0 comments



You can read the white rage in their MAGA hats

Black writer RenĂ©e Graham thinks so. She can read hats in depth. She may be wrong, however.  You may not be wearing a MAGA hat as an expression of rage.  Might you not wear a MAGA hat because you think President Trump is doing a lot of good for the country?

The wearers may be doing what more blacks should do: Treating African-Americans and their history as simply American.  Why should they keep away from an African museum?  Is it some sort of racist shrine or is it for all Americans?

And why does Ms Graham think Trump is an enemy of blacks?  He has just got millions of blacks into work who were previously jobless. He has done much more of that than any President in recent history.  Maybe Africans should be wearing MAGA hats in recognition of that.  If Ms Graham were more logical maybe she would be wearing one too.  But I think it is hate rather than logic which moves her


Recently I saw more than a dozen people wearing “Make America Great Again” hats in what I would have thought would be the most unlikely place:

The National Museum of African American History & Culture, in Washington D.C.

As I approached a 1850s slave cabin that once stood on an Edisto Island, S.C., plantation, I saw the gathering over my shoulder — first one, then three, then more. Some wore the familiar red hats, while others opted for white, President Trump’s preferred color. Some also sported T-shirts bearing Trump’s slogan. All of them were white teenage boys.

Clearly, this was meant as a provocation.

They did nothing disruptive. In fact, the Trump Youth barely seemed to do much of anything at all. They moved together as a group, occasionally casting a bored eye to the right or left. Although I didn’t notice an accompanying adult, they could have been part of a class trip.
Get Arguable in your inbox:
Jeff Jacoby on everything from politics to pet peeves to the passions of the day.

On second thought, this had nothing to do with class. As the boys walked by, African-American visitors had a variety of reactions. One woman looked them up and down, then shook her head. A man rolled his eyes. Another woman gave them side-eye so sharp it could have pierced metal. Still, people refused to give them the greater acknowledgment they might have sought. We had more important things to do.

Since its opening in September 2016, the museum has become hallowed ground for many African-Americans. It is a sanctified space to learn, reflect, and see the path, with all its pitfalls and triumphs, upon which we still move forward.

Perhaps this incongruous show of Trump allegiance was intended to rile us. Apparently it’s not the first time these sartorial politics have been on display. After I posted a photo of one young man holding his MAGA hat, others tweeted that they’d also noticed white teens wearing the caps at the museum.

“When my family visited the museum last year, we saw a white teen with the same hat,” wrote Wendi C. Thomas, a journalist. “Felt like trolling.”

That’s an appropriate assessment for those supporting this racist troll of a presidency.

Since Trump’s 2016 election, his name has been used to threaten Jews and people of color. According to a hate crime database compiled by ProPublica, more than 150 school bullying incidents through May 2017 included evocations of Trump’s name or his divisive comments. This included white students, after a Florida high school football game, chanting “Donald Trump!” at black students from an opposing school.

In her award-winning book, “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide,” Carol Anderson writes, “White rage doesn’t have to wear sheets or burn crosses, or take to the streets.”

These days, all it has to do is scream the current president’s name.

Whatever the intent of the MAGA cap wearers, I hope the disaffected white teens also recognize this: If they only marvelled at the cruelties one race has inflicted on another for no good reason, then they should have stayed home. If they looked at the Klan videos, the hoods and robes, especially the one in a very familiar shade of red, and wished again for a time when its members marched unmasked in the nation’s capital, near where the museum now stands, they should have stayed home.

To denigrate African-American history is to denigrate American history — their own history.

African-Americans survived the Middle Passage, centuries of enslavement, families torn apart, systemic sexual abuse, lynchings, racist Supreme Court decisions, police violence, and Jim Crow. Every effort to dim our light has only made it burn hotter and brighter.

We’re still here, unbowed. From the magnificent museum that celebrates our uniquely American story to the communities where we live, we will won’t be intimidated by people in MAGA hats — or the noxious president they represent.

SOURCE




0 comments


Julian Burnside QC shows the usual Leftist myopia to Australia's refugee problem



I am almost certainly wasting my time in putting up any reply to anything a Leftist says and Burnside's track record makes that particularly so in his case. But I have 15 minutes to spare so I will proceed:

Burnside criticizes the way Australia treats "boat people", people who thought that they could crash their way into Australian residence by exploiting the reluctance of Australians to treat anyone in poor circumstances harshly. And Labour party governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did treat boat people considerately.

But that treatment simply meant more and more rickety boats ending up on Australian shores. And Australians didn't like that. Polls showed that a big majority wanted the flow to stop and even for existing arrivals to be sent back. Australia accepts vetted refugees and others in huge numbers every year at great stress to our infrastructure so it is hardly unreasonable to reject another big inflow of unvetted arrivals.

And Tony Abbott got a big electoral endorsement to stop the boats coming and proceeded to do so. But he achieved that in the only way that would work: By being tough on boat peole. He was assisted in that by a declaration from Leftist leader Kevin Rudd in the dying days of his regime that no boat people ever would be given Australian residence.

But what to do with the boat people already coming under Australian jurisdiction? To give them Australian residence or any comfortable life would simply restart the flow. So a residue of boat people is deliberately treated restrictively as a warning to others. It is that harshness which Burnside criticizes. And Burnside omits that Australia has an open offer to all of them to fly them back to their home country. Very few have taken that option. So they are in a limbo of their own making. They have food and accommodation at the Australian taxpayer's expense so it is not surprising that they do not want to go back

At this point Burnside will righteously explode that they risk their lives if they go back. They do not. They all had refuge the minute they crossed their country's borders -- mostly into Pakistan. And many are still in Pakistan. But a minority of rich ones decided that life in Pakistan was too harsh for them so boarded airliners to take them thousands of miles to places in Indonesia where they could hop onto the pity boats. They are simply economic migrants, not refugees. They could go back to Pakistan if they really wanted to but they prefer the "harsh" treatment that Australia offers.

So Burnside is just virtue signalling. He does not address the situation that the Australian government has been forced into.

The irony is that, being affluent citizens of their home countries, many of the boat people could probably have qualified in time to come to Australia as legitimate immigrants. They were just arrogant and impatient. We are better off without them


The top politicians in this country are guilty of major criminal offences, but they are unlikely ever to be tried for them, says lawyer Julian Burnside.

“I think it’s pretty clear that Australian prime ministers and immigration ministers are guilty of criminal offences against our own law,” says the Melbourne-based QC. “The problem is that no one can bring a prosecution for those offences without the approval of the Attorney General. Take a lucky guess what the Attorney General would say.”

In a new documentary, Australian human rights barrister Julian Burnside examines the harsh treatment of refugees around the world by western democracies.

The offences he has in mind involve the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers – deliberate and unnecessary cruelty that amounts, he argues in the documentary Border Politics, to torture.

Since 2002, Australia has been a signature member of the International Criminal Court, and as a result, he explains, “there is a series of offences [in Australian law] that mirror the offences over which the ICC has jurisdiction.”

It was compulsory for Australia to introduce those laws, and some were well overdue. “Until then, believe it or not, genocide was not an offence under Australian criminal law,” he says. “But it is now.”

In Border Politics, which is getting a limited release nationally, Burnside – who says he does not enjoy travel – roams the world to see how our treatment of asylum seekers stacks up. The short answer: terribly.

“The way we are seen overseas is really worrying,” he says. “It’s vaguely embarrassing to be in another country and disclose that you’re Australian. It’s like, I guess, being in another country and disclosing you’re American, because of Trump.”

He traces the root of this systematic abuse of people we are obliged take in (under a raft of international conventions but most crucially the UN Convention on Human Rights) to 9/11.

Genuine tragedy though it was, it has been ruthlessly exploited ever since by politicians on both sides of the divide to whip up anti-refugee hysteria, and to depict those seeking asylum as somehow inherently criminal.

Under the laws to which Australia is a signatory, they are not. But, arguably, our political leaders are.

But surely the politicians would say they are only reflecting the will of the people they serve?

“That’s right,” he says. “That’s the Jim Hacker approach to leading the country, when he said in Yes, Prime Minister, ‘I’m their leader, I must follow them’. And that is exactly what we’ve seen in recent years in Australia.

“Since the Tampa episode the Coalition has repeatedly called boat people ‘illegal’ even though they don’t commit an offence [in coming here as refugees by boat], and they call the exercise of pushing them away ‘border protection’. So I think the majority of the public think that we are being protected from criminals, which, if it was true, would make sense. But it’s false. The public has been persuaded to go along with dreadful mistreatment of people who are innocent and who are, almost all of them, genuine refugees.

“I think that’s terrible. Deceiving the country into doing very bad things to innocent people is something this country shouldn’t do. And it’s absolutely meaningless to try and find out what the public think about it because the ‘it’ is something about which they have been misled for so long.”

Border Politics debuted at last month's Human Rights and Arts Film Festival, where it preached to the converted. But, Burnside readily admits, the ideal audience as it plays more broadly is something else entirely.

“People who disagree with me,” he says. “I’ll be doing some Q&A sessions after screenings and I reckon people who disagree with me should come along and challenge my views. If they’re so confident that it’s right to mistreat innocent people, let them come along and explain why and challenge me.

“Unless you’re someone who thinks mistreatment of innocent people is OK, I think the case for proper treatment of boat people is overwhelmingly strong,” he adds. “And I’m perfectly happy to be challenged on that.”

SOURCE


0 comments


BIG GREEN

Half a trillion dollars!  Does that seem enough? That's what "Green" donors have spent since 2010 on pushing their invariably destructive causes.  You wouldn't think there would be so much money sloshing around among American charitable sources but there is.  It has been used to fund advertising and to "buy" activists, journalists and politicians. Substantial contributions to a politician's election campaign tend to be very warmly received by the politician.

So there is a vast mechanism trying to influence American public policy towards self-destruction. Freud's warning about "Thanatos", the death instinct that is in us all to varying degrees, does spring to mind. Global Warming is a lot of hokum so they need to be spending all that money to drown out those of us who simply mention the climate facts.

So how do we know about all that spending?  It's in a vast new academic journal article by Nisbet that goes through all the "philanthropic" spending line by line.  It's a very thorough and authoritative article.

It is way too long for most people to read so I have just reproduced below the beginning and the end of it.  Those excerpts tell you plenty, however. I have just done a rough download into text from a PDF so the formatting and word-separation is pretty scrappy but that's all I had time for. If you are a masochist you can go back to the original and read the whole thing.

A small personal note:  Being Green is to be in the gravy so have we skeptics missed out?  Not really.  Most of us are scientists or professionals and most of us are retired.  So I don't think we have missed many good dinners.  Actually, in my experience, the dinners you get at conferences are of the rubber chicken variety and even dinners at expensive restaurants are often less than hearty.  Ethnic cuisine beats both by a mile.  Try a genuine Parsee Dhansak, some Korean egg-rolled pork or Vietnamese lemon chicken (Totally different from Chinese lemon chicken), for both novelty and taste.  If you can't get such things in your neighborhood, I have recipes ...


Strategic philanthropy in the post-Cap -and-Trade years:Reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding

Matthew C.Nisbet

Abstract

 For several decades, philanthropists in the United States have played a behind-the-scenes role in framing climate change as a social problem. These foundations havedefined climate change primarily as a pollution problem solvable by enacting aprice on carbon and by shifting markets in the direction of renewable energy tech-nologies and energy efficiency practices. Funding has favored "insider" groups thatpush for policy action by way of negotiation, coalition building, and compromise,rather than "outsider" groups that specialize in grassroots organizing. Philanthro-pists have also placed less priority on funding for other low-carbon energy sourcessuch as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, or natural gas, nor have theyinvested in actions intended to boost societal resilience, protect public health, or toaddress questions of equity and justice.

 But in the years following the failure of the2010 Federal cap and trade bill, a review of available grants from 19 major founda-tions indicates that philanthropists responded to calls for new directions. Funding shifted to focus on state- or municipal-level mitigation and adaptation actions and to the needs of low-income/minority communities. Significant funding was alsodevoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.Nearly a quarter of all funding, however, remained dedicated to promoting renew-able energy and efficiency-related actions with comparatively little funding devotedto other low-carbon energy technolog ies.

INTRODUCTION

The defeat in 2010 of U.S. cap and trade legislation prompted widespread discussion among climate advoc ates and philanthro-pists about what had gone wrong, and the need for new directions in funding and stra tegy. The demise of the bill, whichwould have put an economy wide cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions came just months after the wo rld's political leadersat a United Nations summit in Copenhagen, Denmark had failed to reach a binding agreement to curb emissions. Followingthese political setbacks, several analysts called for investing more significantly in building a grassroots political movement that would directly pressure U.S. political leaders and the fossil fuel industry to take aggressive steps to reduce emissions.Some urged a stronger focus on state and municipal policies, including prioritizing climate adaptation and resilience effortsand the needs of low-income populations. Others raised questions about a philanthropic strategy th at pooled vast resources onbehalf of a few strategies, energy technologies, and organizations, rather than spreading grants across a diversity ofapproaches, technologies, and groups.

Far from being passive supporters of actions to address climate change, major U.S. foundations for several decades haveplayed an active role in defining a common roadmap for their grantees and partners. By framing the challenges, defining thepriorities, and promoting specific ideas, philanthropists have actively shaped common ways of thinking that have boundtogether otherwise disconnected organizations and leaders into shared approaches and strategies (Bartley, 2007; Horvath &Powell, 2016; Morena, 2016; Nisbet, 2014). During an era of political dysfunction and polarization across levels ofU.S. government, philanthropists are able to mobilize vast financial resources to alter the public conversation relative to com-plex problems like climate change. In doing so, they serve as an "outsize megaphone, both actively shaping how people viewsocial problems and championing specific methods through which these problems can be addressed" (Horvath & Powell,2016, p. 90). For some critics, however, such influence has also led to forms of group think that overlook important alternativestrategies needed to substantially reduce GHG emissions and/or to overcome political opposition (Bartosiewicz & Miley,2013; Dowie, 2002; Nordhaus & Shellenberger, 2007).................


Finally, the findings provide valuable insights on the role of climate philanthropy in shaping public opinion, mobilizingactivists, and influencing national elections in an effort to shape climate and energy policy decisions. In th e post cap-and-tradeyears, the $151 million devoted by funders to climate change-, fossil fuel industry- and renewable energy-related communica-tion activities were complemented by a combined $150 million spent by the billionaire Tom Steyer in successive elections tomobilize climate voters on behalf of Democratic candidates (Hamburger, 2014; McCormick & Allison, 2017). Yet in 2016,despite the stark differences on climate change between Trump and his rival Hillary Clinton, Trump won a majority of theMidwest battleground states. Nationally, Republicans retained control of Congress and strengthened their hold on state gov-ernments, controlling 69 of 99 state legislative chambers and 33 out of 50 governorships (Philips, 2016).

Promote actions to limit/oppose fossil fuel industry

$69,448,046  Fossil fuel industry-relatedcommunication, media and mobilization

$3,508,000   Natural gas "fracking"-relatedcommunication, media and mobilization

$8,981,000 Renewable energy-relatedcommunication, media & mobilization

$46,582,289 Climate change-relatedcommunication,media & mobilization

$92,405,423  Promote sustainabletransportation/clean vehicles

$20,965,823  Promote sustainableagriculture, land use, protect ecosystems

$72,611,452   Promote climate mitigation &adaptation actions

$91,360,804  Promote/evaluate otherlow carbon energy technologies

*$10,513,713  Promote renewableenergy & efficiency-related policy actions &practices

$140,301,919  Other

Total funding $556,678,469

It remains unclear how much impact philanthropists and environmenta lists can have on the outcome ofupcoming national elections, given that climate change still ranks as a relatively low public priority in comparison to otherissues (Pew Research Center, 2018). Where climate advocates and their funders have had a clear influence is in shaping thedirection of the Democratic Party on climate change, intensifying commitment to a variety of policy actions among partyleaders, donors, and activists. In states like California, Washington, and New York where Democratic-leaning donors, activ-ists, and voters dominate, environmentalists have been able to pass major climate policies, restrict fossil fuel development,and win other commitments from governors and mayors (Tabuchi & Fountaion, 2017).

 In rallying activists against the Trump administration, to broaden their traditional environmental appeals, the Sierra Club, 350.org, and other organizations have also actively embraced an "intersectional" strategy, connecting climate change to identity-based causes rel ated to racial justice,gender equality, and GLBTQ rights (Hestres & Nisbet, 2018).

Yet related to these strategies, campaigns opposing the Keystone XL oil pipeline and natural gas fracking along with newcauses related to racial, gender, and identity-based justice have also likely contributed to deepening political polarization, serving as potent symbols for Republican donors and activists to rally voters around. These issues also divide liberal and centristDemocrats, and were a major point of contention during the Democratic primaries (Hestres & Nisbet, 2018; Nisbet, 2015). A carbon tax and dividend proposal coauthored in 2017 by two former Republican U.S. Secretaries of State and supported bythe Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Michael Bloomberg, leading economists, and major oil companies is notable for its assignment of blame for past divisions.

"Some advocates of renewable energy oppose nuclear power, even though both may be needed to combat climate change. Many environmentalists tend to be anti-corporate, even though any via-ble mitigation plan must rest in part on business leadership" declares the proposal. "The message of fear and austerity espoused by some on the green-left tends to alienate those at the opposite end of the political spectrum, who see climate poli-cies as a Trojan horse for a bigger and more intrusive government. Many GOP leaders, meanwhile, deny basic science and failto offer concrete solutions. We need fresh approaches able to bridge these divides"

More HERE

0 comments


Einstein's diaries contain shocking details of his racism (?)

All they show is that he was a normal human being as well as a brilliant theorist. To Leftists, the most casual mention of race or some ethnic group puts the mentioner into the same category as Adolf Hitler -- which is utter nonsense -- but nonsense that can be used to intimidate.

In fact up until WWII, it was normal to talk as Einstein did in his diaries.  Let me give a striking prewar example of that:  In interwar Britain it was a well-known usage to express gratitude to someone by saying: "That's white of you" -- implying that whites are more noble and kind than others.  From my readings I get the impression that the usage was most common among British members of the armed forces and former members of the armed forces. They in effect praised whiteness

One must remember that at that time Britain had the largest empire the world had ever seen, that most members of that empire were brown and that those brown people were generally poor.  And Britons were very conscious of their empire and their dominance of that empire.

In one way or another (e.g. as administrators; as troops) many Britons would have had some personal contact with the people of their empire -- contact with India particularly. And dirt-poor people worldwide tend to have a lack of moral restraint when attempting to ensure  their own survival.  In plain words, many  would lie and steal from their colonial overlords at any opportunity. And that did not go un-noted among the British.  To them, brown people really were morally inferior. White people in their experience really were more admirable.

I note that Wikipedia has a similar view of the origins of the expression: "The racial sense of the expression may refer more explicitly to the administrators and soldiers of the 18th, 19th and 20th-century British Empire".

Another version of the expression was: "That's mighty white of you", which was mainly used sarcastically.

So it was perfectly normal human discourse to refer to people by racial categories.  I remember in my own upbringing during the '40s and '50s it was perfectly routine for Southern European migrants (mainly Italians) to be referred to as "Wogs" or "Dagoes".  As with Einstein's diaries, however, such usages were kept private. You used such expressions among yourselves, not in the presence of the people being referred to.  And despite any private reservations they may have had, my fellow Anglo-Australians were perfectly civil with the migrants and co-operated with them perfectly well in the workplace and in business.  It helped that the Italians tended to be hardworking and genial people.

So that is an example of a phenomenon well-known to social psychologists:  Attitudes are a poor guide to behaviour.  It is sometimes referred to formally as "The attitude-behavior discrepancy".  Another striking example of that discrepancy is the composer Richard Wagner. He voiced some very derogatory  opinions of Jews -- so much so that Hitler held him in great esteem. Yet in his personal life he was particularly helpful to Jewish musicians and Jews were among his closest friends. Some of his best friends really were Jews.

What was going on in the speech discussed so far is that making generalizations is a great human skill.  The work of a scientist is to discover true generalizations.  But the degree of precision needed from a generalization varies with the circumstances. Scientists need great precision but in everyday speech much precision is not needed.  People need only to get the general drift of what is being said.  It is understood that you are not making scientifically precise statements.  It is understood that you are talking about generalities rather than "all or nothing" rules.

So people talk about -- say -- "blacks" among friends when in more critical company they would add "in general". Once again, the degree of precision varies with the audience.  Being steeped in scientific caution I sometimes refer to blacks by the anthropological term "sub-Saharan Africans" where others would refer simply to "blacks" or "Africans". If I do use "blacks" by itself I am simply using it as a form of shorthand, something readily expandable as "many Sub-Saharan Africans" if required.  So, as you can see, there is a tradeoff between precision and brevity.  And in casual conversation, the briefer form will usually be the one used.

And that was what Einstein was doing.  He was writing for his own private purposes not for publication so he wrote with maximum brevity, not with maximum precision.

He would have been perfectly capable of expanding "children" to "The children I saw on this trip" if he thought he might be misunderstood as making over-broad generalizations.

And note that he did insert some qualifications to his observations.  In speaking of the Japanese he used "seem to" rather than "are". And instead of calling the Chinese "dreary", he said "for the likes of us" they would be dreary.  So he was clearly thinking in a cautious way rather than uttering literally-meant generalizations.  And in speaking of the Ceylonese he would undoubtedly have said "most of the locals" rather than "the locals" if he had expected his words to be given critical scrutiny.

So was he using stereotypes in his writings?  He may well have been doing so.  As Gordon Allport noted back in the 1930's, stereotypes have a "kernel of truth". And as more recent research has shown, the popular understanding of stereotypes as mentally imprisoning is the reverse of the truth.  Stereotypes change rapidly in response to new information.  They are a first approximation to a valid generalization but only a first approximation. If subsequent observations confirm the stereotype it will remain.  If subsequent information conflicts with the stereotype, it will be modified or abandoned. See here and here for coverage of the academic research on that.

But if anything he said about the various groups were also current stereotypes of those groups, he clearly saw nothing to contradict the stereotypes. Though he may have done so with the Japanese. His generally positive view of them at the time was  not generally held, I would think.  I think that they would have generally been seen as part of "the yellow peril" rather than anything else.

So is Einstein at fault for categorizing other people? That is a common complaint made about talk of races.  But it is an empty-headed  complaint.  Human beings are categorizing animals.  Every word in our language is a category (except of course syncategorematic words).  We have words such as "dog" when there is a great variety of dogs of all shapes and sizes.  But we often use just that one word to refer to all of them. "Dog" is a category and a useful one. Similarly "Japanese" is an ethnic  category that is often found useful.

So was Einstein a racist?  If we understand that charge to mean that he had overgeneralized and incorrect beliefs about some human groups, there is no evidence of it. All we see in his diaries is shorthand notes, and even there he sometimes inserts qualifications that deny any intention of firm generalizations.

So the takeaway from this episode is that we should not judge casual speech by scholarly standards.  It is not intended as such and does not work as such.  And to pretend that it is meant as a series of precise utterances generates false accusations and is in general a disreputable strategy designed to hurt rather than enlighten


Einstein's diaries contain shocking details of his racism

Albert Einstein's personal diary reveals that he was racist in his early life.

Newly translated into English, Albert Einstein's private travel diaries from the 1920s reveal that he was racist in his early life, especially toward Chinese people.

The journals, published as "The Travel Diaries of Albert Einstein" by Princeton University Press, reveal that Einstein, perhaps the most famous scientist of all time and known for his theory of general relativity and the equation e=mc2, was extraordinarily biased toward certain populations. This is a stark contrast to his stance later in life, when he said that racism was a "disease of white people."

The diaries were written between October 1922 and March 1923. In one entry Einstein wrote that the “Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse.”

Speaking about the “abundance of offspring” and the “fecundity” of the Chinese, he continued: “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

Einstein also derided the people of Ceylon, which is now known as Sri Lanka. In Ceylon, he wrote, the locals “live in great filth and considerable stench at ground level,” before adding they “do little, and need little. The simple economic cycle of life.”

Einstein also gave his thoughts on Japanese people, whom he viewed in a more positive light, calling them "unostentatious, decent, altogether very appealing.” However, he also wrote the “intellectual needs of this nation seem to be weaker than their artistic ones — natural disposition?”

"Entries ... contain passages that reveal Einstein's stereotyping of members of various nations and raise questions about his attitudes on race," a description of the book reads.

The journals were translated from the German and are described as "the first publication of Albert Einstein’s travel diary to the Far East and Middle East."

Speaking with The Guardian, the book's editor Ze'ev Rosenkranz said that Einstein's views were not intended for public consumption and provide a shock to those who read them.

“I think a lot of comments strike us as pretty unpleasant — what he says about the Chinese in particular," Rosenkranz told The Guardian. “They’re kind of in contrast to the public image of the great humanitarian icon. I think it’s quite a shock to read those and contrast them with his more public statements. They’re more off guard, he didn’t intend them for publication.”

Rosenkranz is also the assistant director of the Einstein Papers Project at the California Institute of Technology and has written several books about the life of Einstein.

The remarks in his journal are markedly different to the public image Einstein projected in his later years.

In 1946, speaking at Lincoln University, the first degree-granting historically black university in the U.S., Einstein said that racism was a "disease of white people" and added “I do not intend to be quiet about it," according to a 2007 article in the Harvard Gazette.

Einstein was a founder of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and left it his literary estate and personal papers. He declined an invitation to serve as Israel's first president.

He died in 1955 at the age of 76.

SOURCE



0 comments


Our military: The greatest social engineering machine ever built

DAVID SCHARFENBERG seems well-informed and interesting in what he writes below but there are some important things he misses. The first is that the military overwhelmingly like Mr Trump. They have little disagreement with his policies and they greatly appreciate his support for what they do. And his patriotism mirrors theirs. So if the army has any social role it will be to amplify support for Mr Trump -- which is about opposite to reconciling blue-staters with red-staters.

And the enthusiasm for Mr Trump is part of a world-wide phenomenon: Armies worldwide tend to be conservative. Army men are practical men. They have little time for the airy-fairly and often perverse theories that drive Leftists. The great Leftist conviction that all men are equal is idiotic in an army context. So when the votes come in from military bases the balance is in favor of conservative candidates by about 2 to 1.

But most pertinent of all, it has all been said and tested before. Mr Scharfenberg is not as sharp as his Ashkenazi surname suggests. He has not delved into the history of his ideas.

In the aftermath of WWII, in 1949, a book appeared called "The American soldier", by Samuel Stouffer. It appears now to be out of print but you can get secondhand copies on Amazon. Something in it attracted widespread attention among psychologists and sociologists. It reported that blacks and whites got on a lot better in the army than they did in society at large.

With stars in their eyes, social scientists drew the wonderful conclusion from this that "contact" was the solution to good race relations. The fact that the army was a very different environment from other environments and the fact that blacks and whites were forced to get on by military requirements were generally dismissed. So a whole series of studies were done in an effort to confirm the "contact hypothesis" -- that blacks and whites just had to get to know one-another better in order to like one-another.

It all seems rather silly in retrospect and the results of the research showed that. Despite the best that statistical trickery could do, the hypothesis got only the weakest support and, indeed, the results sometimes showed that contact made the two groups like one-another LESS! I summarized a lot of that research here

But the most spectacular finding on the question eventually came from Australia, using not a survey but the entire national population. In 1967 Australia had a constitutional referendum designed to give blacks a better deal. And the results differed a lot according to what geographical area the answers came from. In parts of the country where there were a lot of blacks, there were far more "No" votes than in parts of the country where blacks were rarely seen. So, overall, the correlation between vote and contact was .90 -- which is about as high as you get in the social sciences. The more Australians saw of blacks, the LESS they liked them! I have covered that finding in more detail here

So Scharfenberg's hopes are not borne out by the evidence. What he proposes in his last sentence below will not work. And it is clear on general principles why. As we have seen from Robert Putnam's well-known findings (particularly as seen in his book "Bowling alone"), homogeneity in human groups promotes solidarity while diversity promotes mistrust and fear. So mixing people from different backgrounds together will in general simply create mistrust -- the opposite of what Mr Scharfenberg hopes for.


The military may, actually, be the best hope we’ve got for mending the cultural and regional divisions the president has exploited politically.

For generations now, the armed forces have provided an opportunity — unmatched in American life — to put very different people in close proximity, and force an explicit reckoning with our most urgent social questions.

Racial integration, women’s equality, the role of gay and lesbian Americans in public life — time and again, the military has played an important, if often reluctant, role in tackling the country’s biggest challenges.

Now, with Trump and the GOP Congress looking to dramatically expand the military, could the armed forces be on the leading edge of the next great reckoning in American life? Could the military help us close the worrisome gap between red and blue?

THE UNITED STATES of the early 20th century was a nation stewing in bigotry.

In the South, lynch mobs enforced a dehumanizing racial caste system. Black people who escaped to the North as a part of the “Great Migration” confronted another kind of racial animus. And waves of immigration from new parts of Europe and Asia only added to Anglo America’s anxiety — layering an ugly nativism on top of the country’s white-black tensions.

But then, World War I arrived. And the country was forced to sideline the hate — at least for a time. An army of millions had to be raised. Quickly. And it couldn’t be assembled without substantial numbers of African Americans and immigrants.

“It was in this crisis,” writes Richard Slotkin, author of “Lost Battalions: The Great War and the Crisis of American Nationality,” “that American leaders rediscovered the ideals of civil equality.”

But if the military offers a rare opportunity to lower the temperature — to ease the red state-blue state divide — it succeeds only as long as it can attract recruits from both parts of the country.

The Committee on Public Information declared the country a “vast, polyglot community” that aspired to something “higher than race loyalty, transcend[ing] mere ethnic prejudices, more binding than the call of a common ancestry.” And some 350,000 black soldiers went on to serve with the American Expeditionary Forces in France.

Those soldiers faced discrimination on the battlefield. And their service hardly meant the end of racial strife at home. Competition for jobs and housing among returning veterans led to a series of race riots in the “Red Summer” of 1919 that left hundreds of blacks dead.

But the war, as Slotkin writes, aroused an activist spirit among minority groups, who pressed for an end to Jim Crow and challenged the real estate “covenants” that locked Jews and other ethnic groups out of the most desirable neighborhoods.

After World War II, President Truman moved to racially integrate the armed forces in 1948. And while the military responded slowly — there were still segregated units at the start of the Korean War — it did integrate, in time.

Generations of black people and white people worked in close proximity. And over time, a quiet revolution in race relations took hold. Enmity between black and white didn’t disappear entirely. Far from it. But it dissipated. And the military moved closer to racial equality than, perhaps, any major institution in American life.

The late Northwestern University military sociologist Charles Moskos may have distilled it best: The military, he used to say, is the one place in American society where black people routinely boss white people around.

And it’s hard to pin down what we mean, even, when we talk about the divide between the “South” and the “Northeast,” says Meredith Kleykamp, a University of Maryland sociologist who studies the military.

But, she suggests, we seem to be talking about politics and class. The South is more conservative and blue-collar, the Northeast more progressive and better-off.

Nothing that happens in the military is going to change that basic dynamic; no one expects anything like the flattening of racial hierarchies that’s occurred in the barracks and on the front lines.

What’s required — what’s already happening on a small scale — is something far more modest. The day-to-day, humanizing chatter of co-workers. The red state-blue state banter that happens almost nowhere else in the country.

After all, cohesion is something like the guiding principle of the military.

When Marine recruits first step off the bus at boot camp in the wee hours of the night on Parris Island, S.C., they are immediately put in formation — a drill instructor screaming them into a unified whole. And not once, during their 13 weeks of training, are they allowed to say the word “I.”

There is a sublimation of self — and an allegiance to the group — that’s difficult to describe to anyone who hasn’t seen it up close.

Over in the Army, says retired Brigadier General Jack Hammond of Reading, Mass., the mantra is “cooperate and graduate.” And the bonds that form in training allow for the sort of civil conversations about hot-button issues like gun control and immigration that are so absent from our politics.

It’s not that minds are changed, says Hammond, it’s that “the temperature comes down”; soldiers recognize that people from different places, with different points of view, aren’t out to get them.

But if the military offers a rare opportunity to lower the temperature — to ease the red state-blue state divide — it succeeds only as long as it can attract recruits from both parts of the country.

And over the last few decades, it has struggled to maintain that balance. In 2016, just 12.7 percent of new military accessions came from the New England and Middle Atlantic states. That’s just over half the Northeast’s tally from the late1970s.

The South, meanwhile, accounts for some 44 percent of accessions. And conservative states in the western part of the country, like Nevada and Arizona, are sending among the largest proportions of their 18 to 24-year-old populations to the military.

The shift is, in part, about larger patterns of migration to the American Sun Belt. But there are other factors at play, too.

There is also the matter of cultural and political opposition to the military. Recruiters all over New England have stories — of parents who hang up on them, or tell their children they’re too good for the armed forces. One group recently tailed Army recruiters at a South Shore track meet, monitoring their interactions with students.

As journalist and veteran Jacob Siegel put it in a piece in the Daily Beast a few years ago, “the military is a socialist paradise!” There’s far less income inequality between a private and a general than there is between a worker and a CEO, he notes, and there’s greater social mobility, too.

Kleyman, the military sociologist, says there are significant psychic benefits, too. “When people leave the military — sure, they miss having a housing allowance — but what they really miss is that sense of purpose, that sense of meaningfulness of your work,” she says.

Service that tilts to the red states, Kleyman says, isn’t just a burden unevenly shared, but a benefit unequally shared.

Still, recruiters have flogged those benefits for years, with little to show for it. And it’s not just about blue-state culture.

Consider the role of population density. Members of the military disproportionately hail from sparsely populated areas, where there aren’t a lot of other employment options. And the blue states tend to be more densely populated. Indeed, the most rural blue state in the Northeast — Maine — has substantially higher accession rates than its neighbors.

The geography of military installations is also a significant force. The outposts that survived the budget-driven base closure process of the last several decades are heavily clustered in the South and West. “Think of it like a smile,” says Major General Jeffrey Snow, commanding general of the US Army Recruiting Command. “You could put your hand on North Carolina and draw a smiley face that goes down through Texas and up halfway through California.”

Many have grown to a massive size — three mega-bases in North Carolina, Texas, and Kentucky have populations of more than 200,000 each.

If a child lives near a base — especially one of that scale — he is far more likely to know adults who serve in the armed forces: a friend’s mother or a baseball coach. And children’s career choices are powerfully influenced by the choices of adults around them: Nearly half of all Army recruits, for instance, come from military families.

Of course, building new installations in the Northeast would be a challenge. Land costs are significant,. Political opposition would probably be substantial, too. But if the nation wants to build a more diverse military, it could invest. It could bring the armed forces directly to blue-state America.

Ramping up recruitment from that part of the country could, ultimately, be a matter of military readiness. As war-fighting becomes a more technologically sophisticated exercise, the armed forces will need more — not fewer — soldiers, sailors, and Marines from the best-educated parts of the country.

If the military can’t stitch the country together by itself, though, it can play a leading role. It can be an important model for a larger effort.

If we truly want to heal our fractured republic, we’ll have to build a system that consciously emulates the military — pulling together people from all its disparate parts and putting them side by side.

More HERE

0 comments

Is Australia’s current drought caused by climate change? It’s complicated

Rubbish!  They are just obfuscating below. It's not complicated at all.  Rainfall in Australia regularly oscillates between the North and South of the continent. If there is drought in Victoria, there will be extra rain in Queensland, and vice versa.

And the present pattern is a confirmation of that.  While there is reduced rainfall down South we in Brisbane are getting a lot of rain.  Autumn and winter here are normally dry but this month  there seems to be rain a couple of times a week.  And in March it rained nearly every day, with some big falls among that.  Hence the headline in March: "Queensland's wet weather breaks dozens of records as rain still falls" and "Far North Queensland residents urged to be vigilant in floodwaters across the region"


Cairns in March

And the trees and plants are showing the effects of all the rain.  This year, my cumquat tree has really leapt for the sky. It's put on at least a foot of growth recently.  It seems to know more than the meteorologists do.

We do have some of those splendid fine clear days at the moment that Brisbane winters are known for but we have just as many cloudy days.

How come a humble social scientist like me knows all that while there is no hint of that knowledge from the climate mavens below? They know bupkis but as long as they can drag in some mention of climate change they are in clover


Much of southern Australia is experiencing severe drought after a very dry and warm autumn across the southern half of the continent. Australia is no stranger to drought, but this recent dry spell, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to drought-stricken parts of the country, has prompted discussion of the role of climate change in this event.

Turnbull said that farmers need to “build resilience” as rainfall “appears to be getting more variable”. This prompted former Nationals leader John Anderson to warn against “politicising” the drought by invoking climate change. This in turn was followed by speculation from numerous commentators about the links between climate change and drought.

So are droughts getting worse, and can they be attributed to climate change? Drought is a complex beast and can be measured in a variety of ways. Some aspects of drought are linked with climate change; others are not.

In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology uses rainfall deficiencies to identify regions that are under drought conditions.

Droughts are also exacerbated by low humidity, higher wind speeds, warmer temperatures, and greater amounts of sunshine. All of these factors increase water loss from soils and plants. This means that other metrics are often used to describe drought which go beyond rainfall deficiencies alone. These include the Palmer Drought Severity Index and the Standardised Precipitation Evaporation Index, for example.

This means that there are hundreds of metrics which together can provide a more detailed representation of a drought. But this also means that droughts are less well understood and described than simpler phenomena such as temperature and rainfall.

So is climate change affecting Australian droughts?

As we have so many ways of looking at droughts, this is a more complex question than it might first sound. Climate change may affect these drought metrics and types of drought differently, so it is hard to make general statements about the links between human-induced climate change and drought.

We know that over southern Australia, and in particular the southwest, there has been a rapid decline in winter rainfall, and that this has been linked to climate change. In the southeast there has also been a decline but the trend is harder to distinguish from the year-to-year variability.

For recent short-term droughts in southern Australia, analyses have found an increased likelihood of rainfall deficits related to human-caused climate change. Also, it has been suggested that the character of droughts is changing as a result of the human-induced warming trend.

There is some evidence to suggest that widespread and prolonged droughts, like the Millennium Drought, are worse than other droughts in recent centuries, and may have been exacerbated by climate change. But the role of climate change in extended drought periods is difficult to discern from background climate variability. This is particularly true in Australia, which has a much more variable climate than many other parts of the world.

SOURCE

0 comments


Could an overweight woman with a facial deformityr and wearing a boiler suit win the Miss America competition?

Under the new politically correct rules it seems she could.  It won't happen, of course, but the recently proclaimed irrelevance of appearances should make it possible.  The real rules however will be covert and nobody will admit what they are.  The rejection of appearances as important is pure hypocrisy designed to placate feminist madwomen. 

The fact of the matter is that both men and women like looking at attractive female bodies and if that is taken away the competition will die from lack of interest and some other competition will arise to replace it.  To the extent that the new rules are enforced the current management have simply destroyed their brand and their livelihood

Report of a TV discussion of the matter below

Karl Stefanovic has defended bikini-clad beauty pageants, after Miss America announced it was scrapping the swimsuit competition.

During a Today show segment on Wednesday, the 43-year-old said it was up to the female contestants whether they want to wear bikinis onstage. 'If a woman chooses to be in a bikini pageant, isn't that her choice?' he said.

Karl's female panellists, including his sister-in-law Sylvia Jeffreys, seemed to take a slightly different approach.

While she agreed it was 'absolutely' a woman's choice, Sylvia claimed that dropping the bikini competition was 'a step in the right direction'. She added: 'But, if they are not being judged on appearance, the entire concept of a beauty pageant should be thrown out altogether.'

Co-host Georgia Gardner also said: 'I find them outdated. However, there are plenty of people who love them and see them as a mark of success.'

Earlier this week, Gretchen Carlson, the new head of Miss America's board of directors, revealed that the competition will no longer judge women based on their physical appearance. 'We are no longer a pageant,' Gretchen told Good Morning America on Tuesday. 'We are a competition.'

The decision came months after internal emails revealed former CEO Sam Haskell and board members frequently demeaned the physical appearance, intellect, and personal lives of former pageant winners, including Gretchen.

Gretchen, 51, was named chairwoman of the Miss America Organization just days after Sam Haskell resigned in January. Now, she hopes to usher in a new era for Miss America, revealing that the bikini and evening gown rounds will be cut from the competition.

Instead, contestants will be asked to wear any attire that makes them feel confident, expresses their personal style, and shows how they will advance the role of Miss America.

'We've heard from a lot of young woman who say, "We'd love to be a part of your program but we don't want to be out there in high heels and a swimsuit"', Gretchen said. 'So guess what, you don't have to do that anymore.

'Who doesn't want to be empowered, learn leadership skills, and pay for college and be able to show the world who you are as a person from inside of your soul? 'That's what we're judging them on now... We want more women to know they are welcome in this organisation.'

The swimsuit competition will be replaced with an interactive session with the judges, in which the women will be asked to demonstrate their 'passion, intelligence, and overall understanding of the job of Miss America'.

'It's going to be what comes out of their mouths we're interested in when they talk about their social impact initiatives,' Gretchen said.

SOURCE


0 comments


ACLU defends anti-Israel speech

With typical slippery Leftist logic, they say below that anti-Israel speech is not antisemitism. Have they not noticed that in condemning Israel they are condemning around 6 million Jews? Criticism of Israel's government is of course a different thing. No one does that more vigorously than Israelis themselves and it is perfectly legitimate for anyone to do. But criticizing Israel is not criticism of a government. It is criticism of a whole people. I am at a loss to see how either of the statements they give below are anything but antisemitism

Despite the disclaimer, ACLU seems to be supportive of the Palestinians and their activities. Yet listen to what we hear of the current activities of those self-same Palestinians in Gaza -- the Palestinians whom ACLU seems to think are unjustly treated:

"The Palestinians, who have been sending flaming kites from the Gaza Strip into Israel the past few weeks, say that their real goal is to "burn the Jews" and destroy Israel. They see the kites as a new weapon to achieve their goal. They are disappointed, they say, that no Jew has been hurt yet as a result of the fires triggered by the flaming kites" (SOURCE).

That is surely extreme and explicit antisemitism. No possible ambiguity about "Israel" there. I wonder when ACLU will condemn that? Is behavior like that what ACLU supports? I suspect it is. I think they are antisemitic too


Members of Congress last month introduced the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.” The bill purports to address a real problem: According to the FBI, incidents of hate crimes motivated by anti-Jewish bias have significantly increased in recent years.

But anti-Semitic harassment is already illegal under federal law. The new bill does not change that fact, but its overbreadth makes it likely that it will instead silence criticism of Israel that is protected by the First Amendment.

The proposed legislation, for example, defines speech that applies a “double standard for Israel,” or denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” as evidence of anti-Semitism. It also directs the Department of Education to consider such speech in its investigations, which could result in a loss of federal funding for schools. On Monday, the ACLU sent a letter to Congress opposing the bill.

The ACLU does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it does take firm positions on efforts to stifle free speech. The threat of a federal investigation and subsequent loss of government funding will likely scare schools into suppressing speech critical of Israel. Students and teachers who criticize the Israeli government or advocate for Palestinian rights are the obvious targets. But freedom of speech will be the loser.

SOURCE

0 comments

$119,050,900,000: Merchandise Trade Deficit With China Hit Record Through April


President Xi is sitting pretty

These figures are not as alarming as they seem. They are part of a triangular trade flow that includes Australia. To make all the gadgets they sell to Americans China needs a lot of raw materials, particularly iron ore, aluminium oxide and metallurgical coal. And Australia has heaps of them all -- sometimes just sitting on the ground just waiting to be scooped up

So China buys heaps of those things using the surplus dollars that they get from trading with America. And Australia in turn buys heaps from America using the greenbacks they got from China. Australia doesn't make much. It is overflowing with natural resources that other countries buy. So it makes sense to buy in manufactured goods with the easy dollars Australia gets from exporting commodities. And Australia buys in lots of stuff from America. So Australia has a big trade deficit with America. In other words, some of those greenbacks that flow to China come back to America via Australia. It doesn't all balance out exactly but the balance is not as bad as it looks at first.

So what does China do with its great hoard (trillions) of greenbacks? It sends a lot of them straight back to America as investments. It uses them to buy American companies and American real estate. That sounds bad to a lot of people but again it is not as bad as you think. China is in fact very trusting in doing so.

Say they buy an American farm. Does that deprive America of anything? Hardly. They cannot pick the farm up and take it back to China can they? They just take it on faith that America will let them keep and use it. They make themselves hostage to America. And whether they buy farms or companies it will usually be something that they already know about -- something in which they have expertise. So they will combine their expertise with American expertise to create a better business

Let me give a theoretical example: Say they buy up a soy bean farm. Chinese eat a lot of soy beans. The American farmer will probably be left in charge of the farm because he knows best how to farm in America. What the Chinese know about in great detail will be what cultivar of the beans is most popular in China and how best to market the beans. So the new Chinese owner will guide the American farmer on what beans to plant, when to plant them and how to prepare them for export. Result: more exports of beans from America to China -- thus helping to reduce that trade imbalance.

It's not always as simple and as balanced as that but something like that does often happen. So again, the imbalances are not as bad as they look at first. There is still a lot of work for Mr Trump to do, however. There is a real imbalance in America's trade with China and one part of the reason for that is that China put up barriers to imports from America. Mr Trump has already got some of those barriers pulled down but there is still more to be done

And as every economist will tell you, there are "invisible" exports -- for instance the financial services of Wall St and patent rights. China buys a lot of them. Americans hold a lot of patents and charge people to use them.  China is often slack in buying patents it uses but when they want to export something they have to have the patent rights that thing uses.  So America has a big surplus with China on "invisibles". There is still not an overall balance but Mr Trump has less work to do to get fair trade than it at first appears


The U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China set a record through April, hitting $119,050,900,000 for the first four months of 2018, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.

From January through April, the Census Bureau reports, the United States exported $42,291,500,000 in goods to China while importing $161,342,400,000.

In other words, when measured by dollar value, the United States bought about 3.8 times as much in goods from China as China bought from the United States.

Prior to this year, the record for the highest trade deficit with China in the first four months of the year came in 2015, when it hit $115,320,000,000 in constant April 2018 dollars (adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).

The last time the U.S. ran a merchandise trade surplus with China in any given month, according to the Census Bureau data, was in April 1986, when the U.S. ran a $54,000,000 trade surplus with China. In every month since then, the U.S. has run a merchandise trade deficit with China.

In 2017, according to the Census Bureau, the top products the U.S. imported from China (by dollar value) were cell phones and other household goods ($70,359,818,000); computers ($45,515,206,000); telecommunications equipment ($33,490,521,000); computer accessories ($31,648,577,000); toys, games and sporting goods ($26,751,412,000); apparel, textiles, nonwool or cotton ($24,137,388,000); furniture, household goods ($20,669,126,000); other parts and accessories of vehicles ($14,406,417,000); household appliances ($14,138,581,000); and electric apparatus ($14,080,858,000).

The top products the U.S. exported to China in 2017, according to the Census Bureau, were civilian aircraft, engines, equipment and parts ($16,264,533,000); soybeans ($12,258,835,000); passenger cars, new and used ($10,211,268,000); semiconductors ($6,076,509,000); industrial machines, other ($5,447,303,000); crude oil ($4,400,921,000); plastic materials ($4,002,797,000); medicinal equipment ($3,453,343,000); pulpwood and woodpulp ($3,359,165,000); and logs and lumber ($3,177,402,000).

SOURCE

0 comments


London Closes 500 Churches; Opens 423 New Mosques. The creeping Islamization of London is almost complete, with hundreds of official sharia courts operating in the capital, and mosques opening where famous Christian churches have stood for many hundreds of years.

The article below is very well-referenced but is rather alarming so I had a look at what Snopes says about it. They of course branded it as False but, in a way rather typical of Snopes, what they said was mostly quibbles. They said that not all the mosques were recently built and most were small buildings. They also noted that most of the deconsecrated churches had become private homes rather than mosques and that hundreds of new churches had been built. But most of the new churches were black Pentecostal churches so are well outside the mainstream of English life and not therefore very relevant to it. So those quibbles do very little to detract from the overall message of English spirituality being in steep decline amid an influx of Muslims.

Snopes however would appear to know very little about either the history of religion or its present reality. They probably think they don't have to. But that ignorance led to them missing the important issue about religion in England: The last upsurge of religiosity in England was at the time of Oliver Cromwell (1599 – 1658) and religious interest has been declining ever since -- though with a couple of minority revivals in the form of the Methodists and the Salvation Army. And the Methodists were mostly in Wales rather than England. So England from quite early on was only formally religious. The Church of England became a mainly social institution. And in the post WWII era the great majority of the English didn't go to church at all.

Australians are mostly of British origin so they too are predominantly irreligious -- though the Irish Catholic influence did keep average church attendance up a bit for a while. In the long gone days of my youth it was common for official forms to include a question about religion and I remember that my father would always put himself down as "C of E". But in all my life I never once saw him set foot in any church, let alone the Church of England. So that is to this day a very telling picture of English religiosity.

So the vast majority of the English are neither Christian nor Muslim. They are simply irreligious. And that is the important thing about religion in England. The sprouting of Mosques here and there in England is simply irrelevant to them.


“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together“, according to Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi, one of the Islamic preachers who now lead “Londonistan“, as the journalist Melanie Phillips has called the English capital. No, Rizvi is not a right-wing extremist.

Nobel Laureate for Literature,Wole Soyinka,  was less generous. He called the UK “a cesspit for Islamists“.

Terrorists can not stand London multiculturalism“, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said after the deadly terror attack at Westminster last year. The opposite is true: British multiculturalists are feeding Islamic fundamentalism

Above all, Londonistan, with its 423 new mosques, is being built on the sad ruins of English Christianity. Many iconic Christian churches in London have been converted into mosques.

Gatestone Institute reports: The Hyatt United Church was bought by the Egyptian community to be converted to a mosque. St Peter’s Churchhas been converted into the Madina Mosque. The Brick Lane Mosque was built on a former Methodist church. 

Not only buildings are converted, but also people. The number of converts to Islam has doubled; often they embrace radical Islam, as with Khalid Masood, the terrorist who struck Westminster.

The Daily Mail published photographs of a church and a mosque a few meters from each other in the heart of London. At the Church of San Giorgio, designed to accommodate 1,230 worshipers, only 12 people gathered to celebrate Mass. At the Church of Santa Maria, there were 20.

The nearby Brune Street Estate mosque has a different problem: overcrowding. Its small room and can contain only 100. On Friday, the faithful must pour into the street to pray. Given the current trends, Christianity in England is becoming a relic, while Islam will be the religion of the future.

In Birmingham, the second-largest British city, where many jihadists live and orchestrate their attacks, an Islamic minaret dominates the sky. There are petitions to allow British mosques to call the Islamic faithful to prayer on loudspeakers three times a day.

By 2020, estimates are that the number of Muslims attending prayers will reach at least 683,000, while the number of Christians attending weekly Mass will drop to 679,000. “The new cultural landscape of English cities has arrived; the homogenised, Christian landscape of state religion is in retreat”, said Ceri Peachof Oxford University. While nearly half of British Muslims are under the age of 25, a quarter of Christians are over 65. “In another 20 years there are going to be more active Muslims than there are churchgoers,” said

Since 2001, 500 London churches of all denominations have been turned into private homes. During the same period, British mosques have been proliferating. Between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Britons who identify themselves as Anglicans fell from 21% to 17%, a decrease of 1.7 million people, while, according to a survey conducted by the respected NatCen Social Research Institute, the number of Muslims has grown by almost a million. Churchgoers are declining at a rate that within a generation, their number will be three times lower than that of Muslims who go regularly to mosque on Friday.

Demographically, Britain has been acquiring an increasingly an Islamic face, in places such as Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. In 2015, an analysis of the most common name in England showed it was Mohammed, including spelling variations such as Muhammad and Mohammad.

Most important cities have huge Muslim populations: Manchester (15.8%), Birmingham (21.8%) and Bradford (24.7%). In Birmingham, the police just dismantled a terrorist cell; there is also a greater probability that a child will be born into a Muslim family than into a Christian one. In Bradford and Leicester, half the children are Muslim. Muslims do not need to become the majority in the UK; they just need gradually to Islamize the most important cities. The change is already taking place. “Londonistan” is not a Muslim majority nightmare; it is a cultural, demographic and religious hybrid in which Christianity declines and Islam advances.



According to Innes Bowen, writing in The Spectator, only two of the 1,700 mosques in Britain today follow the modernist interpretation of Islam, compared with 56% in the United States. The Wahhabis control six percent of mosques in the UK, while the fundamentalist Deobandi control up to 45%. According to a survey from the Knowledge Center, a third of UK Muslims do not feel “part of British culture.”

SHARIA COURTS IN LONDON

London is also full of sharia courts. There are officially 100. The advent of this parallel judicial system has been made possible thanks to the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution. These new courts are based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values ​​of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.

British personalities keep opening the door to introduce sharia. One of Britain’s leading judges, Sir James Munby, said that Christianity no longer influences the courts and these must be multicultural — which means more Islamic. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chief Justice Lord Phillips also suggested that British law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law. The British cultural establishment is rapidly capitulating to Islamic fundamentalists in accepting their demands.

British universities are also advancing Islamic law. The official guidelines of the university, “External speakers in higher education institutions“, published by Universities UK, provide that “orthodox religious groups” may separate men and women during events. At Queen Mary University of London, women had to use a separate entrance and were forced to sit in a room without being able to ask questions or raise their hands — as in Riyadh or Tehran. The Islamic Society at the London School of Economics held a gala, in which women and men were separated by a seven-meter panel.

After the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, recommended self-censorship and “some restraint” in discussing Islam. The British ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, converted to Islam and completed the pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. He now calls himself Haji Collis.

What will be next?

SOURCE

11 comments

Turncoat NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot’



This is a good example of regulatory capture -- when the people being regulated win over their supervisor to their viewpoint.  It happens all the time.  He looks a bit of a Shlemiel anyway so was probably not hard to capture

Another reason why he was quickly captured probably is that he knows nothing about science.  In justifying himself, Bridenstine referred to "The Science" as having convinced him. Whenever anybody  talks vaguely about "The Science" as his justification for believing in global warming that is a sure sign that he in fact knows nothing about the issues involved.  He is just appealing to authority, which is almost always a dumb thing to do.

So it is no surprise that his only postgrad degree is an MBA, a singularly useless piece of paper.  There is no MBA science.  An MBA is just a grab bag of ideas from other disciplines and 40 Years Of Data Show The MBA Effectively Does Nothing -- It Has No Impact.  Success in business is all about handling people and you have either got that or you haven't

I have read a number of comments from skeptics about Bridenstine's poorly articulated views and their consensus is that Bridenstine wanted to be captured. He is a relatively young 42 and he wants to be accepted by the Green/Left establishment with a view to his future career when Trump has left the scene.  We have a term for that in Australia:  He is a "crawler".  To Australians, a crawler is the lowest of the low
 

NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot’

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says he changed his mind on the existence of man-made climate change because he “read a lot.”

“I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” Bridenstine told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.”

The former congressman from Oklahoma had long denied the scientific consensus on climate change and said in a 2013 speech on the House floor that "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago."

In May, Bridenstine first announced publicly that he now believes human activity is the main cause of climate change.

“The National Climate Assessment that includes NASA, and it includes the Department of Energy and it includes NOAA, has clearly stated it is extremely likely — is the language they use — that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming,” he said at a Senate Appropriations Committee subpanel's hearing last month.

President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have not made similar pronouncements, however.

SOURCE

0 comments


UK: Oxbridge's lack of black students a 'staggering' failure, says universities minister

WHY is it important to have blacks at Oxford and Cambridge universities?  Surely what matters is that each student is admitted  on non-discriminatory grounds and is given every opportunity to develop his/her full potential.  Oxford and Cambridge do exactly that.  

If there is evidence of blacks being discriminated against let us hear of it.  But there is none.  As they do worldwide, Africans  in Britain have very poor High school performance.  THAT is why so few meet Oxbridge admission criteria

Oxbridge is Britain's prime location for intellectual excellence.  To degrade it by having racist admission criteria would be a great loss and would prove nothing

The universities minister has attacked Oxbridge for its “staggering” failure to attract more black students, saying that colleges must look beyond exam results to improve diversity.

Sam Gyimah, who was elected as the first black British president of the Oxford Union debating society in 1997, claimed that diversity at Britain’s two oldest universities had scarcely changed from his own student days, as he warned it was time they “stood up to the mark”.

Speaking openly about the issue for the first time, Mr Gyimah said he struggled to understand how Oxford and Cambridge could regularly produce Nobel prize winners but could not “crack the issue of admissions”.

SOURCE 



0 comments


Shame on Mission Australia

Bettina Arndt comments below on feminist bias.  She leaves out an important consideration, though: She does not confront who Mission Australia are.  They are an amalgam of a number of Christian charities.  As such we are then entitled to ask whom they serve these days?  If it is a gospel of Feminism, are they serving the Devil's gospel? Christ pointed out how deceptive the Devil can be so might not Mission Australia have become deluded by the Devil?  Or has Christ become to them just some old-fashioned fuddy-duddy who obstructs their virtue signalling?

Christ's gospel on the matter is clear.  He left no room for differential treatment of persons. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Equal treatment in fact goes right back to Mosaic law: "do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit."  In other words favouritism is wrong even if for kindly motives.  Mission Australia should stop to consider prayerfully the commands of their Lord.  If they are above that they are apostles of the Devil.


We were really excited to see people finally standing up against organisations pandering to the feminists. Recently Australia spoke out against Lifeline’s decision to include the anti-male feminist crusader Clementine Ford in a domestic violence forum. Nearly 15,000 signed a protest petition and the event was cancelled.

That’s inspired me to take on Mission Australia for their ghastly new homeless campaign which features a frightened woman and her child escaping a violent man. Mission Australia knows all too well that domestic violence involves violent women as well as men – as acknowledged on their website.

Last week Ross Cameron, one of the popular co-hosts of Sky News’ The Outsiders programme suggested that the Mission Australia campaign is motivated by a desire to benefit from “the tsunamis of cash heading their way from the Commonwealth government” – that’s the money paid out to organisations choosing to virtue-signal by conforming to the feminist script pretending that only men perpetrate domestic violence.

As Ross Cameron pointed out, there’s no evidence that any of this money actually reduces domestic violence. He urged Australia not to support this misguided campaign: “I say, if you’ve got a spare $10 in your pocket don’t waste it on Mission Australia.”

I’m now launching a petition asking Mission Australia to cancel this anti-male campaign and tell the truth about family violence. Here’s my new video, telling you all about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v28rsTz5tjw

And here’s the actual petition:

https://www.change.org/p/bettina-arndt-mission-australia-fails-children-by-ignoring-violent-mothers

I’ve summarised evidence showing that that children in violent families are just as likely to be cowering from their mothers as their fathers – see the petition for the links.  Most family violence is two-way violence, involving women as well as men.

Help our campaign by signing our petition censoring Mission Australia for failing to protect children by denying the truth of what is happening in violent homes.

Here’s a link to my Facebook page where we have just posted all this information. You might find this easier to circulate:

https://www.facebook.com/Bettina-Arndt-146481039248876/

Please help circulate the video and the petition. We need big numbers to come on board to show most people are fed up with this type of anti-male campaign. I hope you will really make an effort with this one. We need to capitalise on the success of the Clementine Ford petition!

Write protest letters

It’s also important to tell the people who run Mission Australia that we object to this blatant manipulation of an important social issue. Please write to MA Board members and executives voicing your objections – see email addresses below. The petition provides many of the key arguments, with evidence as to how they are misrepresenting domestic violence research.

Executive

James Toomey     ToomeyJ@missionaustralia.com.au;

Mark Newton      NewtonM@missionaustralia.com.au;

Sally Ascroft         AscroftS@missionaustralia.com.au;

Chris Bratchford  BratchfordC@missionaustralia.com.au;

David Pigott         PigottD@missionaustralia.com.au;

Iain Keddie           KeddieI@missionaustralia.com.au;

Marion Bennett   BennettM@missionaustralia.com.au;

Paul Molyneux    MolyneuxP@missionaustralia.com.au;

Ben Carblis          CarblisB@missionaustralia.com.au;



Board

Kenneth Dean      DeanK@missionaustralia.com.au;

Grant Dempsey   DempseyG@missionaustralia.com.au;

Jennifer Lambert LambertJ@missionaustralia.com.au;

Ian Hammond     HammondI@missionaustralia.com.au;

Simon Miller        MillerS@missionaustralia.com.au;

Hon Dean Brown BrownD@missionaustralia.com.au;

Evelyn Horton     Attn: E Horton smart-facility@uow.edu.au;

Debra Stirling      StirlingD@missionaustralia.com.au;


These large organisations receiving substantial government funding need to be told that ordinary Australians have had enough of blatant pandering to the feminist vote, at the expense of tackling the real issues.

Via email from Tina