Monday, December 1, 2014

Cathedral of Social Justice vs. DNA Discoverer

Social Justice Warriors have reduced one of the most important scientists of the 20th century to this.

The co-discoverer of the double helix structure of our genetic code, a man who lived and worked in a bygone era before political correctness, has been permanently excommunicated from organized science by the high priests of social tolerance. 

How can defenders of science as an objective pursuit of truth that can and must sometimes confront prevailing social sensibilities remain silent?  Silent while a great man is made to spend his final years apologizing to people who have contributed nothing to science and auctioning off his crowning achievement.  

What’s at stake is the freedom to do scientific research into non-superficial implications of the regionally divergent evolutionary paths that shaped our polytypic species.

Last year, commentator John Horgan called for scientific investigations into racial variations in IQ to be banned.  He literally called for a government-imposed national prohibition on research into the subject!  His screed didn’t appear in some obscure political zine.  It appeared on the web site of Scientific American.  The venerable publication now entertains the idea of banning science in areas where it threatens to uncover socially inconvenient truths.

I don’t think any representative of the Catholic church today would be so dogmatic and imperious as to call for banning all research into abiogenesis.  The Catholic church is a bastion of free and open inquiry compared to the Cathedral of Social Justice.   The God of the Bible is far more forgiving of the worst sinners than a SJW is of someone who suggests that there might be biological differences among sexes and races that extend to the brain. 

No, according to SJWs, any gender differences in career paths and attainments are caused by patriarchy and other oppressive social forces.  The SJW Cathedral takes as an article of faith that all non-superficial race and gender differences are socially constructed. 

If you suggest that the explanation for why there are fewer women than men in computer programming might be 50% patriarchy and 50% biology, then you’re an evil sexist.  75% patriarchy and only 25% biology?  Still sexist.

If you suggest there’s a genetic contribution of greater than 0% in explaining why there are fewer blacks than Asians in computer programming, then you’re an evil racist.  Why are there virtually no Asians playing competitive football as running backs and so many blacks?  You’d better check your privilege and not even ask.

SJWs deny biology and invoke some social force they imagine to be as powerful and universal as biology – patriarchy or male privilege in the case of gender and white privilege in the case of race.  But even if white privilege exists, it’s pretty powerless.  White privilege hasn’t stopped Asian Americans from having the higher IQs, higher incomes, and longer life expectancies than European Americans.  Maybe it’s Asian privilege that’s holding down blacks.

But you can’t milk Asian guilt for much of any financial or ideological gain.  For a professional full-time SJW such as Abby Ferber, espousing a belief in the overriding power of white privilege is far more remunerative. 

She is literally a professional full-time SJW.  She helps run an annual White Privilege Conference -- funded of course by universities, government agencies, and corporations.  When people like Abby Ferber talk about race, they get to cash in.  When people like James Watson talk about race, they get their careers and reputations ruined.

Watson says, "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

But SJWs conceive of humans not as biological beings but as socially constructed beings.  Social constructivism is the new creationism.  Their brand evolution denial is the denial of genetically constructed patterns of regional biodiversity in humans.

It would be a miracle if evolution left the cognitive apparatus in a static state of perpetual sameness across all regions of the earth for tens of thousands of years. As it turns out, no single genetic clustering of humans has the top distribution for all traits.  There is no master race.  But there are observable patterns of racial variation in everything from fast-twitch muscle fibers, lactose tolerance, vitamin D synthesis, testosterone production, osteoporosis susceptibility, skin cancer risk, hip width, penis size, brain size, brain shape, and brain function.

The neo-Puritan egalitarians don’t have science on their side.  All they have is the ability to try to bully people into conformity and prevent scientific refutations of their closed belief system from seeing the light of day. 

Monday, October 27, 2014

Are Secular Humanists More Religious than Evangelical Christians?

Evangelical Christians who invoke Thomas Jefferson as though his Enlightenment worldview supports Old Testament dogma are analogous to secular humanists who invoke Charles Darwin as though his theory of evolution supports racial egalitarian dogma.  Egalitarians expressly deny that evolution has had anything to do with shaping consistently observed patterns of racial variations in IQ.  Their objection to evolutionary explanations for race differences is as rigidly laid down as the fundamentalist Christian’s objection to evolutionary explanations for man’s origin.
Evolution doesn’t do equal.  And Charles Darwin was no egalitarian. 

Atheists who deny the role of evolution in shaping race differences or deny the role of biology in shaping sex differences are operating in the mode of religion.  The fact that their religion lacks a god does not make it rational. 

It is possible to believe in a god without denying the realities of human nature.  It is not possible to believe that all race and sex differences are 100% socially constructed and 0% genetically constructed without denying the realities of human nature. 

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. So it is with the lower animals." 
                                                    -Charles Darwin

The god of Thomas Jefferson derived from Jefferson’s studies of nature and human nature, not from scripture.  Egalitarians derive their views on race from scripture. 

They adhere to a fixed, faith-based belief in idealized equality – zero variability in cognitive endowment between any of the races.  They dogmatize their belief and render it impervious to any evidence to the contrary.  Whenever their closed belief system is threatened by evidence for racial variations, they respond in the manner of religious fanatics.  They denounce the evidence as “racist” (blasphemous), condemn those who present it, and call for banning any future research in areas of race that undermine their faith.   

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Haunting Images of Chernobyl and Pripyat

Photo Gallery


Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Chernobyl disaster memorial.

Town of Pripyat, established in 1970.

Plenty of vacancies at this hotel.

abandoned building pripyat

Ferris wheel.

Mandatory pass through radiation control at Chernobyl Exclusion Zone checkpoint.


Abandoned apartment building.

View from the top of abandoned apartment building.
Chernobyl-2, USSR's massive Cold War-era radar system.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Poll: Which Social Justice Issue is Most Important to You?

Your feedback matters. It will help me keep my videos focused on the most pressing concerns of my concerned viewers.

Which of the following Social Justice issues is most important to you? free polls

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Keeping Japan Japanese

The city that currently has the dubious distinction of being the murder capital of America is Detroit.  In 2013, the city recorded a murder rate of 47.5 per 100,000.  That’s 36 times the rate of Osaka.  But by Detroit standards it was low.  In recent years the homicide rate there has been closer to 60.

Why are your cities so much more peaceful than ours?  Is it because of America’s cowboy culture?  Our affinity for guns? 
Well, the areas where gun laws are loosest and gun ownership rates the highest tend to have the lowest crime rates.  The true explanation for the violence that plagues America’s cities is revealed when we look at the demographic breakdowns for crime commission within each city.  Again and again, we see the same pattern emerging.  The issue of violent crime in America is an issue of race. 

The best predictor of an area’s violent crime rate is not gun ownership or poverty.  The best predictor of the violent crime rate of any given neighborhood or city is the proportion of its population that is black.  Blacks commit 50% of all homicides in the United States despite being only 13% of the population.  In New York City, blacks make up 25% of the population but commit 80% of all shootings.  If we could solve the problem of black crime, we could have cities as safe as yours in Japan.

But no one knows how to solve the problem.  What we do know is that disproportionately high rates of crime among blacks are a global problem.  From the United States, to Brazil, and now to Europe, people of Sub-Saharan African descent consistently bring an elevated proclivity for violence wherever they go.  Blacks in London just a couple generations ago existed in such small numbers that they were barely visible.  Then, a trickle of immigrants turned into a flood.  Today people of African origin comprise 10% of London’s population but account for a more than half of its violent crime.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Left-Libertarians Forsake Non-Aggression for Thought Prescription

"There’s always a letting the emotional reaction carry the day and calling for someone’s head. I can imagine someone wanting that literally to be taken from Sterling. I can’t blame them."

-Michael Nolan, "The Good Thing About the Donald Sterling Incident" (Foundation for Economic Education)

The Foundation for Economic Education should fine Michael Nolan $50 million for his despicable comment.  He condoned calls for murdering a person whose private expressions of personal opinions caused hurt feelings.  Nolan said he "can't blame" people whose raging emotions cause them to want to react violently.  But libertarians can and do blame such impulsive aggressors as threats to freedom.

Michael Nolan should be banned for life from contributing to FEE and boycotted by all libertarians who adhere to the principle of non-aggression. His abhorrent sentiments in favor of violent vengeance against a peaceful person must be utterly eliminated from the innermost hearts of everyone.

A culture that rewards invasions of privacy and the public airing of private dirt for condemnation and punishment (as exhibited in the Donald Sterling fiasco) is not a culture of liberty.  The people behind these obsessively overblown witch hunts over political correctness transgressions don't believe in freedom of speech, association, or disassociation

Arguing that the free market would be a more efficient vehicle for the cultural Marxists to determine what we can say, where we can work, and what we can own won't convince them to cease trying to control us through the government.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Libertarian Tweetist

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Martin Luther King Day Conformity

Martin Luther King is ritualistically held up by the schools, media, and political establishment as the icon of the New America they've worked to create and are still working to create.  To be a non-conformist today is to question MLK propaganda and challenge the egalitarian agenda that it represents.

If you are an advocate of a smaller, less powerful federal government and full freedom of association, which entails the right to discriminate on any grounds, then it is obvious that MLK was not an advocate of freedom -- not in the negative sense of freedom to which libertarians are supposed to adhere.  But if you feign belief in the socially reinforced view that MLK's political program was one of liberation, that's social conformity.

Now if you happen to believe in King's socialist political agenda on principle, that's different.  If you would be championing King and his ideas even if they were widely regarded as socially deviant, then you aren't necessarily conforming by celebrating MLK day.  MLK represents your actual political convictions.  

Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

On the other hand, if you are a libertarian or a conservative who believes in free markets and rejects forced association and rejects government programs aimed at engineering equal outcomes, then you are betraying your own values by celebrating MLK.
As the Cato Institute does.

Friday, January 17, 2014

Real Freedom

Over the past few months, I've had a few brief exchanges with left-libertarian writer Sheldon Richman and his colleague Jacob Hornberger.  Richman opposes a libertarian immigration policy that selects for a libertarian-compatible population.  He believes that libertarians' rational self-interest in wanting to deny statist politicians more Third World-derived voters cannot “justify violating the freedoms of foreigners,” as he put it in his most recent email to me.

My response apparently left him speechless, as I have not heard back from him in the several days since.  


I'd like to make sure I understand what you mean by "freedom" when you claim that foreigners' freedoms are violated whenever they are denied residency by any country.   What you assert seems to entail a trump card for anyone in the world to thwart full, sovereign ownership of any land area.  Your  conception of freedom implies that all land is ultimately communally owned by all people in the world (with limited rights of private land ownership permitted only under the jurisdictions of states that maintain open borders).

If I misunderstand you, then please clarify by answering the following questions: 

Under your conception of freedom, would it be morally acceptable for the peaceful owner(s) of a private island to break away from the state that claims jurisdiction over it and exercise full sovereignty over their island?  

Obviously, owning a private island would be meaningless if ownership didn't entail the right to exclude people from coming onto it.  By becoming sovereign, must the fundamental rights of property ownership be surrendered to a global community whose members possess a positive right to migrate anywhere?

Under a propertarian framework of liberty, a private island isn't violating the freedom of uninvited people by refusing them entry.  You seem to want to appeal to propertarian freedom by calling yourself a free-market libertarian...while siding substantively with communitarian conceptions of freedom and championing a positive right of all people to violate any sovereign property boundaries.  Which is it?

Libertarians who argue against immigration selectivity on the basis that barriers to the movements of foreigners violate the freedom of foreigners implicitly cling to a definition of "freedom" that renders private property, secession, and non-state sovereignty illegitimate.  These anti-propertian libertarians don't want to admit that they find the full exercise of private property rights and the assertion of sovereignty to be morally abhorrent.  That's why they won't answer the questions that reveal the contradictions in what they espouse.

I note, in conclusion, that my private island example isn't merely hypothetical.  Some libertarians are working to create private communities.  And the private town of Orania, while not established on libertarian ideology per se, is nevertheless a bastion of freedom and prosperity within the violent and socialistic nation of South Africa.  Libertarians who claim that Orania violates rights because it restricts who can live there encourage and embolden the thuggish, statist enemies of Oranians' propertarian freedom.

Monday, January 6, 2014

An Open Letter to a Person of Privilege

Dear Abby,

As a professional pontificator against Privilege that is white, male, and heterosexual, you certainly have a nose for Privilege – of certain kinds.  There is another kind of Privilege as yet unnamed that I think you are especially qualified to help make more visible.  I’ll get to that in a moment.

But first, I’d like to compliment you on your courage.  You’ve put together an annual White Privilege Conference where you take on the power and privilege of the most powerful and privileged people in the country.  I can only imagine the institutional resistance you face from white-controlled government agencies, universities, and corporations – at least the ones that aren’t funding your conference and paying the travel costs of attendees.  I can only imagine the threats and intimidation you must persevere through year after year when white rowdies invoke their Privilege to harass speakers, attendees, and the facility provider in a campaign to shut down your conference.  People who believe that their hurt feelings over racially provocative discussions entitle them to shut down such discussions reek of Privilege.

But hat’s off to you for making a career out of shaming people of whiteness for their oppressive skin shade.  You could have taken the easy path to success by pursuing an academic career in one of the thousands of European-American studies departments – you know, those pseudo-intellectual ethnic advocacy platforms that colleges allow Privileged whites to set up so that they can propagandize for special Privileges, such as ending race-based admissions. 

You could have taken the easy path by establishing a Moochers of Color Conference or a Black Criminality Conference.  Then, you wouldn’t have risked getting pegged with the label of “anti-white.”  In an environment of White Privilege, being called “anti-white” is about the worst thing that can happen to one’s reputation and career prospects. 

Whites need never worry about the consequences of being branded “Racist.”  Diversity industry careerists who hurl accusations of Racism from White Privilege Conferences, sprawling Affirmative Action bureaucracies, and the offices of the U.S. Justice Department are marginalized and have no power.  

You know which side of a political debate is institutionally Privileged when you know which side can get the other fired, fined, or jailed over a disagreement.  When it comes to the definition of “hate speech,” one side gets to draw its own list of “protected groups” and gets to take down YouTube videos and other communications it finds offensive.  We all know which side that is. 

Whites constantly use their power and privilege to advocate specifically for white interests.  Whether it’s the Congressional White Caucus, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Council for La Blanca, or White History Month being relentlessly promoted by old-white-male media moguls such as Chris Matthews, only whites enjoy the Privilege of engaging in organized ethnocentric agitation.

Anyhow, the reason why I’m writing you is because your White Privilege Conference inspired me to launch the logical – and morally necessary – offshoot to the White Privilege Conference.  The particulars of your Privileged background make you eminently qualified to be the keynote speaker.  So I hope you’ll join me at that upcoming Social Justice activism extravaganza that will henceforth be known as the Jewish Privilege Conference.  

Since Jews on a per capita basis hold more wealth, control more media outlets, lead more corporations, and occupy more spots in legislative, judicial, and central banking bodies than whites, Jews must be more Privileged than whites.  Face it, you wouldn’t be where you are today without your Privilege. It’s time own it and speak out against it – or you, too, will be perpetuating Social Injustice.

If you deny Jewish Privilege, then you open the door for Racists to offer genetic explanations for why Jews excel. Of course, Social Justice requires that all populations be innately the same as Ashkenazi Jews.  There can be no genetic differences between ethnic groups.  The fact that some populations have differently shaped and sized skulls than others is just nature’s way of testing our a priori faith in innate equality.

If you deny Jewish Privilege, then you are consciously or unconsciously justifying cultural imperialism. We all know that no religions or cultures are better than any others; that all cultures have equal value and make equal contributions to humanity. 

All cultures are equal, but some are more Privileged than others.  Jews are only 0.2% of the world population and therefore should be only 0.2% of Nobel laureates.  Instead, Jews are 22% of all Nobel Prize winners. In Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics, Muslims hold just two Nobel Prizes.  Jews hold 158.  

It’s not merit. It’s not luck. It’s Privilege.  The Nobel Committee Privileges Jewish science and Jewish logic and marginalizes People of Muhammed.

At elite Ivy League universities, people of Privilege can comprise more than 20% of student bodies despite being only 2% of the U.S. population.  

It’s not merit. It’s not luck. It’s Privilege. The single biggest impediment to achieving full Diversity with 100% equal representation at universities and other American social, cultural, and political institutions is Jewish Privilege.  Gentiles and people of color face institutional barriers throughout society’s upper echelons because of Jewish Privilege. 

Stronger Diversity goals must be instituted at Harvard, at your University, at the Federal Reserve, and everywhere else where Jewish overrepresentation exists. For example, at Harvard, our Diversity goal must be to replace 90% of the extant Jewish student body with representative numbers of gentile whites and students of color.  This is the kind of Affirmative Action that’s needed – by any means necessary.

But first we need to raise awareness about the problem.  That’s why we need a Jewish Privilege Conference.  I’m counting on you to help make Jewish Privilege more visible by throwing your weight around and wearing your Privilege.

Some of your fellow White Privilege indoctrination specialists have demanded that white people wear White Privilege wrist bands in order to make their Privilege more visible. I couldn’t think of a more important cause for a wrist band to symbolize.  

At the Jewish Privilege Conference, I’m sure you’ll find gentiles who are willing to hold you accountable for your Privilege. In the meantime, I think what you can do to help raise awareness about Jewish Privilege is to wear a yellow Star of David.

It’s not about scapegoating the Privileged Ones or trying to make them feel guilty. Not at all!  It’s just about making the arbitrary social construct of Jewishness, and the Privilege that flows from it, more visible.

Set the example – make your oppressive social Privilege visible so that your unearned social standing as a public intellectual can be deconstructed.  It’s for Social Justice.