What are the Big Issues of the day?

1. Donald Trump has been elected president of the USA, which is (a) impossible and (b) intolerable. 
2. President Trump has or has not called shithole countries “shithole countries”; and can it really be true that he weighs only 239 lbs. and is in good health?
3. It has come to light that over the last thirty years or so, for the first time in history, women have been pursued by men for sexual gratification, which is wrong except when Bill Clinton does it.
4. Studies show that white men run everything and must be replaced in all leadership positions by non-whites and women.
5. The academic discipline of mathematics is racist and sexist, and must be made more comprehensible to feminists and other non-intellectuals by infusions of emotion.
6. In a hundred years or so the planet could be a degree or two warmer than it is now.

There are other issues, good and bad, but they are comparatively trivial. Fox TV, conservative papers, some users of social media, and right-wing radio bring them up, but the mainstream media have the good sense not to excite or trouble the public over them.

1. The United States is in the grip of economic recovery.
2. The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton corrupted the Intelligence agencies and the Department of Justice, by bringing them into a conspiracy to falsely accuse Donald Trump of collusion with the Russians in order to scuttle his candidacy, and later to try to nullify his election as president.
3. Nation states are coming to an end as borders are opened and vast numbers of refugees from shithole countries are moving into the West, which will soon experience radical transformations of their laws, culture and values to turn them into shithole countries.
4. Chief among the transformers are Muslims, whose law, culture and values will bring women – even feminist women – into subjection.
5. Muslims are further advancing their conquest of the West by means of terrorist attacks which can and do kill anybody anywhere at any time.
6. The aggressive states of North Korea and Iran are threatening nuclear war.

Admittedly the nuclear war threats are noticed sometimes by the mainstream media – but only because they are entirely the fault of President Trump.

What qualifies an American to be president of the United States, apart from his or her birth in one of them, and being over the age of 35?

Whatever training, talents, experience, knowledge, opinions, accomplishments qualified a person in the past are no longer applicable. Forget about them. There is a new set of qualifications.

His or her skin color comes first. He or she must not be white.

Next comes his or her gender. “Cis-heteronormative Male” is out. Any of the other 73 genders are acceptable. So take out “he, him, his” from the discussion.

Next, she or ze must be a show-biz celebrity, the more successful the better. It is personal popularity that counts, not ability to do the extremely difficult job.

Next, she or ze must have an emotionally moving life-story, preferably rags-to-riches.

And finally, she or ze must place herself or zirself on the far left of the political spectrum.

Out of 323,000,000 people right now, there is just one who fits the new bill perfectly; just one that the Democratic Party can confidently nominate for the presidency in 2020: the billionaire TV star Oprah Winfrey.

Hollywood has chosen her, because she made this speech at the Golden Globes.

It is a moving speech. Never mind that she says the six men who raped the young women coming home from church were never “persecuted’ when she meant “prosecuted”. Never mind that she condemns corruption but has not been heard protesting against the extreme corruption of the Obama administration including Hillary Clinton’s. Never mind that she makes a victim of the arrogant and victimizing media. Never mind that many of the women present – notably Meryl Streep and Oprah Winfrey herself – enabled men like Harvey Weinstein to make victims of women, while the actual victims had not been invited to the Golden Globes. She delivered her speech well. She is likable. The Democrats are in dire need of a plausible candidate for the presidency. So hardly had the applause for her speech died away, when her name was being put forward.

Breitbart reports on what the polls (the same polls that predicted an easy win for Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election) predict for Oprah in competition with President Trump:

According to a Rasmussen Reports survey released on Wednesday, 48 percent of likely U.S. voters would choose entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey in 2020, while 38 percent would choose Trump.

Notably, an additional 14 percent of voters said they would be undecided in a contest between the two. Buzz surrounding a possible presidential bid for Winfrey began after her speech at the Golden Globes on Sunday night. Winfrey used the occasion of becoming the first black woman to receive the Cecile B. DeMille award, to speak about a promising future for minority women and, to credit other women who have spoken out about sexual harassment in Hollywood.

According to Yahoo, “Polling outlets have surveyed Oprah’s popularity in the past, and a March 2017 Quinnipiac poll found Oprah with a 52 percent favorability rating and massive 72 percent favorability rating with Democrats. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Oprah with a 55 percent general favorability, and 27 percent “very favorable” rating.

“And yet despite that strong popularity return for the television personality, 69 percent of respondents to the March 2017 poll said she shouldn’t run for president.”

The short article includes the information that CNN cites two unnamed sources, both “close friends” of Oprah who “claim that she is ‘actively thinking’ about a presidential run”.

The left-leaning media will surely choose her.

Can the Democratic Party itself be far behind?

Will hers be safe hands to guide the ship of state through the tumult of a dangerous world?

That is the wrong question.

Ask not what she can do for your country. Ask only what your country can do for her.

The malignant New Left and its sub-tumor Feminism killed the customs by which men and women relate to each other in a civilized society.

Casual sexual intercourse was made almost compulsory in 1968. Frivolous promiscuity was called liberation but it would be more accurate to call it libertinism.

The motto of the Sick Revolution was “Make love not war.” Terrible as war is, it is less destructive than the Left’s revolt against civilization.    

Thousands of years of wisdom about the necessary constraints on the sexual impulses were denied.

Of course men took advantage of it. Instead of courting women, they grope them and rape them. And women are admitting at last that they don’t like it.

Now there are no guiding standards, no conventions to help either sex deal with natural animal drives. As everything else of importance and true value – art, music, literature, history, government – the Left has corrupted sexual relations.

Thanks to the Left, how many unwanted children have been born to misery if not murdered in the womb? How many have grown up uncared for, institutionalized, emotionally stunted or even depraved, because their mothers felt it was more important to be CEOs than mothers?

How many childless old people are there, living on beyond their friends and lovers for long years of loneliness?

The good life for men and women has always been known. The body knows it, and the heart’s desire. The knowledge is both profound and simple. It is about continuing the human race. It is about begetting children and raising them. It is about using the marvelously evolved process of sexual reproduction to that end, the end it is biologically for, the only manifest purpose of our natural existence.

The rite is mundane, of the earth earthy; and at the same time it is through that alone that we have a part in the process of the universe.

The flower children of the sixties and their fatherless offspring use their genitals, the fons et origo of life, sarcastically. They do not care for life. They say if a child is conceived “it” should be aborted.

The Left does not care for life. It is the ideology of squalor, self-abasement, clownishness, disease and death.

Jillian Becker   November 30, 2017

The brilliant researcher – and self-declared atheist and conservative – Heather Mac Donald writes:

Another academic year, another fattening of campus diversity bureaucracies. Most worrisomely, the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are now prime targets for administrative diversity encroachment, with the commercial tech sector rapidly following suit.

The pursuit of discovery and understanding in the Infinite Realm of the mind is a venture in liberation. It does not matter there whether your body is strong or weak, what color your skin is, or what you feel. You hunger for nothing but knowledge. No other appetites – alimentary, sexual, hubristic – vex you there.

To enter it, you turn to the study of science, technology, engineering, mathematics. The study of the humanities will not get you through the door.

There are people – most perhaps – who do not want to leave bodily hungers, emotion, the self and its desires behind. If they visit the Infinite Realm at all, it is to view it from the deck of a cruise ship of the Studies Line, named Women Studies, Black Studies, Latino Studies, Diversity Studies, Gender Studies, Protest Studies, Oppression Studies, Peace Studies, Studies Without Borders.

And the glimpse they have of the Infinite Realm disturbs them. They see who goes in. For whom the door opens. The privileged.

And look – they are almost all men, too many of them white. You can tell they are unfeeling. They do not cast a compassionate glance at the tourist crowds leaning on the rails of the Studies ships, victims of exclusion oppression, yearning to be let in.

Oh, that unassailable citadel! Oh, that locked door! However many voyagers on the Studies ships were to batter it, it would not yield.

But the will of so many people, documented and undocumented, must not be frustrated.  If more women and “people of color” are not admitted in equal numbers to the white men, then the Infinite Realm must be changed. It can still be called the realm of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, but it must become a place where your body, your color, your sex, and above all your feelings matter. It must be feminized, diversified, gendered. It must become a temple where the new gods Diversity, Inclusion, Compassion preside.

The most significant new diversity sinecure has been established at the University of California, Los Angeles, where the engineering school just minted its first associate dean of diversity and inclusion. The purpose of this new position is to encourage engineering faculty to hire more females and underrepresented minorities, reports the Daily Bruin, UCLA’s student newspaper. “One of my jobs,” the new dean, Scott Brandenberg, told the paper, is “to avoid implicit bias in the hiring process.”

The new engineering-diversity deanship supplements the work of UCLA’s lavishly paid, campus-wide Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, Jerry Kang, whose 2016 salary was $444,000. Kang, one of the most influential proponents of the “implicit-bias” concept, already exerts enormous pressure throughout the university to hire for “diversity”. Even before his vice chancellorship was created, any UCLA professor hoping for the top rank of tenure had to write a “contributions to diversity” essay detailing his efforts to rectify any racial and gender imbalances in his department.

The addition of a localized diversity bureaucrat within the engineering school can only increase the focus on gender and race in hiring and admissions decisions. (Brandenberg, of course, expresses fealty to California’s beleaguered ban on racial and gender preferences in government. But it would be naive to think that the ubiquitous mandate to increase “diversity” does not inevitably tip the scale in favor of alleged victim groups.)

No evidence exists that implicit bias is a factor in the engineering school’s gender and racial composition. Its percentage of female undergraduate and graduate students – about one quarter – matches the national percentage reported by the American Society for Engineering Education. I asked the school’s spokesman, Amy Akmal, if UCLA Engineering was aware of any examples of the most qualified candidate being overlooked or rejected in a hiring search because of implicit bias; she ignored this fundamental question. (She also ignored a question about the new dean’s salary.)

Every science department in the country relentlessly strives to improve its national ranking through hiring the most prestigious researchers. It would be deeply contrary to their interests to reject a superior candidate because of gender or race. And given the pools of federal and private science funding available on the basis of gender and race, hiring managers have added incentive to favor “diverse” applicants. Contrary to the idea that females are being discriminated against in hiring, Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci found that female applicants for STEM tenure-track positions enjoyed a two-to-one advantage over similarly qualified males in paired resume experiments.

The director of UCLA’s Women in Engineering program trotted out the usual role model argument for gender-and race-conscious decision-making. Audrey Pool O’Neal told the Daily Bruin that she never saw anyone who looked like her (black and female) when she was an undergraduate and graduate student. “When I do teach classes, the female students let me know how much they appreciate seeing a woman in front of their classroom,” O’Neal said.

Why not appreciate seeing the best-trained scholar in front of your classroom? Any female who thinks that she needs a female in front of her in order to learn as much as she can, or to envision a career in a particular field, has declared herself a follower rather than a pioneer – and a follower based on a characteristic irrelevant to intellectual achievement. If it were really the case that a role model of the same gender is important to moving ahead, it would be impossible to alter the gender balance of a field, assuming such a mission to be worthwhile, which – absent a finding of actual discrimination – it is not. Marie Curie did not need female role models to investigate radioactivity; she was motivated by a passion to understand the world. That should be reason enough to plunge headlong into the search for knowledge.

The Columbia University Medical Center has just pledged $50 million to diversify its faculty and student body, reports the Wall Street Journal, part of a new $100 million diversity drive across the entire university. Never mind that Columbia University has already fruitlessly spent $85 million since 2005 toward the same end. Never mind that there is a huge gap between the MCAT scores of blacks and whites, which will affect the quality of subsequent hiring pools. Columbia’s vice provost for faculty diversity and inclusion regurgitates another classic of diversity boilerplate to justify this enormous waste of funds. “The reality is that you can’t really achieve excellence without diversity. It requires diverse thought to solve complex problems,” says vice provost Dennis Mitchell.

Mitchell’s statement is ludicrous on multiple fronts.Aside from the fact that the one thing never sought in the academic diversity hustle is “diverse thought”,  do Mitchell and his compatriots in the diversity industry believe that females and underrepresented minorities solve analytical problems differently from males, whites, and Asians? A core plank of left-wing academic thought is that gender and race are “socially constructed”. Why then would females and underrepresented minorities think differently if their alleged differences are simply a result of oppressive social categories?

Columbia’s science departments do not have 50/50 parity between males and females, which, according to Mitchell, keeps them from achieving “excellence”. Since 1903, Columbia faculty members have won 78 Nobel Prizes in the sciences and economics. The recipients were overwhelmingly male (and white and Asian); somehow, they managed to do groundbreaking work in science despite the relatively non-diverse composition of their departments.

The only thing that the academic diversity racket achieves is to bid up the salaries of plausibly qualified candidates, and redistribute those candidates to universities that can muster the most resources for diversity poaching. The dean of UCLA Engineering, Jayathi Murthy, laments that of the 900 females admitted to the undergraduate engineering program in 2016, only about 240 accepted the offer. “There are (about) 660 women there that are going somewhere else and the question is . . . is there an opportunity for us to do something differently,” she told the Daily Bruin.

Presumably, those 660 non-matriculants are getting engineering degrees at other institutions. If the goal (a dubious one) is to increase the number of female engineers overall, then it doesn’t matter where they graduate from. But every college wants its own set of “diverse” students and faculty, though one institution’s gain is another’s presumed loss.

The pressure to take irrelevant characteristics like race and sex into account in academic science is dangerous enough. But Silicon Valley continues to remake itself in the image of the campus diversity bureaucracy. Dell Technologies announced in September a new “chief diversity and inclusion officer” position. Per the usual administrator shuffle, the occupant of this new position, Brian Reaves, previously served as head of diversity and inclusion for software company SAP. Reaves will engage the company’s “leaders” in “candid conversations about the role of gender and diversity in the workplace,” said Dell chief customer officer Karen Quintos in a press statement. “Candid” means: you are free to confess your white cis-male privilege. “Candid” does not mean questioning Dell’s diversity assumptions, as this summer’s firing of computer engineer James Damore from Google made terrifyingly clear to any other potential heretics. …

Official scientific organizations have all turned obsessively to the diversity agenda. Any academic scientist who wants to move up in administration – or apply for grants, leave, or access to the conference circuit – must be on a crusade against his fellow scientists’ microaggressions and implicit bias. This is good news for the diversity industry, but bad news for America’s scientific competitiveness.

So why are scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians laughing?

Because, fortunately, university faculties of the STEM fields are not the Infinite Realm itself. Nor are the campuses of the Silicon Valley technology giants.

Funny that. The army of diversity administrators grows and grows. More and more STEM faculties in more and more universities appoint more and more diversity officers. But the frustration remains. Because that castle, which the people on the Studies cruises were told was the Infinite Realm, and which has been commandeered by the diversity police, and now has a day care annex, a free clinic, a gym, a safe place with coloring-in books and stuffed animal toys, a diner, unisex bathrooms, and 50 offices for diversity administrators (none for scientists, technologists, engineers or mathematicians), was not the real thing.

Truth is, the Infinite Realm is abstract. No matter who you are, of what tribe or caste or clan or breed or birth, if you can think you can enter. For the Infinite Realm is in your own head or else it does not exist for you at all. And no diversity officer, or law, or politically correct opinion, or Antifa riot, or grant from George Soros, can make any difference to that immutable fact.

Google is left-biased. So it is racist and sexist. This video is about its fanatical and absurd sexism:

Women’s liberation has become women’s libertinism.

By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty. Others don’t. On social media, women outstrip men in the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches, and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, “I Own It.” …

Look, Harvey [Weinstein] is a lowlife. But Hollywood hos are not … “naive, innocent young things” … 

So Ilana Mercer, libertarian, writes at Townhall.

We quote more of her article: :

I’d like to better understand the conservative media’s orgy over Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced and disgraceful Hollywood film producer and studio executive who used his power over decades to have his way with starlets.

To listen to conservative talkers, the women affronted or assaulted by Weinstein were all Shakespearean talent in the making … who made the pilgrimage to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hollywood Hills, for the purpose of realizing their talent, never knowing it was a meat market. …

The reason the female figure is so crudely objectified nowadays has a great deal to do with women themselves. By virtue of their conduct, women no longer inspire reverence as the fairer sex … For they are crasser, vainer, more eager to expose all voluntarily than any male. Except for Anthony Weiner, the name of an engorged organism indigenous to D.C., who was is in the habit of exposing himself as often as the Kardashians do.

The latter clan is a bevy of catty exhibitionists, controlled by a mercenary matriarch called Kris Kardashian. Kris is madam to America’s First Family of Celebrity Pornographers. (To launch a career with a highly stylized, self-directed sex tape is no longer even condemned.) Lots of little girls, with parental approval, look up to the Kardashians.

From Kim, distaff America learns to couch a preoccupation with pornographic selfies in the therapeutic idiom. Kardashian flaunts herself with pure self-love. Yet millions of her admirers depict her obscene posturing online as an attempt to come to terms with her body. “Be a little easier on myself,” counsels Kim as she directs her camera to the nether reaches of her carefully posed, deformed derriere. While acting dirty and self-adoring, Kardashian delivers as close to a social jeremiad on self-esteem as her kind can muster. Genius!

Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine she’ll be — and the more she’ll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorned with pussy dunce-caps on the same occasion. …

The phrase a “bum’s rush” means “throw the bum out!”. When it comes to Allison Williams, daughter of NBC icon Brian Williams, a bum’s rush takes on new meaning. Thanks in no small measure to her famous father, the young woman has become a sitcom star. And Ms. Williams has worked extra-hard to hone all aspects of an actress’s instrument (the body). Alison has carried forth enthusiastically about a groundbreaking scene dedicated to exploring “a** motorboating” or “booty-eating”, on HBO’s “Girls”.

The lewder, more pornographic, and less talented at their craft popular icons become — the louder the Left lauds their artistically dodgy output. (The “Right” just keeps moving Left.) “Singer” Miley Cyrus was mocked before she began twerking tush, thrusting pelvis and twirling tongue. Only then had she arrived as an artist, in the eyes of “critics” on the Left. The power of the average pop artist and her products, Miley’s included, lies in the pornography that is her “art,” in her hackneyed political posturing …

Liberal women, the majority, go about seriously and studiously cultivating their degeneracy. If Raising Skirts to Celebrate the Diversity of Vaginas sounds foul, wait for the accompanying images. These show feral creatures (women, presumably), skirts hoisted, gobs agape, some squatting like farmhands in an outhouse, all yelling about their orifices.

Do you know of a comparable man’s movement? If anything, men are punished when they react normally to women behaving badly.

Female soldiers got naked and uploaded explicit images of themselves to an online portal. The normals — male soldier — shared the images and were promptly punished for so doing. And the conservative side of that ubiquitous, dueling-perspectives political panel approved of the punishment meted to the men.

So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that “protesters” routinely disrobe or perform lewd acts with objects in public. …

If men flashed for freedom; they’d be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex Offender Registry.

Talk about the empress being in the buff, I almost forgot to attach an image of this celebrity, bare-bottomed on the red-carpet. Rose McGowan is hardly unique. Many a star will arrive at these events barely clothed. (Here are 38 more near-naked Red-Carpet appearances.)

Follow those links. They are pictures of Hollywood actresses … wait, no. They are pictures of common whores selling their bodies.

Expect a feminist lecture about a woman’s right to pretend her bare bottom is haute couture, rather than ho couture, and expect the Harveys of the world to behave like choir boys around her?

We have added the question mark to that last sentence.

None of this excuses the exploitation of these silly women by repulsive, uncivilized, priapic Weinstein.

But yes, it must be said that these women are begging to be “exploited”. They are whores.

Nothing proves the inferiority of women more plainly than the obsession of women with being Woman, while men get on with their jobs.

When we say “women” we mean of course wymyn – or however they choose to spell themselves: the harridans, shrews, termagants, harpies of the West who call themselves feminists.

They go to universities and spend years on “Women’s Studies”, then seek employment in a world where knowledge of other things is needed. Some of them get employed – to supervise “diversity in employment”. Then they complain that they are valued less than men, paid less than men, ergo they are “oppressed by men”.

In all this proving amply that they are less valuable than the men!

Ilana Mercer (a libertarian), writes at Townhall:

Of the many men who toil in high-tech, few are as heroic as James Damore, the young man who penned the manifesto Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber. In it, Damore calmly and logically exposed the tyrannical ideological edifice erected to perpetuate the myth that, in aggregate, women and men are identical in aptitude and interests, and that “all disparities in representation are due to oppression”.

Despite active recruiting and ample affirmative action, women made up only 14.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, of computer science and electrical engineering graduates, in 2015. While they comprise 21.4 percent of undergraduates enrolled in engineering, females earned only 19.9 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees awarded by an engineering program in 2015.”

There is attrition!

Overall, and in the same year, 80.1 percent of Bachelor’s degrees in engineering went to men; 19.9 percent to women. (Engineering by the Numbers, by Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.)

As Damore, and anyone in the world of high-tech knows, entire human resource departments in the high-tech sector are dedicated to recruiting, mentoring, and just plain dealing with women and their ongoing nagging and special needs.

In high-tech, almost nothing is as politically precious as a woman with some aptitude. There’s no end to which companies will go to procure women and help them succeed, often to the detriment of technically competent men who must do double duty. Their procurement being at a premium, concepts such as “sucking it up” and soldiering on are often anathema to coddled distaff.

A woman in high-technology can carp constantly about … being a woman in high-tech. Her gender — more so than her capabilities — is what defines her and endears her to her higher-ups, for whom she’s a notch in the belt.

While male engineers — and, indubitably, some exceptional women — are hired to be hard at work designing and shipping tangible products; women in high tech, in the aggregate, are free to branch out; to hone a niche as a voice for their gender.

Arisen online and beyond is a niche-market of nudniks (nags): Women talking, blogging, vlogging, writing and publishing about women in high-technology or their absence therefrom; women beating the tom-tom about discrimination and stereotyping, but saying absolutely nothing about the technology they presumably love and help create.

Young women, in particular, are pioneers of this new, intangible, but lethal field of meta-technology: kvetching (complaining) about their absence in technology with nary a mention of their achievements in technology. The hashtag “MicrosoftWomen” speaks to the solipsistic universe created by females in high-tech and maintained by the house-broken males entrusted with supporting the menacing matriarchy. Are these ladies posting about the products they’ve partaken in designing and shipping? Not often. Women in high-tech are more likely to be tweeting out about … being women in high-tech. Theirs is a self-reverential and self-referential universe. …

One featured techie’s professional title, aforementioned, is impressive: “principal engineering lead at Microsoft”. As is to be expected of a woman hard at work in the ruthlessly competitive field of high-tech, she spends her days as “a female tech ambassador”, writing fluffy, gyno-centric books on self-affirmation, “mentoring other women via Skype”,  “answering emails … on how they, too, can enter the world of tech”,  designing clothes, and, according to her impartial boosters, being the “next greatest female tech rock star”. It’s all in a woman’s day’s work. …

So intent are women on equal outcomes at all costs, as opposed to equality of opportunity, that they’re pleased to serve as political props; ornaments in a corporate world compelled to affirm the idea that under the skin — and but for the Great White and his wicked ways — men and women are similarly inclined and endowed. …

“Of course, to say that ‘science needs women’,” reasoned Theodore Dalrymple, in a 2014 Taki’s magazine column, is as logically consistent as saying that, ‘Heavyweight boxing needs Malays’, ‘football needs dwarf goalkeepers’, ‘quantity surveying needs bisexuals’, ‘lavatory cleaning needs left-handers’. Science does not need women any more than it needs foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis. What science needs (if an abstraction such as science can be said to need anything) is scientists. If they happen also to be foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis, so be it: but no one in his right mind would go to any lengths to recruit for his laboratory foot fetishists, pole-vaulters, or Somalis for those characteristics alone.”

We witnessed an irrefutable demonstration of male superiority a few years ago when our street was flooded. The water was creeping up driveways towards houses. Women and their small children – one of them only four years old – were desperately filling sacks with sand (obtained free of charge from the city council) and piling them up at their doors to keep the water out. A car drove on to our river of a street. It stopped and a man got out. He stood for a few moments looking at the scene, then walked over to a drain, pulled away something that was blocking it, and all the water flowed away.

Ah, that bell-shaped curve. More men at both extreme ends – the geniuses and the morons. Women thick in the middle.

The women at the moron end, we unshakably believe, are all feminists.

Yesterday in Charlottesville, Virginia, one bunch of Nazis who knew they were Nazis fought another bunch of Nazis who seem not to know that they are Nazis.

The ones who know they are Nazis, displaying and shouting anti-Semitic slogans, are also called “white supremacists” – fairly enough, since that is what they are. And they are rightly condemned for it.

The ones who seem not to know they are Nazis are never called “black supremacists”, although that is what they are, even those who are not black. (Judging by the pictures of the riot in the press and on TV, the majority on that side were white.) And it’s hard to find public figures who will condemn them for it.

Black supremacism? Does it exist?

Of course it does. The Black Lives Matter organization will not allow you to say that all lives matter. To say so is to infuriate them.

So in the view of the Nazis who do not know (or anyway acknowledge) that they are Nazis, it is not supremacism as such that is wrong, it is only white supremacism that is wrong.

Whites must be abolished. Not the people who are white, necessarily – or not yet – but their whiteness must go.

Tom Ciccotta writes at Breitbart:

Stanford University will introduce a course this fall which will task students with considering “abolishing whiteness” and the ultimate goal of understand “what is the future of whiteness”, according to the institution’s course catalog.

The course, which is entitled “White Identity Politics”, will be taught by instructor John Patrick Moran, and analyze the “future of whiteness”.

For the uninitiated, the concept of “whiteness” refers to the social aspect of race.

According to the University of Calgary, “whiteness” is a socially and politically constructed learned behavior built upon the systematic privileges afforded to whites in Western society.

The Stanford course looks to abolish this social concept of “whiteness” through an analysis of what the course description alleges is “the rise of white identity politics in the United States” as a result of the 2016 Presidential election.

In fact it arose with the New Left who despaired of the proletariat as its chosen victim class, and decided to make revolution in the name of victim races instead. But everything now must be blamed on the election of President Trump in 2016. He is the Super Scapegoat – and white to boot!

Stanford Professor Tomás Jiménez explained that “whiteness” refers to “the set of behaviors and outlooks associated with the racial category, white”. Pundits proclaim that the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States.

Drawing from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions, this upper-level seminar asks, does white identity politics exist? How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness? We will survey the field of whiteness studies, scholarship on the intersection of race, class, and geography, and writings on whiteness in the United States by contemporary public thinkers, to critically interrogate the terms used to describe whiteness and white identities. Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices, including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity.

What is the future of whiteness?

Ernest Miranda, a spokesperson for Stanford, told the College Fix that “abolishing whiteness” is a concept devised in the 1990s to encourage whites in the Western world to stop identifying as white in order to help end inequalities.

Harvard scholar Noel Ignatiev spoke about the concept of “whiteness” in a documentary on campus radicalism. He argued that “whiteness is a form of racial oppression”, and that “there can be no white race without the phenomenon of white supremacists”.

Noel Ignatiev is a lifelong fanatical white-hating white Marxist.

“Stop identifying as white”? Apparently, just as you can now call yourself a man even if you are a woman and “society” must accept that you are a man (and vice versa), so you can now call yourself black even if you are white and “society” must accept that you are black. You can and you must. “Society” can and it must.  Persons of all other skin colors must also “identify” as black (because only black lives matter) so there will be … what? fifty? shades of black. Then as an all-black nation, may Americans continue with their lives as usual?

This “identifying” of white men as black must be retrospective. It’s okay to enjoy all the discoveries and inventions made by white men, as long as from now on the discoverers and inventors are “identified” as black. Because white men’s science is not true, says a shade-of-black feminist woman physicist –

From Truth Revolt by Trey Sanchez:

Science shouldn’t be misconstrued as truth because most of the foundations were laid by white men, says Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a particle physicist and philosopher of science at the University of Washington. Her argument appeared at Slate in an article titled, Stop Equating ‘Science’ with Truth.

Chandra Prescod-Weinstein

Prescod-Weinstein’s entire premise was built on the Google employee [James Demore] memo which laid out factual differences between men and women and why women are less likely to enter fields of science and technology:

It is impossible to consider this field of science without grappling with the flaws of the institution — and of the deification — of science itself. For example: It was argued to me this week that the Google memo failed to constitute hostile behavior because it cited peer-reviewed articles that suggest women have different brains. The well-known scientist who made this comment to me is both a woman and someone who knows quite well that “peer-reviewed” and “correct” are not interchangeable terms. This brings us to the question that many have grappled with this week. It’s 2017, and to some extant scientific literature still supports a patriarchal view that ranks a man’s intellect above a woman’s…

Science’s greatest myth is that it doesn’t encode bias and is always self-correcting. In fact, science has often made its living from encoding and justifying bias, and refusing to do anything about the fact that the data says something’s wrong.

Prescod-Weinstein puts “science” in quotations a lot in her piece because of its ties to Europe during the Enlightenment.

“Much of the science that resulted from this system, conducted primarily by white men, is what helped teach us that women were the inferior sex,” she writes.

And those systems have been passed on through the ages through bad education and apparently, she is finally telling everyone the truth in this article:

Most saliently in the context of the Google memo, our scientific educations almost never talk about the invention of whiteness and the invention of race in tandem with the early scientific method which placed a high value on taxonomies [classifications] — which unsurprisingly and almost certainly not coincidentally supported prevailing social views.

We never learned that former president and inventor Thomas Jefferson “hid behind science as a shield” because his writings about slaves being inferior to whites proved he was not “much of a scientist” as much as he was “a biased white supremacist”.

And then there was the stealing of ideas already known by indigenous peoples:

Very few curricula acknowledge that some European scientific “discoveries” were in fact collations of borrowed indigenous knowledge. And far too many universally call technology progress while failing to acknowledge that it has left us in a dangerously warmed climate.

Wait, how did climate change sneak in there? Is she saying that is “science” or science?

One of the top comments on this story really gets at the heart of the matter of what this feminist physicist is trying to say: “Obviously any science done by anyone not a young Black female with a degree in physics is at best bunk, but probably evil. We all need to throw away the Constitution because an evil White man wrote that, too.”

Prescod-Weinstein suggested in her conclusion that perhaps a new experiment is in order to take back science from the patriarchy:

Google bro would argue that we ought to consider the possibility that white women and racial minorities simply produce lower-quality work, which is why we struggle to be recognized as competent knowledge producers. It’s time to turn the tables on this debate. Rather than leaning in and trying endlessly to prove our humanity and value, people like him should have to prove that our inferiority is the problem. Eliminate structural biases in education, health care, housing, and salaries that favor white men and see if we fail. Run the experiment. Be a scientist about it.

But as she explained already in her article, it was men like “Google bro” that encoded their bias into scientific theory which would make any conclusions from the experiments null and void. And then where will she find the answers? Perhaps she’ll join other leftists and pursue their “own truth”.

Feminists are already black. All of them.

Mark Tapson writes, also at truth revolt:

As if anyone needed any more proof that liberal arts colleges are a worthless joke, Campus Reform reports that a self-described “feminist ethnographer” at Grinnell College in Iowa will be teaching a course in the fall which will focus on “attacking racism by making whiteness visible”.

Professor Karla Erickson, whose background is in American and Women’s Studies, will teach the four-credit special topics class called “American Whiteness”, which vows to explore “whiteness as a specific racial formation with a distinct history, proactive and defensive politics, and institutional and personal investments”.

Sounds like a great introduction to cultural Marxism.

Professor Karla Erickson

According to the course description, students will learn about the “historical expansion” of whiteness while discussing both the “formal and informal advantages that accrue to whiteness” and potential “challenges to whiteness”.  In other words, this course offers absolutely nothing of intellectual merit and is purely social justice indoctrination.

Erickson unsurprisingly refused to provide Campus Reform with a copy of the current syllabus, but CR found one for an identical course from the spring of 2015. It states, “Whiteness is, among much else, a very bad idea. It is quite possible to avoid hating white people as individuals but to criticize the ‘idea of white people in general’.” Well, that’s good to know, although we’re sure that anyone who would take or teach such a course is perfectly comfortable hating white people while pretending to be tolerant and inclusive.

Campus Reform notes that the 2015 syllabus also featured texts such as “Beyond the Whiteness of Whiteness” and “The Case for Reparations”, the latter of which encourages students to “take on the labor of interrogating and attacking racism by making whiteness visible”. We suspect, however, that the course will not be interrogating and attacking the blatant anti-white racism which “American Whiteness” promotes.

“This course is meant to facilitate a personal journey towards a better understanding of how whiteness functions in a racist nation, therefore sincere attempts at working through whiteness will be rewarded,” the 2015 syllabus states.

Take note, however: the course will not facilitate preparing you for learning anything useful or getting a job after college, unless you plan to become a feminist ethnographer who teaches social justice jargon-heavy courses to exacerbate the racial divide.

It is (or should be accepted as) a truism that everything government does, it does badly; and that almost everything it does could be done more cheaply, more competently, faster, and to far better result by private enterprise.

The one thing the national government of a sane country (so that excludes Sweden) must do, and must do well, is protect the liberty of the people. That means it must take our taxes and spend the money on a strong military.

President Trump announced today (July 26, 2017) – on Twitter of course to inform the electorate directly without trusting to the “news” media to report the fact accurately – that transgender persons will not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military.

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”

Of course the entire Left is now having an attack of the vapors.

According to Business Insider, there are thousands of transgender personnel in the US military:

There are roughly 1,320 to 6,630 transgender service members on active duty, according to a RAND study published last year.

A 2014 study by The Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, pegs the number at closer to 15,500, including those on active duty or serving in the National Guard or Reserve forces.

The Williams Institute study estimates that there are 134,300 transgender veterans and retired Guard or Reserve service members.

Good grief! Who would have thought it?

So thousands of men who prefer to be women and women who prefer to be men, also want to be warriors?

How many transgenders are there in the US population?

Apparently, again according to the Williams Institute, about 1.4 million. That is 0.4375%.

And 1.1% of that percentage want to be in the military.

Why might that be?

An interesting and plausible explanation comes from a commenter on our Facebook page.

Jeremy Schmick writes:

This makes sense to anyone with a military background.
A 19 year old male with 22% body fat would be considered unfit for service as he would be a liability to his fellow soldiers.
A 19 year old female with 22% body fat would not be found unfit.
All unfit males had to do is say they identified as females and they were suddenly fit and no longer considered a liability.
That practice had to be stopped for the operational readiness of our troops.

That needs to be told to the nation. The media, busy with making up silly lies about President Trump, won’t tell it. Perhaps President Trump will Tweet it.

American Muslims who declare themselves to be against “white supremacists” of the “far right” need to answer a question:

In what do they differ from Islam?

They are both supremacist movements.

They both hate homosexuals.

They both hate Jews.

They both look down on Blacks.

They both demote women.

They are both intolerant of opposing opinion.

They both use violence as a first resort.

The only difference between them is in their numbers and consequent seriousness of threat. One counts its members as a billion plus, the other in … tens? One threatens the whole world, the other an occasional individual or small group.

They sing the same song.