Thursday, July 19, 2018

Deep State Sale: CIA fronts Amazon to Buy Washington Post

Could Amazon be intertwined with the deep state? That might be a terrifying question we all need to ask ourselves. And it isn’t as absurd as it may sound.

In 2013, Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post. The Washington Post hasn’t attempted to hide its disdain for President Trump in any fashion. In fact, it has been a liberal mouthpiece for years. The Trump victory has only driven it even deeper into its biases.

But what’s more? Well, a lot, actually.

Amazon was long known to be one of the “largest, most unprofitable company in history.” Amazon wasn’t even a profitable company (officially) until 2013. For many people, that’s a shocking statement, but its true. Bezos, of course, was getting richer by the minute taking a salary, but the company really wasn’t making money. Bezos claimed all the while he was in it for the long term. The company wasn’t a profit machine.

But it became one. And that happened in 2013.

In 2013, the CIA awarded Amazon and Bezos a $600 million cloud computer contract. Later that year, the Washington Post deal went down for $250 million. Bezos used just under half of his revenue from the CIA contract to buy a liberal stronghold media giant.

The Washington Post loves to cite “unnamed sources.” This day and age, or what we might term “post-Trump,” has become a time that embraces the “unnamed sources.” What used to revolve around media integrity, has now turned into an opportunity to spin tales. Many of these “unnamed sources” for the Washington Post come from stories regarding insider information via the CIA.

The CIA. Amazon's owner Jeff Bezos. The Washington Post. 
They are all truly only one entity at this juncture in our lives.

John Brennan, the acting CIA Director, appointed by President Obama was outspoken regarding President Trump’s campaign and potential Russian ties. He even went so far as to testify before Congress regarding this.

Brennan is a former communist. In 1976, he voted for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall in the presidential election; he later said that he viewed it as a way “of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change.”

Brennan, a former communist party vote caster, and Obama loyalist, is the one who started the FBI probe into the Trump administration. Being the Director of the CIA and clearly tied to Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, should be viewed as more than just slightly opportunistic. It’s incredibly advantageous to them, and incredibly dangerous to Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

The Washington Post has been relentlessly pursuing Trump and Russia. They even remain locked in following Comey’s testimony which clearly detached Trump from any Russian involvement. It's a secretive anti-American propaganda machine, ultimately financially subsidized and originally paid for by your tax dollars, but ultimately owned and controlled by the devoted enemies of America. This is what the "Deep State" really looks like, people!

Derek Paulson
Prepared Patriot

Friday, July 6, 2018

Gangster "Democracy" IS Slavery!



As an insurance company, government IS enforced victimology: taking from the able to give to the (hopefully only temporarily) disabled victims.

After a while, though, and based on the fallacy of modern education, which seeks to discover why, not how, people do the things they do, it's ever-expanding list of who constitutes a victim class now includes "everybody!" and even those who are physically able, yet unwilling to work, are classified as being "depressed" and suffering from "mental illness" (as being helpless victims of their own mysterious yet somehow also inevitably-forced emotions)!

This is how individualism becomes collectivism - as if deferring one's free-will rights and responsibilities to self-determination over to a group or gang of equally fallible humans pretending to be superior "authorities" has ever, will ever, or can ever really work out in the real world! How is a gang of victims less so than only one?!



Authorities have only rights but no responsibilities to those they rule, while their subjects have no rights to defend themselves from said authorities, but only the responsibility to become and remain their slaves. The West is ruled by corporations. Corporations are made up of salesmen. Salesmen are lying hypocrites.

PS: "Marxism" is simply gangster extortion aka slavery.

It's "Authoritarianism."


"CULTURAL MARXISM" is a bloviating term made up by self-absorbed pseudo-intellectual college professors to describe how psychotic criminal gangsters want to impose might-makes-right slavery in all of the separate "identity politics," (symptom categories which people can be divided into) so they can divide and conquer all of the law-abiding people by fraudulent trickery - catering to their unthinkingly useless and static emotions of "pity for victims," in stead of dynamically exercising their brains to solve all cause-and-effect problems. Just as with other creeds predating Marx (islam) they want you to compromise and Submit.

Whatever its name, enslaving criminal gangsters want you to go along with their lies, to get along with them as they commit their crimes against you. They want useful idiots to help them by demanding that you all be enslaved by them for your own good!

(And as an aside, this is what the media echo-chambers are for).

By "Equality" they always mean FORCED equality of outcome.

This enslaves the Makers to the Takers.

Naturally, since this virtue-signalling "Equality" and "Diversity" (which falsely implies all differences are really similarities, or at least should be morally or emotionally treated as such) caters to the lowest common denominator at the direct expense of the exceptional, and elevates the less competent slackers to an "equal" position of outcome with those who were able to earn it, it might as well be called "POLITICS AS USUAL" - at least, in a "Democracy!"

No real need for anyone to have ever even actually read, much less to have to quote, from Karl Marx!

Every new and larger generation of children* who were recently enslaved to their parents and envy their wealth, who don't know how to work or earn their own, want a parental government to seize and give it to them! So every new and ever-larger generation of voters in a democracy will vote for more slavery! And those indoctrinated into this slavery since birth (muslims) can also be counted on to vote Democrat, too!

This idiocy can't be attributed to as recent an idol as Karl Marx. Ancient peoples still practice slavery.

And "politicians," defined as "power-traders," are ultimately not only useless (because who really needs to pay and defer to people to write ever-more meticulously convoluted and detailed laws to detail every last conceivable circumstantial and situational sub-category of the simple "Do Not Attack First" Golden Rule?!) but also dangerous, because in the political flip-flop between the Golden Rule-centered law of "Leave us alone!" and the criminal gangsters' "Enslave us all for our own good!" poles, we actually not only enable but also actively condone and enshrine into our "democratic" laws the latter, criminals' creed!

Our very laws admit and enhance crime itself, especially the false "civil" law, where no real rules apply!



All "Democracy" really means is "We get to vote for stuff!" Well, so what?! Big deal! Democracy has been best defined as "power-trading."

ALL power-trading politicians are professional hypocrites and traitors.

Democracy - even direct democracy - is slavery, because it presumes you must give up your right to control your own stuff to groups of other people.

"Hah!" fools say, "I have a right to vote for the fate of my stuff! I love Democracy! It's great for me!"

Well, "So do we too have a right to vote for the fate of your stuff!" says the Majority of other people!

Why should anyone else have any rights to control any of your property? Why should you be responsible to them?!

Why should criminals be allowed to vote to "progressively" legalize crimes at all, ever?!

To vote against logic and reason?!

We only need The Golden Rule of Law - having the responsibility to not attack, and the right to not to be attacked, first.

No further legislation is needed, beyond delineating the boundaries of one's contractually negotiated property. No "authority" is needed, beyond enforcing one's property rights. A (very!) limited "monarchy" would satisfy this criteria. And with it, taxes could be reduced to almost nothing.

Otherwise, libertine "liberal" criminals get to incrementally, "progressively" legalize all crimes through "democracy," while it also remains blazingly obvious that if and when one gives muslims "democracy" they WILL vote - for MORE ISLAM!




Why do Millennials embrace socialism? Why do two thirds of the population - the psychopaths and undecided - vote so consistently for it, even while being ripped off again and again by it? It's because of corporate education.

Just try telling them that socialism is slavery because it doesn't allow for any individuals to own any property.

They will reply with "So what? I don't own any property, and at least under socialism the government will have to give me stuff, and feed and clothe me, by taking it from all those Makers who hoard it and won't give it to me!"

Having been raised apparently enslaved by parents who controlled everything, and in school systems where they all were treated like criminals and prisoners, they don't know anything else and so cannot imagine owning anything! And since children are the only people who really - albeit only temporarily - deserve to have rights without legal responsibilities, this irresponsibility becomes ingrained in them.

The only dreams they have are rising to the top of the socialist crime-gang by extorting more from the Makers!

Monkey-see, monkey-do! Corporate gangsters own and control government gangsters and they all sell slavish pity for criminals as being the height of virtue, and being angry at criminals for committing crimes as a vile sin.

TO REPEAT: Why should might-makes-right focused criminals be allowed to "vote" to "progressively" legalize crimes at all, ever? To vote against logic and reason?

Who needs gangster "democracy" at all, anyway?!


Monday, June 18, 2018

AN UNPOPULAR TRUTH: "Multi-Culturalism" IS "Racism!"

Our freedom of association right is a choice extortionist conformist gangster criminal slavers (aka libertine "liberals") are trying to forcefully take away from us.

It's obviously at least 13X cheaper to take care of muslim losers in their own countries or in the adjacent Arabic-speaking islamic shiiteholes - so this "migrant" scheme must be about something else entirely. Now, what could that be?

"Multiculturalism was made up by self-loathing rat bastards to pretend that inferior cultures and superior cultures are equal. It exists to tell nice lies about rotten cultures and rotten lies about great cultures. The UN exemplifies this lie, with “Islam means peace” its biggest lie."

 - The Sheik -

As always, the world is divided into hard-working individualist Makers vs criminal gangster extortionist Takers.

Socialism is extortion.
Fascism is extortion.
Islam is extortion.

Perpetual extortion is slavery.



Lazy self-hating victimology-spewing masochists always want to dilute the blame for their self-inflicted problems onto groups and gangs of other people.

Nationalism is people exercising their right to freedom of association.

Communism denies all individual human any and all rights and forces people to associate with criminal oppressors.

"Racism" shames (white) people to give up their free-association rights in order to accept criminals.
But "racism" is simply the result of generations of free-will freedom of association rights choices.

ALL people prefer to associate with those who are like them.

Without this inherent "racism" there would be NO "races!"

So the pretense that only whites are racists, could only be true if there were only two races on Earth - the white race, and everyone else (which would be a single other race, and not the Negroes, Asians, and Dravidians - ALL of whom currently outnumber the whites because they prefer to have more sex with the people like them whom they have chosen to freely associate with)!

That's proof that the heedless delinquent libertine globalist agenda is indeed only out to destroy one race but not any of the others!

Do liberals insist there should be an invasion of whites or Asians into Africa, to dilute the Negro race, for the sake of "equality and diversity!"?


Do they insist hordes of Dravidians, whites, and Negros be imported into Asia, for the same fake "reasons!"?


Do they insist India should be invaded by Asians, whites, and Negroes, to dilute the Hindu Dravidians?

Again - NO!


"Racism" is merely the result of people exercising their freedom of association rights.

Again: Without "racism" there would be no "races." Thus every race is inherently "racist," and the more populous, global majority ones obviously (from the results) are the most "racist" of them all.

Which makes the white race, which comes in at only between 7-15% (if one includes all the other members of the 'Caucasians,' such as Arabs and Jews) the LEAST racist race of them all!

Further, the globalist liberal "racism" scam is really the exact opposite of what it pretends to be:
it pretends to equalize the racial disparity caused by racist whites in only white countries.

Remember: whites are actually THE global minority - so liberal "anti-racists" are really insisting it's not fair that the global minority isn't letting the global majorities further dilute them in their own lands!

It's obvious that freely-associated peer groups, once they attain some measure of expert authority in their chosen fields of endeavor, (whether by actual merit, or by incestuous self-promoting cronyism) will be challenged by other groups whose members are comprised of other freely-associated peer groups (or "tribes").

But this common occurrence does not mean that the group with the power - whether held only because of its current majority (might-made-right) status, or not (as in: by merit) is any more or less "racist" or "biased" than the (supposedly minority) of newcomer group/s opposing it.

To slanderously pretend that the existing group only attained and maintains its power through the racist exclusion of others is just as faulty a lack of logic as is claiming those other groups now deserve to be in charge simply because they are in a ("poor, oppressed") minority and/or assert, without evidence - that they have been racially discriminated against in the past, and so now demand reconciliation and reparations.

I'm talking about companies the membership of which can allegedly be regulated by the government (and I say "allegedly" because while in practice this is always being tried by legislative over-reach, in logic it really can't be, as merit-based hiring affects the companys' bottom lines) and/or their clients (i.e: all citizens equally, which makes sense, because everyone's money is worth the same, and everyone who becomes a citizen and agrees to the Golden Rule equally deserves the rights thereby earned by all others who have also agreed to adhere to it's responsibility).

Government-regulated promoting, hiring or clientele (as in: assigning the availability of university student placements) based on racial "diversity" is a crime: one which has severe financial costs to any society. It's a crime which is already technically illegal, being "under color" (or cover) "of Law!"

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Leftists "Think" Jihadi Death-Threats Are Free Speech!

From here:

Reevely: Ford promises to ban Al-Quds Day protests somehow

Doug Ford before a transition meeting at the Ontario legislature. STAN BEHAL/TORONTO SUN/POSTMEDIA NETWORK

Doug Ford’s first new position as Ontario’s premier-to-be is that he’ll stop the annual anti-Israel protests called “Al-Quds Day.”
“Our government will take action to ensure that events like Al-Quds Day, which calls for the killing of an entire civilian population in Israel, are no longer part of the landscape in Ontario,” the Progressive Conservative premier-designate tweeted on Sunday.

Our government will take action to ensure that events like Al Quds Day, which calls for the killing of an entire civilian population in Israel, are no longer part of the landscape in Ontario.
How this squares with Ford’s campaign pledge to hold Ontario universities to hard standards in support of free speech, or even exactly what power he’d use to stop future Al-Quds Day observations, isn’t obvious.

"Somehow" as if it's absolutely impossible to stop any crimes at all, much less death-threats and calls for genocide. "Arresting criminal mobs? That's silly! Why bother?"
So, it also clearly "isn't obvious" to leftopaths like Reevely the weevil here how free speech and genocidal death-threats might not be exactly the same thing?
Asked to elaborate on both points Monday — what action? — his people didn’t respond. Maybe they don’t know.
Then he tries a red-herring deflection, choosing some harmless definitions:
Al-Quds Day started in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, which says a fair bit right there. “Al-Quds” is the Arabic for “Jerusalem,” and Al-Quds Day is a conscious response to Israel’s Jerusalem Day, a national holiday to mark Israel’s taking of the city in the 1967 Six-Day War. Always on a Friday at the end of Ramadan, the observance links Muslim religious obligation to support for Iran’s political aspirations in the Middle East. Specifically, its demonization of Israel and determination to evict Jews from East Jerusalem.
Even if Al-Quds Day is packaged as criticism of Israeli government policy, organizers would have to take immense care to keep speakers from spilling over into anti-Semitism. Historically, they have not taken that care.
The speeches vary from year to year but there’s a record of Holocaust denial and warnings about how death comes to all oppressors amid the chants to end Israeli Apartheid, just like Hamas and Hezbollah banners are mixed in with the Palestine flags.
Hate speech is criminal in Canada and B’nai Brith in Toronto says it’s filed a police complaint against a speaker who said he prays for “justice throughout the world” through “the eradication of the unjust powers, such as the American empire, such as the Israelis and Zionists, in the same way that we saw the British empire wither away.” The sun eventually set on the British empire, said Kitchener’s Shafiq Huda in a recording B’nai Brith posted, and God willing the sun will set on “the Zionist empire, the American empire” as well.

Parsing whether that’s legally hate speech — let alone a call to genocide — might take some doing. I mean, it’s not nice, but that’s not the standard. 
So why pick a pathetic quote chosen by B'nai B'rith as if it's seminal?!

Even if it is criminal hate speech, we punish people after they commit crimes, not before. 
And yet somehow genocidal death-threats are considered crimes in them selves. 
Funny thing, that - maybe because they are psychological attacks?
Beyond that, he's also wrong: it's perfectly kosher to punish people for "only even merely" attempted crimes, because in criminal law, only intent counts!
Unpopular political views get the constitution’s most thorough cover from censorship.
Who gives a shit what Turdeau Sr.'s leftopathic crime-constitution says?!
And what's this pretense - that holding rallies to incite violence and call for mass-murder and genocide are merely unpopular political views or otherwise harmless opinions?! Endorsing crimes IS a crime! Why isn't David Reevely in JAIL yet?!
Compare a ban on Al-Quds Day protests to how several provinces, recently including Ontario, have handled aggressive protests outside abortion clinics. 
Why should we?! This is at best only an Argumentum Qu Quoque fallacy!
Faced with evidence that those protests are sometimes used as cover to physically confront particular women going into those clinics, governments have said you can still protest abortion, still call abortion doctors baby-murderers, still demand changes to the law. You just have to do it half a block away.
So you're saying you can always threaten people with death if you're far enough away from them when you do it? Because bullets don't exist?!
Toronto’s Al-Quds Day thing drew about 500 people this year; Ottawa’s, maybe a few dozen. The Toronto protest typically travels from Queen’s Park to the American consulate-general a few blocks south, interfering with some traffic and taking up some public space.
So genocidal death-threat rallies inciting violence only temporarily plug traffic?
Nothing sinister ever really comes from them, (say, in Nigeria) so ignore them?
Ford talks about forbidding these things not just in Toronto or on the grounds of the legislature but everywhere in Ontario. Ottawa’s was so small hardly anybody noticed it. Both of them burned themselves out pretty quickly, as protests usually do. Police kept an eye on Toronto’s but didn’t interfere, because what’s the point. Everyone gets tired and goes home.
i.e: "What's the point of stopping small rallies calling for universal genocide?"
(HINT to leftopaths: because it's easier to arrest the few than the many?)!
One way to bring a lot more attention and energy to the demonstrations is to turn them into annual showdowns over free speech.
Right. The best way to solve problems and stop crime is always to ignore it.
Student groups are quite good at this. So many right-wing cranks have been “de-platformed” by left-wing cranks now that the newly elected government promises to create an investigative agency to assess how hard universities fight to defend minority views not just in classes but in the use of their facilities — and to take away funding if they aren’t vigorous enough in making sure the crank of the month gets to talk when a campus club wants to bring him or her in.
So "de-platforming" (violent riots threatening and maiming people) is legit too?
(Maybe Al-Quds Day protests would be best held at the University of Toronto and University of Ottawa, where the province would … insist they be allowed? That doesn’t sound right.)
You leftists claim it's the poor oppressed muslims' holy right and duty to "protest" other people being allowed to live unmolested in their countries, by holding mass-rallies issuing genocidal death-threats to be "free speech," and insist that the extortionist criminal gangsters be allowed to hold them as if they were the same as peaceful protests!
If what we’re after is endless escalations, arguments that the other guys said something worse first, politicians interfering with protests in advance and police officers deciding on the spot what’s legitimate speech and what isn’t, this is all off to a good start.
Sure, because defending yourself is just as bad as the criminals' aggressions!

Monday, May 28, 2018

GDPR = God Damned Prying Retards

This all sounds good, but you know it was designed to increase Globalization.

What is, in fact GDPR and why should I care about it?

    Table Of Contents

    What is GDPR?
    How does this impact us directly?
    What about my rights?
    Who does GDPR affect?
    What happens if I am not GDPR compliant?
    What’s a data protection officer?
    What happens to the kids?

What is GDPR?

The world of the internet is constantly growing and expanding. More and more of the day-to-day tasks we tend to do within the online environment.

Most of the times we do not even realize the impact it has on us and the information we keep sharing for various purposes.

Hence, the General Data Protection Regulation is, as its name already states, a new regulation introduced by the EU in order to protect more your, and why not, my private data within the online world.

All the companies that collect data of European citizens need to be compliant by May 25th.
How does this impact us directly?

First of all, most likely the most obvious impact it will have on us is question more. Question more the data we share, the amount of information we give away, the way it is processed, what it is used for and so on. Also, the moment it becomes clearer and more straightforward that we do share our private data, we will become more selective about it.
What about my rights?

As expected, GDPR comes offering users a bunch of new rights that make the whole process of data selection and usage more transparent. Some of these rights are:

    The right to access- this means that from now on you will have the chance to access the data that is being collected from you and also ask the purpose of it. The company you asked this from has to provide you with a copy of all your collected data, even in an electronic format, if desired.
    The right to data portability – this means that from now on you can transfer your data from one service provider to another.
    The right to be forgotten – this is also an essential one since it represented quite a deal of headaches in the past. From now on, the moment you are no longer a user or a subscriber of certain services or sites, you can request that all your data is deleted and they are obliged to do so, without any delays.
    The right to be informed – this means that from now on all the companies are obliged to let you know, straightforwardly what data they intend to collect, when and you have to give your consent in order for this to happen.
    The right to correct information – given the case some of your private data is no longer accurate, you have the right to update it and the companies are obliged to do so, without any delay
    The right to object – this one is also pretty handy at times. It gives us the chance to object the usage of our data for direct marketing purposes.
    The right to restrict processing – this means that although you do agree for your data to be collected, it does not imply that you have to agree to it being processed.
    The right to be notified – this means that whenever a data breach happens, you have the right to be aware of it, within 72 hours of its occurrence.

Who does GDPR affect?

First of all, don’t make the mistake of assuming that just because your company is outside of the EU you don’t have to be GDPR compliant. If you do process data of EU citizens, you have to be compliant, regardless of where your headquarters are.
What happens if I am not GDPR compliant?

As expected, if any date beyond 25th of May finds you non-compliant with the new regulations there shall be fines. And not small ones. This can mean 4% of the annual turnover for breaching GDPR, or 20 million.

So think twice before you consider not investing in this. Also, you have to think of the fact that given the happening of such a breach, you entirely lose the trust of your customers.
What’s a data protection officer?

This whole new regulation also brings to our attention a new position that comes to existence, that of a data protection officer. And this is not just some fancy name you might or might not have, this is a mandatory role that you have to have within your company starting with 25th of May. What does this person do? It has some of the following responsibilities:

    Makes sure your company and employees are aware of the requirements
    Trains your staff regarding this matter
    Conducts audits to constantly make sure you are compliant
    Maintains record of data processing activities

What happens to the kids?

In the case of users that are under 16 a parental consent will be required in order to have the right to process their data.

All in all, these are some of the new rules that the regulation brings into picture. Not much of a headache, however it’s best to stay informed and aware regarding what is happening and how this affects us or our company.

You have to consider more strongly the rights the users have, the rights you, as a user have, the rights under aged children have, how to secure privacy on a mobile device and many other aspects.

I hope this article shed some light upon what changed the GDPR brings and now you are a little more aware.

Should you have anything further to add or any worries and concerns, don’t hesitate to leave a comment.

The post What is, in fact GDPR and why should I care about it? appeared first on Rebuilding Your Life.

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Government and Education: from CIVICS to CRIMETHINK


Psychopaths ("Thought-Killers") assert that, because Fear is "certain," it doesn't bear thinking about further! Therefore it only requires compromise and Submission!

Since thinking prioritizes fear, it IS fear, so thinking about it really ever only compounds the fear!

So it's better just to give up, despair and pity everyone as heroically helpless fellow victims:

As victims, they get to virtue-signal about their "hurt feelings," and about their hatred for people who are 'insensitive" (to THEIR hurt feelings)!


Since whites, men and Jews seem to be in charge of everything, they automatically get blamed for everything going wrong, as if they caused it on purpose.

And this scary fallacy results in the usual kind of cause-and-effect reversing, victim-blaming idolatry:
As most humans are masochists, those in power actually make things go wrong by trying to avoid the blame!

It's easy to blame those people who are naturally in charge due to merit, for anything that goes wrong, and then to make one's fortune out of the slander - and that would be: Whites, men, and Jews (in the order of the most general to specific categories).

Then to oppose them, we almost automatically get the racists, feminists, and anti-Semites, respectively.

And they generate lots of complaints: some justified but most just blaming other victims of circumstances.

Since there's no actual leaders for the largest groups of white Jewish men, it's relatively easy for their enemies to co-opt complicitly cowardly and opportunistic politicians to make rules against them and in favor of the slanderously extortive parasites, because "only the squeaky wheels get the grease," and they are the only ones who are complaining.

And of course men help women complain about men, Jews, and their own whiteness, in order to get laid.

On the bad side, a lot of Jewish white men in society do bad things while they are in power, in order to suppress all complaints, even legitimate ones, to protect them selves from slander, at society's expense:

Government controls EDUCATION.

The only real, valid purpose of education is to teach people to fend for them selves, to become self-sufficient and individualists, and therefore productive, innovative entrepreneurs who will at the very least not become a burden on others in society, and may also even become productive contributors to it.

But most people in government these days seem to want to rule others, (which is why they entered it in the first place) and so also want people to become their slavish dependents.

This is not only at cross-purposes but is also actually diametrically opposed to educations' real purpose.

So these days we have the people in the "Education System" abusing the children in their care with the mentally crippling notion that they are all really ever only helpless victims who need the Government to help them live their lives in all aspects of it, no longer merely as a temporary insurance company for when things go wrong, but all the time and in every conceivable way, to protect them from "unconscious micro-aggressions" and to guarantee them their rightful "safe spaces" everywhere, and all the time, too.

In short, they are told they need government as a protection racket, to protect them from the "systemic inequality" being covertly instituted against them by oppressive government racists who keep them down!

Government has morphed from from servant to master: from insurance company to coercive protection racket.

CIVICS - The notion that there is a contractual relationship between citizens and government, with both responsibilities and rights assigned to each side - is no longer taught in schools, because the people in government saw this truth as a major impediment to their plans to enslave the citizens as mere subjects.

They sell victimology, pretending life is too complex for anyone to understand, in order to sell them selves to the other non-government-employed people as much-needed "Expert Authorities" to run their lives.

And this is, of course, actually criminal negligence - at the very least!

(As an aside, who doesn't personally know at least one perfect example of all of the above: "men" who are feminist, self-hating white anti-Semites?)!


All "Expertise" and "Authority" is criminal negligence and attempted slavery, because the true moral onus thing to do would be to try to educate everyone in the basics of everything.

Sure, not everyone would necessarily be suited or want to actually do all the work in every venue, but at least they'd know how it was done, and how much in general it should cost.

And so people wouldn't be allowed to inflate their costs and their prices right out of the world.

It's not a recipe for communism, because one could still attempt to charge whatever they want, but at least with such a fiduciary duty of care in place through education, people would know what they're getting into.

All academic topics are idolatries because they all pretend these topics just exist on their own, but they're also all really only THINGS HUMANS DO.

Even "Science" and "Physics" is really only the study of humans studying science and physics.

And right now, especially with the so-called "soft" science "humanities," they always pretend that these are things which simply just happen to force poor victim humans to do things against and in spite of their illusory free-will choices.

All idolatry - all expertise and authority scams are actually victimology - getting people to think:
"I'm too helpless to understand this myself!"


Liberals seem to love Submitting to islam. The so-called "STOCKHOLM SYNDROME" is basically only turning one's FEAR of criminals into virtue-signalling PITY for them as equally helpless "fellow victims."

There's really not much more to it than that.

Similarly, "HATE-SPEECH" is anything that deprives a libertine "liberal" criminal extortionist of their false "right" to virtue-signal what a "heroic" victim they are: they're "offended" if you tell them that they're NOT a victim, and that they therefore should straighten up and do right by themselves - that's what they call "HATEFUL!" (hurtful) because it HURTS their feelings, and they can't indulge in their self-pitying victimology!


Saturday, May 26, 2018

Pope Francis: Equating Islam With Terrorism Is Wrong And A Lie

From here:

Stipulate for purpose of debate that the quote is accurate. The Dope declared equating Islam to terrorism is a lie and foolish. Right or wrong? 
I first saw this at Bare Naked Islam and traced it through two newspapers to a third where I could not find the interview. Evidently CAIR believes it 'cuz they posted it on Facebook. 

Pope Francis has said equating Islam to terrorism is "foolish" in an interview with an Italian local newspaper. "It might be coming out of many people's mouths, but this equation is a lie and it is foolish," Francis said in the interview published by L'Eco di Bergamo on Thursday,

The Dope is not just wrong, he is full of excrfement! The proof is in Islam's canonical texts. 



[Emphasis added.]
3:151We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers). 


8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." 

8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
So if you gain the mastery over them in war), if you defeat them and have victory over them in war,
(then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely punishing ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them. This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a lesson from their end, (so that they may learn a lesson. ) As-Suddi commented, "They might be careful not to break treaties, so that they do not meet the same end.'' So if you gain the mastery over them in war), if you defeat them and have victory over them in war, (then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely punishing ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them. This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a lesson from their end, (so that they may learn a lesson. ) As-Suddi commented, "They might be careful not to break treaties, so that they do not meet the same end.''

8:60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.

Ibn Kathir :  to threaten), or to strike fear

    At first glance, 8.57 & 60 may appear innocent. Muslims are commanded to give harsh treatment to defeated victims to tach a lesson to those behind them.  That means terrify those they intend to attack next.  Ibn Kathir adds "will be afraid. 

    Muslims are commanded to maximize military power  to threaten intended victims. Ibn Kathir adds "to strike fear". That is a clue for you.  Ibn Ishaq, Moe's biographer, has another clue for you found on page 326 of Guillaume's The Life Of Muhammad. 
326                             The Life of Muhammad
Then God mentions the unbelievers and what they will meet when they die, and describes them, and tells His prophet about them until He says: 'If you come upon them in war, deal with them so forcibly as to terrify those who follow them, haply they may take warning/ i.e. make a severe example of them to those that come after, that haply  they may understand. 'And prepare what strength you can against them, and cavalry by which. you may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy' as far as His words, 'And whatever you spend in the way of God will be repaid to you: you will not be wronged,' i.e. you will not lose your reward with God in the next life and a rapid recompense in this world.


    Allah  awards Brownie Points for acts of terrorism intended to injure or enrage us.  On Judgment Day, the Muslim will stand before Allah, who will weigh his sins against his righteous good deeds. The swing of the balance will decide his  eternal destiny. 
Acts  to instill terror are credited to the terrorist as righteous good deeds. 
9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers), by strategies of war that would terrify their enemy (nor inflict), a defeat on the enemy,


    Allah cast terror and Moe was made victorious with terror! Note the allusion to 8.57 in the last sentence of 59.2.! 
33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. 

59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).


    Turn back to 8.6o  and take note of the phrase "including steeds of war". Islamic law has another clue for you.  Hedaya, the fiqh of the Hanafi madhab,  tells us  the purpose  keeping steeds of war.  It's terror, Stupid!  On  pages 175 & 176 of the second volume, there is a discussion of allocation of  shares of plunder. The horseman gets a share for his horse, it makes no difference how many horses he has or what breed, Persian or Arabian.  The text is barely legible and ocr fails. I highlighted the pertinent sections. 
Hedaya 2.175

Now read the last paragraph on page 176 for another clue. The act of setting out on a ghazwa inflicts terror on the infidels! 
Hedaya 2.176

    Every Muslim must be an object of fear to infidels because he  is likely to attack them.  Hedaya  spills the beans in a discussion of which Muslims are authorized to issue writs of protection.  Once again, I have highlighted pertinent parts. 

Hedaya 2.157


    "The Quranic Concept Of War" a strategy manual used by the army of Pakistan, describes terror on page 59. 
Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.  Once a condition of terrorinto the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.  It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. 

Who will get a clue? Read the highlighted  clauses over and over until reality sinks in. 

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Feminism 101

From here:

Feminism is divisive anti-united-humanism. It is virtue-signalling victimology and treason to all of humanity. And it began when corporations tricked women into thinking men were oppressing them, and thus were able to convince them to double their pool of available workers, and at half their original wages!

"Feminist Theory" basically asserts that, whenever one is having trouble with other females, always blame a male! It's a form of co-optive deflection - when one can't solve one's immediate problems, just blame something and someone else!

And it works out for "male feminists" who, as usual, really only want to get into the women's pants, too: because they can cut out the competition, by pretending to blame all other men as insensitive boors, whenever a women complains about her man or even about other women!

There is no "Patriarchy!" Men simply don't think about women enough (or in that way) to bother to plot or scheme to trick and oppress them - those are projected female tactics!

Only women - whose sex drives are naturally much less than mens' as they have to plan for better offspring and avoid men who are dangerous - have ever actually ganged up and grouped together to withhold sex from their men, united as a women's union, until their extortive demands are met!

Men would NEVER even remotely think to do such a thing!

In fact, most men are usually thinking about how they can beat other men, by pretending to be "male feminists!"

The modern "Racism" trope is also a product of Victimology, which is a product of SJW Feminism.

Men want to protect women and children. Women want to protect (pity) everyone, criminal rapists included. 

Women act like helpless defenseless victims in order to get laid, (the "damsel in distress" act) men always fall for it, and women know they always fall for it. 

So when women complain about evil male "patriarchy" (a silly hallucination they project, where all men supposedly get together to devise new  laws and strategies to oppress women, because men are really secretly afraid of women's intelligence LOL)  most men will eagerly prove the exact opposite by embodying their useful anger to whole-heatedly embrace the silly and slanderous fantasy, asserting that "Yes that's totally true, but only of all those *other* men, not for me!" in order to get laid.

Women organize with other women against men, actively withholding sex until their men fall into line. And it's women, as can be seen in muslim countries, who are the most viciously against women who stray, slut-shaming and honour-killing them allegedly "for allah" but really only to make them all conform.

Men, on the other hand, don't organize with other men against women - they tend to organize with women against all other men. This is why male "feminists" exist, and it's also, I strongly suspect, why male liberal cucks also exist, to embrace and pity the swarthy but childishly mentally inferior animal-people pets of their women!

The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement

Heather Mac Donald
Manhattan Institute
The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on April 18, 2018, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.
Our nation is about to be transformed, thanks to the #MeToo movement. I am not speaking about a cessation of sexual predation in the workplace. If that were the only consequence of #MeToo, the movement would clearly be a force for good. Unfortunately, its effects are going to be more sweeping and destructive. #MeToo is going to unleash a new torrent of gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that all disparities in employment and institutional representation are due to harassment and bias.

The resulting distortions of decision-making will be largely invisible; we will usually not know of the superior candidates for a job who were passed over in the drive for gender parity.

But the net consequence will be a loss of American competitiveness and scientific achievement.
Pressures for so-called diversity, defined reductively by gonads and melanin, are of course nothing new. Since the 1990s, every mainstream institution has lived in terror of three lethal words: “all white male,” an epithet capable of producing paroxysms of self-abasement. Silicon Valley start-ups and science labs quake before the charge of being all or mostly male; their varied ethnic demographics earn them no protection from the diversity racket. The New York Times recently criticized the board of fashion giant H&M for being “entirely white.” We can therefore infer that there are females on the H&M board, or else the Times would have let loose with the bigger gun: “all white male.” When both categories of alleged privilege—white and male—overlap, an activist is in the diversity sweet spot, his power over an institution at its zenith.
But however pervasive the diversity imperative was before, the #MeToo movement is going to make the previous three decades look like a golden age of meritocracy. No mainstream institution will hire, promote, or compensate without an exquisite calculation of gender and race ratios.

Males in general, and white males in particular, will have to clear a very high bar in order to justify further deferring that halcyon moment of gender equity.
Hollywood and the media are already showing the #MeToo effect. At this year’s Oscar awards lunch, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, John Bailey, prefaced his remarks by noting that he was a “75-year-old white man.” Bailey was trying to get out ahead of the curve, since if he hadn’t pointed out this shameful status, feminist crusaders in the press and the industry would have done so for him.

Witness actress Natalie Portman’s sneer in presenting the best director prize at the 2018 Golden Globe awards: “And here are the all-male nominees.” Such shallow bean counting is now going to become the automatic response to any perceived lack of “diversity” in entertainment.
Naturally, Bailey announced reparations for the Academy’s predominantly white male profile: henceforth it would “balance gender, race, ethnicity, and religion” in all its activities and would double its female and minority members by 2020. Needless to say, this was not enough. Outside the lunch, the National Hispanic Media Coalition protested the lack of proportional ethnic representation in Oscar nominations and acting roles.
CBS is considering only females to fill the anchor slot at Face the Nation, to catch up with The Today Show, which now has two female anchors. The Recording Academy, which oversees the Grammys, has promised to overcome the “unconscious biases that impede female advancement” in the music industry, after bean-counting complaints from The Wall Street Journal’s pop music critic and female music executives.
The prospect of left-wing entertainment moguls having to sacrifice their box office judgment to identity politics is an unalloyed pleasure, and of little consequence to society at large. 

But quota-izing will hardly be limited to Hollywood.
Major publishing houses are analyzing their author lists by gender and race and making publishing decisions accordingly. What books get reviewed and who reviews them will increasingly be determined according to gender and race. There are likely no major newspapers that are not tallying reporter and op-ed bylines, as well as the topics they cover, by gender and race. In 2005, professional feminist Susan Estrich preposterously accused Michael Kinsley, then running the Los Angeles Times editorial pages, of excluding female writers. Naturally, Estrich ignored the fact that males are disproportionately interested in public affairs, as demonstrated by lopsided sex ratios among op-ed submissions and letters to the editor.

Eighty-seven percent of contributors to Wikipedia are male. There are no allegedly sexist gatekeepers at Wikipedia screening out females; contributions are anonymous and open to all. But males are more oriented towards highly fact-based realms.
Now, however, sterile bean-counting exercises such as Estrich’s have gone in-house. In response to the #MeToo movement, The New York Times created a “gender editor” who presides over a “gender initiative” to infuse questions of gender throughout all the Times’ coverage.

A recent front-page product of this #MeToo initiative covered the earth-shattering problem facing NFL cheerleaders: to wit, they have a dress code and are forbidden from fraternizing with the players. Despite these allegedly patriarchal conditions, females are still lining up to be hired, to the puzzlement of the Times.
Publisher Meredith Corp. has come in for the usual criticism after buying the floundering Time, Inc. late last year. “They’re basically all middle-aged white males from the Midwest,” grumbled a Time staffer, who, you would think, would be in no position to complain. Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is offering leadership training exclusively to females to try to meet its short-term goal of 40 percent female executives.
Corporate boardrooms, executive suites, and management structures are going to be scoured for gender and race imbalances. Diversity trainers are already sensing a windfall from #MeToo. Gender, diversity, and inclusion were the dominant themes at this January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The conference was chaired exclusively by women. Windows were emblazoned with slogans like “Diversity is good for business” and “Gender equality is a social and economic issue.” CEOs shared their techniques for achieving gender equity. It’s actually quite simple: pay managers based on their record of hiring and promoting females and minorities, as Hilton CEO Christopher Nassetta explained.

Never mind the fact that by introducing irrelevant criteria such as race and gender into an evaluation process, you will inevitably end up with less qualified employees.
U.S. banks and financial institutions are facing pressure from shareholder groups to release data on the number and compensation of females and minorities in their upper ranks. Immediate punishment befalls anyone in business who has the courage to criticize this war on merit

The chief creative officer of the advertising firm M&C Saatchi wrote last year that he was “bored of diversity being prioritized over talent.” Saatchi atoned for this heresy with a frenzy of female hirings and promotions.
Amazingly, John Williams—a white man—squeaked into the presidency of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York this April, to the outrage of the diversocrats. Don’t be surprised if he is the last to do so. “The New York Fed has never been led by a woman or a person of color, and that needs to change,” announced New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Williams’ “progress,” as The New York Times called it, in “diversifying” senior leadership when he was president of the San Francisco Fed undoubtedly made his unfortunate race and sex more palatable to the search committee.
#MeToo enforcers are even going after classical music. New Yorker music critic Alex Ross triggered outrage against the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra in February when he tweeted that they had programmed no female composers in their 2018-2019 seasons. Never mind that the CSO was even then performing Jennifer Higdon’s Low Brass Concerto—a piece commissioned by the Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore orchestras—at Carnegie Hall. It is ludicrous to suggest that these institutions are discriminating against female composers, but Ross and his followers demand affirmative programming quotas.
The public radio show, Performance Today, ran a series of shows in March about gender and racial inequities in classical music. At a time of diminishing classical music audiences, it is profoundly irresponsible to direct the poison of identity politics at our most precious musical institutions. Doing so only encourages potential young listeners and culturally ignorant philanthropists (I’m thinking of you, Bill Gates) to stay away. Facts are facts, and throughout most of music history, the greatest composers have been male. No amount of digging through score archives, however useful that enterprise may be for discovering unfamiliar works, is going to unearth a female counterpart to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, or Brahms. So what? We should simply be grateful—profoundly grateful—for the music these men created.
Orchestra boards will pay penance for their own inadequate diversity by a mad rush on female conductors, whose numbers are minuscule. It was already difficult two years ago to land a U.S. conducting position for a universally esteemed white male conductor, reports his agent. Now it would be nearly impossible, the agent believes, adding: “If I had a trans conductor, I would be rich.”
Academia, the source of identity politics, will double down on its diversity quota-izing in the wake of #MeToo. A panel at the annual American Economic Association meeting in January charged that gender discrimination was pervasive in economics—an argument that fit into the “larger national examination of bias and abuse toward women in the work force,” The New York Times reminded readers. In March, the Chronicle of Higher Educationand Priya Satia, former diversity chair of Stanford University’s Department of History, went into diversity meltdown over a history conference that Hoover Institution Fellow Niall Ferguson had organized.

Though Ferguson had invited females to speak, none had accepted.

Not good enough, according to Professor Satia. Ferguson should have suspended the conference entirely unless he could persuade females and minorities to participate. Although Satia did not identify any scholarly gaps that resulted from the actual lineup, Stanford University was so shaken by the controversy that it issued a statement on behalf of the president and provost assuring the public that it had made its concerns about the lack of diversity known to the conference organizers.
STEM departments—departments of science, technology, engineering, and math—have been under enormous pressure from the federal government to hire by gender and race.

Now they are creating their own internal diversity enforcers, notwithstanding the massive diversity bureaucracies already in place. UCLA’s Engineering Department now has its own diversity dean. Audrey Pool O’Neal, the director of UCLA’s Women in Engineering program, justified this sinecure with the usual role model argument for gender- and race-conscious decision-making. “Female students let me know how much they appreciate seeing a woman of color in front of their classroom,” she told the UCLA student newspaper.
Why not appreciate seeing the most qualified scholar in front of your classroom? Any female student who thinks she needs a female professor in order to envision a scientific career has declared herself a follower rather than a pioneer—and a follower based on a characteristic that is irrelevant to intellectual achievement. 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 for anyone to plunge headlong into the search for knowledge.
Silicon Valley is a #MeToo diversity bonanza waiting to happen. It’s not for nothing that the Mountain View headquarters of Google is referred to as the “Google campus”; the culture of the Silicon Valley behemoth is an echo chamber of shrill academic victimology. Managers and employees reflexively label dissenters from left-wing orthodoxy as misogynists and racists. It is assumed that the lack of proportional representation of female, black, and Hispanic engineers at the company is due to bias on the part of every other type of engineer.
In August 2017, Google fired computer engineer James Damore for writing a memo suggesting that the lack of 50-50 gender proportionality at Google and other tech firms may not be due to bias, but rather to different career predilections on the part of males and females.

He cited psychological research establishing that on average, males and females are attracted to different types of work: males to more abstract, idea-centered work, females to more human-centered, relational activities.

Damore was not disparaging the scientific skills of the female engineers working at Google; he was trying to explain why there were not more of them. Nevertheless, Google accused Damore of using harmful gender stereotypes that put Google’s female employees at risk of some unspecified trauma.
Google’s adoption of the bathetic rhetoric of academic victimology to justify firing Damore was bad enough. But in January 2018, the National Labor Relations Board released a memo upholding Google’s action on the same grounds: Damore had engaged in discrimination and sexual harassment by employing “harmful gender stereotypes.” The reasoning behind the NLRB memo puts at risk the job of every academic scientist researching the biological and psychological differences between the sexes. The ideological imperatives of feminism are trumping the search for scientific truth. This is a dangerous position for a society to embrace.
The following month, a Google recruiter challenged Silicon Valley’s quota mentality by refusing to obey an edict to purge white males from consideration for entry-level engineering interviews. The recruiter alleges in a lawsuit that he was promptly fired.

Google, it seems, would rather not be informed about potentially groundbreaking tech talent if it comes in the wrong color and shape.
Such distortions of meritocracy will become even more intense following #MeToo. The mad rush of investor funding into the biotech fraudster firm Theranos was undoubtedly due in large part to the sex of its founder. Elizabeth Holmes claimed to have invented an advanced blood-testing device. Even as her claims about the largely fictitious device unraveled, investors continued to give her unqualified support. Her blue chip board boasted two former secretaries of state and James Mattis, then head of the U.S. Central Command and now Secretary of Defense. Hilariously, the #MeToo-obsessed New York Times opined that it was “surprising” how long Holmes was allowed to operate “before regulators stepped in.” Actually, what is surprising is that they stepped in at all, given the dominant narrative that the dearth of female start-ups is due to sexism on the part of venture capitalists and regulators.
Despite the billions of dollars that governments, companies, and foundations have poured into increasing the number of females in STEM, the gender proportions of the hard sciences have not changed much over the years. This is not surprising, given mounting evidence of the differences in interests and aptitudes between the sexes.

Study after study has shown that females gravitate towards different types of jobs than men, as James Damore fatally observed. Females on average tend to choose fields that are perceived to make the world a better place, according to the common understanding of that phrase. 

A preschool teacher in the Bronx, profiled by Bloomberg News, exemplifies such a choice. She has a B.A. in neuroscience, but opted not to go to medical school so as to have an impact on poor and minority children. Her salary is a pittance compared to what she could earn as a clinical or research neurologist, but she said that pay is not her top motivation when it comes to choosing a job.
Even under the broad STEM umbrella, females seek jobs that are seen as directly helping others by a two-to-one ratio over males. Females make up 75 percent of workers in health-related jobs, but only 25 percent of workers in computer jobs and 14 percent of engineering workers, according to a Pew Research Center poll. In 2016, nearly 82 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residents were female—yet no one is complaining about gender bias against males. And in a resounding blow to the feminist narrative about bias in STEM, it turns out that the more gender equality in a country, the lower the percentage of females in STEM majors and fields. The more careers open to females, the less likely they are to choose math or science.
Finally, there is the most taboo subject of all: the non-identical distribution of high-end math skills. Males outnumber females on both the bottom rung of math cluelessness and the top rung of math insight. In the U.S., there are 2.5 males in the top .01 percent of math ability for every female in that category. This is not a matter of gender bias and cultural conditioning; gender differences in math precocity show up as early as kindergarten.
Given these different distributions of interests and skills, the only way to engineer gender proportionality in the hard sciences is to put a ceiling on male hires, no matter how gifted, until enough females can be induced to enter the field to balance out the males. And indeed, the National Science Foundation, which has announced that progress in science requires a “diverse STEM workforce,” seems to be moving in that direction.

This is undoubtedly good news for China, as it furiously pushes ahead with its unapologetically meritocratic system of science training and research. Not such good news for the rest of us, however.
The #MeToo movement has uncovered real abuses of power. But the solution to those abuses is not to replace valid measures of achievement with irrelevancies like gender and race. Ironically, the best solution to sexual predation is not more feminism, but less.

By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the female virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism dissolved the civilizational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behavior that pervades society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed. Now, however, with the idea of “ladies and gentlemen” discredited and out of favor, boorishness is increasingly the rule.
Contrary to the feminist narrative, Western culture is in fact the least patriarchal culture in human history; rather than being forced to veil, females in our society can parade themselves in as scantily clad a manner as they choose; pop culture stars flaunt their promiscuity. As we have seen, every mainstream institution is trying to hire and promote as many females as possible. As the #MeToo movement swells the demand for ever more draconian diversity mandates, a finding in a Pew Research Center poll on workplace equity is worth noting: the perception of bias is directly proportional to the number of years the perceiver has spent in an American university. The persistent claim of gender bias, in other words, is ideological, not empirical. But after #MeToo, it will have an even more disruptive effect.