The Tradesman's Posts (122)

Sort by

Is it Muslim or Moslem?

Source; Robert M. and Karen S.

Is it Muslim or Moslem?

When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,"Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam." No more. Now, almost everybody uses Muslim.

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

For others, this spelling differentiation is merely a linguistic matter, with the two spellings a result of variation in transliteration methods. Both Moslem and Muslim are used as nouns. But some writers use Moslem when the word is employed as an adjective.

Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups. But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World--published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut--is still The Moslem World.

On 11/22/2023 7:29 AM, Karin Stern wrote:

Who really died at Auschwitz?

What really died at Auschwitz? Here's an interesting viewpoint. The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe, and possibly to the rest of the world.


I walked down the streets in Barcelona and suddenly discovered a terrible truth: Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a group of people who represented culture, thought, creativity, talent.

We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who made great contributions to the world, and thus changed the world.

The contribution of today’s Jewish people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. Look at any donors’ board at any symphony, art museum, theatre, art gallery, science center, etc. You will see many, many, Jewish surnames.

These are the people who were burned. Of the 6,000,000 who died, how many would have grown up to be gifted musicians, doctors, artists, philanthropists?

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the diseases of racism and bigotry, Europe opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs. What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it “offends” the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it.

It is now approximately seventy years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This email is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, twenty million Russians, ten million Christians, and nineteen-hundred Catholic priests who were murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated. Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming The Holocaust to be “a myth,” it is imperative to make sure the world "never forgets."


This email is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center “NEVER HAPPENED” because it offends some Muslim in the United States? If our Judeo-Christian heritage is offensive to Muslims, they should pack up and move to Iran, Iraq or some other Muslim country.

Please do not just delete this message; it will take only a minute to pass this along. We must wake up America, England, Australia and Europe before it's too late.


"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.”


"Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it." —James Madison (1788) As Harry Truman said: "Show me a politician who got rich while in office, and I will show you a Crook."
Read more…

Who knows? You know?

Source; From a friend online......

Psychometric intelligence research has its origins in the later 19th century. Simplifying ruthlessly, it was noticed that students who did well on certain intellectual tasks – specifically, tests – tended to do well on all of them. Conversely, students who were very bad at one test tended to do poorly on all of them. This was not expected; in the athletic sphere, for example, we do not generally assume that good boxers will also be good marathoners.

More specific research showed that the results of certain kinds of tests were more closely correlated with each other than the results of other kinds of tests. Tests which require their takers to memorize a span of digits and manipulate shapes in their mind will generate similar results for the same students, while other tests which (for example) ask them to recall sports trivia will yield more varied results. Statistically, there seems to be a general intelligence factor which explains the cross-test variation; conceptually, there is within the human brain a corresponding general cognitive capacity, which drives these correlated results. People who do well on cognitive tests tend to have other interesting traits as well, most markedly faster reaction times and much broader vocabulary, than people who do poorly on them. They also tend to accumulate in different professions, have different lifestyles, and other things. Measuring intelligence via testing is not, in other words, a mere circular exercise in identifying people who test well. Loosely speaking, intelligence is something like the processing capacity of the human brain, and it varies substantially across individuals.

Some object that intelligence is a false construct of psychological research and is in some sense not real. A lot of objections to intelligence research are rooted in unscientific left-wing concerns about social justice. Others stem from a general skepticism that truly intelligent people are actually a thing, because it is hard to conceive of what is going on in the heads of people who are much, much smarter than we are. Here, it helps to consider the other end of the spectrum. There are people – many of them – whom we recognize as just not being very smart. In modern society, this segment of the population is most visible because of their problems with literacy. The limited intellectual capacity of these people is expressed in many ways, including their employment prospects, their life choices and their social status. The much greater intellectual capacity of people on the other end of the spectrum is the opposite phenomenon, though the options of such people are much less constrained. The IQ 160 person can choose to be a day laborer or a university professor, whereas for the IQ 75 person, university professor isn’t really an option. Higher IQ is thus rather weakly predictive of professional status at the individual level, but the professions themselves have a fairly clear IQ stratification, some professions are more cognitively demanding than others.

Also, to a point, higher intelligence correlates with very well with better overall health. Our brains are simply part of our bodies, and those with healthy, well-functioning brains are more likely to have healthy, well-functioning bodies.

Intelligence, like general health, is also substantially heritable; smart people tend to have smart children. The mechanisms, however, appear to be very complicated. Some extremely intelligent people have parents of merely middling intelligence. In these cases, high IQ results from fortuitous gene combinations; its correlation with overall health will be much lower, and the children of these people are unlikely to be nearly as intelligent as them.

So, because IQ is relatively easy to measure and has been studied for a long time with well-replicated results, it’s a very useful metric, but it is also often overemphasized. We are speaking here of one psychological trait among many. The so-called “big 5” personality traits also matter for human behavior and achievement. These are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, neuroticism and agreeableness. And of course, a wide range of non-psychological factors have their own role to play, including things like social background, education and physical appearance. What makes things even more complicated, are the various ways intelligence itself correlates positively or negatively with all of these other things.

“Evidence for measurable intelligence is overwhelming...It is disheartening that there are so many incorrect beliefs about intelligence. I cannot think of another topic in psychology that is the subject of so many widespread misconceptions.”—Russell T. Warne

“We presently live in an age of profound unreason, in which we are increasingly compelled to believe and accept, even celebrate, patent absurdities, evidence or reason to be damn.”— J. Scott Turner

wokism is built upon an ideological certitude about the origins of inequality. The whole ideology stands or falls on this empirical claim. Therefore, the greatest taboo in woke society is to consider alternative explanations for inequality, particularly those that implicate natural differences in the distribution of traits among racial groups.

Disinformation about innate group differences gets in the way of constructing sound social policy. Specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human nature tend not to work, often doing harm. One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities is the same across different groups, that there are no innate differences among groups. That assumption is blatantly wrong.

So often when the outcomes that policies are supposed to produce fail to occur, the fault for the discrepancy has been erroneously assigned instead to society which assumes that more programs, money, regulations or court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is also blatantly wrong.  Some group differences are intractable and government policies can only tweak the difference a little. Let’s focus on 2 sorts of differences: those between men and women and those between blacks and whites.

Observable truths:


I.                   Variation within groups is greater than the variation between groups. Psychological and cognitive dimensions of both sexes and all races fall everywhere along the range. Intelligence does not come in one color or sex, and neither does any other human ability. Alas, intelligence may be less like cholesterol levels and more like height, which can be altered society-wide over long stretches of time by changes, but very little by a single individual whose genes were set in place of birth. One can still improve one’s life, sometimes substantially, through well-chosen, self-directed choices and changes in behavior. But no matter how much one might desire, there are limitations. By not acknowledging how crucial intelligence is in economic and social spheres, we do a great deal of harm to those with lower levels of intelligence. Denialism does nothing to make society fairer, freer, more prosperous or more egalitarian.

II.                On specific human attributes, it is possible to specify a continuum running from "low" to "high," but not a score running from "bad" to "good." that lend themselves to simple comparisons.  And all of us use a weighting system that favors our group's strengths.

Further comments will be limited to the arts and sciences.  

Women have a small part in the history of the arts and sciences. Even in the 20th century, women got only 2% of the Nobel Prizes in science and 10% in literature. The Fields Medal in mathematics has been earned by only men. Male dominance of the greatest achievements in science and the arts is fact. The question is whether sex-specific characteristics are at work.

Mathematics offers an answer. Through high school, girls earn better grades in math than boys, but boys do better on standardized tests. The difference is modest, but the male advantage continues to increase, exponentially, as the focus shifts from means to extremes. Evolutionary biologists explain that men have developed elevated 3-dimensional visuospatial skills and women an elevated ability to remember objects and their relative locations--differences that show up in tests.  Men consistently exhibit higher variance than women on characteristics including visuospatial abilities, meaning that there are proportionally more men than women at both ends of the bell curve. Another answer is that someone with a high verbal IQ can easily master algebra, geometry and calculus in an ordinary math test. Elevated visuospatial skills are most useful for difficult items. If males have an advantage in answering those comparatively few really hard items, the increasing disparity at the extremes becomes explicable. Yet most psychometricians conclude that men and women have the same mean IQ.  But, even after adjusting for body size, men have larger brains than women. Magnetic-resonance imaging has revealed parts of the brain's parietal cortex associated with space perception are proportionally bigger in men than in women.

This pattern demonstrates what should be obvious: there is nothing inherent in being a woman that precludes high math ability. But there remains a distributional difference in male and female characteristics that leads to a larger number of men with high visuospatial skills. The difference is evolutionary, physiological and historical. Male advantage is most pronounced in abstract items and in abstract domains of accomplishment. For example, in the abstract field of philosophy, no woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world's great philosophies. In the abstract field of mathematics the number of great female mathematicians numbers two. In the other sciences, the contributions of great women have usually been empirical rather than theoretical.

In the arts, literature is the least abstract and the most rooted in human interaction; visual art and musical composition are the most abstract. Women have been represented among great writers virtually from the beginning. Women are represented less in visual artists or composing. Social restrictions undoubtedly come into play, but the pattern of accomplishment is strikingly consistent with the respective strengths of male and female cognitive repertoires.  Another aspect of male-female differences that bears on accomplishment is motherhood. The experience of parenthood is more profoundly life-altering for women. Extensive empirical study has demonstrated that women are more attracted to children, respond more intensely emotionally and get more and different kinds of satisfactions from nurturing them. These behavioral differences have been linked with biochemical differences between men and women.

Thus, for biochemistry and neurophysiology reasons of being female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement also have something else they want to do in life: motherhood. In the arts and sciences, 40 is the mean age at which peak accomplishment occurs, preceded by years of mastering the discipline, precisely the years during which most women bear children. Among women who have become mothers, the possibilities for accomplishment shrink because, for innate reasons, the distractions of parenthood are greater. My point is that accomplishment at the extremes commonly comes from a single-minded focus that leaves no room for anything but the task at hand.

A study of 2,000 people who were identified as extraordinarily talented in math at age 13 and were followed up 20 years later. The women came of age in the 1970s and 1980s, when women were actively socialized to resist gender stereotypes. By their early 30s, both the men and women had become exceptional achievers, receiving advanced degrees in roughly equal proportions. Only about 15% of the women were full-time housewives. Among the women, those who did and those who did not have children were equally satisfied with their careers. Yet women with careers were 4.5 times as likely as men to say they preferred to work less than 40 hours a week. Men placed greater importance on "being successful in my work" and "inventing or creating that will have an impact," while the women found greater value in "having strong friendships," "living close to parents and relatives" and "having a meaningful spiritual life.” Both constructed satisfying and meaningful lives that took different forms. The different forms, which directly influence the likelihood of achievement, are consistent with differences between men and women that have biological roots.

Why do men and women differ at the highest levels of accomplishment: Men take more risks, are more competitive and are more aggressive than women. Studies document the hormonal basis of personality differences that bear on sex differences in extreme and venturesome effort, and hence in extremes of accomplishment.  Just one more of the ways in which science is demonstrating that men and women are really and truly different, a fact so obvious that only intellectuals could ever have thought otherwise.

Turning to race, Harvard geneticist richard lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct. In his words: "racial classification is of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." If correct, then statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. It’s been tested and lewontin was wrong. Analyses confirm the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. All but 5 of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9% of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

Of all the intractable differences identified, one is a hot button like no other: the IQ difference between blacks and whites. Yet there is no technical dispute on the core issues. Yet there is an enduring and substantial IQ difference between black and white and Asian populations in the US, a controversial finding that has nevertheless what stood various criticism over many years. There is not a definite answer as to why this is so and the failure to understand this disparity has social and economic consequences. Harvard's Fryer and the University of Chicago's Levitt comprehensive study of black and white children over the first 4 years of school found that blacks lose substantial ground relative to other races per school year. By the end of 3rd grade there is a large black white test score gap that cannot be explained by observable characteristics. Family wealth is unlikely to have changed much over the 4 years of this study so this can hardly explain as the effect.

The American Psychological Association published on this matter in 1996. Cultural bias in IQ tests does not explain the difference; and the tests are equally predictive of educational, social and economic outcomes for blacks and whites. Such assertions are fact within the scientific community. The size of the black-white difference since the 1970’s has: (1) On educational achievement tests has narrowed significantly. (2) On convergence in scores on the most highly "g-loaded" tests--the tests that are the best measures of cognitive ability--has been smaller, and may be unchanged, since the first tests were administered 100 years ago.

Regarding the difference in educational achievement, on the SAT gaps in the verbal and math tests in 1972 were 1.24 and 1.26 standard deviations respectively. They’ve dropped by 0.37 and 0.35 standard deviation. The results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress are similar. For ages 9, 13 and 17, the black-white differences in math of the NAEP test in 1973 were 1.03, 1.29 and 1.24 standard deviations respectively. 9-year-olds’ difference hit 0.73 standard deviation in 2004. But almost all of that convergence had been reached by 1986, when the gap was 0.78 standard deviation. 13-year-olds’ gap dropped by 0.45 standard deviation in 1986. 17-year-olds’dropped by 0.52 standard deviation in 1990. In the reading test, the comparable gaps for ages 9, 13 and 17 as of the NAEP test in 1971 were 1.12, 1.17 and 1.25 standard deviations. Those gaps had shrunk by 0.38, 0.62 and 0.68 standard deviation respectively in 1988. They have since remained unchanged.

Larry Hedges and Amy Nowell examined trends for high-school seniors by comparing 6 large data bases from 1965 to 1992. The black-white difference on a combined measure of math, vocabulary and reading fell from 1.18 to 0.82 standard deviation in that time, a reduction of 0.36.  So black and white academic achievement converged significantly through the 1980s and since then has stayed the same. Further, the IQ difference of about one standard deviation is effectively unchanged since the first black-white comparisons 100 years ago. The case for an unchanged black-white IQ difference is straightforward.  From WWI to the present, there is no statistically significant change, remaining about 1.0 to 1.1 standard deviations. The Armed Forces Qualification Test, a statistically relevant measure, confirms a black-white difference of 0.97 standard deviation. The substantial convergence that had occurred in academic tests has at best been minimally reflected in IQ scores, and at worst not reflected at all.

In academic achievement or IQ are the causes of the black-white difference environmental or genetic? Surely environment plays a part but, is biology also involved? Why should cognitive ability be the sole heritable trait that is immune from racial differentiation?(1). Obvious environmental factors such as income, parental occupation and schools explain only part of the absolute black-white difference and none of the relative difference. All races of students from affluent neighborhoods are separated by as large a proportional gap as are those from poor neighborhoods. However, some claim environmental causes work with cultural explanations instead of socioeconomic status to cause a phenomenon labeled the "stereotype threat” as defined by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson. It’s thought by some, erroneously, that the stereotype threat explains the black-white difference. Reality shows only that it increases the usual black-white difference. If one eliminates stereotype threat, the usual difference remains.

From a theoretical standpoint, cultural explanations offer ways of looking at the black-white difference when socioeconomic explanations reach a dead end. From a practical standpoint, however, the cultural explanation points to a cause of the black-white difference that is as impervious to manipulation by social policy as causes rooted in biology. If there is to be a rapid improvement, some form of mass movement with powerful behavioral consequences would have to occur within the black community. Absent that, gradual cultural change can only be effective after decades of effort.

Comprehensive evidence for the above appeared in the journal Psychology, Public Policy and Law. An article titled Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability by Rushton and Jensen based their conclusion on 10 categories of evidence that are consistent with a model in which both environment and genes cause 50% to 80% of the black-white difference.  What percentage of the IQ difference is genetic? A methodology is now available. In the United States, few people classified as black are actually 100% African descent (the average American black is about 20% white). To the extent that genes play a role, IQ will vary by racial admixture. Using genetic markers allow for taking a large sample of racially diverse people, give them a good IQ test, and then using genetic markers to create a variable that no longer classifies people as "white" or "black," but along a continuum. Analyzing the variation in IQ scores according to that continuum would be close to dispositive. Much of the evidence reviewed by Rushton and Jensen bears on what we can expect about future changes in the black-white IQ difference.

Comparing black and white mean scores on a battery of subtests does not find a uniform set of differences; nor a random assortment. The size of the difference varies systematically by type of subtest. Some of the largest differences are found on subtests that have little or no cultural content, such as ones based on abstract designs. In 1927, Charles Spearman proposed a hypothesis to explain the pattern. Spearman conjectured that the black-white difference would be greatest on tests that were the purest measures of intelligence, as opposed to tests of knowledge or memory. For example, 2 items in the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet IQ tests are known as "forward digit span" and "backward digit span." The subject's score is the number of digits that he can repeat without error on two consecutive trials. Digits-forward is a straightforward matter of short-term memory. Digits-backward makes your brain work much harder. The black-white difference in digits-backward is about twice as large as the difference in digits-forward. It is a clean example of an effect that resists cultural explanation. It cannot be explained by differential educational attainment, income or any other socioeconomic factor. Parenting style is irrelevant. Reluctance to "act white" is irrelevant. Motivation is irrelevant. There is no way that any of these variables could systematically encourage black performance in digits-forward while depressing it in digits-backward in the same test at the same time with the same examiner in the same setting.

Arthur Jensen tested Spearman's hypothesis. He summarized the results from 17 independent sets of data, derived from 149 psychometric tests. They consistently supported Spearman's hypothesis. Subsequent work on Spearman's original conjecture has confirmed it. No matter how analyzed, a single factor kept dominating the results. It is now established that there is an inheritable component of IQ. A variety of studies have found correlations such as brain-evoked potentials, brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, nerve-conduction velocity and reaction time. It has been determined that a highly significant relationship exists with the volume of gray matter in specific areas of the frontal cortex, and that the magnitude of the volume is under tight genetic control. In short, we now know that captures something in the biology of the brain. So, the size of the black-white difference represents a biologically grounded and highly heritable cognitive resource. When those two observations are put together, a number of characteristics of the black-white difference become predictable, correspond with phenomena we have observed in data, and give us reason to think that not much will change.

One implication is that black-white convergence on test scores will be greatest on tests that are least g-loaded. Literacy is an example: People with a wide range of IQs can be taught to read competently, and it is the NAEP reading test in which convergence has reached its closest point. Spearman's hypothesis explains why the convergence that has occurred on academic achievement tests has not been matched on IQ tests, the source of the black-white difference lies in skills that are hardest to change. It points to a valuable underlying mental ability which cannot be coached.

Another implication is that the "Flynn effect" will not close the black-white difference, the increase in IQ scores over time.  If IQ scores are so malleable that they can rise steadily for several decades, why should not the black-white difference be malleable as well? The evidence has grown, and now seems persuasive, that the increases in IQ scores do not represent significant increases in g. If the black-white difference is concentrated in g and if the Flynn effect does not consist of increases in g, the Flynn effect will not do much to close the gap. A study by Dutch scholars found "the implications of the Flynn effect for black-white differences appear small."

Taking the black-white IQ difference as a whole, 2 facts beyond much doubt. 1st, the conventional environmental explanation of the black-white difference is inadequate. Poverty, bad schools and racism, which seem such obvious culprits, do not explain it. Insofar as the environment is the cause, it is not the sort of environment we know how to change, and we have tried every practical remedy that anyone has been able to think of. 2nd we are left with an IQ difference that has, at best, narrowed by only a few points over the last century. Nothing in the history of this difference, or in what we have learned about its causes suggests that any faster change is in our future.

Many are living a lie, basing the futures of society on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects, a lie so many who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. A lie so many scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences. In the public-policy debate, witness the contorted ways in which even the opponents of policies like affirmative action frame their arguments so that no one can accuse them of saying that women are different from men or blacks from whites. Witness the unwillingness of the mainstream media to discuss group differences without assuring that the differences will disappear in a better world.  The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, there would be no need mention it. But taboos have consequences when people are fearful of exploring them. Consider that organizations are riddled with people who have been promoted to their level of incompetence because of pressure to have a staff with political correctness. Shouldn’t we be worrying about the effects on the quality of their skills and efforts? It would be helpful to know the answers, but we will not so long as the taboo against talking about group difference prevails.

How much damage has the taboo done in education? Christina Hoff Sommers has argued that willed blindness to the different developmental patterns has led many educators to do pervasive damage to the way our elementary and secondary schools are run. James McWhirter, a black Columbia university linguist and New York Times columnist has lamented that affirmative action dehumanizes black students, leaving them “in over their heads nationwide.”  Richard Sander in Stuart Taylor found that of the students attending elite law schools 52% of blacks were in the bottom 10th of their class with only 8% in the top half.

Few have been willing to pursue this issue lest they be required to talk about innate group differences. Similar questions can be asked about the damage done to medical care, whose practitioners have only recently begun to acknowledge the ways in which ethnic groups respond differently to certain drugs. How much damage has the taboo done to our understanding of America's social problems?  The part played by racism in creating different outcomes in black and white poverty, crime and illegitimacy is not the raw disparity we observe but, what remains after controlling for group characteristics. For some outcomes, sex or race differences nearly disappear after a proper analysis is done. For others, a large residual difference remains. In either case, open discussion of group differences would give us a better grasp on where to look for causes and solutions.

The taboo has crippled our ability to explore the ways in which groups respond to the world--which means almost every political, social or economic topic of any complexity. Shouldn’t we be honest and start talking about group differences openly? About the nature of different virtues? About differences between cultures? About differences between political ideologies? Even listing the topics of an inquiry into the nature of group differences is stifled today. A truly open and free society would puncture that irrational fear of differences, which will favor all groups in some measure, and none of which is large enough to frighten anyone who looks at them dispassionately. For every implication one might seize upon, another gives fodder to the other. Talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to what Jefferson had in mind as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal more succinctly saying: "equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group."

Many educational outcomes are tractable even if group differences remain unchanged. Dropout rates, literacy, numeracy, discipline, teacher performance, the quality of the curriculum and academic performance within a given IQ range is tractable. Group differences shouldn’t discourage improving schooling for children getting bad educations due to policies that ignore differences that are impeding, not facilitating, progress. Creating double standards ensures that some will never see others as their equals. Intentions notwithstanding, today's policies create separation, condescension and resentment. It need not be. Any genuinely applied single set of standards would find that performance really is distributed indistinguishably across different groups. But getting to that point will require us to jettison an apparatus of liberal laws, regulations and bureaucracies that has been 40 years in the making. That will not happen until the conversation has opened up.  In careful honest analysis of problems lies the hope that they might be solved.

The ideological precept underlying wokism is not scientifically supported. No matter how much people are punished for telling the truth, denied jobs, kicked off social media, or called names, and no matter how much honor is bestowed on those who defend woke lies, the facts will not change. Different ancestral populations are genetically distinguishable. They have different distribution of traits, including measured IQ and athletic abilities. Almost every remotely plausible environmental explanation for these differences has been repeatedly tested in both natural and control experiments, and have the same patterns of differences appear every time. As of yet, there is nothing that seriously casts doubt on the hereditarian explanation, and if it weren't for political implications this wouldn't be controversial.

As Charles Murray stated, we can start by stop being afraid of data that tell us a story we do not want to hear, stop the name-calling, stop the denial and start facing reality. And as Christianity preaches, remember we are all God’s child, and therefore all treated with dignity.

"...sweeps of the genome across human populations...Dozens or hundreds of ethnic differences will be found in traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, facility, or the ability to delay gratification."--Jonathan Haidt

"A heterodox movement that does not support free inquiry into genetic differences among races and their potentially effect on outcomes is guaranteed to fail."--Nathan Cofnas, University of Cambridge

1.     However, asking this question obviously conflicts with deeply held social ideals about the inherent equality of all humans which unfortunately in the process embraces phantom ideological phenomenon such as systemic racism, micro-aggressions, and toxic whiteness. Of course, pointing out the essential irrationality of this ideology is to court liberal ire and hate. Is science the victim of a societal reaction against reason, or is science the cause of our age unreason?

Further reading:

Read more…

More on Climate Update

Source; Sent from an on line friend..........


The national climate ASSessment, compiled by 14 federal agencies, is little other than a climate alarmist’s gospel. Yet Americans have become less impacted or alarmed by the apocalyptic predictions that never quite materialize.

In an effort to scare Americans into buying the left-wing'ss climate alarmism, which dubiously and tellingly can only be addressed through ever more government control of the economy, the report warns of the astronomical cost of climate change without massively expensive government intervention.

According to the report, climate change is costing the U.S. economy $150 billion annually. How, exactly? Well, climate change supposedly makes for more severe weather events (except when it doesn’t because they tell us climate change has little to do with the weather), therefore costing Americans even more of their hard-earned cash. Then again, $150 billion annually is a bargain compared to the left-wing/democrats’  flawed green new deal. That had an original price tag of $93 trillion over 10 years.

The climate report basically says Be afraid, folks, because it’s only going to get worse! Droughts, hurricanes, floods, and fires will be rising in frequency — that’s the dire scare tactic of the climate alarmists.

Never mind the data that simply doesn’t back up those alarmist threats. The fact of the matter is that coping with events has always been a reality for humanity. Furthermore, as the climate warms, it actually has benefited humanity in key ways, such as food production. Another is reducing death, cold kills nine times more people than heat.

Demonstrating just how woke the national climate ASSessment is, there are entire sections focused on diversity and equity. It even has a section ridiculously asserting that indigenous people had developed a holistic earth-friendly culture that can be harnessed to better react to climate change. It’s that old left-wing lie that everything was perfect, peaceful, and harmonious in North America before those foolish and reckless white Europeans arrived.

This is not science; it’s a cult(1). The report attempts to connect all of Americans’ lives to climate change, claiming that everything from their emotional well-being to their physical health to their bank accounts are under dire threat thanks to climate change. If that isn’t cultish thinking, then what is?

The report focuses on the inequitable impact of climate change on lower-income people and minorities. When in the history of the world has the climate not had an inequitable impact on people with lower incomes? This is not due to climate change but is purely the economic reality of the haves and the have-nots.

The pathetic irony is that biden’s regiem is making everything cost more via product regulations. If it wasn’t for the regulatory commissars making the cost of goods rise, then it would be easier for lower-income Americans to afford to adapt to any changing climate.

In the end, again their biggest bogeyman is the fossil fuel industry, which is essentially blamed for everything to the point that the language of social justice is applied as if it’s a battle of good vs. evil.

The truth is, without fossil fuels, life on planet earth would be much more difficult. Lives would be shorter and death would be much more common, and all the wonderful technologies that we take for granted, like readily available clean water, would not be possible. Indeed, the actual injustice is the concerted effort by climate cultists to demonize fossil fuels, which still provide the only cost-efficient means for humanity to adapt to a changing climate. They are truly anti-human and driven to return us to serfdom.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report is based on self-admitted flawed models, resulting in alarming claims about extreme weather that are not supported by the actual data. The IPCC projects too much warming for the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC also predicts contradictory increases in extreme weather events such as increases in both droughts and floods, neither of which have occurred during periods in the past when it was a warm or warmer than today. Importantly, the IPCC report ignores natures role in climate change and the fact that history shows warm periods are better for human life than cold periods. The fact is that society is flourishing during the present modest warming.

A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics says the Sun, not greenhouse gases, drives climate change. The research, by 23 scientists in the fields of solar physics and climate at universities and research institutes in 14 different countries, involved a comprehensive analysis of the 16 published solar output datasets. The researchers found the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses a very small number of solar irradiance data sets, data sets with uniformly “low solar variability,” to support its conclusion solar activity plays a negligible role in climate change. Using the broader, more comprehensive series of data sets, the researchers conclude: “most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.”

Solar data from NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites matches temperature data from the most reliable data sets well, indicating almost all recent warming can be explained by solar activity with very little contribution from human greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC ignores the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

Commenting on the IPCC’s approach to examining solar irradiance as a factor in climate change, Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. and the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), said: "The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change."

This is all about The Great Reset through Climate Socialism. It’s the international leaders’ push to exploit the supposed existential threat of climate change to get people to foolishly "reimagine capitalism”(2). The aim of those pushing the Great Reset (GR) is to impose socialism worldwide, especially on energy production and use, which is the foundation of the modern world.

The GR has been a long time coming. It is the latest manifestation of the flawed and failed 19th-century ideological attempt to give dictatorial power to unaccountable bureaucrats not beholden to democratic election cycles or bound by laws and the expressed wishes of people.

If the GR comes to pass, it will be too late for people to do anything about it. Any resistance will be castigated by sheeple on social media and in the mainstream media. Social media will shut down the accounts of any who object and will shut out their voices. After the GR, "resistance will be futile," to paraphrase Star Trek’s Borg.

The much-hyped Green New Deal, biden’s extravagantly wasteful "Build Back Better" infrastructure plan, and the Democrats’ grotesque $3.5 trillion budget bill are domestic down payments on the global GR, exactly what Eisenhower warned about.

That brings us to ICCC-14 and climate change. Politicians, bureaucrats, politically connected profiteers and crony capitalists, luddites, and activist scientists (those wedded more to leftist political causes or their own funding interests than to the scientific method) have repeatedly said climate change "poses an existential threat to human existence,"  "threatens the collapse of civilization," "will be catastrophic for human life," and other such overblown BS! The GR is their answer to that fake threat. Only if we give liberal elites all the levers of power, unfettered by inconvenient elections and unhampered by scientific investigations or reflective thought, can we supposedly save the Earth from 2 degrees of warming which they claim will bring untold death and disaster to people and the environment.

Those claims and the self-appointed climate emperors truly have no clothes; they do not have the facts on their side. Approximately 50 top experts in climate science, energy economics, and public policy—In other words—“experts” testifying to the lie that the statement climate change poses an existential threat to human existence is!

These include William Happer, Ph.D., professor emeritus in the Dept of Physics at Princeton University and founding board member of the CO2 Coalition; Lord Christopher Monckton, former special advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; and Patrick Moore, Ph.D., a cofounder of greenpeace who currently serves as a director at the CO2 Coalition and a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, Neil Frank, Ph.D., Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D; economists and statisticians Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D.; and nonprofit advocates for the poor and minorities E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., and Derrick Hollie.

GR is unnecessary and economics and history show it is dangerous, almost certain to cause far greater harms than any realistically possible beneficial effects. History proves that the ideological belief in the existence of benign, selfless philosopher-kings are and have always been few and far between, if they have ever existed at all outside of fairy tales and philosophical tomes.

Science should inform our choices, including political choices, but scientists should not dictate our decisions, as Eisenhower noted. No individual scientist or subgroup of scientists has full and complete knowledge or a monopoly on the truth. Nor do scientists have any special insight into what any particular person or society should value or what level of risk and types of tradeoffs people should be willing to accept to obtain or preserve those values.

Once a person, by means of his evaluative capacity, recognizes that there is a common feature that is present in multiple perceptions of the same reality, he is then able to use his intellect to isolate that common feature and consider the intelligible structure or pattern itself, apart from perception and sensation. With that in mind, we know that experts serve an important role in that they assist us in analyzing matters beyond our common understanding. But experts are mere fallible humans. When they are controlled by their biases, flawed in their analysis, or misguided by incorrect data, then we must reject their conclusions.

As the climate changes — which it has throughout earth’s history — humans are far better suited to adapt through the free market than under the tyranny of government.

"No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated...Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race...I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned...Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts...It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.....If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part"-- Richard Feynman
Nevertheless, The Securities and Exchange Commission, ignoring its legal mandate to ensure corporate transparency, accurate reporting, and the prevention of fraud and insider trading, has proposed rules mandating every publicly traded corporation adopt woke climate standards and goals accounting for the carbon dioxide emissions throughout its supply chain. Then, companies need to set goals to reduce emissions. Biden’s supposedly independent SEC has gone full-on woke on climate change. The SEC has gone full on political in the remaking of America's market economy into one controlled by authoritarian elites.

Stepping well outside its legal mission, the SEC has decided IT knows what the managers of publicly traded companies, portfolio and fund managers, and investors should care about. Forget about making profits for companies and their shareholder-owners, a company’s financial condition and prospects based on business and market measures, or providing a secure, comfortable retirement for pensioners. The SEC says all of that should take a back seat to climate change.

The SEC has no particular expertise in climate science,  no evidence it is staffed by people known to be able to predict the future in general, or even future weather in particular. Nonetheless, the SEC is taking it upon itself to dictate to investors and businesses that they must account for climate change, based on the commission’s opinion that it affects every corporation’s business prospects and that investors should know about it.

The SEC’s proposed rules would require publicly traded companies to track and report on the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their own operations and those of companies in their supply chain and the electric utilities that supply them power. Companies will have to report on how climate change is affecting their businesses now, how it is likely to affect them in the future, and what they are doing in response, including steps they are taking to reduce non-toxic greenhouse gas emissions.

These rules will take  billions dollars away from businesses’ core operations, to carry out the SEC’s mandate that it predict future climate, for its fiscal effect on their operations and act as their brothers’ keepers by tracking their power companies’ and suppliers’ emissions as well as their own. Where are all the oracles, seers, and carbon accountants companies will have to hire to tell the future and audit their own and other companies’ expected emissions?

Many products sold by publicly traded companies, like clothing,  food, electronics and cell phones for example are manufactured overseas. The sources for these items are not under the purview or control of the SEC and are unlikely to waste money tracking CO2 emissions from their production activities, much less from the source of their electricity and supply vendors just because the SEC wants their corporate American customers to waste resources tracking such emissions. That will complicate the corporations’ supply chain reporting. The reports could therefore be woefully incomplete, opening the companies up to SEC investigations for lack of compliance and transparency, and to activists’ protests or lawsuits for inadequate or incomplete reporting. Expect the SEC to use big companies to throw their weight around to make producers comply. The producers could tell their corporate SEC climate overlords to take a flying leap, selling their goods elsewhere, such as burgeoning markets in China, India, and Brazil. That would raise prices of all these goods in the United States by reducing supplies, further fueling inflation, which is already out of hand. In addition, we can expect the current U.S. supply chain crisis and increasingly empty shelves to look great by comparison with what’s to come. For producers to track their emissions would add to their costs, and those added costs would certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, just as the higher energy costs we are currently experiencing primarily because of biden’s climate policies are responsible for a large portion of our high inflation rate and rising consumer prices.

These policies will harm consumers in addition to investors, pension funds, and retirees—the very groups the SEC is supposed to be protecting. The factors likely to affect materially the success or failure of publicly traded companies are best known to the officers and managers of the firms and funds themselves, not the SEC, other regulatory agencies, politicians, or self-appointed stakeholders, including climate activists, not actively involved in the relevant business.

The effects of climate change 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now are unknown and unknowable. Man-made climate change is based on climate-simulating computer models of future conditions, which cannot be trusted. They have consistently been wrong about past and present temperatures, the most basic projections they have to make. The models have also consistently misidentified various climate conditions and weather events.

If activists want a company or fund to consider climate change risks, effects, and opportunities in its business and investment decisions, they can purchase stock or bonds issued by the company, as every other investor does. Then, at annual board meetings or other periodic company events they can express their desires as co-owners. They can try to convince company or fund managers to consider potential climate change risks and rewards and monitor and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Failing at that, they can introduce climate-related resolutions, offer like-minded candidates for the board of directors, and try to convince a majority of stock owners to support their resolutions, directives, and slates of candidates. Those concerned about climate matters can form their own companies and funds, complete with public stock offerings, to compete with the businesses they believe are not taking climate change concerns seriously enough. This, not probably illegal SEC mandates, is the appropriate way for companies and funds to take climate concerns seriously.

The SEC’s role in these matters should be limited to ensuring "truth in advertising"—a policing function. The SEC should not attempt to develop or enforce uniform standards defining what it means for a company to take climate seriously. Instead, the SEC should simply require transparency from those companies and funds that profess to be "green."  In publicly available documents and disclosures, the companies and funds should be required to state specifically what practices they are undertaking to respond to climate change and how and on what timeline their efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions should be judged.

In addition to ensuring the transparent disclosure the SEC should routinely monitor and police businesses claiming to embrace "green" policies, as they do with other promises businesses make to investors. The SEC should also respond to complaints from investors about companies failing to carry out their mission as stated.  There is no nonpolitical justification for the SEC to require businesses to account for their climate risks, much less those of their business associates.  

“What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed...and will render him a victim to an inconsistent government.”— James Madison, Federalist Papers  #62.

1. michael mann’s 1998 “hockey stick”  argued that the Earth’s climate held steady for all of human history until suddenly, in the 1900s, the temperatures increased, representing the upturned blade of the hockey stick. mann’s study intentionally ignored several thousand scientific publications showing other periods of climate change throughout human history. This ridiculous theory is the basis of CO2-focused “global warming” movement, which morphed into the “climate change” movement. mann’s theory informs the positions taken by the un's intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc), the agency dictating policy to your local, state, and federal governments. This is the REAL climate change denial; sacrificing of truth for a desired political agenda. Tthe acceptance of prior warming periods undermines the argument that a modern warming is an existential threat, and prior warming periods undermine the idea that anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 is the primary cause of climate change.

To acknowledge that anthropogenic CO2 could not possibly cause climate change throughout human history, the climate extremists would be forced to question their religion. When guided by truth instead of ideology, the following questions become more interesting:

-How is it that the last six great ice ages started with far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now?
-Is it true, as many experts note, that temperatures drive CO2 levels, and not the other way around?
-How does anthropogenic CO2 drive climate when it makes up less than 5% of total CO2, with most coming from the oceans, volcanoes, decaying vegetation, and forest fires?
-Isn’t the sun the most important cause of climate, and what effects follow from sun spots and solar flares?
-If greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the most significant drivers of climate change, then why do we focus on CO2, when water vapor (i.e., clouds) is a far more impactful GHG? In fact, there have been a flurry of recent published studies on the effects of clouds.

For the left-wing, addiction to liberal ideology and their status among the woke remain subordinate to truth and courage. Many have sacrificed research funding and reputation to honestly criticize mann’s flawed theories.  In fact, numerous climate experts upended their professional lives by pointing out that mann’s theory is more activism than fact, including Professors Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Ian Plimer, Nir Shaviv, Piers Corbyn, Steven Koonin, Judith Curry, and William Happer — to name a few. Experts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick presented a detailed analysis of the flaws of mann’s 1998 theory in a series of studies in 2003 and 2005, detailing the numerous technical flaws with mann’s analysis, invalid “due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” McKitrick summarized the theory’s most significant problem as an issue of unreliable proxy data. mann relied on a small and controversial subset of tree ring records of bristlecone pine cores from high and arid mountains in the U.S. Southwest. The scientists who published the tree ring data on which mann relied (published by Graybill and Idso in 1993) specifically warned that the data should not be used for temperature reconstruction and that the 20th-century data had regional anomalies.
Read more…

Equal Economics a Harvard Study

Source; Sent from an on line friend...........

Harvard University used the database consisting of the entire American population from 1989 to 2015 and found racial disparities in adult income, even when childhood households are of equal income and wealth, contradicted the assumption that racial disparities in wealth explain all racial differences in social outcomes, and found equal childhood household wealth did little to equalize rates of criminality. Powerful evidence of cultural and behavioral differences between white and black men were shown to operate independently of wealth or income. And Brandis University, studying wealth changes from 1984 to 2009 on a nationally represented set of families, concluded that inherited wealth accounted for only 5% of the racial disparity in wealth gains over the time period.

These findings are consistent with other research that find racial differences in crime rates even among those with similar economic backgrounds. For example, Darrell Steffensmier found that even after adjusting for poverty and unemployment, black neighborhoods had substantially higher violent crime rates than similar white neighborhoods. Robert Cherry found that even after taking into account employment, education, and poverty, states with a greater share of black men have higher violent crime rates.  The point being that race cannot be excluded as a factor.

The behavior of human beings, individually and collectively, is complex. Individuals differ as do many groups, on behavioral measures vital to social economic success. Causes and their effects may take long stretches of time to play out. Stratification explicitly excludes from its analysis of group disparities anything to do with the interests and abilities of the individuals involved - which would only be legitimate if those factors have been proven to be irrelevant to demographic variables. For example, economic disparities cannot be understood if endogenous differences, (average differences in the interests and ability of disparate groups) are a priori excluded.

Arbitrarily claiming laws and norms were explicitly engineered to disadvantage a certain race is a very strong charge that is almost impossible to prove or disprove. It departs from scientific practice since it explicitly excludes from its analysis of group disparities anything to do with the interests and abilities of the individuals involved. Unfortunately, unproven allegations attributing malign motives to whole classes have become common to the bogus left-wing philosophy of critical theory. Certainly, no laws since the mid-1960s have expressed any such intention.

The proper behavioral science approach would be to begin by looking at both endogenous and exogenous causes: at all the germane, cogent interests and abilities of the individuals and the conditions acting on them. Often what's ignored is endogenous causes, the idea that group-based inequalities are due to defective cultural habits and practices on the part of the subaltern or subordinated community. This tends to remove sound science and sound logic entirely from determining the causes.

There appears to be an inverse correlation between wealth and criminality and positive correlations between wealth and cognitive ability. High rates of criminality can reduce wealth and high academic achievement can increase wealth.  So, the precise direction of cause and effect is uncertain. Wealth instead of being a dependent becomes an independent variable. Instead of wealth acting on various behaviors, behaviors can and do act on wealth. Wealth is often an outcome of the individual's interests and abilities in the opportunities available to one. 

What is holding people of color down are cultural factors other than race that black scholars Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele have compellingly argued with abundant empirical evidence. Promoting that it isn’t true are only making matters worse

"Ironically, the stronger and less victimized a previously victimized group becomes, the more it will insist on its own victimization."-Benedict Beckled

“A sullen spirit of equality can proceed from envy in the baser sort of democracy.”---Paul Elmer More

Wealth is anything that people value. Wealth can be health, love, beauty, happiness, money, and many other things. Money, however, allows us to store wealth, index it and to transmit it. Money comes from some form of earning. Work provides earnings in the form of income. People's incomes go up because people become more productive. That's true of people over time and across nations.

What matters to a person is not whether who he has performed in comparison to any random domain but how he has performed in a domain that is important to him. This suggest that income inequality is not as much of a problem as it is sometimes assumed. The University of Nevada found that in advance nations income inequality on average neither helps nor harms.

The general view among liberals is that economic inequality is socially undesirable because it makes people miserable. Therefore, since liberals are the self-anointed benefactors and self-appointed rulers of all of humanity, they feel compelled to rob the fruits of the successful and give it them to the less successful, primarily through higher taxes.

Under that welfare ethos the individual comes in conflict with his alter ego—his equal in rights.  The welfare state, with it’s never-ending poverty, derelicts on the street, unattended illness, and complaints of not enough by every group, cannot avoid becoming the judiciary state, when were the masses are ruled by a handful of elites in black robes. This is the point where alleged good intentions exceed the power to fulfill them and mark for the culture the onset of decadence.

Putting aside for now the issue of envy (which provides ample fuel for the type of equality fire that burns and destroys) and immorality of taking what isn’t yours, the facts show that economic inequality isn’t what frustrates people, lack of an opportunity to try and become richer is what does. In the real world, were liberal minds seldom dwell, one’s own income potential matters a great deal more than what others are earning. In fact, rising incomes of others often serves as positive evidence of what one can achieve.

Focusing on income inequality rather than absolute improvement in the standards of living can be psychologically destructive, for there will always be people who have more money, more things, better health, higher intelligence, better looks, greater height and strength, and more charisma among other things. Do not fall into the trap of instead of being grateful for all the good things in your life be resentful because of the things you lack but others have.

Preoccupation with income inequality risks normalizing envy, a happiness destroying emotion. There is nothing wrong with income inequality, provided that it was fairly arrived at, by creating value others want. In fact, income inequality is in many ways the midwife of progress. Progress would be impossible if society prevented people from trying out and benefiting from new things(1).

Liberal policies that try to take from Peter to give to Paul (technically called redistribution policies) tend to reduce wealth in total for all. That means fewer jobs, less prosperity, less charity, less improving lifestyles and turns beneficiaries into demoralized long-term even permanent dependents, among other things(2). 

“Diversity is celebrated and individuality praised, yet so many are looking to equality as a prescription for human flourishing. All of people’s varied talents, interests, backgrounds, make up, etc, all that diversity renders egalitarian utopianism unworkable…it seems that one of the most important things all humans are equal in is that we are all unique.”—Rev Robert Sirico

  1. Nobel prize winner William d. Nordhouse who concluded only a minuscule fraction of the social returns from technological advances was captured by producers, indicating that most of the benefits of technological change are passed on to consumers rather than captured by producers. He estimated that innovators are able to capture only 2.2% of the total surplus from innovation. Steve Jobs is but one example. He was able to create trillions of dollars in value for all of humanity, while receiving just a tiny fraction of that, because he enjoyed a culture that awarded risk, creativity, and discipline.

2.     The dogma of equal opportunity, an ideal when demanded to be fully realized, can only happen when the institution of the family (with self-sacrifice, advantages, ambition, cooperation, etc) is no longer respected, and when parental control and responsibility passes to the State.


“Every human has four endowments—self awareness, conscience, independent will, and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom ... The power to choose, to respond, to change.” --Stephen Covey

The wide range of differences in individual capacities and potentials is one of the most distinctive facts about the human species. Not all human impulses are laudable. To think otherwise would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Not all types of inequality are detrimental to human well-being. But one example are the geniuses who have invented things you can neither explain nor understand but yet you benefit immensely from. Such people are but one small demonstration that inequality of ability can benefit all of us. If the differences are not very important, then freedom is not very important and the idea of individual worth is not very important.

Honest achievement that cost those in the lead much to achieve enables those who follow to reach the same level at a much smaller cost. A truly egalitarian society, which can exist only through force, would progress by essentially being parasitical, taking from those who have paid the cost. In a non-egalitarian society those forces which at first make inequality self-accentuating later diminish it. Even those who find themselves at the short-end of inequality have more to gain from faster growth that inevitably comes in a free market than from any conceivable forced redistribution. 

Freedom, which equality when before the law creates, is progressively destroyed by demands for another kind of equality, economic or outcome. We can achieve either equality before the law or a material equality (which will diminish), but not both at the same time. Equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality. The desire of making people more alike in their material condition cannot be accepted in a free society as a justification for further and discriminatory coercion. To preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion Those who demand an extension of equality do not really demand equality but the distribution of it as they desire regardless of individual merit, which is irreconcilable with freedom. Like Plato said: “Equal treatment of the unequal ends in inequality, when not qualified by due portion.”

Even if the impossible could be achieved, that we all have equal chances, this will produce unequal results, proportioned to the “successful efforts” of the individual, on the value of the achievement. To be successful the individual must be free to use the capacities and knowledge they have which often others do not have. Life in society necessarily means that we are dependent for the satisfaction of most of our needs on the services of some of our fellow members. In a free society these mutual services are voluntary, and each should be able, within reason, to determine to whom he wants to render services and on what terms. The benefits and opportunities which others offer to us will be available only if we satisfy their conditions, to be otherwise is mandatory servitude. This is as true of social as of economic relations.

If in the pursuit of uncertain goals people are to use their own knowledge and capacities, they must be guided, not by what other people think they are to do, but by the value others attached to the result in which they aim. If renumeration did not correspond to the value that the product of a man’s effort has for others, he would have no basis for deciding whether the pursuit of a given object is worth the effort and risk. It is only by the value of the result that we can judge with any degree of confidence. Otherwise we presume that we are able to judge in every individual instance how well people use different opportunities and talents given to them and how meritorious their efforts are in light of all the circumstances which have made them possible. We would also have to presume that some human beings are in a position to determine conclusively what a person is worth, or entitled to determine what he may achieve. That presumes then that others can and do know all that guides a person’s actions. 

To decide not on achievement but on the intent means we must judge whether people have made such use of their opportunities as they ought to have made and how much effort of will or self-denial this has caused them. This presupposes also that we can distinguish between that part of their achievement which is due to circumstances within their control and the part which is not.

All human differences therefore create different advantages. Since acquisition by any member of the community of additional capacities to do things which may be valuable is to be regarded as a gain for the community. This implies that the desirability of increasing the abilities and opportunities of any individual does not depend on whether the same can also be done for others.

The discontent that the success of some people often produces in those that are less successful rests on envy. It is the modern tendency to ignore traditional definitions of morality, to gratify that vice and to disguise it in the garment of social justice (which John Stuart Mill called “that most antisocial and odious of all passions” ) which has become a serious threat to freedom. History testifies that freedom empty of such morality and the dictates of moral law ends in violence and despair.

Each of us is inherently different from one another in our potential, talents, and merit. Therefore equality and liberty are incompatible. Our government, however, is tending to reward those who have less and punish those who have more. External factors such as work ethic and lifestyle choices are ignored. History shows that nations fail whenever this approach has been tried. With great cost and far too much human suffering(1).

In 1965 Mao Satan plunged China into the cultural revolution, arguing that expertise and merit was a source of privilege that undermined socialist equality. The result was millions of people murdered, a whole nation of almost a billion people suffered in a more intense gulag and in the end it was reversed.

“The secret passion of citizens in a DEMOCRACY is envy, expressed in demands for equity.”—Alexander de Tocqueville

“I have no respect for the passion of equality, which seems to be merely idealizing envy.”—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior.

Read more…

Climate Update



There is no climate emergency

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.

Meanwhile, research published in the journal Atmosphere concludes that CO2 is only 1 possible forcing factor driving recent climate changes, and probably not the dominant one. Stuart Harris, Ph.D., the University of Calgary, finds multiple other explanations have been offered in various studies at various times for recent climate changes, beyond today’s current bete noire, CO2.

Harris notes that historical warming and cooling preceded changes in CO2 concentrations. In addition, he points out that the recent modest increase in global average temperature began in the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century, before significant human greenhouse gas emissions, and that temperatures since then have risen and plateaued a couple of times even as carbon dioxide concentrations steadily increased. As a result climate changes are now, and historically have been, driven by external factors like solar activity, and internal factors, and how the Earth’s rotation moves fluids, and the way the Earth responds to: “uneven solar heating of the surface of the Earth and the movements of the excess heat in the tropics towards the cooler polar regions, primarily by the movements of ocean currents, modified by the movements of air masses.”

Whether or not the factors Harris identifies are driving present climate change, 2 things we can say with some certainty about them: they impact the climate; and they are inadequately accounted for, or completely ignored, in climate model representations of the Earth’s climate and model outputs.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is only suggested as a cause in 1 theory, which, despite its wide acceptance by politicians, the left-wing media, and the public, ignores the findings in other studies...Increased CO2 also does not explain the well-known NASA map of the changes between the global 1951–1978 and the 2010–2019 mean annual temperatures. The other theories by oceanographers, earth scientists, and geographers fit together to indicate that the variations in climate are the result of differential solar heating of the Earth, resulting in a series of processes redistributing the heat to produce a more uniform range of climates around the surface of the Earth. Key factors are the shape of the Earth and the Milankovitch Cycles, the distribution of land and water bodies, the differences between heating land and water, ocean currents and gateways, air masses, and hurricanes."--Stuart Harris
Meanwhile, research published in the journal Entropy examines attempts to suppress scientific research skeptical of claims humans are causing a climate crisis. It responds to the unscientific claim that consensus has established that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change, so research questioning the consensus position should be rejected out of hand, without even giving the scientific courtesy of peer review or being considered for publication.

The authors, Igor Khmelinskii and Leslie V. Woodcock, climate researchers with nearly 500 peer-reviewed articles published between them, argue(1) that authoritarian censorship makes factually incorrect assertions, and suggestions that threatens to undermine scientific progress by subverting the scientific method.

The theory that CO2 emissions are causing present warming is just that, a theory, not established fact! Its “consensus” is political, not a scientific process—not through testing and confirmation as demanded by the scientific method. Whether correct or not, their point about CO2 driving climate change not being an established fact is certainly correct. Even more important, however, is their analysis of how scientific progress is threatened by scientific truths established by “consensus,” accompanied by the dismissal of the scientific method, and attempts to prevent skeptical climate analyses from being published, out of fear that it would give alternative views of why the climate is changing legitimacy.

That paper presented research indicating the residence time of any molecule of CO2 entering the atmosphere is between 5 and 10 years, far shorter than the hundreds of years commonly asserted by those pushing the narrative human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic climate change. Based on this analysis the author concluded the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was likely not stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times and that approximately 90% of all anthropogenic CO2 emitted by humans has already been removed from the atmosphere, and thus can’t be driving dramatic climate change. This paper passed peer review, but because it presented a view that contradicts the “consensus” position on the residence time and impact of CO2 affirmed by the u.n. intergovernmental panel on climate change, the climate-crisis extremists claim the research is wrong on its face and its analysis didn’t even merit scientific consideration. In other words, demonize and ignore anything that proves them wrong.

Quashing alternative theories without even review and testing is not what the scientific method prescribes or how science progresses. Such treatment of research is rejecting science.

Meanwhile, what’s coming out of the european union is a foul multilayered onion. On the outside is its laughable, juvenile, impossible utopian idealism. Thus the european green deal, approved in 2020, to show member states the way to climate neutrality by 2050. A key component of this deal – one layer deeper – is a legislative package called Fit for 55, which aims to reduce EU emissions by 55% by 2030. When we go deeper still to this thing called the Buildings Directive, which regulates building energy efficiency in the EU. In 2021, the European Commission proposed extensive revisions to bring this Directive into alignment with its Fit for 55 aspirations. The climate-neutral utopia of 2050 is supposed to be an all-electric world. All this promised abundant electricity will be generated by fields upon fields of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels. How building energy efficiency will matter for emissions at all in this promised electrical utopia is a hard thing to understand.

Sweden has finally walked back its 2045 goal of climate neutrality, the UK has delayed by 5 years its ban on internal combustion engines, the revised German GEG pushed back the new heating requirements while larding the rules with a wide range of exceptions, and now the EU have ditched their concrete demands for building renovations. As our lofty aspirations run up against our self-imposed deadlines, they are steadily modified downwards. The apocalypse never quite happens, but we’re never quite relieved of impending doom either. It goes without saying, of course, that none of these unilateral regulations have any hope of saving the climate, even on their own terms. While EU emissions have declined substantially since the mid-2000s, fossil fuel production and global emissions remain on an undeterred upward trend.

1)      "… statements inconsistent with, and illustrate ignorance of, the laws of classical thermodynamics, of the limitations of the Earth’s global energy budget multivariate computer models, and of the known absorption and emission spectroscopy of CO2...The scientific method of establishing truth requires hypotheses to be tested against experimental results by circumspective scientific scrutiny. Scientific knowledge cannot be established by consensus politics. We question the wisdom of a policy of rejecting articles that may disparage the greenhouse-gas hypothesis. By this criterion of science by consensus, … Nicholas Copernicus’s research … disputing the prevailing consensus of the Ptolemaic hypothesis of a static Earth system, would have been rejected by Copernicus Publications. A policy of only publishing consensus science enhances an ascendancy of politically motivated subjective pseudoscience, causing a stagnation of our scientific understanding and description of Earth systems."

Additional Info:

Read more…

E S Geez

Source; Sent from an Internet friend.............

“Financial blacklisting doesn’t just rob you of a chance to spread your message: it robs you of your ability to do business, your livelihood, your very means of functioning in a capitalist society and it has now become a reality.”— Allum Bokhari

esg is a kind of social credit scoring system, similar to the ones now being used by the Chinese Communist party to tightly control its population and economy. esg is a system by which nameless, faceless, unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats can impose arbitrary rules on corporations and dictate how they do business based on nothing but cultural and political whims, regardless of your political philosophy or causes you support or oppose. esg is possible to dramatically alter almost any part of life by changing corporate behavior.

esg ratings are offered by moody's investor service, morningstar, msci, and s&p global. According to a report by kpmg, thousands of companies, located in more than 50 countries, have esg systems in place. Governments around the world are now putting policies into place that are designed to coerce or, in some cases, even outright Force most large businesses to adapt the social credit scoring system esg. The world economic forum and the international business council collaborated to create a set of universal, material esg metrics. Moody’s has created the esg score predictor analytics to provide 56 esg scores on more than 140 million public and private companies globally.

The more authoritarian it gets, the more likely it is that businesses will opt out. This is why so many businesses and government want to make esg, or something similar to it, mandatory, incentivized. As a business owner, if you do anything at all that would normally be favored by esg, you're incentivized to develop and distribute your own comprehensive esg report. Otherwise you're going to end up with whatever esg score Moody's algorithm gives to you. For the left-wing elites who want a the great narrative, this is a win-win scenario. Join or die.

esg dedicated investment funds, including black rock, state street global advisors, morgan stanley, allianz, goldman sachs, fidelity, ubs group,and vanguard, control more than $100 trillion. larry fink of black rock said” "access to Capital is not a right it's a privilege." That in essence is threatening companies who refuse to go along with the esg agenda, while the esg asset managers become significantly richer from weaponizing esg, choosing to go all in on left wing causes. Why fight a political opponent if you could just buy him off?
Under Trump, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published the fair access rule that would have mandated that large Banks conduct risk assessment of individual customers, rather than make broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers when provisioning access to services, capital, and credit. This was designed to stop Banks from using esg scores and other subjective measures to discriminate against particular industries or customers, which is a foundational part of the great reset. Almost immediately upon entering office biden rescinded that.

Humanity can thrive in the 4th Industrial Revolution while embracing both the benefits of emerging technologies and a passionate commitment to inalienable, unchangeable, eternal human rights. But that cannot happen if we submit ourselves to the world economic forum’s great narrative.

What's to be done:

1. Dismantle corporate and government ESG scores

2. Think and act local.

3 . Large corporations which have effectively become government partners, should be required to adhere to the Bill of Rights.

4. Protection of data should be enhanced. Data is power.

5. The Federal Reserve needs to be dramatically reformed. The left-wing/democrats have killed any attempts to do such. The government issued digital currency should never be allowed.

Additional info:

Read more…

Source; Sent from an Internet friend........

Not Racist, just facts.

Formerly titled; certain people and the burden they create for you 

At the county level, the homicide rate has been higher in left-wing/democratic-leaning “blue” counties than in Republican-voting “red” counties since 2002. Violent crime is overwhelmingly associated with urban centers under left-wing/democrat control regardless of who that state supported in 2020.

Victims of hate crime incidents? Out of about 345 Million people in the US, there were 11,288 single-bias incidents involved 13,278 victims (or 0.0038%of the population), 469 relating to an alleged victim’s gender identity (or 0.000135%), vs. 353 the year before. “hate crime” includes physical altercations, verbal threats or property damage targeting “an individual, a business/financial institution, a government entity, a religious organization, or society/public as a whole.” 21.0% of offenders were black, 50% higher than the black(1) population. The number of white offenders was 20% lower than the white population.

In the real world all murders are hate crimes In 2019, there were 8,438 black victims of homicide, black on black murders accounted for 90% of all homicides within the black community. In 2022, there were 11,565 black victims of homicide, 54.7% of the total. You can do the math and see the trend.

Young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 are most at risk of being involved in a black on black murder. Black on black murders are more prevalent in urban areas. Gang-related activity is a major contributing factor to black on black murders. Only 40% of black on black murders are ever solved. Black on black murders have a devastating impact on the black community, causing fear and mistrust.

The black lives matter movement, an overtly marxian undertaking, not only divides Us by race but also divides the black race by instigating a climate of lawlessness, which has fueled a dangerous increase in gang activity and murder in African-American neighborhoods.

In 2022, property crime was 6.51 million offenses, 1.23 million violent crime, of which there were 21,156 cases of homicide including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter.

The left-wing blames it all on “social justice,” predicated on the assumption that institutional discrimination is the primary reason for differences among groups of people. It assumes that were it not for such discrimination, all would be equally represented in all human endeavors. In other words, human beings are equal not only in their nature and capacities but in their ability to develop those capacities.

However, this marxist assumption is rarely tested empirically. In fact, both the historical record and everyday experience regularly contradict it. For example, not only have homogenous societies had unequal representation among groups of people in various endeavors, but even twin siblings who are raised under the same roof and by the same set of parents show vast differences in aptitude, performance, and cognitive ability. This is because factors beyond both our knowledge and our control — including factors that begin long before birth — heavily influence the development of human capabilities, including intelligence.

Some cultural traditions go back centuries or even millennia and thus continue to orient the developmental capacities of the people living in these cultures today. It is disastrous folly to believe that government decree could circumvent these longstanding cultural traditions without major catastrophe. Moreover, these reciprocal inequalities rarely amount to one group dominating all fields of human achievement. As Thomas Sowell has stated: “Even highly successful groups have seldom been highly successful in all endeavors.”  This does not mean that life is fair for all groups of people, much less to all individuals, or that there is nothing that can be done about injustices in the world. It does mean, however, that we ought to be humble about the limits of both our knowledge and our power to improve things rather than make them worse.

Negative consequences have followed from decades of government policymakers, ignoring the limits of their knowledge, resulting from the unintended consequences of minimum wage policies, tax legislation, rent control laws, and policies related to race and sex as well as to welfare, housing, and education.

One example--affirmative action in education. These policies have harmed first and foremost to the recipients themselves. Minority students who gain acceptance to schools for which they are not academically prepared usually struggle to keep up with the rigorous pace and demanding workload. As a result, they end up either failing or dropping out, winding up worse than if they pursued a path where they could succeed. Another example--the positive results that followed from the abolition of affirmative-action policies in California (as decided by voters). The number of black and Hispanic students graduating from the University of California system as a whole rose dramatically over a 4-yr span, and an increase of 63% graduating in 4 yrs. with a grade point average of 3.5 or higher." Another example--following the growth of the welfare state in the 1960's  both crime rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates exploded in minority communities. The 2 decades prior, however, saw declining crimes. Out-of-wedlock birth rates were lower among minority groups than among the majority white population. Nevertheless, “liberal elites, politicians, activists and so-called "leaders"  who took credit for the black progress that supposedly all began in the early 1960s  took no responsibility for the painful retrogressions that demonstrably did begin in the 1960s.

The lesson, one that F.A. Hayek tried to inform us of almost 100 yrs. ago, is how little we know about the lives of others. We must, therefore, be careful when making policy decisions that have the potential to affect many people — and possibly even whole societies.

 ““We agree that ‘equal chances for all’ would be desirable. But that in no way guarantees that we have either the knowledge or the power required to make that goal attainable, without ruinous sacrifices of other desirable goals, ranging from freedom to survival...Stupid people can create problems, but it often takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. They have already done that enough times — and in enough different ways — for us to reconsider, before joining their latest stampedes, led by self-congratulatory elites, deaf to argument and immune to evidence.”--Thomas Sowell

1. Blacks are approx. 14.2% of the US population.

Additional Info:



Read more…

Latest on Biology

Source; Sent from an on line friend......

"Researchers have created the largest atlas of human brain cells so far, revealing more than 3,000 cell types — many of which are new to science."--Science Advances and Science Translational Medicine 
“It’s highly significant,  this is the first atlas of the whole human brain at the single-cell level, showing its intricate molecular interactions...These types of atlases really are laying the groundwork for a much better understanding of the human brain.” ---Anthony Hannan, neuroscientist at the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health in Australia.

There's a growing effort among left wing elites to use emerging technological innovations to reshape and redesign how people think, feel, and make decisions. About which values they desire and how they can ensure those values are imposed on as many people as possible.

Moises Velasquez-Manoff, in a new york times article entitled The Brain Implants that could Change Humanity, explained that some neuroscientists are already using rudimentary brain implants to alter human behavior and that brain reading and possibly brainwriting technologies are fast approaching, and society isn't prepared for them.

One example of brain implant technology(1) is a company called neuralink. It's mission is to create the future of brain computer interfaces. The human brain is connected to an implant called the link, which is a sealed, implanted device that processes, stimulates, and transmits neural signals to the user's brain.

Aside from the potential health risks, there are an incalculable number of ethical issues and dangers that inevitably come with such a technology. In a world where man and machine are united, how could we stop people from being heavily influenced, manipulated, or controlled, about how people think about societies, cultures, religions, economics, and morality, where a specific emotional response could be guaranteed to the point where people lose their free will, even their humanity.

1.     The world economic forum is taking  a strong interest in the topic of brain implants. klaus schwab suggested that as early as 2027, brain implants could be relatively commonplace.

Additional Info:


Gene editing is the ability to make highly specific changes in the DNA sequence of a living organism, essentially customizing its genetic makeup. It is made possible by a powerful tool called crispr. Quoting the wef’s klaus schwab on this matter: “The science is progressing so fast that the limitations are now less technical than they are legal, regulatory and ethical... We may see designer babies in the near future, along with a whole series of other edits to our humanity..."

It is completely conceivable that forms of radical human change will be available within a generation, innovations that risk creating entirely new forms of inequality and class conflict.

It's definitely not a good idea for our government, that can't figure out a way to maintain peace and order in many of our major cities, balance its budget, or even run Amtrak, to be in the business of genetic engineering technologies and techniques. That is far too much power for a government in a free society, to play God by rewriting the basic rules of biology. That is a dangerous game, and the last time a major government power played it, Europe ended up with the holocaust.

Yet, in 2022 biden signed an Executive Order entitled  Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, Secure American Bioeconomy, which states: " help us achieve our societal goals... To be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably programmed biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data..."

Read more…

Source; Another on from my unknown Internet friend.........


Trump is a symptom, not a cause. Trump’s endorsements aren’t pulling his candidates over the finish line, the story goes, and he alienates centrists, moderates and independents. Trump is fracturing the Republican Party, they say. The fractures are there, alright, but Trump didn’t create them. After years — nay, decades — of mouthing conservative platitudes only to capitulate to the Left when elected, the “grassroots” no longer believes anyone from the Republican “establishment,” and words like “bipartisanship” are signals for we’ll back down at the first sign of pressure. If you really want Trump out and someone else in, find a candidate who is unafraid to oppose the hardcore left, infuriate democrats, thumb his (or her) nose at the left-wing media and stand up for ordinary Americans against the weaponized apparatus of the Deep State. The GOP needs to unite behind a candidate. Spend some time on social media and you’ll see.

As weak, incompetent, corrupt and destructive as biden is, if Republicans are divided, libs/dems win.

Also, election integrity matters more than ever. If Republicans want a message to drive home in 2024 and thereafter, this is a big one. In addition to the ease with which electronic voting can be manipulated, as we saw the other day, we have the very real prospect of non-citizens voting. 8 to 10 million people are believed to have entered the U.S. illegally since biden took office. 15 states and the District of Columbia require no photo identification to vote. Add to that mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, and you have the very real prospect of people who have no right to vote casting ballots in U.S. elections. What we need is mandatory voter identification, a return to paper ballots, in-person voting, and to make Election Day an annual national holiday.


He's lying--AGAIN!

Read more…


Source; Sent from a friend...........

A regime that hates America, China, controls tikTok’s algorithm and knows how to use it to divide and demoralize Americans. What we’re seeing right now from it is a real-life demonstration of that capability. We should have banned tikTok a long time ago, but this should be a wake-up call. Freedom is not a call to suicide.

The woke express fervency and manic busybodiness in enforcing their orthodoxy and fealty to their dogma. They perceive themselves as holier than thou, accompanied by a religious like attitude toward the sin of the non-woke, not sympathetic understanding but of hatred and contempt. The woke demand either you convert or punishment.

Wokeism has striking similarities to the "struggle sessions" of Communism, in which those strayed from an increasingly dogmatic party line were made to undergo an examination of conscience, ridiculed and condemned, and to publicly atone for their sins against the state.

China has a massive surveillance state, repeated government theft of private property, the elimination of most forms of political descent; severely restricted access to cultural ideas that are in opposition to the views of the Communist party, including gender issues; locked away millions of ethnic and religious minorities in brutal re-education camps; a straight controlled media; dramatically increased CO2 emissions; is the origin of the global coronavirus pandemic; has mismanaged the economy to the tune of hundreds of millions of impoverished people. China, murdering tens of millions of its own people,  has one of the most monstrous, blood-soaked records in human history.

But that has not stopped virtually every woke corporation America from doing business, in one way or another, either in or with China.  If those woke businesses cared so much about the marginalized and oppressed, why would they do business with the same political party, the same political regime?

The reason these companies are going woke is not because they go broke if they go woke, they get filthy rich. Ungodly sums have streamed into these causes over the past decade.

Additional Info:

The Federal Government Had a Major Academic Partner in Its Censorship Regime

disinfo (aka LIES) is dems

Read more…


Source; Sent from an on line friend....

Over the last few years, huge swathes of the American left-wing have become infected with woke ideology that judges actions or arguments not by their content, but rather by the identity of those involved in said actions or arguments. Those identities in turn are defined by an intersectional web of oppressed and oppressors, of the powerful and powerless, of the dominant and marginalized. With this approach, one judges an action not by whether it’s effective or an argument by whether it’s true, but rather by whether the people involved in the action or argument are in the oppressed-powerless-marginalized bucket or not. If they are, the actions or arguments should be supported; if not, they should be opposed.

This approach was always a terrible idea, in obvious contradiction to logic and common sense. But it has led much of the left-wing/democrat Party to take positions that have little in social or political reality and are offensive to the basic values most people hold. The failure to unequivocally condemn the Hamas massacre as a crime against humanity is just the latest example of this intellectual and moral malignancy.

Take the vogue “anti-racist” posturing gathered overwhelming force in 2020 with the Our Lord floyd and subsequent nationwide protests. It became de rigueur in left-wing/democrat to solemnly pronounce American society structurally racist and shot through with white supremacy from top to bottom. No argument along these lines was too outrageous if it came from or on behalf of “people of color,” who must be deferred to given their place in the intersectional hierarchy. Nothing exemplifies this better than the lionization of ibram x. kendi, whose thoroughly ridiculous claims were treated as revealed truth by tens of millions of leftists. Only those who have checked their capacity for critical thinking at the door could possibly take this ignorant “analysis” seriously. But they did because of the intersectional positioning of kendi and those he claimed to advocate for.

How else to explain why liberals didn’t run screaming in the opposite direction when kendi called for the passage of an “anti-racist Constitutional amendment” that would: "…establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas."

It is difficult to imagine anything more illiberal than proposing an unelected Soviet-style bureaucracy of so-called “experts” that would vet the actions, ideas, and perhaps even the thoughts of all public officials in the country for their anti-racist content and punish those who deviate from the correct path. Madness! And yet he has been showered with honors, money, and coveted academic positions (though revelations of epic mismanagement at his boston university center for antiracist research may curb some of that enthusiasm).

Bad ideas and arguments are bad ideas and arguments. It shouldn’t matter who makes them. Just like it shouldn’t matter who in the intersectional hierarchy massacres Jews. It’s still an atrocity. It’s high time for liberals/democrats to decisively reject this kind of thinking across the board. Embrace instead the universalistic principles the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in. They believe that racial preferences in rewards and decision-making are not fair and fairness is a fundamental part of their world outlook. They actually believe, with Martin Luther King Jr., that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” In a recent University of Southern California Dornsife survey, this classic statement of colorblind equality was posed to respondents: “Our goal as a society should be to treat all people the same without regard to the color of their skin.” This MLK-style statement elicited sky-high 92% agreement from the public, despite the assaults on this idea from critical race theory (crt), kendi, and large sectors of the left-wing/democrat. In a fascinating related finding, the researchers found that most people who claim to have heard about crt believe crt includes this colorblind perspective, rather than directly contradicting it. Perhaps they just can’t believe any theory that has anything to do with race would reject this fundamental principle.

Similarly a Public Agenda Hidden Common Ground survey found 91% agreement with the statement: “All people deserve an equal opportunity to succeed, no matter their race or ethnicity.” This is what people deeply believe in: equal opportunity not, unlike the intersectional left, equal outcomes.

Equally, Americans believe crime is crime no matter who commits it and that criminals should be punished. They do not believe that open drug use, street camping, shoplifting and countless other symptoms of social disorder should be tolerated because the populations involved are “marginalized” or because enforcement outcomes might not be equally distributed across races. Nor do they believe that the borders of the US are merely suggestions that can be ignored by those appropriately placed in the intersectional hierarchy.

Of course the usual suspects will inevitably say that returning to a universalist, mainstream approach is tantamount to throwing loyal left-wing/democrat constituencies in need of help “under the bus.” But who is throwing whom under the bus? Perhaps it is those whose intersectional dogma stands in the way of a democratic approach that could plausibly generate the widest possible support that are throwing those who need help the most under the bus.

What is evident is the manner in which students are first pummeled with leftist counterculture ideology decrying sexual normalcy as “narrow minded” and “bigoted.” Next, they are encouraged to “explore” every form of confusion on the subject, instilling doubts of normalcy and openness to the “superiority” of breaching moral boundaries.

In a similar manner, kids have been ideologically manipulated for years, opening the door to such absurdities as their supposed affinity for socialism, though they haven’t the least awareness of how that system would thoroughly shut down most of the amusements and luxuries they now enjoy. So, having made the jump from “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” into the empty promises of Marx, leftists at the upper levels of school administrations now seek to include the moral debasement that invariably accompanies its Godless and morally vacant economic precepts.

Essential to all of this is the adoption of a “herd” mindset, whereby the proclamations of the leaders are presumed to be unassailable, and that any questioning or deviation from them is somehow heretical. Once a mob can be detached from rational thought, and reassembled in such a condition, it becomes mindlessly obedient to those in charge.

Leftists accomplish this through a time-tested program of mind control. Through bullying and shaming of any who dare dissent, they create a subculture of “us versus them” in which only those who ascribe to the leftist/counterculture dogma can claim to be the “enlightened.” Any who refuse to comply are denigrated and dismissed as ignorant, backward, and bigoted.

Make no mistake! In America’s current cultural implosion, counterculture activists all see themselves as Rosa Parks. Yet this woke “cause” has nothing to do with equality under the law or respect for the rights of others. It is a fanatical and relentless demand for total assent to deviant and even psychotic behavior. No latitude exists for coexistence or resistance.

These countercultural leftists are consumed by a toxic combination of arrogance and moral depravity, to the point that they willingly and completely detach themselves from reality, in order to passionately promote their oh so anti-reality objectives. Eventually, they become capable of anything. We’ve seen it throughout history with inevitably disastrous results. The only cure is a dose of reality, delivered with sufficient energy that it breaks through their walls of denial. At that point, the entire leftist/counterculture construct begins to collapse. On these defining issues, a resolute devotion to the truth, and the courage to boldly speak it, is needed now more than ever.
How do you earn a good social credit score?  Easy — you just have to be a pro-government, pro-authority, bootlicking, politically correct, obedient, unoriginal, and bland human being!  A syncophant eager to follow every rule, the FBI’s ideal American believes everything he’s told and never disobeys.  Raise your hand if you still believe that COVID came from a wet market, that the fake “vaccines” are perfectly “safe and effective,” and that every change in the weather is a result of some “science denier” driving around in a gas-guzzling SUV.  If your hand is up high, you might be a government-approved, anti-AGAAVE American worthy of praise.  Now get in line for another gene-altering injection, “coexist” with the drug cartels operating in your favorite “sanctuary city,” and never forget to wear at least 4 useless masks and a dog cone collar around your face.

Isn’t it amazing that so many hippy teenagers who “fought the man” during the ’60s and ’70s grew up to be more authoritarian than anything they experienced in their youth?  Isn’t it surreal that so many of them produced children who embrace authoritarianism as a quasi-religion?  Just what kind of counter-culture creates generations of government bureaucrats who instinctively demand that Americans do things, most useless or even bad, exactly as they’re told?  The same people who once fought to have their voices heard now insist on silencing yours.  The same people who used to see mainstream culture as antithetical to authentic art now demand that only 1 be allowed now—theirs!  The same people who once painted life with bright colors now shade everything in dreary grey.  Those Americans most inclined to view themselves as being smarter than you have constructed a terribly stifling society where only goose-stepping lemmings rise in academia and freethinkers are punished for being brave.

It’s as if inside every one of those “make love, not war” pseudo-rebels was just another teenaged hitler screaming to get out.  And given how many of them now bend over backwards to defend vile hamas barbarians while blaming Jews for their own torture and suffering, it seems obvious to anyone with a working mind that the people most likely to define themselves as “anti-fascist” are, in fact, fascists of the worst kind today.

People are starting to gasp in disbelief as they learn just how much the woke have betrayed our Constitution.  Someday those who are now complicit with their silence will be asked: why did you not oppose government tyranny when you had the chance?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? No, they're worse.
Read more…

Insights on the last 60 years

Source; Laura Aboli

Is there anything Laura Aboli says here that you disagree with? Speaking on the horrendous social conditions being forced on us today by tyrannical and totally evil leaders, she speaks clearly on what has transpired over the last 60 years. She is condemning everything the NWO/WEF/Hard Left has pushed down our throats to destroy us.
Please pass this on to everyone you can and ask them to do the same.
Read more…

Border Madness

Source; Sent from a friend...... we need President Trump in office to rectify this invasion!!!!!!


The "wealth of Nations" is inextricably connected to the attitudes & culture of their inhabitants.

IN light of that, Garrett Jones, with a formidable bibliography, has documented how people tend to import political attitudes and cultural norms like luggage. When a people migrate, they bring attitudes derived from previous culture with them. Those imports ultimately change the receiving country's government, economy, and future. The past is prologue it seems. And that cultural persistence across generations is real, people never completely assimilate.

Jones found 3 dominant indicators that link the past political attitudes and cultural norms to the present: State history, Agricultural history, and Technological history since 1500 ad.  SAT for short.

Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau are illustrative. They have had a relative history of immigration whence came a high SAT scoring people with the legacy of good governance, competent bureaucracy, and Confucian culture.

Summarizing, when people migrate, they bring their SAT score with them, which means that a people's past is a better predictor of economic success than geopolitical history. HEY, that negates the standard narrative that the left-wing banters, that global poverty of today is overwhelmingly due to the so-called brutal, post 1500 post-Columbus oppression, you know, the standard woke garbage--AGAIN!

Jones' findings are confirmed in the findings of Diego Comin of harvard, Bill Easterly of nyu, and Rick Gong of the u of california, that concluded that 78% of the difference in income today between sub-Saharan Africa and Western Europe is associated with technological differences in 1500 ad and not attributed to the post-1500 slave trade, colonialism, or post-Independence factors(1).

Further, economists Yann Algan and Pierre Cahuc found that 46% of home-country attitudes towards trust persist in 2nd up to 4th generation immigrants. UCLA's Paola Giuliani found that 1st thru 3rd generation people whose parents came from countries with higher savings rates tended to save noticeably more than similar people whose parents came from countries with lower saving rates, such financial behavior being another predictor of national prosperity.

To be sure, there are outliers, for example, attitudes toward policing and religion aren't transplanted. However, the rule holds up well despite the outliers and a people's past does a good job of predicting outcomes. For example 60% of Hispanics compared to only 47% of whites believe people have hard lives not because of their attitude to the form of government but because government benefits do not go far enough, according to the Pew Research.

All this is to say that immigration has long-term consequences and that not all immigration is alike, which means the narrow conception of diversity the left-wing forces upon US comes at a dangerously high cost. A mountain of data and studies shows that increased ethnic diversity lowers trust in local neighborhoods and acts as a multiplier social conflict for the nation. Naturally, with that decrease, the social safety nets begin to fail, the result being usually a bigger, more pervasive, more ineffective and more corrupt government. Even the Journal of Economic Surveys noted the destruction of what gives the US its standard of living and freedom when it stated: "Ethnic diversity seems to lead to a shift from public spending on public goods to public provision of private goods, arguably because the latter can be targeted to particular power-enhancing groups."

Advanced countries like the US, experiencing or even welcoming endless waves of immigration that are transplanting cultural traits derived from those with low SAT scores can survive in the short term. But they are essentially plundering the legacy of those who came before, mortgaging their future by satisfying left-wing ideological fetishes and demands for cheap labor. All this makes human flourishing increasingly difficult and ultimately on a downward scale. The world will ultimately be worse off as a result. Where's the progress in that. But, that's what the left-wing supports and wants more of.
As a result of biden policies, America is experiencing a massive wave of illegal aliens. In fact, last September, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency reported that during the course of that fiscal year just over 2.76 million “border encounters” had occurred…compared to just over 1.95 million the previous year. That’s a 41%increase in one year!

The FBI is investigating more than a dozen migrants from Uzbekistan and other countries allowed into the US after they sought asylum at the southern border with Mexico earlier this year, a scramble set off when US intelligence officials found that the migrants traveled with the help of a smuggler with ties to ISIS, according to multiple US officials.

The episode was so alarming that an urgent classified intelligence report was circulated to biden’s top Cabinet officials in their morning briefing book. For some counterterrorism officials, it shows that the US is deeply vulnerable to the possibility that terrorists could sneak across the southern border by hiding amid the surge of migrants entering the country in search of asylum.

The biden regime has dumped 4 million illegals on the U.S. in the past 3 years alone. Martha’s Vineyard -- which voted 80% for biden -- got 49 of ‘em and immediately called the police. Within 36 hours, the National Guard had removed the unsightly newcomers. biden has been furtively sending planeloads of illegals on late-night “ghost flights” to U.S. airports with absolutely no advance warning, no resources and no right of refusal. Even in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, the Department of Homeland Security redacts the names of the luckless cities. Martha’s Vineyard, small yes, but somehow big enough accommodate an extra 180,000 people during the summer -- unlike the hundreds of towns and cities in less well-connected parts of the country that have been compelled to accommodate an additional 4 million illegals just in the last 3 years.

So, according to left-wing dogma:
    -- A governor sending 49 illegals to Martha’s Vineyard: KIDNAPPING.
     -- Homeland Security Director alejandro mayorkas dumping millions of illegals on towns throughout America (not Martha’s Vineyard): a liberal/democratic hero!
     -- rachel self, Martha’s Vineyard resident and immigration lawyer loading illegals onto a bus and personally ushering them off the island: Good Samaritan

rachel self in fact said: “has a year-round population of 17,000 people total, so 49 people for us being dropped here was the equivalent of 24,000 people being dropped in downtown Manhattan. That is not my America.”

 See, liberals are so addicted to their fatal ideology they're clueless. In the last year, more than 113,000 illegals have been “dropped” on New York City, with no end in sight.

That's not our America, either, rachel.

Asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background,” 81% of Christian nationalist adherents agreed. Yeah, these Christians are NUTS! Mass 3rd world immigration has been GREAT - especially for Jews!

1. There is a similar dynamic at play with immigration from Europe. In fact, the percentage of European descent in a given country can predict 75% of the differences in standard of living across countries. On average, the places outside of Europe that are the richest today were usually the poorest before Columbus. European colonization flip the world's fortunes upside down and gave the last the opportunity to became first.

Additional Info:


Read more…


Source; Sent from a friend....

It is a fundamental assumption flaw of wokeness to equate sexual equality with sameness. wokeism preaches to its disciples to ignore or reject any differences between the sexes. Obvious differences they want to deny include genes, organs, hormones, as well as the development of the brain, dispositions, and behaviors along with differences concerning styles of using language, processing emotions, solving problems, relating to others, and displaying skills. This woke notion of sameness is inconsistent with the biological, neurological, psychological, and sociological evidence. Differences are found in the expression of one's physical, psychological, moral, social, and yes, spiritual capacities, as well as in the expression of one's life's callings and virtues.

The biological body is a significant contributor to the person and personality. All psychological functions are influenced by our body and take place in it. Consider the huge amount of evidence from developmental neuroscience, physiology and from the related position of evolutionary theory. In short, to stimulate the human mind, one must also stimulate the human body.

Traditional--evidence-philosophical-spiritual(1) based--recognition of differences. while professing equality, is explained by the complementary nature between the sexes. When taken together, they provide a synergy that is a greater good than what they are considered as separate and different without respect to their relevance to each other. In other words, the traditional view is that there is a common human nature while at the same time sexually differentiated expressions of that nature, namely male and female.

Fact is, male and female brains are wired differently in a way that supports the traditional general sex difference interpretation. For example, even the American Psychiatric Association points out that a given disorder is more common in one sex or that the same disorder is manifested in different ways by each sex.

Reality proves each sex specializes in certain necessary biological and social tasks to create an environment better suited for human survival. Research and experience has shown that the feminine genius is rooted in being for the other, whereas the masculine genius is rooted in doing for the other, but at the same time, men are called to be for others as they do things, and women are called to do things as they are devoted to others.

The social constructionism of wokeism, however, is built upon a distinction between sex and gender. While sex is merely biological, for them instead, gender signifies how culture influences our views of masculinity and femininity, including the roles and characteristics that are supposedly appropriate for men and women, physiology be damned. Their rallying cry being "Don't follow the science."

The biological body is a significant contributor to the person and personality. All psychological functions are influenced by our body and take place in it. Consider the huge amount of evidence from developmental neuroscience, physiology and from the related position of evolutionary theory. In short, to stimulate the human mind, one must also stimulate the human body.

"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... In vain are Schools, Academies, and Universities instituted, if loose principles and licentious habits are impressed upon children in their earliest years." —John Adams

Many public school teachers are dedicated folks who work hard in difficult districts because they are devoted to their students. However, with child sexual predation, most abuse occurs in K-12 schools, and is the result of failed school administrators. In many cases, those administrators have attempted to conceal the abuse.

You won't hear about this from the teacher unions, but the U.S. Department of Education estimates that as many as one in 10 children has been subjected to sexual misconduct by school employees. I suppose that follows, given that schools are full of child victims for predators to target.

In addition to physical abuse by predators, most children are now being subjected to deviant gender-confused indoctrination at ever-younger ages, "grooming" activities that are sanctioned by leftist school administrators and unions. While this indoctrination is common in public school classrooms in states under liberal control, it is a growing problem in urban centers and other conservative states where cities are under liberal control.

Most parents do not consent to their children being exposed to what amounts to gender-dysphoric indoctrination. They often have no chance to opt out. That's a parental right and public business when a teacher takes gender-confused pathology into a classroom.

To be clear, "welcoming and inclusive" is code for woke’s  flawed"diversity, equity and inclusion."

I realize school administrators nationwide are constrained by an errant 2020 Supreme Court decision classifying deviant sexual pathology as a "protected civil right," on par with race and ethnicity. That court decision set into motion a litany of contortionist efforts by government bureaucracies (including schools) and private sector business to "accommodate" this gender diktat. That notwithstanding, there are members of school boards and administrations who fully support this deviant indoctrination.

This issue is, at its core, about the institutional failures propagated by leftist teacher unions and administrators, ultimately to their shame and disgrace, and the detriment of our young people.

To be clear, I don't believe that most people ensnared by gender-confusion culture or pathology are evil. Most are, themselves, victims of prior sexual abuse or have grown up with ineffectual/absentee fathers. They deserve our compassion.

However, those self-proclaimed "enlightened" liberals who want to deceptively "normalize" gender-confusion pathology are endeavoring to abandon people in their degraded state of suffering, and it is they who deserve our condemnation, much more so than the afflicted, for having abandoned them enslaved in their darkness and depression.

That is evil.

We all want to protect kids, a fitting rallying slogan would be, Protect Kids, Not Groomers.

“The earnest advocates of atheism and sexual perversion. This sprawling alliance of anti-God enthusiasts has proven frighteningly efficient at remaking America in their own brutal, dehumanizing image. In the space of a few decades, they have managed to entrench abortion and homosexual behavior, objectify children into sexual objects, criminalize Christianity in the popular culture, and promote guilt and self-doubt as the foremost qualities of our national character.”--Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives

1.     "The grace of the infused moral virtues shapes and energizes our human operative capacities, intellect, will, and sense appetites."--Cessario


Additional Info:


Read more…

Destroy and Make Worse

Source; Sent from a friend...

"Those who seek to shortcut the hard work of meaningful debate, compromise, and disagreement in pursuit of concrete common goods in favor of grand plans that must be adhered to as matters of faith seek not the common good but their own satisfaction. They are no friends to the people as persons, communities, or constructive elements of a humane civil social order."--Bruce Frohnen
Neoliberal ideology's dangerous and prevalent doctrine actively undermining what is left of our civilization is its promise to liberate people from what it terms "the chains" of traditional institutions, beliefs, and practices(1). And it has not, contrary to what is claimed, been democratic in the sense of the rule by the many. Neoliberalism's central irony is namely its consistent hostility toward popular majorities as the "threat to democracy." In fact left-wing elites within government, finance, and technology, as well as their supporters among the media and nonprofit groups, seek to control ever-increasing areas of life in the name of the people, but generally against the express will of democratic majorities. The result a being the observed and felt massive growth in centralized governmental power, along with increasing delegitimization of our governing structures and way of life.

Neoliberals' ironic imposition of power uses undemocratic means to impose what they as feel correct, and therefore, according to them, democratic policies on the people. What kind of policies? Neoliberal radical ones that will remove people from their past by destroying traditions, habits, and associations such as families and churches that by nature bind them to specific, concrete communities and beliefs.

Accordingly, centralized government has worked for decades to enact left-wing agendas to capture or kill local associations and communities while transforming education into cultural indoctrination, so that "the people" may take on a character strikingly similar to the Soviet model of what's termed a "new socialist man."

For example, liberal ideology can be seen at work in the concentration of power by the ruling classes such as those that control our and news and means of communication. One of their tactics is to repeatedly declare emergencies and then point to these emergencies as justification for increased administrative power and campaigns censoring alleged misinformation that presents inconvenient evidence or evinces loyalty to traditional institutions, beliefs and practices. This in effort to deliberate push of moral and political issues to adopt a set of their abstract criteria, posing as common sense, to dictate the rejection of concrete moral language, categories, and traditions, through such procedures as so-called values clarification, in order to reprogram the masses into assumptions and values consistent with their agenda 

Neoliberal ideology in effect demands that the people be forced from the associations that make them fully human and, not coincidentally, that provide them with the means and motivation to resist the centralized powers radically transforming their lives, in order to serve abstract--and often in reality total contradictory--goals like diversity, equity, and inclusion. This ideology cannot allow tradition, laws, practices, and institutions, even biology itself to determine one's choices.

And since unanimity (which is impossible since humans are shaped by biology along with different experiences, interests, and viewpoints) is required, authoritarian rule, coercion and force is justified, imposing procedures and assumptions that twist reality and undermine moral action. Quite literally at war with reality, the theoretical goods this ideology seeks produces concrete harm.

Beliefs and traditions are not dead weight from the past but, the mental and social means necessary for us to take in and process new information. They may have moral or immoral implications but, cannot be simply ignored or rooted out in favor of abstract principles; they must be engaged by people who seek to understand one another and are servants to truth and reality. As P.. Christopher Smith said: "Knowledge is not socially constructed; the world does, indeed, exist on its own. But we can only reason about the world, understand it and the duties we owe within it, in the context of a concrete, experience-based community that has formed names and meanings for its elements."

If neoliberal ideology's general will of the public rests on the assumption that truth and moral action are to be found in abstract concepts they form of justice, rather than in concrete understandings such as that of justice as something lived in daily interactions or what in court are deemed reasonable expectations of the parties to a given dispute, if justice is a matter of phrasing things politically correct du' jour, of assuming the equal value of all choices, for example, then we have passed beyond a world in which people reason together about how to achieve a better life into one in which all that matters is what we mouth and pay homage to the correct platitudes as we assign our wills to those and trusted with the real power to make choices consistent with their agenda.

Yes, neoliberals reject reality because it rules out the special place they've assigned themselves--avatars of the people and holders of "the truth," to which all most conform or else, whose self-proclaimed intelligence and abstract vantage point entitle them to rule.

"Fruitful, authentic change can only result from a particular society trying to be more fully itself by living up to, and in the process also revising, its own true highest moral standards."--Claes Ryn


1. Based on their flawed ideological view that the masses can act rationally in political life without the aid of intermediary institutions in which formulations breed common feeling and cooperation.


Additional info:

The danger
Read more…

Public v. Private Education

Source; SNGLR

Just Facts conducted extensive research to develop a methodology that reliably measures private school spending. Beyond analyzing academic papers and government reports, Just Facts performed data checks and corresponded with the Dept of Education and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to ensure accuracy.

First, let note that public schools have a disproportionate number of students with disabilities, who cost more to educate than other students. In 2019–20, students with disabilities comprised 1% of students in regular private schools and 14% of students in regular public schools. Accounting for this difference, the average cost of educating children in public schools is now 58% greater than in private schools. BUT government data on spending excludes some key items. These include: 

  • state government spending on administration.
  • the unfunded liabilities of pensions for government employees.
  • the costs of post-employment non-pension benefits (like health insurance) for government employees.

Such costs are common in public schools and rare in private ones.

Coupled with data on student outcomes, these findings have major implications for the state of the public education system and how to improve it. The actual amounts paid by individuals at private schools are often much lower because they receive discounts for reasons such as having low income, siblings in the school, or a parent who is a teacher.

To determine the cost of private schools, Just Facts measures all income to them, including tuition payments, charitable donations, and government spending on private school programs. The bottom line result is that the average inflation-adjusted cost of private K–12 education in the 2019–20 school year was $9,709 per student. This compares to the DOE’s figure of $17,013 per student for public schools—or 75% more than private schools.

schools, spending an average of $343,663 per classroom per year, have given you:

 -only 37% of U.S. residents aged 16 and older that can correctly answer a question that requires basic logic, addition, and division.
-only 22% of the college-bound high school students who take the ACT exam can meet its college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science).
-66% to 75% of all young adults in the U.S. unqualified for military service because of poor physical fitness, weak educational skills, illegal drug use, medical conditions, or criminal records.
-the drug overdose death rate has quintupled since 2000, and if it remains at the current level, one in every 40 people in the U.S. will ultimately die of a drug overdose.
-15-year-old U.S. students ranked 31st among 37 developed nations in math, even though the U.S. spends an average of 38% more per K-12 student than other developed nations.

Public schools cannot be logically blamed for the entirety of this ruin because many other factors may be involved. However, public schools play a role—and often a major one—in all of these outcomes. Hence, there is clearly room for improvement.

One of the most effective and time-tested ways to improve products and services is competition. Competition is a disciplining force for both buyers and sellers. In a competitive environment, producers must provide goods at a low cost and serve the interests of consumers; if they don’t, other suppliers will. This process leads to improved products and production methods and directs resources toward projects that create more value. It is a powerful stimulus for economic progress.

There is a near monopoly in public funded, anti-choice schooling. If families could be treated as consumers and had the right to freely choose which kind of education they would prefer for their children, choice would for both government and non-government schools improve. education. At least 22 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one found neutral-to-positive results, and none found negative results. Among 23 experimental (or quasi-experimental) studies that have been conducted on the academic outcomes of students who experience school choice:

  • 13 found statistically significant positive effects.6 found no statistically significant effects.
  • 3 found statistically significant negative effects.

"Follow the science!"

Private school choice generally increases public school funding per student, which is the primary measure of education funding. As explained by Stephen Cornman, a statistician with the DOE’s National Center for Education Statistics, per-pupil spending is “the gold standard in school finance.” It’s the funding per student that matters, not the funding per school.

Private school choice boosts per-pupil funding in public schools because the public schools no longer educate the students who go to private schools—which spend much less per student than public schools. This leaves additional funding for the students who remain in public schools.

For each non-disabled public school student who moves to a private school, the cost to educate her declines from an average of about $16,000/year to $10,000. This leaves an extra $6,000 in funds to support the administrations and unions(1) at the public schools. The savings can be even greater if the law caps the amount of money for private schools to less than $10,000.

School choice initiatives are typically designed to help children whose parents can’t afford private school. Even though some of the benefits go to students who are already in private schools, the net result has been that most school choice programs save money (note: only 8% of public school spending is for operations and maintenance).

Instead of increasing per student funding for public schools, the money saved through school choice could be used to reduce taxes or pay down government debt. In 2021, federal, state, and local governments spent $745 billion on K–12 education, costing every household in the U.S. an average of $5,764. Over the average U.S. lifespan of this amounts to $438,000 per household. Compared to private schools, public schools are costly and ineffective.

1. Although choice could help students, parents, and taxpayers, it would harm teachers unions by depriving them of dues and power. Private schools are less likely to have unions.

In turn, this financially harms left-wing/democratic politicians, political action committees, and related organizations, which get tens of millions each year from teachers’ unions. Unions also give many unreported donations to left-wing/democratic Party causes.

The National Education Association sent an open letter to democrats stating that “opposition to vouchers is a top priority for NEA,” which is why left-wingers/democrats oppose school choice. Nevertheless, public school teachers are more likely to place their own children in private schools than other parents, like joe biden, BObama, mrs. clinton, and liz warren, who personally attended and/or sent their own children to private schools.

Additional info:

Read more…

Too Too Much

Source; Sent from an Internet friend.....


The Wall Street Journal reported on the insane spending of American public universities, with special emphasis on their proclivity for expensive building projects. What is this for, despite billions wasted on construction since 2000, classroom and faculty office space remained stubbornly insufficient and had not expanded for decades.

The nation’s public universities have been on an unfettered spending spree. They erected new skylines comprising snazzy academic buildings and dorms. They poured money into big-time sports programs and hired layers of administrators. Then they passed the bill along to students, inextricably tied to the nation’s $1.6 trillion federal student debt crisis. Colleges have paid for their sprees in part by raising tuition prices, leaving many students to take on more debt. That means student loans served as easy financing for university projects.

Construction is merely the most visible extravagance modern American universities have allowed themselves. They are also spending vastly more on personnel, especially administrators. Trustees demanded little accountability and often rubber-stamped what came before them. And schools inconsistently disclose what they spend, making it nearly impossible for the public to review how their tuition and tax dollars are being used.

Federally-backed student loans increased the amount that schools could charge, and they raised tuition to claim this money. For the most part, that amounted to expanding the ranks of those cadres responsible for managing funds, namely the administrators and their subordinate staff, as well as those things which administrators manage, such as buildings and the building of them.

The institutional apparatus of the university itself – including its central managers and its physical manifestation in the form of the campus – has absorbed the money. The existing administration and the better-connected faculty paid themselves more and deepened their expense accounts to some extent. The money could have been spent on core academic functions, such as hiring more professors, increasing faculty salaries to snag the best scholars, improving research funding and facilities or building more and better classrooms. Obviously, faculty have better-appointed offices and classrooms now than they did 30 years ago, but it is almost nothing in comparison to the money pissed away on worthless buildings and worthless managers. University administrations can’t so easily pilfer funds, so when they have an excess of them, they simply hire more managers like themselves.

As a general principle, in any political-economic system based on appropriation and distribution of goods, rather than on actually making, moving, or maintaining them, and therefore, where a substantial portion of the population is engaged in funneling resources up and down the system, that portion of the population will tend to organize itself into an elaborately ranked hierarchy of multiple tiers. As a corollary within those hierarchies, the line between retainers and subordinates will often become blurred, since obeisance to superiors is often a key part of the job description. Most of the important players are lords and vassals at the same time.

It is not a system that emerged to extract more money from taxpayers, customers, students or donors, but rather an institutional response to the abundance of these resources after the institution has collected them. The Principle of Managerial Self-Multiplication at work here. Increased funding is used 1st and foremost to expand those sectors of the bureaucracy which have initial control over these funds, and secondarily to give the expanded bureaucracy something to do. The faculty at almost all universities operate with substantial independence from the administration and they are arranged in self-governing departments. Hiring more faculty would not actually keep the expanded administration very occupied, and so a great part of the funds go into classic administrative projects, like construction instead. An important feature of all this runaway managerialism, is that almost none of it is about the core institutional mission itself. It is not about teaching students, or making tea or running an online encyclopedia. It is instead perversely recursive, addressed to the internal management of the institution itself.

As money enters a sufficiently elaborate institutional apparatus, there are endless opportunities for bureaucrats to direct the funds towards their own, internal purposes. Complexity plays a central role here; where no single person can comprehend how the institution as a whole functions, spending decisions become impossible to direct towards any rational purpose. Over time, the resources are commandeered in service of the separate, institutionally mediated goals of the managers, who strive above all to expand their own ranks.

Managerialism(***) is an ever-advancing process of decay masquerading as an administrative system, and it has become a defining pathology of Western civilization. Our lives are run by massive institutions in thrall to complex institutional forces beyond all human understanding, which every day become more convoluted, unpredictable and self-serving. This parasitic, tumorous growth now commands the resources of a great part of the economy, and it uses these resources to grow itself still further. Worst of all, nobody has any idea about how to stop it, let alone reverse its terrible progress.
***. “The bourgeoisie [middle class] became decadent not because it was sensible and restrained but because it leveled the edifices of the sacred and the traditional to subject all things to acquisitive appetite and worldly power…in the post-Freudian world they have come to believe they do not indulge their appetite nearly enough…reducing themselves to merely workers, consumers or parasites…”---Jacques Maritian

“If asked about my guiding principles, I would always refer to my skepticism and even to my distaste for the spirit of the age and its fellow travelers….a healthy society depends on individuals who refuse to compromise their integrity, even if that means standing in opposition to what appears to be the majority opinion…republics die when citizens abandon politics to the unprincipled.”---Joachim Fest

Western civilization lives mainly under a single political concept, call it managerial neo-liberalism (or progressivism), that combines an emphasis on the values of individual satisfaction and the process of democracy with the domination of social life by those deemed as political correct experts or functionaries. Together these forces have led to the suppression of speech and religion, cultural particularity, individual choice and sexual distinction. The advertised goal, of increased freedom, instead in effect is that human life becomes what those in power say it is, with their implicit claim of the right to remake the most basic arrangement(1)

This process is implemented through the effort to overturn traditional notions of decency and order in the interest of a calculating (by erroneous) claim of progress is never satisfied. This ideology, term it Progressivism, leads inevitably to utter irrationality and eventually political, as well as moral, chaos. This is so since in such a setting, wanting to do something, the Nietzscheian will to power, becomes the criteria for what makes it worth doing. And the good of a thing can only be the satisfaction of preferences simply as such.

For it is a tenet of organizational and human behavior that freedom and equality destroy all limitations when treated as ultimate standards. The conundrum then is that the more the culture through politics maximizes freedom, the more it must narrowly limit what is permissible, lest it interfere with the required equality of freedom of the other, or the centralized monopolistic functioning of the government.

The result is that the neo-liberal state cannot allow people to take seriously the things they have traditional taken most seriously(2). What then becomes the operant condition of this managerial neo-liberalism is the suppression of how people can understand their lives when at odds with the neo-liberal view.  Those who do not accept this transformation, no matter how sound, developed, accurate and superior their stance, are to be excluded from public discussion—demonized and attacked as cranks who oppose freedom, equality, and reason.

Neo-liberal principles, in the long-run then, cannot compromise, cannot exist simultaneously with and must ultimately destroy every other non-liberal value and institution, especially the very ones that neo-liberal ideologies need to survive and continue.  For the problem is that the idea of equal freedom (which must be defined in terms of the individual as the recipient) as the highest goal (the goal used as the tool for aggressively expanding monopolistic government domination of all human lives), cannot be made consistent with itself. If individual preference is supreme, whose preferences win when the difference cannot be reconciled? How is freedom consistent with government effectiveness, equality and the view that so-called experts ought to determine and guide what everyone does? For the enormous complex, bureaucratic, heavily regulated leviathan must require uniform centralization and strict limits on disturbing factors like enterprise, competition and choice of, by and for the individual.

Under such conditions formal and informal traditional institutions that democratic, free and open societies depended upon start to fall; family life disintegrates, religion turns to mush, neighborhoods become less neighborly, entertainment propagates ever cruder habits and attitudes, employment ties and loyalty weaken, cultures separate, understanding and tolerance dissolve. The politics of such a culture then becomes ever more irrational and manipulative, with social peace having to be purchased by bribing the discontented and the parasites who are told they are free, equal, happy, and in charge but, in reality, are the exact opposite.

“Neo-liberalism, which claims to create and own modest, sensitive  tolerant and rational setting that lets everyone follow his own best understanding of how to live, turns out to impose a system that must give immense power to an irresponsible ruling class and tries to force the whole of life into patterns radically at odds with natural human tendencies.”—James Kalb

A universal law that even societies must adhere to is that error cannot sustain itself. What allows the managerial neo-liberal regime to sustain and continue functioning currently are habits of loyalty, sacrifice and understandings of natural goods and purposes. Managerial neo-liberalism continually undermines those, it cannot even justify them.

The process to reform all this does starts with truth. Humans are certainly capable of adhering to truths of reality more concrete than rather maligned abstractions such as social justice or global consciousness. If truth comes first, principles such as freedom, equality and human nature can be seen from an inclusive perspective that can give each due credit without tyrannizing over the others. When something else comes first, irrationality and oppression inevitably must follow.

“The obvious truth---that it is necessary to repress the permanent possibility in human nature of brutality and barbarism ultimately inevitable from relativism -- never finds its way into our schools or the press, or other mass communication.” --- Theodore Dalrymple

“It’s easy to blame the masses indoctrinated by our public school monopoly and liberal biased media but, blame should fall on those who knew better but failed out of self-interest to take a stand”---Robert Beum

“The first step towards sound reform is to adopt the principle not to concede basic points in order to get along but to insist on principle in every possible setting… Tradition must be illuminated and renewed by reason, reason must be tempered and steadied by tradition...We can hope to keep our own minds rich, insightful, and prudent. We can share such wisdom as we have with family, friends, and colleagues. Thereby keeping alive the heritage of Western civilization, despite its cultured despisers, for the time when it will, most assuredly, be wanted and needed again.”—R. V. Young

“Do not give in to evils: fight back ever more boldly.”---Virgil

“There are many dangers in life, and safety is one of them.”---Goethe

“Courage is stiffness before the seductive corruption of men.”---Joseph Conrad

(1) For example, the redefinition of marriage, or the creation out of pure fabricated penumbra a right of abortion in effect makes mankind its own God, political correctness its sacraments with human politics then the authoritative expression of his mind, spirit and will, making the substance of the separation of church and state a subtle but substantial joke.

(2) “Family, religion, particular culture, and local autonomy resist external supervision and control.”---R.V. Young


Read more…

Climate Update

Source; Sent from an internet friend...

Climate models, the supposed science for claiming there's a climate crises,  routinely run too hot, both hindcasting and forecasting far more warming than is actually measured by surface stations, weather balloons, and global satellites.

Research from the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, concludes the Earth is not as sensitive to additions of CO2 as has been assumed, because of flawed assumptions about feedback loops, because almost no models properly conserve energy, because various other factors mitigating CO2 and impacting temperatures are ignored or inadequately modeled.

Despite 30 years of refinements and revisions, and multiple iterations and versions of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project models, climate simulations have been unable to significantly close the projected gap or settle on a unified number. As a result, 80% of climate models project larger, steeper global warming trends, since 1970, than actual observations record and trend data reveals.

2 scientists have worked for over a decade to develop a single-dimension climate model which incorporates time-dependent forcing-feedbacks of temperature departures from energy equilibrium to match measured ranges of global-average surface and sub-surface land and ocean temperature trends during 1970–2021. Their model produced a climate sensitivity estimate of 1.9℃ in response to a doubling of CO2. If warming is partly natural, it would further reduce climate sensitivity.

The science of climate change knows very little about the factors which impact climate sensitivity(1). Climate models have been specifically developed and designed to produce 1 output: average global temperature, a made-up metric. If there is no certainty for climate sensitivity across climate models, then there is certainly no reason to trust or enact public policies in response to any of the ancillary extreme weather outputs and projections that climate models forecast in response to different emission concentration pathways.

In the end, science hasn’t produced a solid measure of climate sensitivity and what drives it. Science hasn’t produced and modeled concentration pathways that reflect actual emissions. Scientists can’t agree on how various forcing factors, like solar activity, clouds, large-scale ocean currents, and aerosols actually impact temperatures, much less how to incorporate them into climate models. Scientists disagree about how various ecosystems and component parts of them might respond to warmer temperatures and what feedback loops they might produce, contributing to or detracting from general warming. And scientists don’t know what features and physical mechanisms might remain unaccounted for, rather than just difficult to model—forcing factors or features that impact temperatures and long-term weather patterns on local, regional, or global scales that remain unknown at present.

With all this in mind, climate science, rather than speaking with confidence of an impending climate crisis absent the cessation of fossil fuel use, adopt the humility of Socrates, who understood how little he actually knew, or, per Einstein, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.” The public would certainly be better served if rather than proclaiming the science is settled, admit there are a lot of unknowns and because the stakes are so high, advised policy makers to proceed with caution, adopting policies(2) that are flexible and allow adaptation in the face of an unknowable future.

1. A Statistics Norway report claims that climate research operates with too short time intervals to be able to determine whether the influence of CO2 on temperatures has a statistical correlation. Other factors such as cloud formation, solar activity, and ocean currents have a significant impact, the researchers claim. Key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures.

Statistics Norway points out huge gaps in the climate models, like their inability to account for forcing factors beyond CO2, like water vapor, solar activity, internal natural variation based on large-scale periodic shifts in oceanic and atmospheric currents and activities, and other stochastic, seemingly chaotic and unpredictable occurrences, which have historically affected temperatures across different time scales.

The statistical methods and analysis used by Statistics Norway strongly suggests these factors likely play a much more significant role in present temperatures and temperature trends than is assumed in climate models or understood by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Analysis shows that temperature variations over various time scales, especially longer time scales, are neither accurately represented by climate models nor explained by assuming CO2 and other trace anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions are the sole or even primary factor driving present temperatures.

Others have long pointed out that climate models run too hot and consistently fail to accurately reflect past temperatures when hindcast without significantly forcing (aka, lying) them to match actual measured temperatures. Statistics Norway’s statistical analysis is providing independent confirmation of what previous research has indicated about the limits of models. Its analysis goes further by pointing toward specific alternative factors which could be driving temperature changes—factors which honest researchers and scientific bodies say merit further research to determine if better accounting for them could provide an improved understanding of climate change.

This study provides a concise analysis of various factors which have historically impacted temperature variations. It also provides an original statistical time-series comparison of temperature trends—as understood from temperature reconstructions of historical temperatures based on proxy data and, more recently, of temperature data from various modern measurement technologies—and climate model reconstructions which assume carbon dioxide concentrations drive most temperature changes. SN states: "Recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data … raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2...we find that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.

This study does not some come from organization that can be portrayed as fringe or funded by interested parties, or a narrow group of climate researchers who can be dismissed (wrongly, of course) as climate deniers, the IPCC and other scientific bodies will have to contend with and take account of this report’s findings going forward.

Andrew Montford recently produced a new paper for Net Zero Watch which demonstrates that it is almost an impossibility for new renewable power construction to decrease consumers’ electric power prices.

2. Net Zero Watch makes transparent the economic, political, and normative implications of climate change policies. It details a series of effects any new windfarm construction imposes on the grid and the types of costs it adds to people’s power bills, which make it virtually impossible that adding any new windfarm to the grid would ever reduce consumer prices.

In order to reduce bills, a new generator generally has to force an old one to leave the electricity market—otherwise there are 2 sets of costs. But with wind power, you can’t let anything leave the market, because there might be no wind.

Renewables need subsidies, they cause inefficiency, they require new grid balancing services that need to be paid for; the list of all the different effects is surprisingly long. There is only 1 way a windfarm will push your power bills, and that’s upwards.

6 distinct ways that adding a new wind farm to an electric grid will add new costs that are almost impossible to offset:
1.The inefficiency effect. The added cost related to the need to switch fuels and operate plants less efficiently, meaning higher costs per unit of energy produced, as new generation, especially subsidized intermittent generation is added to the grid.
2. The capacity market effect. The cost added to get now non-competitive generating units to continue operating rather than shut down to ensure sufficient power is available during emergencies or peak demand
3. The levy effect. The actual cost of the subsidies needed to get expensive wind farms built and approved--their capital, legal, and regulatory costs.
4. Constraints payments
5. Artificial inertia
6. The transmission effect

The wind may free, but harnessing wind power is far from it.

Additional info:

Read more…

"Well, there they go, again!"

Source; Sent from a Friend Online.....

This enemy does not just want to annihilate Israel, which would already be reason enough for a war; this enemy wishes to overthrow the West and enslave us all under the Sharia, smothered by the crazed Islamic sects in which they militate, surrendering conscience, life, and will. They sacrifice their own children as human shields; how were they going to respect the babies of the enemy? And at the same time, what kind of war can you have with an enemy who respects not their own lives, nor that of their people, nor that of a baby?

Whose side are the United States and Europe on? Tributes to terrorists have been held upon their streets without the authorities breaking them up or arresting those people who support the most vicious terrorists. In the media we find individuals calling for equidistant debates, as if what has happened could allow for equidistant. And most importantly: Why the hell are we funding this?

The West is harboring the devil itself inside the ghettos of its big cities — especially in Europe, where the day before yesterday in French, German, English, and Danish cities there were, true to God, jihadist parties in Islamic neighborhoods to celebrate the barbaric attacks.

The time has come for a change of cycle — the time to save Western civilization. Full resources, full ability, full intelligence, full unity, and full determination are needed. It is time to condemn and pursue Islamic terrorism for real, in Israel, in the United States, in France, or wherever, until it is defunded and extinguished, to at least give our future generations a chance to live in peace and freedom.

Despite biden’s full-throated support for Israel, his regime kept Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who enjoyed a cozy relationship with former Trump, at arm’s length. The decision reflected left-wing ideological anti-antisemitism for Israel, the nature of biden’s base, which includes liberal urban Jewish voters as well as liberals in general sympathetic to the actions of jihadist palestinians.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince and de facto ruler mohammed bin salman, while “underscoring the Kingdom’s unwavering stance in standing up for the Palestinian cause” does NOTHING to help them establish a productive, civilized, peaceful "nation." He certainly avoids mentioning his country's deep involvement in creating the palests condition and he's absolutely against providing them any position in his country, like biden is with all the illegals flooding into the US. Iran’s state news agency blamed “the crimes of the Zionist regime and the US’s green light the cause of the destructive insecurity.”

“Israel has become the great excuse for much of the arab world, the way for regieme to deflect from their own failures.”---Fareed Zakari

The Arab position is that the current state of affairs in the Middle East is because of Israel.


* The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel.

* The mass murder  in Sudan, where the Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel.

* The Algerian murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel.

* Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel.

* Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel.

* Syria's Assad did not kill tens of thousands of his own citizens in El Hamm Syria because of Israel.

* The Taliban control of Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with Israel.

* The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had nothing to do with Israel.

* ISIS had nothjng to do with Israel

Israel has a historical, sociological, and legal right to exist. See Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz’s the case for Israel, where he starts each chapter making the best case the Palestinians have on each issue and then refuting it, for more information. Israel is a pluralistic society. Israel allows religious freedom. Arabs make up approximately 20% of Israel’s population and have full civil rights. Arabs also make up 20% of Israel’s governments. Israel is the only Middle East nation and culture were gays at full equality and civil rights under government.

The root of the trouble is that the Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard and without Israel. The 22 member countries of the Arab league have a total population of 300 millions. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP of half of the GDP of California. The gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human rights are below any reasonable standard, while Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. The total number of scientific publications is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high. Yet almost everybody in the region blames this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and anything, except themselves.

So Islam is at war with Western civilization. Why? There are the 4 main reasons:

1). Suicide-murder. It is a potent psychological weapon whose direct impact is relatively minor. It creates headlines. It is spectacular. It is frightening. It is cruel. And it is a war! Most suicide-murders also have nothing to do with poverty and despair. The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa. It never happens there. Desperation does not provide anyone with explosives, reconnaissance and transportation. A suicide-murder is simply a horrible, vicious weapon of cruel, inhuman, cynical, well-funded terrorists, with no regard to human life, including the life of their fellow countrymen, but with high value to affluent Arabs hungry for power. The only way to fight this new weapon is the offensive way. As with organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the offensive be united and reach the top of the pyramid. You must go after the head of the "Family."

2). Words, or more precisely, lies. Words can be lethal. They kill people. An incredible number of people in the Arab world believe that 9-11 never happened, or was an American provocation or, even better, a Jewish plot. The Western press, directly or indirectly, gives credence to this insane belief by reporting them as if they could be true. It is a daily routine to hear the same leader making opposite statements in Arabic to his people and in English to the rest of the world. Incitement by Arab TV has become a powerful weapon of those who lie, distort and want to destroy everything.  Watch Al Jazeera. You will not believe your own eyes. They call the actual murderer the "the military wing," the one who pays him, equips him and sends him is called "the political wing" and the head of the operation is called the "spiritual leader." Such Orwellian nomenclature is used every day not only by terror chiefs but also by Western media. These words provide an emotional infrastructure for atrocities. Joseph Goebels, who said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it, would be proud.

3). Money. Huge amounts, which could have solved many social problems in this dysfunctional part of the world, are channeled into spheres supporting death and murder. The inner circles are primarily financed by terrorist states like Iran and Syria, until recently also by Iraq and Libya and earlier also by some of the Communist regimes. These states, as well as the Palestinian Authority, are the safe havens of the wholesale murder vendors. And the Islamic religious, educational and welfare organizations brainwash a new generation with hatred, lies and ignorance, blaming everybody outside the Moslem world for the miseries of the region.

4). Breaking laws. The civilized world believes in democracy, the rule of law, including international law, human rights, free speech and free press, among other liberties. They respect religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human bombs. Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was there such total disregard of all of the above as we observe now. But now we have an entire new set. Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you, standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one location to another, always surrounded by children? All of these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What do you do? It cannot be avoided.

The problem is that the civilized world is still suffering an illusion about the rule of law in a totally lawless environment. In the same way that no country has a law against cannibals eating its prime minister, because such an act is unthinkable, international law does not address killers shooting from hospitals, mosques and ambulances, while protected by their Government or society. International law does not know how to handle someone who sends children to throw stones, stands behind them and shoots with immunity and cannot be arrested because he is sheltered by a Government, or how to deal with a leader of murderers who is royally and comfortably hosted by a country, which pretends to condemn his acts or claims to be too weak to arrest him. The amazing thing is that all of these crooks demand protection under international law, and define all those who attack them as "war criminals," with some Western media repeating the allegations.

The picture is not pretty. What can we do about it? In the short run, fight and win. But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you have to realize that you are in a war, and this may take Europe a few more years. In order to win, it is necessary to first eliminate the terrorist regimes, so that no government in the world will serve as a safe haven for these people. Look at the map of Western Asia. Terrorist states still remain remain.

It is also necessary to eliminate the financial resources of the terror conglomerate. The subtle differences between the Sunni of Al Qaeda and Hamas and the Shiite of Hezbollah, Sadr and other Iranian inspired enterprises, is put aside when it serves their business needs, all collaborate beautifully. It is crucial to stop Saudi support. To monitor all donations from the Western World and international relief organizations to Islamic organizations, and to react with forceful economic measures to any small sign of financial aid to terrorism.

In the long run -- educate the next generation and open it to the world. The inner circles can and must be destroyed by force. The outer circle cannot be eliminated by force. Here we need financial starvation of the organizing elite, more power to women, more education, counter propaganda, boycott whenever feasible and access to Western media, Internet and the international scene. Above all, we need an absolute unity and determination of the civilized world against all three circles of evil, specifically as it relates to Iran. Iran definitely has ambitions to rule the area. It has an ideology which claims supremacy over Western culture. It is ruthless. It has proven that it can execute elaborate terrorist acts without leaving too many traces. Iran sponsors terrorism, it is certainly behind much of the action, it is fully funding the Hezbollah, the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which has performed acts of terror in Europe, South America, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. It leads a multinational terror consortium.

It is also important to act decisively against the campaign of lies and fabrications and to monitor those Western media who collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or ignorance. Above all, never surrender to terror. For if the Arab world is ever to adopt free elections, free press, free speech, a functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free international travel, exposure to international media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and children, then the solution can never be for other democratic states to turn away and surrender to terrorism. If democracy is just free elections, then the most fanatic regime will be elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most inflammatory. It will happen if the ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.

Further information:


students, like nazis students of the 1930's



Read more…


Source; Sent from a friend on the internet...

There is no FBI report on the number of murders and other violent crimes committed by the illegal immigrants biden has invited across our southern border. Why is that? Maybe they're too busy spying on Catholics?

It is clear that the highest-profile anti-Semites in America are the left-wing democrat House Jew-hating Islamists, Reps. rashida tlaib and ilhan omar. They help to explain a surge in attacks against American Jews and the growing anti-Semitic sentiments on university campuses. Big Tech is giving those haters a pass, but prospective employers are not. Insurrection anyone?

According to a Harvard/Harris poll, only the police and military are more respected than Israel.
Then again, “palestinian authority” gets 17% support, and hamas has a 14% positive rating — which is to say, 14% of your neighbors have taken the side of a medieval religious cult that’s vicious enough to cut Jewish babies out of mothers before beheading them. If 14% of Americans supported ISIS or al Qaeda or the Nazi Party, would you be concerned?

The BObama types, who do the perfunctory throat-clearing about Israel’s right to exist before going into the usual reasons it should not. This faction is a growing concern in the left-wing/democratic Party.

According to the Harvard poll, 36% of “liberals” of all ages agreed that the hamas unprovoked brutal attack on civilians was justified.  While antisemitism isn’t the exclusive domain of left, full-blown hamas apologists are now deeply embedded in left-wing institutions such as universities, major newspapers, cable news, progressive politics, think tanks, and the State Department. They have the kind of disproportionate reach and institutional respect that cosplaying Nazis standing in front of Disney playing with themselves can only dream about.

Of course, barbarians hate Israel! Surrounded by enemies, Jews transformed an unforgiving desert into a 1st-rate civilization. Did anyone imagine the Holocaust would temper the bitter jealousy? That’s like heterosexual white coeds claiming to be “binary” to earn woke street cred. You’re still pretty, and they still hate you.

The conflict is far larger than disaffected immigrants cheering mass murder by invading paragliders. This is an endemic problem. Israel can’t do much about the neighborhood, but why on Earth is the U.S. importing preposterous hate-driven foreigners from 3rd-rate cultures? The failure of their ancestors to create anything worthwhile, certainly compared to the stupendous accomplishments of the West, is too glaringly obvious. Inviting millions upon millions of them here, to gawk at, take advantage of and then denigrate our magnificent civilization, is a guarantee of perpetual strife and resentment. It could never work. It was always an insane idea.

Instead of trampling on the free speech rights of people who hate the West, how about avoiding the problem altogether by leaving them where they are? They’ll like it! Vastly fewer “white supremacists” to oppress them. And all the joys and benefits of what they have created--their homeland. They can hate us all they want. Just do it from their own countries


“Puerilism is the attitude of a community whose behavior is more immature that its intellectual and critical facilities would warrant.”---John Huizinga

Western societies have experienced a serious deterioration in their moral values. What they’ve experienced can be linked to what’s been defined as the deadening effect of the "mass man"; a loss of responsible freedom under the Leviathan state. This loss includes the collapse of recognizable standards of beauty in art; a weakening of educational standards; the marginalization of religion and the dominance of a materialistic culture based on jejune entertainment and instant gratification.  What can explain this apparent breakdown in the values that had been central to Western civilization? What are the causes?

Perhaps this decline is the result of an absence of adequate metaphysical principles, objective values having an existence not dependent on one's feelings and subjective attitudes. Objective values that are propositions that embody universal truths. Propositions which are able to characterize a number of different particulars. In other words knowledge, which is a product of reason; and beliefs in universals and principles which are inseparable from the life of reason

Modern philosophy, summarized by the term neo-liberalism, has tended to reject the reality of universals and in their place instead assert that all abstract ideas are, in fact, ideas of particular things ultimately are derived from the senses. However, if all knowledge is reducible to personal experience or sensation, there can be no moral or aesthetic value other than what seems valuable to each person, based on what he feels at any given moment. In that self-centered and self-indulgent refusal to recognize the world as it really is the essential core of the notion of decadence. It is a barbarianism that rejects the cultivation of the intellect and seeks only power or physical comfort, du’ jour.

In a moral philosophy, termed here as classic-liberalism, the very notion of obligation, what "ought" to be done, implies the existence of objective moral values. In contrast, the relativism of neo-liberalism denies both the objectivity of moral law and the existence of objective limits on personal conduct. Neo-liberalism then, which holds that all knowledge results from sense experience and that there is no other order of reality, has a devastating practical effect, since the values inherent in the moral order provide people with principles to live by.

If, as neo-liberalism contends, a statement that X is good or bad is only a verbal ejaculation of emotion, morality is both irrational and wholly subjective. But that premise is erroneous. "This is good" is not the same as "I like this." "This is good" is both cognitive and normative; it gives us objective information about something other than ourselves. This is the critical point in moral discourse, where we are taken beyond sensory and subjective feeling into an objective realm of value. The universe contains an objective moral order, which subsists independently of our awareness of it.

The neo-liberal approach weakens us in many ways. Judgments of approval, in the absence of standards of value, become little more than reactions to present stimuli. There is no longer anything to bequeath to the future. The society becomes immersed in the present. Without historical memory, neither culture nor moral order is possible. The quest for immediacy puts society on the path in which we can no longer recognize evil and depravity. Standards of propriety are abandoned because they might inhibit self-expression. The most permanent feature then becomes a compound of humbug, pretense, and vulgarity, which we can identify as "Hollywood values", which means either we will value nothing at all, or we will value experience in itself. This is precisely the condition of decadence. It manifests itself in exclusive concentration on material things, insensitivity to beauty, ignorance of history, a utilitarian attitude to education and indifference to religion. All of these defects are present in modern Western civilization.

Classic-liberalism argues that no particular configuration of matter on any particular occasion can exhaust the universal values of order, coherence, resemblance, and regularity. These universal values, therefore, cannot be wholly supplied by ourselves-they are outside of us and transcendent. At the heart of all of these values is the virtue of self-discipline, which teaches us that we have certain responsibilities that have to be fulfilled, that good character comes through objective values. When the discipline of the permanent values is forgotten, citizens become spoiled, arrogant, and impious. This is the condition of decadence.

The prevailing neo-liberal values of today require neither discipline nor intellectual rigor. They rest upon sentiment and sensation, not reason. They reflect a society in which true excellence and distinction are regarded with suspicion. Where everyone seeks to shift blame to someone else, and government is expected to make people happy. That is the substance of spoiled children, who believe that luxury is an entitlement and seek scapegoats to conceal their own defects. These attitudes are symptomatic of a society in decline, and they are likely to lead sooner or later to a diminution of freedom.

Although Democracy may be a workable model for political relationships, it cannot be a principle of order in social and cultural life. However, the great danger in the disappearance of objective criteria is the impact it has on justice and civic virtue. It gives rise to resentment, repression and rebellion against every kind of distinction and authority. It feeds mass democracy's detrimental distrust of genuine ability and intellectual excellence.

Decadence is manifested politically in the love of power for its own sake-in particular, the aggrandizement and worship of the state. In contemporary political theory, planning, efficiency and an explosion of rights are seen as ends in themselves. There is a real danger that society will evolve toward Huxley's Brave New World, in which material comfort will be offered to everyone in exchange for the abolition of freedom and initiative. The more functions the State takes over from the individual, the fewer there are for the individual to be capable of exercising for himself. In a bureaucratic society fewer and fewer people listen. The result is the increasing institutionalization of ignorance. As Christopher Dawson observed: “The more ignorant men are, the more inevitable their fate.” Inevitable because such a system, as John Lukacs said: “… involves something that has nothing to do with an IQ or with functions of the brain: it involves not an inability to think about certain matters but an unwillingness to do so.”

Voters will therefore welcome increased dependence on government for health, education, welfare, and the other burdens of life, so long as they have access to the bread and circuses of everyday enjoyment. Increased dependence, in turn, leads to corruption. In periods of strain and crisis, this habitual neo-liberal way of life, lacking any foundation in principle, will crumble and collapse and ultimately to despotism. The Leviathan state then is part and parcel of the cultural decline.  And the Leviathan state, in the form we find in Western civilizations today, requires supported, in its current stage, by Positivist legal reasoning.

Additional info:

Read more…