future will continue to be in the United States and Europe.

1. Asians can’t think

And they certainly cannot think outside the box. Miller is correct to point out that East Asians have slightly higher mean IQs than Europeans (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002). However, East Asians have not been able to make creative use of their intelligence. While they are very good at absorbing existing knowledge via rote memory (hence their high standardized test scores in math and science) or adapt or modify existing technology (hence their engineering achievements), they have not been able to make original contributions to basic science.

Table 1 presents revealing statistics from the entire history of Nobel prizes (1901-2005). The first set of five nations in Table 1 have produced the largest number of Nobel Prizewinners (USA – 155; Germany – 91; UK – 67; France – 38; Switzerland – 24). They are all Euro-American nations. The second set of nations are the nine Asian nations which have ever produced any Nobel laureate (Japan – 12; India – 7; China – 5; Taiwan – 2; South Korea – 1; Bangladesh – 1; Pakistan – 1; Myanmar – 1; Vietnam – 1). The last two nations have produced only Nobel peace laureates. These numbers are listed in Column (1).

Table 1: Nobel Prizewinners by Nationality, 1901-2005 (summary)

Relative representation of Nobel Laureates (Share of Nobel laureates / Share of population) Column 5 USA 4.3225 Germany 9.1641 UK 9.3804 France 5.2128 Switzerland 28.0909 Japan .7789 India .0526 China .0377 Taiwan .7429 South Korea .1757 Bangladesh .0591 Pakistan .0531 Myanmar .1667 Vietnam .0992

Column (2) shows the relative representation of Nobel prizewinners from each nation out of the total 776 laureates. Column (3) shows each nation’s population as of mid-2005, and Column (4) shows the relative representation of each nation’s population in the world out of the 6.451 billion. So, for example, the United States has produced 20% of Nobel Prizewinners while its share of the world population is less than 5%. Column (5) shows the relative representation of Nobel prizewinners standardized for population. Any number greater than 1.000 signifies overrepresentation; any number less than 1.000 signifies underrepresentation.

The contrast between the five Euro-American nations and the nine Asian nations cannot be starker. The first four Euro-American nations are overrepresented among the Nobel laureates by a factor of 5 to 10; Switzerland is overrepresented by a factor of 28! In sharp contrast, all Asian nations are underrepresented among the Nobel laureates. Japan, for example, has been a major geopolitical and economic power for most of the 20th century (Small and Singer, 1982). Yet it has produced only 12 Nobel laureates, the same number as Austria, which has one-sixteenth of Japan’s population.

This problem has long been known to East Asian specialists as the “creativity problem” (Eberts and Eberts, 1995, pp. 123-127; Taylor, 1983, pp. 92-123; van Wolferen, 1989, pp. 89-90). Some argue that the ideographic Asian languages curb abstract thinking and creativity among Asians (Hannas, 2003). Others point out that Asian cultures, religions, and educational systems devalue and discourage logical thinking (Eberts and Eberts, 1995, pp. 120-123; van Wolferen, 1989, pp. 236-244). Whatever the reason, it is evident from Table 1 that some combinations of cultural, social, and institutional factors combine to stifle basic science in Asia.

The message of Table 1 is clear: Science is not democracy; it is inherently elitist. A nation does not dominate science by having a large number of people but by having good ideas. And there appears to be a dearth of good, original, scientific ideas in Asia in the last century. If Leda Cosmides were born Japanese, she with her high intelligence would have made an excellent product engineer for Sony and contributed to making the robot dog Aibo look and behave even more like a real dog. But it would have never occurred to her that the human brain might be composed of distinct modules, let alone to modify an obscure logic test to uncover the existence of one such module. That requires massive creativity, which Asians lack.

3. The political reality of China

As the most populous nation on earth, People’s Republic of China (PRC) figures prominently into Miller’s vision of the Asian future of evolutionary psychology. While Miller emphasizes recent economic achievements of PRC, however, he conveniently neglects the political reality of communist China. Miller is correct to point out that, due to its higher average intelligence and the largest population, there are millions of bright young students in PRC, but for political reasons we are not likely ever to meet them.

The communist government of PRC has a policy of not letting their brightest students leave the country for fear of the brain drain and of forcing them to study home at Chinese universities. Then it sends the second-rate students to American universities and the third-rate students to British universities, both with falsified transcripts and exam results to make them look first-rate. Here at LSE where I teach, we receive a large number of these third-rate Chinese students dressed up as first-rate. (About 5-10% of all undergraduate and graduate students at LSE are from PRC.) Virtually every Chinese applicant to LSE boasts “the highest exam scores in their province.” Apparently it has not occurred to the LSE admissions office that there could not possibly be that many provinces in China. Naturally, most of these PRC students do very poorly and fail out of the program, and, when they do, many confess to having purchased or otherwise fabricated their exam scores and transcripts before they applied for LSE.

Yes, there are millions of bright Chinese students in PRC, but we are not likely to meet them anytime soon until or unless the political reality of PRC changes or otherwise the communist government ceases its policy of sending second- and third-rate students to the US and UK.

4. The conformist culture of Asia

Part of the reason why Asians cannot think for themselves and make original and creative contributions to science is because they are too conformist. One of the factors that Miller identifies as a possible obstacle to the Asian future of evolutionary psychology (“academic conservatism”) is actually fatal. Scientific revolutions happen by challenging the established paradigms. No conformists have ever brought about a scientific revolution.

Once again, at LSE, we have an enormous problem of plagiarism among our Asian students. Despite the fact that each student, Asian or otherwise, must sign a declaration that their work is original and they have not plagiarized, many Asian students simply copy the work of established scholars. To them it is a venerable act of honoring their masters to “borrow” from them, by copying their words verbatim. No matter how much we tell them that it is wrong, Asian students simply cannot understand why it is wrong to honor their intellectual masters by faithfully reproducing their work. Needless to say, this is no recipe for scientific progress.

The future of evolutionary psychology (abridged)

Our enemies are not fundamentalist Christians; they are instead our university colleagues in Women’s and Cultural Studies Departments. Our true obstacle is not the Christian fundamentalism in the wheat fields of Kansas; it is the political correctness in the ivy-covered buildings on our own campuses. The feminists and social constructionists, all of whom have Ph.D.s and no problems with the theory of evolution by natural selection (as long as it is not applied to the human brain), are in a position to do far greater damage to our science than the Christian fundamentalists. Really, what can Christian fundamentalists do to us? Refuse to pump our gas? Spit in our Big Mac? In contrast, our politically correct feminist and social constructionist colleagues control our recruitment, tenure, and promotion processes, and influence our research funding. If anything can interfere with the future of evolutionary psychology in the United States and Europe, it is the cultural insanity of political correctness. That is the true enemy that we must fight.

"Prof DEBUNKS study claiming right-wing extremists in U.S. more deadly than Islamic terrorists"

Exactly how do they define "right-wing? And if you were to factor in the perhaps 200 million killed by leftists in the 20th century...

This was written by Michael McGrady and in from the College Fix.

The article starts here.

A widely touted study claiming right-wing extremism is more deadly than Islamic terrorism in the United States has been debunked by a history professor who shows that, in actuality, there have been 62 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S. for every one American killed by right-wing extremists.

Professor Andrew Holt of Florida State College at Jacksonville recently published his analysis that discredits the widespread sentiment that right-wing attackers are the deadliest domestic terrorists in the U.S.

“If you include the death totals from 9/11 in such a calculation, then there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist,” Holt stated in his analysis.

Holt’s analysis points out numerous flaws in the highly cited study released in 2015 by New America Foundation, which claimed 48 deaths in the U.S. were due to “far right wing attacks” while only counting 45 deaths due to “violent jihadist attacks.”

The study’s findings were not only touted by many major news outlets across the nation as proof that fears over radical Islamic terror in the U.S. are overblown, but the findings are also used today in some college classrooms as an example of Islamophobia.

But, Holt points out the foundation’s findings are based on flawed data sets.

For one, the foundation did not count the deaths on Sept. 11. Secondly, it did not factor in extraordinary security measures, such as the Patriot Act and the Holtcreation of Homeland Security, put in place after 9/11 that prevented a large number of attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists on American soil.

Moreover, the foundation’s count does not recognize “the disproportionately high number of attacks by Islamic extremists in the United States, who, even after excluding the victims of 9/11, are still responsible for around 50 percent of the total number of deaths due to extremism, even though Muslims only account for around 1 percent of the total U.S. population,” Holt states.

Underscoring all that, Holt said the foundation’s count ignored more than a half-dozen examples of radical Islamic terrorism deaths in the U.S.

One of the most glaring omissions, he noted, is the 2002 D.C. Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who admitted to authorities that they were inspired by Osama bin Laden and sought to set up a terrorist training camp.

“Indeed, on April 22, 2005, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed [the] death penalty on the basis that Muhammad had committed an act of terrorism,” Holt stated. “Together, Muhammad and Malvo killed at least ten people. Yet [the foundation] does not list their victims among those under the category of ‘violent jihadist attacks.'”

“If we add Muhammad and Malvo’s victims to the total number of Americans killed by Islamic extremists since 9/11, then the number killed rises to 55, a total higher than the 48 deaths they attribute to right wing extremism.”

Holt added additional deaths due to Islamic terror in the U.S. are not counted by the foundation, including:

In June of 2006 in Denver, a man shot four of his co-workers and a swat team member, killing one. He later claimed he did it because it was “Allah’s choice.” In December of 2009 in Binghamton, a Saudi Arabian graduate student named Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani killed Richard T. Antoun, a non-Muslim Islamic studies professor who served on al-Zahrani’s dissertation committee, in revenge for “persecuted” Muslims. Prior to the killing one of al-Zahrani’s roommates tried to warn the university administration that he had been acting “like a terrorist.” In 2012 in Houston, in two separate incidents in January and in November, two people were shot to death by a Muslim extremist for their roles in his daughter’s conversion to Christianity. In March of 2013 in Ashtabula (Ohio), a Muslim convert walked into a Christian Church during an Easter service and killed his father, claiming it was “the will of Allah.” In August of 2014 in Richmond (California) killed an Ace Hardware employee by stabbing him seventeen times, claiming he was on a “mission from Allah.”

In an email interview with The College Fix, Holt emphasized that any extremist attack is disturbing and must be condemned, adding “my comments are not intended to discount the very real suffering of victims of right wing terror.”

Nevertheless, Americans have been misled by the foundation’s study and deserve an accurate picture, Holt said.

“The study has been widely reported in the mainstream press, and those reports have been widely shared on social media, often cited as evidence for the surprising claim above,” Holt told The College Fix. “… But the reality is that if you include the deaths from 9/11, then the raw and ugly numbers show that over the last 15 years more Americans have died as a result of Islamic extremism than right wing extremism by an extraordinarily lopsided ratio of more than 62 to 1.”

“Moreover, even if you exclude the deaths of 9/11 for some reason, but do not apply the very limiting parameters used in the New American study, then you still get a higher number of total U.S. deaths from Islamic extremism than from right wing extremism.”

Asked whether he is concerned his colleagues or other experts may refute his analysis by calling it racist or discriminatory, Holt replied that while he sometimes worries about how his comments can be interpreted, he is not the only academic concerned with the claim right-wing extremism is more dangerous than radical Islam in the U.S.

“I have a number of academic colleagues with similar concerns when commenting on sensitive topics like the relationship of Islam to modern terrorism,” Holt told The Fix. “…Obviously, not all terrorists are Muslims, and I have known many Muslims whose views of Islam are compatible with western values. Moreover, the evidence shows that a majority of Muslims reject the methods of groups like the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.”

“Yet to acknowledge that the Muslim world is particularly struggling with the issue of terrorism, on a much greater scale than adherents of any other religion, is not racist or discriminatory if it is based on the available evidence.”

Holt has expansive research in the areas of medieval history, the crusades, and the Middle East in present day, and has also tracked the rise of ISIS for the last 18-plus months. Holt has also co-edited two books on the crusades, including one that focuses on modern myths of the crusading movement, and he recently completed a three-volume encyclopedia focused on pivotal events in religious history that is slated to be published in late 2016.

Looks Like a Job For Feminism

I first met a feminist my first semester in college. I was 18. She was overweight, unattractive - and hostile.

At least her dog loves her. And look at what she did to that doll!

A picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it?