Category Archives: Pseudoscience

Racism Through Google Glasses

Business, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Political Correctness, Pseudoscience, Race, Racism, Technology

Dumb, white liberals—it all begins with them—think that reality starts at a university department (an un-scholarly one, at that), where you develop and politicize a concept, “racism.” Then you further build a bogus discipline around it—Critical Race Theory, or some other postmodern invention. And, if you’ve done those things correctly, reality will fall inline with your politically motivated constructs. Or so liberals believe, to wit,

Google is promoting the controversial claim it’s NOT possible for ethnic minorities to be racist against white people. GOOGLE is promoting the idea that ethnic minorities CANNOT be racist toward white people.

Back on the high-tech company’s campus, the racism construct, when perceived through Google’s Glasses, suits the company’s political goals, and those of the “Racism Industrial Complex.” But reality will not obey Google’s politics.

In other words, you leftists (and I always include in this cohort most self-styled conservatives) don’t want your white kids and wives being beaten to a pulp or worse, because of your unmoored theories about one-way, systemic racism and white privilege, etc.

You don’t want to lose your kids because you failed to warn them that the Black Lives Matter members, or just blacks inculcated in Hillary Clinton’s belief-system, will gladly beat your boys and girls and wives to a pulp if the spirit of hate so moves them.

Ask Colin Flaherty, heroic chronicler of black-on-white violence (also the predominant form of racial violence in this country).

Very many blacks do hate whites, root-‘n-branch. Blacks smashing white faces is not corrective feedback, it’s white hot racial hatred.

The Expert Idiocracy Is More Dangerous Than Islam. Almost

America, History, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Morality, Pseudoscience, Terrorism, The West

“The Expert Idiocracy Is More Dangerous Than Islam, Almost,” is the latest, weekly column, on Townhall, “the top source for conservative … commentary.” An excerpt:

They’ve been killing their way across Europe and the USA. They’re the Mohameds, Omars, Syeds, Tashfeens, Tareks, Maliks, Ibrahims, Brahim, Yassins, Rafiks, Khalids and Najims; Messrs. Abaaoud, Abdeslam, El Bakraouis, Abrinis, Abballas (blah-blah). But about them, the Twittersphere yields more plain spoken truths than the expert Idiocracy.

The latest Muslim immigrant to unleash himself on a battered France—“France’s terror log: 230+ killed in attacks since 2015, more than previous century of terrorism,”reports RT—was Tunisian-born Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel.

Write his name down. The American media will soon proclaim sanctimoniously, as they did for Omar Mateen, that they’ll not be mentioning names. Wikipedia already minimizes a researcher’s exposure to the names of the Muslim terrorists who roamed free among us, opting for their professional affiliation: “ISIL supporters,” “suicide bomber,” visiting Moroccan student.

Our avatars of morality in media have announced they would not show the mangled bodies Mohamed left when he plowed his hired lorry into crowds celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 and gravely injuring 202.

Seek out those images. You owe it to the dead. You owe it to those still living in la-la land. You owe it to yourself. As anti-Islam warrior Geert Wilders has warned, “The more Islam we get, the less free our societies.”

The more Islam we get, the more bodies will litter our streets à la Nice.

So what has the expert Idiocracy misled you about?

We heard repeatedly about America’s philosophical affinity with the French and their Revolution. “Philosopher” Homer Simpson came closer to the truth about the French—“cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” he called our “closest allies”—than liberals and conservatives alike. Both factions seem afflicted by historical Alzheimer’s about Bastille Day.

Theirs was a blood-drenched illiberal, irreligious, and intolerant uprising. The father of English conservatism, Edmund Burke, was a “great publicist of the American Revolution,” but said that “the French Revolution was murderous …

… Read the rest.  “The Expert Idiocracy Is More dangerous Than Islam, Almost” is on Townhall, “the top source for conservative … commentary.” Share it widely.

AND:

Do review “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” on Amazon. (The book can be bought, too, from Amazon UK, Europe, Canada.)

 

When Will Hussein Obama Condemn White Hot Hatred Of Whites?

Barack Obama, Crime, GUNS, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Military, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Race, Racism

The banal, near-comatose brains at MSNBC have been calling for the usual “national conversation,” crafted by their ilk, naturally, about gun violence, the stymieing of research into gun violence (come again?!), Texas-style open carry, too many wars and military deployment—all said to have pushed tender soul Micah Xavier Johnson over the edge, causing him and his brothers to “shoot a dozen Dallas police officers, killing five” (7/7/016).

In the vernacular of liberalism (embraced by conservatives), evil is never committed, but only ever caused.

Can we, oh Delphic Oracles of stupidity and political tyranny, talk about the white hot hatred of whites and the West that appears to underpin this president’s words and actions and those of his lauded Black Lives matter movementarians? (See: “Dallas suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”)

Of course not. Move on, peons. Nothing here to see.
UPDATED: Facebook discussion.


I asked yesterday:

Liberal Pollsters & Media Collude To Skew Polls

Democrats, Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Media, Pseudoscience

As I told a despondent pal and the spouse, not for a minute did I believe polls that depicted a flight to Hillary Clinton’s camp in the wake of Orlando. The opposite. Lying liberal pollsters and their media enablers were just doing what they always do: oversampling Democrats and liberal voting blocs. This Sierra Rayne at American Thinker confirms. “Corrected Gravis poll has Trump well out in front of Clinton at national level”:

After an onslaught of highly liberal biased polls against Donald Trump during the past week, it was refreshing to see an only modestly biased poll – in relative terms – released on Saturday by Gravis.

In its biased form, the poll shows Trump only 2% behind Hillary Clinton in the head-to-head matchup, far below the ridiculously large Clinton leads of up to 12% that Bloomberg and other leftist media outlets have been oozing of late.

But once we correct for biases in this Gravis poll, Trump is undoubtedly now well out in front of Clinton.

In the poll’s demographics, 40% of respondents said they were Democrats compared to just 33% who were Republicans. This 7% Democrat advantage is almost assuredly about 6% above where it should be – meaning Clinton’s narrow 2% lead should likely be upward of at least a 4% deficit behind Trump.

Further evidence of liberal bias in the poll comes from questions about Tea Party support, abortion, religious affiliation, and education.

Just 11% of those surveyed said they were members of the Tea Party. This value should be about 17%, suggesting – as with the party affiliation – about a 6% liberal bias.

The poll also shows a 17% advantage to pro-choice over pro-life, well above the known 6% spread in favor of pro-choice. This signifies a major liberal bias in the demographics, as the pro-choice side has not had an advantage larger than 10% since the 1990s.

When it comes to religious affiliation, the poll oversampled Muslims (2% versus 1%) and Catholics (25% versus less than 21%) and looks to have massively undersampled Evangelicals (10% versus 25%), resulting in more liberal bias. Evangelicals will vote dominantly for Trump, whereas Muslims and many Catholics are likely to lean toward Clinton.

A full 50% of the poll’s respondents had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 34% in reality, introducing more liberal bias.

Based on the full range of liberal biases present, a reasonable estimate of Trump’s actual lead over Clinton is in the range of at least 5% once the polling data is corrected.

MORE (Warning: sticky site).