All Together, Now: Everyone Hate Putin, Hate Russia

By Mike Whitney

The Unz Review, March 2, 2021: Why is Vladimir Putin standing up to the richest and most powerful men in the world? Why is he bad-mouthing their “pet project” Globalization and trash-talking their “Great Reset”? Does he really think these corporate mandarins and “silver spoon” elites are going to listen to what he has to say or does he realize that they’re just going to hate him more than ever? Why is he doing this?

Here’s what’s going on: At the end of January, Putin was given the opportunity to address the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland (online). The WEF is a prestigious assembly of political leaders, corporatists and billionaire elites many of who are directly involved in the massive global restructuring project that is currently underway behind the smokescreen of the Covid-19 pandemic. Powerful members of the WEF decided that the Coronavirus presented the perfect opportunity to implement their dystopian strategy which includes a hasty transition to green energy, A.I., robotics, transhumanism, universal vaccination and a comprehensive surveillance matrix that detects the location and activities of every human being on the planet. The proponents of this universal police state breezily refer to it as “The Great Reset” which is the latest make-over of the more familiar, “New World Order”. There’s not a hairsbreadth difference between the Reset and one-world government which has preoccupied billionaire activists for more than a century. This is the group to which Putin made the following remarks:

“I would like to speak in more detail about the main challenges ..the international community is facing…. The first one is socioeconomic….. Starting from 1980, global per capita GDP has doubled in terms of real purchasing power parity. This is definitely a positive indicator. Globalisation and domestic growth have led to strong growth in developing countries and lifted over a billion people out of poverty….Still, the main question… is what was the nature of this global growth and who benefitted from it most…..

… developing countries benefitted a lot from the growing demand for their traditional and even new products. However, this integration into the global economy has resulted in more than just new jobs or greater export earnings. It also had its social costs, including a significant gap in individual incomes…. According to the World Bank, 3.6 million people subsisted on incomes of under $5.50 per day in the United States in 2000, but in 2016 this number grew to 5.6 million people....

Meanwhile, globalisation led to a significant increase in the revenue of large multinational, primarily US and European, companies…In terms of corporate profits, who got hold of the revenue? The answer is clear: one percent of the population.

And what has happened in the lives of other people? In the past 30 years, in a number of developed countries, the real incomes of over half of the citizens have been stagnating, not growing. Meanwhile, the cost of education and healthcare services has gone up. Do you know by how much? Three times…

In other words, millions of people even in wealthy countries have stopped hoping for an increase of their incomes. In the meantime, they are faced with the problem of how to keep themselves and their parents healthy and how to provide their children with a decent education….

These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations….

As I have already mentioned, the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these problems. In the last year, the global economy sustained its biggest decline since WWII. By July, the labour market had lost almost 500 million jobs…. In the first nine months of the past year alone, the losses of earnings amounted to $3.5 trillion. This figure is going up and, hence, social tension is on the rise.” (“Session of Davos Agenda 2021Online Forum, Putin Addresses World Economic Forum, Jan 27, 2021)

Why is Putin telling his elitist audience these things? 

Read more

Covid Lies to Keep You Terrorized

Absent strong public health measures, we would expect it to kill something like 0.5% to 1.0% of a nation’s population, and whether or not that’s a large number is a matter of personal opinion.

So declared Ron Unz, publisher of the Unz Review. 

That claim is far from the truth as the case of Sweden demonstrates. There, in the absence of "strong public health measures" there have been 5,846 reported Covid deaths, or about 0.06% of the population. That must be close to the final toll, as Covid deaths in Sweden peaked in March and are now at or close to zero.

Why would a scientifically literate person such as Ron Unz make such a false claim? Mere confusion, perhaps*.

One way in which Covid death rates have been greatly exaggerated has been to confuse, deliberately or otherwise, two measures of the death rate; namely, the "Case Fatality Rate" and the  "Infection Fatality Rate." 

The Covid19 Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is a measure of deaths among confirmed Covid19 cases, the latter being mainly cases of serious illness, which thus came to the attention of the medical profession and were identified as due to Covid19 by a more or less reliable diagnostic methods.

The Covid19 Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is a measure of deaths among all those infected with Covid19, whether they were seriously ill or not, or whether they were ill at all. The IFR can only be determined if there is population-wide testing for past or present Covid19 infection, for example by means of a reliable serological test for Covid19 antibodies. 

Evidence currently available suggests that the the IFR is only about one tenth of the CFR. Therefore, to mistake the CFR for the IFR will result in an exaggeration of the actual IFR by a factor of around ten. 

But even a ten-fold error does not explain Ron Unz's claim that "absent strong public health measures" Covid19 will "kill something like 0.5% to 1.0% of a nation’s population." To explain that, assuming it is not a straight lie, one must assume that Ron Unz confuses the Infection Fatality Rate with the Population Fatality Rate (PFR). Such confusion assumes a Covid death rate among the population as a whole equal to the Covid death rate among those made sick by a confirmed Covid19 infection, which is nonsense.

But perhaps Ron Unz's claim is a straight lie, which would be consistent with the fact that, when I pointed out the error on his Unz Review post, my comment was deleted.

______
* Cf. Ronald B. Brown, 2000, Public Health Lessons Learned from Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation.

Related:
Zero Hedge: "It's Like Using A Hammer To Kill A Fly" - Architect Of Sweden's COVID-19 Anti-Lockdown Strategy Finally Vindicated

Covid-19: Why the Panic?

Referring to the panic reaction to Covid 19, a commenter at the Unz Review remarked:

This is looking more and more like an epidemic of mental illness.

But although what is being done to the mass of ordinary folk may cause an epidemic of insanity, the politicians and their media enablers, mainstream or "alt", who are using the Covid pandemic as  a pretext for destroying the livelihood of tens of millions, are surely not insane.

The question, then, is what's the objective? And the answer to that question must be something that can be inferred from the consequences.

So what are the consequences?

(1) The sharpest rate of job losses every recorded, leading to Great Depression levels of unemployment.

(2) Consequent upon (1), massive loss of income for the salaried workforce, business owners, and beneficiaries of pension funds etc., (the last having sustained large and soon to be larger investment losses).

(3) Consequent upon (2), massive reductions in consumption spending.

(4) Consequent upon (3), big cuts in imports to the West of products of cheap Third World labor.

(1) Means real wages will fall, thereby raising potential economic competitiveness of manufacturing in the US and other Western nations, i.e., reindustrialization of the West as will be essential in an emerging East-West cold war.

(2) Means many small businesses will fold, opening the way for expansion by the big boys: Starbucks,  Dominoes Pizza, Amazon, etc.

(3) Means fewer goddam plebs cluttering the best beaches, ski resorts, tourist meccas.

(4) Means a slowing of China's economic growth and reduced Chinese access to dollars with which to buy American and European technology and businesses, from GE Appliances to Motorola Mobility, and from the Chicago Stock Exchange to the Waldorf Astoria.

As for those few the virus kills, they're just old geezers, useless eaters, wasn't that what Adolf called them?

So, nothing crazy about this fake plague: what's not to like about it?

And to put things into context, the situation is much like that during the Great War that led to the still ongoing destruction of Europe. Then, British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George remarked:

If the people knew what is happening, this war would end tomorrow. But of course the people cannot know what is happening.

Likewise, they cannot know now, thanks to the MSM and its "alt" auxiliaries.

Related:
Nic Lewis: Why herd immunity to COVID-19 is reached much earlier than thought

New York City: The Bronx Tests 27% Positive for Covid-19, And That's Good News, Not Bad

Breaking down the New York City report, Cuomo noted that the Bronx had the highest infection rate of the five boroughs, with a staggering 27.1% of respondents having COVID-19 antibodies. ...  “That number remains obnoxiously and terrifyingly high,” Cuomo said. “It’s not where we want it to be.” Source

There is a pernicious idea that the media, politicians and public health officials in the US, Canada and elsewhere seek to encourage, namely, that the spread of Covid19 is a bad thing. Actually, it's a good thing: here's why.

Epidemics don't end with everyone in quarantine, because life cannot be sustained by a population in perpetual quarantine. Eventually, a quarantined population must get back to work. then people will have to come face to face once again, and the disease will resume it's spread.

So how do epidemics end? They end when the number of people with immunity to the disease rises to the point that the number of people each infected person infects falls below one. At that point, disease spread slows and dies.*

And what determines who has immunity? There are two key factors. One is the acquisition of immunity among those who have been infected and survived the disease. The other is the process of natural selection. Those who lack the necessary immune system genes to fend off the disease die, so that a higher proportion of the residual population has the genes that provide either immunity to infection, or the capacity for recovery from infection.

The seasonal flu is an example of a non-lethal disease that induces immunity in those infected. The plague, or black death, is a an example of a more or less lethal disease that kills many but not all that it infects, leaving a more resistant population more or less immune to the disease.

And, in the worst case, are diseases against which an entire population is vulnerable, and in that case the entire population dies, as was the fate of many Amerindian communities afflicted by diseases brought by explorers and colonists from Europe to the New World.

Covid-19, fortunately, is a relatively mild disease for most who are infected by it, leaving them with protective antibodies that reduce susceptibility to future infection. The Covid epidemics working theirs way through the nations of the world seem to be killing no more than 30 to 40 people per thousand of those infected (at least in the developed world), these being mainly the elderly with existing heart or respiratory diseases**.

The end to the Covid-19 pandemic will thus occur when the virus has gone through every population causing an increased level of immunity that halts the disease's spread.

What proportion of the population must have immunity before the rate of recovery from the disease exceeds the rate of infection is not something that can be exactly predicted, since it depends on the way people in each community interact. In a nation of hermits, the disease would never spread and there could be no epidemic. Otherwise, the particular features of specific communities, in particular the way in which people interact with one another, but also many other factors such as age distribution, air quality, nutrition, etc., determine the infection rate that must be attained before an epidemic dies.

What that means is that although lock-downs, quarantines, social distancing and face masks can slow the spread of disease, they have no effect on the incidence of the disease at which disease spread slows and ultimately stops.

So well done The Bronx. With 27% of the population reported to have antibodies for Covid19, they  may not be there quite yet, but they are well on the way to the condition of so-called herd immunity, when immunity to the pathogen is sufficiently widespread to cause its spread to slow and die even after a return to normal life.

Despite what crackpots such as Ron Unz of the Unz Review, New York State Governor Cuomo and the political class generally, plus most public health officials tell you, the spread of Covid19 and hence of immunity to Covid19 is good news that heralds the return to normality. But don't expect to hear that from the gerontological medical experts, the politicians and the vendors of patent medicines and vaccines now in the limelight and positioned to profit by the present panic.

______
* In New York City, the hardest hit place in North America if not the world, the number of new infections reported daily is down to about one third of the peak rate, indicating that, under present conditions of restricted social mobility, herd immunity has been achieved and the epidemic is dying. An end to the lock-downs in NY City may increase the infection rate if the percentage of the population with immunity is insufficiently high for herd immunity under the changed social dynamics. Certainly, an end to the lock-downs will cause a temporary increase in the infection rate, but a new downward trend leading to extinction of the virus will resume within a reasonably short time.

What percentage of the population must have immunity to achieve herd immunity is impossible to model accurately since people do not interact randomly, but in many distinctive ways according to factors such as age, profession, the need to commute, etc. Certainly, the percentage of infected people needed for herd immunity will be less than the theoretical 67% (assuming an R nought of 3.0), and quite possibly less than half that number.

** In the Bronx, with 27% having Covid-19 antibodies, the number infected is around 382,000 people, of whom 1,700 have died for an infection-specific mortality rate of 0.44%. Of those who have died, 545 were resident of nursing homes or adult care facilities, and most had other serious medical conditions. For the remainder of the population the infection-specific mortality rate has been 0.3%. (Source: Riverdale Press).

Related:
Off Guardian: How the UK’s testing policy makes their Covid19 numbers meaningless
Off Guardian: LOKIN-20: The Lockdown Regime Causes Increasing Health Concerns
The Irish Savant: How can they possibly explain this away?
Tucker Carlson: How Some Elderly Power-Drunk Epidemiologist Wiped Away the US Constitution:

Here's a Weird Thing About the Unz Review and Google Search

Here's the title of a post I made yesterday here on Google's Blogger:

Covid-19, and the Weird World of Ron Unz

Now you might think, if only because Google is the publisher of that post, that Google's search engine would have been able to locate the post right away in response to a search on the exact title.

But if you were inclined to think that, you'd be wrong.

Here's the search query:

Covid-19, and the Weird World of Ron Unz

And wadderyer get?

Two and a half pages of contents of Ron Unz's Unz Review.

The only slightly relevant link is on the third page of results:

The curious case of Ron Unz

The former publisher of The American Conservative is a case study in contrarianism gone haywire

That's an interesting result, but it's not the the post I published on Google's blogger with the exact title as the search string.

And you cannot read the American Conservative article unless you're a subscriber to the American Conservative magazine (though they may allow you a month's access for free. Try it and see. Essentially, the article on Unz paints him, not as a devious propagandist for some unacceptable cause but merely a nutter. I'm not so sure. What the Am. Con. article does make clear is that although Unz is so vehemently anti-Semitic (though himself of Jewish origin), he firmly supports the Jewish plan for the European majority nations: extinction of the European peoples of traditional Christian faith and their replacement by people from elsewhere. That's pretty much Google's plan too.)

Odd though, innit -- the difficulty of finding content hosted by Google in a Google search. Maybe even worth thinking about.

Covid-19, and the Weird World of Ron Unz

Ron Unz, publisher of the Unz Review, a web-based collection of articles -- many by odd-ball Hitler admirers, anti-Semites, and advocates of Communism -- has run a series of posts concerning Covid-19 in which it is asserted (a) that Covid-19 is a biowarfare agent directed by the US at China, and (b) that Covid-19 is a truly terrifying disease, and that those who compare it with the seasonal flu are hoaxers. Furthermore, comments of said hoaxers are mostly, if not always, deleted from Ron's Review.

Thus, on finding a statement in an article at Zero Hedge asserting, on reliable authority, that the Covid-19 death toll has been comparable to that of the seasonal flu, I was overcome by an irresistible impulse to post it at the Unz Review, as a comment on an article by Ron himself:

Here's a quote that Ron Unz will have to delete, unless, that is, he's an honest man: "... researchers at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University estimate Covid-19 to have an infection fatality rate (IFR) of between 0.1% and 0.36%. Similar to seasonal flu. Source

Did Ron approve it?

Nah!

Here's another comment I attempted to make at Ron's Review, in response to a comment referring to a WHO tweet that was subsequently deleted:

"There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection." First, to say that there is no evidence of X is no evidence of of not X. But in any case the tweet [by the WHO] was deleted, so it would appear that their claim (the WHO's claim, that is) was either unsupported by evidence or known to be false. Second, to claim, as you do, that antibodies for Covid19 are short-lived is not the same as saying they are non-existent. Third, if antibodies to Covid19 exist -- as they must or immunological tests for the disease would be impossible -- and as even the WHO now acknowledges, that implies a degree of immunity in those who have been infected. And remember, without an immune system response, every case of Covid19 would be fatal. The fact is, Covid19, like the flu, a virus of the same family*, is a relatively mild disease except in a minority of cases (chiefly the elderly afflicted by one or several other serious diseases). The usual mildness of the disease is evident from the fact that although a substantial proportion of the population where serological surveys have been conducted have been shown to have been infected, the death rate as a proportion of those with antibodies is low, in the order of no more than about 0.3%. However, the antibody tests are not known to be highly reliable and the actual death rate is likely much lower. So far, the reported US death toll is just over 60,000 of 328 million Americans, and with the daily totals trending down, the total is thus unlikely to exceed 120,000. If so, the disease will prove considerably less lethal than both the Asian flu of 1957/58 that killed 70,000 of 149 million Americans, or the 1968 Hong Kong flu (H3N2 virus) that killed about 100,000 out of 200 million Americans.

Does that sound like the comment of a hoaxer, or does it sound like the sort of comment that a hoaxer might delete in order to suppress the truth?

 Yes, the Unz Review is a weird world, which deserves further scrutiny.

Related:
Vox Popoli: Facebook bans The Unz Review

Ron Unz, has said he believes the reason for his being banned on Facebook is " 

Facebook’s plans to crack down on misinformation related to our ongoing Covid-19 epidemic."

Having been banned by Ron Unz for what I assume he considered to be "misinformation related to our ongoing Covid-19 epidemic," I am inclined to think that justice has in some way been served -- not that I would consider Facebook a reliable guide to what I personally should or should not read.

Unz Review Blames American Covert Attack on China for Bat Flu Now Beginning to Ravage the Western Nations

A commenter at the Unz Review writes: "Defense One is smearing Philip Giraldi (an Unz Review contributor) as a “conspiracy monger” who works for Russia."

Patrick Tucker said, “another piece of PressTV’s COVID-19-as-bioweapon coverage cites Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and conspiracy monger writing for the Moscow-backed Strategic Culture Foundation. Giraldi’s evidence that the United States, and not China, is the source of the virus? There are some regions of China with more bats than Wuhan, he argues, but somehow those regions have fewer cases of COVID-19.”

Well, at least that bit's accurate as is evident from the first paragraph of Giraldi's Unz Review article:

The most commonly reported mainstream media account of the creation of the Coronavirus suggests that it was derived from an animal borne microorganism found in a wild bat that was consumed by an ethnic Chinese resident of Wuhan. But there appears to be some evidence to dispute that in that adjacent provinces in China, where wild bats are more numerous, have not experienced major outbreaks of the disease.

Can't say if Giraldi works for the Russians. But other arguments that Giraldi and his defenders present in support of the notion that the bat flu is an American biowarfare agent loosed with malicious intent upon China, are about as absurd as the one Defence One cites.
Another Unz Review commenter remarks:

As soon as COVID-19 is attributed to the US government (and that won’t take long,)

Which is as clear an admission as one will find at the Unz Review that there is currently no evidence whatsoever to attribute COVID19 to the US Government. Where this death dealing virus came from, I have no firm opinion. But I would like some real evidence before presenting a conclusion that could legitimately be taken as a justification for war.

Related:
Moon of Alabama: Coronavirus - The Hidden Cases - Why We Must Shut Everything Down And Do It Now

Communists will shut down a city to prevent a deadly epidemic from going exponential. Our neo-liberal leaders only started to care when the Dow Jones went down. Don't expect them to call for a shutdown as that will cost their donor's some money. As mostly elderly people will die they are probably calculating how much money the pension funds will save.

Vox Popoli: Italy shuts down harder

the Italian premier just announced that all retail stores are closed across the country except for pharmacies and grocery stores.

In other news out of Italy, the Boomercaust is officially upon us "as country's top doctors say intensive care units should stop treating the elderly."

Saving the British Nation from Elite-driven Genocide

Over at the Unz Review, the current headline story is about the firing of a UK Government special adviser named Sabitsky who advocated the forced sterilization (by means of a long-lasting contraceptive treatment) of those of low IQ, particularly African immigrants.

The Unzites are, true to form, in uproar against this appalling stifling of the hideous reality of low black IQ and the urgent need for measures of racial hygiene. In fact, however, Sabitsky is a young and obnoxious fool to have advocated compulsory contraception, i.e., sterilization. That's not what can happen in a free country.

His proposal however, does address a real problem: namely, Britain's catastrophically dysgenic reproductive policies, which yield, contrary to the pattern of all past ages, higher fertility among the poor and stupid than among the rich and intelligent.

And as one commenter over at Unz.com, notes: Correcting the disastrous demographic trend in Britain requires four things:

First, barring immigration except to those of British extraction prior to 1950, when the waves of mass immigration began. Second, bringing back teenage pregnancy. The idiots and self-hating morons who devised sex "education" have destroyed an essential part of the mechanism for population self-replacement. In 1950's Britain there was essentially no sex "education", no pill, and abortion was rare, dangerous and criminal. Hence smart lads and cute, unwed, teenage girls subject to irresistible impulse accounted for one third of all conceptions. The result? Sharp good-looking kids. In about one third of all cases the parents of these children married in haste. The majority of the remaining kids were adopted and well brought up. Third, make welfare for indigent mothers dependent on identification by DNA test of the father(s) of their children, while compelling father's thus identified to make child support payments or go to debtors' gaol. (That way, no need for compulsory contraception. Only the most imbecile of the fathers of welfare children will fail to use a condom, and those who do fail will end up in gaol.) Fourth, give intelligent women who bear and raise children vastly greater economic security in this age of no-fault divorce by instituting a child allowance paid to the mother for the rest of her life in the form of a large (at least 25%) tax refund, based on the earnings of both parents whether married, unmarried or divorced.

Related: 
Zero Hedge: Marine Le Pen Calls For Referendum To Stop "Submersion" Of France Via Mass Immigration

The Question Nobody in the MSM is Asking About Jeffrey Epstein?

Over at the Unz Review, one Eric Rasmusen, a self-proclaimed expert in game theory, writes of the fate of Jeffrey Epstein under the title: Questions Nobody Is Asking About Jeffrey Epstein.

Amazingly, one unasked question that Rasmusen the game theorist fails to ask is: Did Jeffrey Epstein really die? In this respect, Rasmusen exactly echoes the mainstream media: Epstein is dead, the only thing to question is whether he killed himself or was he murdered?

Which, obviously, is not the only thing to question.

Epstein was with intelligence, so Alexander Acosta — Trump’s Former Secretary of Labor and the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who negotiated Epstein 2008 plea agreement — claims to have been told. 

The result? Acosta gave Epstein a sweetheart deal in accordance with which he was incarcerated under conditions barely distinguishable from total freedom for a minimal amount of time.

So what happened this time around. Did intelligence just decide to let justice, or possible injustice, if Epstein was indeed murdered, take its course?

Not likely, is it?

So what would “intelligence” have done?

They would surely remove Epstein from the scene by a fake murder or suicide and recycle him under another name with a modified face, and probably in another country.

How?

Easily:

pay the jailers to look the other way;

give Epstein a non-lethal dose of a paralytic drug, maybe some leftover Novichok from the Skripal caper;

wheel out the “corpse” for the media to photograph;

substitute a look-alike corpse on the way to the autopsy;

and Jeffrey’s free to pursue his interest in Ugandan Affairs with under-aged prostitutes, while snaring people of interest to “intelligence.”

That the author of this Unz Review piece, who claims to be an expert in game theory, doesn’t even think of the above scenario tells ya something.

Related:

State of the Nation: EPSTEIN-BARRgate: The Pedogate Scandal Behind the Deep State Conspiracy

Are You a Mispronunciation Moron?

Over at the Unz Review, a strange concoction of anti-Semitism, Hitler apologetics, racism and IQ-ist fake science, the latest in the promotion of IQ bollocks is the claim that the way you pronounce a few dozen English words pretty well defines you intellectually.

The idea seems more bonkers than most of what Ron Unz publishes since, in Britain at least, pronunciation is chiefly a matter of social class and regional affiliation.

Thus, if you are very high class indeed, you will quite likely pronounce girl as gel.

If you're a graduate of Oxford University, you will pronounce Oxford as Awksfud, off as awf, and Magdalen College as Maudlin College (It's as though they're constantly sucking in their cheeks.).

 If you are from Glasgow, you may pronounce football, as fitbah.

If you are from the English Midlands, you will pronounce the city of Leicester, Lester, and the town of Bicester, Bister.

If you are from one of the more prosperous parts of London, you will pronounce Cardigan Gardens as Caduggan Gardens.

And if you are from certain parts of East London, you will pronounce Heathrow Airport as Eefro Airpor!.

And if your friend is named Mainwaring, he most likely pronounces it Mannering, whereas, if his name is Meagher he probably introduces himself as Marr. However, there can be some flexibility in the pronunciation of names. Thus, when the First World War era politician and crook, Horatio Bottomly, called upon Lord Cholmondley, the conversation with the butler who answered the door went as follows:

Bottomly: My name's Bottomly, I've come to see Lord Chol-mond-ly
Butler: Do you mean Lord Chumley
Bottomly: Yes, tell Lord Chumley it's Mr. Bumley.

But I suppose there is something to be said forUnz promoting this IQ-ist this nonsense. It helps expose the absurdity of the idea that non-entities with a bachelor's degree in Psych. are qualified to assess the intelligence of their mental superiors from Isaac Newton and J.S. Bach to Alan Turing and Richard Feynman: a claim that seems particularly absurd, as these self-proclaimed experts haven't even a decent theory of what intelligence is. All they have, beside the word pronunciation test and other wacky schemes to pigeon-hole you, are a few simple tests of reasoning, verbal, numerical, and diagrammatic, results of which naturally enough correlate moderately well with academic performance, although not quite as well, according to IQ specialist Richard Lynn, as traditional subject-based exams. And, happily for those like Winston Churchill, Prime Minister, victorious war leader, Nobel Laureate in Literature, who languished at the bottom of the class during his school days, neither IQ tests nor exams, let alone pronunciation predict future academic achievement, income, or career success to any useful degree. What such tests may show, is if you are a complete moron, which was the sole purpose of the original intelligence test, that devised by Alfred Binet.

Jews Promoting Anti-Semitism

In an interview with Recode, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, said that Facebook will not automatically remove posts denying the Jewish Holocaust. Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said that "people get [things] wrong" and that he doesn't think they are "intentionally getting it wrong." He then stated in a post-interview email that he personally finds Holocaust denial "deeply offensive" and that he "absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that [i.e., the Jewish Holocaust]".

On the face of it, Mark Zuckerberg seems mentally challenged on the issue. If people who deny the Holocaust are simply misinformed, as Zuckerberg appears to assume, then that is a matter for error correction, not deep offense. If on the other hand, Zuckerberg finds, as he claims, that Holocaust denial is "deeply offensive" that can logically only mean that he assumes the denial is inspired by anti-Semitism not a commitment to historical truth.

What we see, then, is a Jew running what is the World's most wide-reaching media corporation facilitating the spread of anti-Semitism, in the pretense that it is not anti-Semitism, while simultaneously holding that it is deeply offensive because, well, it is obviously anti-Semitism.

If this were the position adopted by just a single Jew, notwithstanding his enormous influence in the media world, one might dismiss it as some kind of unfortunate muddle-headedness. But action by Jews that promote anti-Semitism is remarkably common. For example, Ron Unz, a multi-millionaire California Jew with political ambitions recently published an extraordinary article in his own so-called Web-Zine, the Unz Review, in which he lends credence to the age-old anti-Semitic claim that Jews engage in ritual sacrifice of Christian babies, stating:

I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.

and suggests that Jews pay little attention to the Torah, and may more often pray to the Devil than to God. In which connection he writes:

Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God, and depending upon the various rabbinical schools, the particular rituals and sacrifices they practice may be aimed at enlisting the support of the one or the other. Once again, so long as the rituals are properly followed, the Satan-worshippers and the God-worshippers get along perfectly well and consider each other equally pious Jews, merely of a slightly different tradition.

To acknowledge the possibility that some Jews at some time and some place may well have engaged in the sacrificial murder of Christian babies, or that some religious Jews may pray to Satan is one thing. But to do so in a manner that would suggest to the uninformed reader the typical American Jew may well be a blood-thirsty, Devil-worshipping, Holocaust-faker is simply preposterous. However, it serves very effectively to make the the Unz Review comment section a magnet for anti-Semites and hence a site for the propagation of anti-Semitism.

The implication is that by promoting anti-Semitism, a component of the Jewish population seeks to maintain what is tantamount to a libel against the people among whom they live, specifically, the claim that Americans, Canadians, the people of Europe are all carriers of what Elie Wiesel called "the age-old mental illness of anti-Semitism."

The consequences of such behavior are clear. First, to encourage Jewish paranoia and hence to reinforce the Jewish tradition of racial separation and supremacism, while weakening the self-defensive reaction of the host population.

9/11 Hallucinations

Scott Adams recently contends that, to deal with cognitive dissonance, people hallucinate in a way that resolves the conflict.

Thus he wrote:

Cognitive dissonance happens when you are confronted with a truth that conflicts with your self-image. To reconcile the conflict, your brain automatically triggers an hallucination to rationalize-away the discrepancy.

Adams illustrated the effect by reference to a tweet he had made to the effect that the terrorist group ISIS wants Hillary Clinton to win the forthcoming U.S. Presidential election.

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Fred Reed has a gift for a witty turn of phrase that has earned him a respected place among Internet essayists. Verbal facility and comprehension whereof one speaks are not, however, necessarily related as Fred has amply demonstrates in a recent contribution to the Unz Review entitled Darwin Unhinged:The Bugs in Evolution.

Let me count some of the ways in which Fred misunderstands the theory of organic evolution.

(1) Fred begins his attack on the theory of evolution by citing a dead Polish expert on typhus who held that scientists in any field inevitably develop a “thought collective.” In other words, Fred suggests, evolutionists are dopes incapable of thinking for themselves.

The More Islamic the West Becomes, the Less It Remains the West

By Patrick Buchanan

Unz Review, June 16, 2016: On Saturday night, Omar Mateen was a loner and a loser.

Sunday, he was immortal, by his standards, a hero. Mateen had ended his life in a blaze of gunfire and glory. Now everybody knew his name.

He had been embraced by ISIS. His face was on every TV screen. His 911 call to Orlando police identifying with the Islamic State and the Tsarnaev brothers of the Boston Marathon massacre was being heard across America.

He was being called the most successful Islamist terrorist since 9/11. A hater of homosexuals, Mateen had, all alone, massacred more than four dozen patrons at a gay Florida nightclub, wounded 53, and driven deeper the wedges breaking up America. When it was learned that he used an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, America’s gun wars were reignited.

Liberal Humbug On Human Racial Differentiation

Previously, I explained the liberal position on the question of race, thus:

First nation Canadian. Image source 

Liberals and other agents of the New World Order, like hard-line Communists, are revolutionaries who seek to establish a system of global governance. The difference between the two is that the globalization aimed at by liberals will subordinate all humanity to the moneyed elite, the bankers, the billionaires and the chiefs of the giant corporations, whereas Communist revolution aims to serve the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is to say the Nomenclatura* for whom tyranny means thousands of comfy bureaucratic jobs with lots of power and privilege.

Innuit girl and pup. Image source.

To both classes of revolutionary, the great obstacle to their dream is the nation state that declares the right of the people in any geographic area with the means to defend themselves to rule themselves as they see fit, which means maintaining control of the borders to prevent occupation of the territory by invaders or an uncontrolled flow of immigrants, and the preservation of the religious and cultural tradition of the people.

To the revolutionaries, there is a simple solution to the problem of the nation state and the desire of the vast majority of the people of the world to live among their own kind in accordance with their traditional manners, morals and forms of governance. It is to insist that there is no such thing as the nation, that all humanity is one race, and that it is simply bunk to claim that the English, say, have a privileged status in England,

Chinese. Image source

or that the Amerindians of Canada have legal and moral rights to control over their traditional lands and the freedom to live on those lands according to their own beliefs and traditions.

Since the racial differentiation of humanity is obvious for all to see, and its denial is as idiotic as the denial of the naked emperor's nakedness by the sycophantic courtiers, the issue of race is a cause of embarrassment to every liberal. This is evident over at the Unz Review where the Saker tells us:

I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

Mbuti forest dwellers of the Congo. Image source

Suuuure. And the Saker cannot tell the difference between a Chinese and a Australian aboriginal, or between an Eskimo and a Sephardic Jew, or between a San bushman and a pigmy.

But then Steve Sailer, who also appears over at the Unz Review, opened a recent post thus:

One of the weirder contradictions of contemporary dogma is the belief that race does not exist combined with the government’s obsession with counting everybody by self-identified race. If race doesn’t exist, you’d think that, say, the Obama Administration would be under a lot of pressure from its supporters to dump the racial/ethnic classification system. Strangely enough, it never seems to occur to all the True Believers to ask their friends running the federal government to change the system.

San boy and girl. Image source

The reason for the weirdness Sailer does not explicitly address, although his article provides conclusive government-supplied genetic evidence, if that were needed, to confirm the reality of human racial diversity.

What is obvious, however, is that the US Government uses information on the racial composition of the population in ways that serve to destroy the dominant position of the European population of America. This it does by means of affirmative action, forced integration, political correctness, Roe versus Wade, immigration law enforcement, or rather non-enforcement, criminalization of acts of conscence in accordance with Christian belief, white shaming, black history, and other measures to disadvantage certain races, particularly the Europeans, relative to others. 

Thus, we have the answer to the conundrum Sailer raised. The US and its European subordinate states need information on the racial diversity of their populations in order to destroy it. The goal is full racial mongrelization. Or as former French President and future Presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has already instructed the fast dying European population of France. "Métissage: it is an obligation," 

Indigenous Australian. Image source

So that's why liberals continue to deny the reality of race, for otherwise, as I stated in an apparently censored comment on Sailer's Unz Review post:

... mass immigration of philoprogenitive non-Europeans to European countries with indigenous populations with a far-below replacement fertility would have to be acknowledged for what it is: genocide.

And there is nothing surprising about liberals denying the reality of race while decrying those who oppose the genocide of the European peoples as racist, since nonsensical hate speech is the basic coin of liberal debate.

English. Image source

Europeans who oppose the destruction of their own race and culture need to realize that today’s liberal is either a self-hating European or a settler immigrant. In either case, they are, morally, the Nazis of the present era.

———

* The Nomenclatura of the Soviet Union was a class of bureaucrats that could be hired or fired only at the will of Communist Party. Positions held by members of the Nomenclatura were thus political appointments requiring not competence or integrity, but only grovelling subservience to the political elite. The Nomenclatura is thus an appropriate label for the top tier of Western bureaucrats such as university presidents (e.g., Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London), school principals, healthcare system managers, etc.

Related: 

Pope angered Merkel by calling Europe ‘barren’

Trump, Not Keynes, Holds the Key to Economic Recovery in the West

Tony Blair: laughing all the way to the bank 
since leaving office.*

This article, by Mike Whitney in the Unz Review, explains how US (and by extension European) monetary and fiscal policies* saved criminally reckless Western financial institutions from bankruptcy. The method was to provide the bankers with virtually limitless amounts of cash at negative real interest rates, which enabled them to blow a huge stock market bubble that financed their return to solvency. At the same time, Whitney argues, governments were careful to limit the magnitude of monetary stimulus so as to insure no substantial growth in aggregate demand or, therefore, in employment or wages.

On the latter point, Whitney offers the correct Keynesian analysis. But Keynes addressed the problems of a different age, when the US economy was largely self-contained, with external trade amounting to less than 5% of GDP.

Globalization with input factor mobility, i.e., free movement of labor from the Third World to the First World, free movement of capital and technology from the First World to the Third World, and free movement of the products of sweatshop labor from the Third World to the First World means lower wages and higher unemployment in the First World, which in turn shrink aggregate demand resulting in even lower wages and higher unemployment.

The Keynesian solution to shrinking demand and rising unemployment was deficit spending to raise aggregate demand and hence employment and wages. But today, in an era of globalization to the max, the effect of deficit spending is primarily to suck in more cheap Chinese shoes and shirts, computers and car parts, all of which Americans and others in the First World used to make for one another. Add in the effects of computerization, automation, robotization and insane student debt and the outlook for employment and wages for ordinary folks becomes, as is now apparent, bleak indeed.

There are two measures to improve the welfare of the proletariat. One is massive infrastructure spending, since this generates work that cannot be off-shored and is still largely beyond the scope of automation and robotization. The other is a return to free trade without input factor mobility, which as David Ricardo explained in his 1817 classic, “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” yields the benefit of “Comparative Cost”, or “Comparative Advantage” as it is now known, i.e., the benefit of increased total output and lower costs than if each nation tried to produce in isolation.

These,  as I explained here, in a post that was rejected for publication in the Unz Review, are the economic policies espoused by Donald Trump, i.e., restoration of the border to limit influx of labor from the Third World, and the imposition of tariffs to restrict influx of products of foreign sweatshops financed with First World capital and technology, thereby achieving the benefits of comparative advantage through international trade, and last but not least a massive infrastructure renewal project.

———

* Said policies are administered by governments largely owned by said criminally reckless financial institutions, for example, the great American banking firm of J.P. Morgan, which took former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on as an "adviser" for a fee of two million pounds per year. This is in accordance with the Western tradition of political bribery, which as explained by Thomas Macaulay (The History of England (1848)), involves payments made after the bribed individual leaves office, an arrangement that is entirely legal, and one that no politician would ever think of changing.