34 upvotes and 2.7k downvotes

https://youtu.be/SpiMb8VOUpU

The largest deficit in youtube history! The real question, though, is how did it get 34 upvotes? This next one was 1.2k up and 16k down.  

https://youtu.be/33nwuSIPNZ0

Found here. This is most of the text where the videos were found.

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.— Dalrock’s Law of Feminism

This summer Melinda Gates launched a campaign called Equality Can’t Wait.  The goal was to use humor to solve the problem of inequality in STEM.  Quartz at Work explains in Melinda Gates wants comedians to make fun of gender inequality:

…Gates’ campaign has a chance of helping to speed up change, not least because it puts another nail in the coffin of a worn-out stereotype: That women aren’t funny, and that bringing up inequality somehow shows them up as humorless. Female comedians have stormed the US market in the past few years, including Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman, Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Nicole Byer, Tina Fey, and Maya Rudolph (some of whom appear in the video.)

Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

— Dalrock’s Law of Feminism

This summer Melinda Gates launched a campaign called Equality Can’t Wait. The goal was to use humor to solve the problem of inequality in STEM. Quartz at Work explains in Melinda Gates wants comedians to make fun of gender inequality:

…Gates’ campaign has a chance of helping to speed up change, not least because it puts another nail in the coffin of a worn-out stereotype: That women aren’t funny, and that bringing up inequality somehow shows them up as humorless. Female comedians have stormed the US market in the past few years, including Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman, Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Nicole Byer, Tina Fey, and Maya Rudolph (some of whom appear in the video.)

The series is even more dismal than I would have imagined. Here is but one example of the campaign, five minutes of male and female feminist scolding dressed up as a comedy routine.

Before you laugh at how pathetic this attempt is (and it is truly pathetic), remember that feminists like Gates don’t need to be clever. Feminists are in such a strong position that no matter how bad their campaign, only the radical fringe will dare to criticize it. Moreover, nagging doesn’t have to be funny, or inspiring, it just has to be persistent.

Clearly the worst president ever

WORST. NAZI. PRESIDENT. EVER. Trump to Sign Order Targeting Anti-Semitism on College Campuses: The president’s action will protect Judaism under civil rights law and empower the Education Department to withhold money from institutions that tolerate anti-Israel movements.

Seriously, Trump is such a failure, he can’t even be Hitler right. Impeach! Meanwhile, since it’s the NYT, it’s about Trump targeting “what he sees as antisemitism” on campus.

 

Plus this.

WORST. HOMOPHOBIC. PRESIDENT. EVER. Senate confirms openly gay Trump nominee to 9th Circuit. “The Senate confirmed President Trump’s ninth judicial nominee to the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, elevating Patrick Bumatay, an openly gay Filipino man, to the federal bench over objections from his liberal home-state senators.”

So do Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris hate gays, or Filipinos?

UPDATE: From the comments:

“53-40 party-line vote”

40 Democrats voted against a gay person of color.

Thank God we have Trump to roll over such bigotry in the name of diversity.

 

And then this.

Each from Instapundit.

Ignorant sentimentality and the end of Western Civilisation

Image result for dead child on beach

This image allowed millions of “refugees” to enter Europe, changing Western Civilisation forever, and possibly leading to its demise within a century. Just a picture with no associated policy, and in fact no possible policy. Now we have this as Labour’s last throw of the dice in the Brexit election. And let me preface all this with the story from The Oz today: UK election: Labour win a ‘major risk’ as Johnson tumbles in polls. Why? Who knows why, but maybe it’s this.

Britain faces most history-shaping election since WWII…
Boy on hospital floor dominates campaign…
Health Moves to Center…

“Enough, enough, let’s get this done”

It’s a real ad. Picked up here in the comments:

What’s there not to like about Boris Johnson? He Simply. Must. Win. Must. We’re down to just three nations holding the post WWII world together – Britain, Israel, and the United States. They, in in the persons of Boris Johnson, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Donald Trump each has perhaps its last true nationalist leader, a leader that understands soul of the nation he leads and faith in the importance of his nation’s place in the world, and is willing to fight for it. Britain and the US are being ripped apart internally, being dragged down literally by a political-social sludge that consists of almost nothing more than universal ‘hurt feelings’ driven by fifth-rate medicine wagon politicians and a brain dead media. Israel, who the world has been taught to hate, including by many leaders inside the US and Britain, is little better off but must tread very, very carefully because the people who would destroy it in a heartbeat are closer to its citizens than many here are to the nearest WalMart – every moment of every day. Trump and Netanyahu are old, vigorous but old. Who will replace them as leaders willing to fight for their nations in the world, not just pander to everyone internally and externally? Boris Johnson, armed with a twinkle in his eye, a great sense of humor, and a tremendous classical education, Simply Must Win. For us all.

And this is where the idea came from with a Labour ad from a single candidate a couple of weeks before. The list of policies at the end are even crazier than voting Remain. Anti-semitic as well.

IG’s Report covers up as much as it can but plenty still there to be seen

The depth of the deep state is a wonder to behold, and it is only because of PDT that we have even had a glimpse of it. No one can doubt after all this time that the FBI, along with many other agencies of the American Government, are corrupt to their very depths. There are obviously many who serve honourably, but at the top they are dishonest liars in whose service they actually are is difficult at times to work out.

The Inspector General’s Report has been released which downplays FBI corruption as best it can. If the names James Comey, or Lisa Page and Peter Strzok mean anything to you, then you can be in little doubt just how corrupt this organisation has become. The IG’s Report is about the FISA application. This tells you a lot about what you need to know: John Durham issues statement saying he does NOT agree with IG report conclusions….

US Attorney John Durham, who is performing his own investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, has just released a statement indicating that, per his own investigation, he does not agree with some of the IG report conclusions.

But with this still not being the full story, even the partial tale is quite quite extraordinary: IG Report Reveals Comey Did Brief Obama on Trump Campaign Investigation.

Former FBI Director James Comey briefed President Barack Obama about the investigation into Donald Trump’s campaign before the 2016 election, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

And to see how widely the deep state corruption is, the media are as complicit as the others, although they are not supposedly committed to working for the country as those who work for the government supposedly are.

No reporter has yet to ask Barack Obama what he knew about his FBI’s counterintelligence probe into Donald Trump’s campaign or when he knew it.

We’ll see what’s coming next. As for impeachment, can a former president be impeached?

Google reads your emails and no one cares

This is a post I wrote in 2014 following a previous post at the end of 2013. Self-explanatory, but the point about it at the time was that no one believed me when I was suspicious that Google was reading my emails, but now that everyone knows, no one cares. The post is from April 18, 2014.

Let me start with this news item from two days ago, Google admits it’s reading your emails:

GOOGLE HAS UPDATED its privacy terms and conditions, eroding a little more of its users’ privacy.

Google is so far unapologetic about its changes, despite having created some controversy. The bulk of the responses worry that Google is now able to read users’ emails and scan them for its various purposes.

In its terms and conditions the firm said that its users agree that information that they submit and share with its systems is all fair game. Its update, the first since last November, makes the changes very clear.

This I have known myself since last October. This is the report I sent to IT within the University:

I am doing a presentation on Tuesday next week and wrote the following note to the coordinator of the seminar:

This is the paper I will speak to which is an update on my previously published paper. I cannot believe how much things have evolved from then. I will also do a set of overheads which will help me keep track of where I am and might even be of use to those who come to listen.

Attached to it was my paper named nowhere other than in the paper itself:

The Use of Multiple Choice Questions with Explanations for Economic Assessment

This was the same title for a paper I had written in 2008 and put up on an academic website along with an abstract. But for the past five years the paper had simply been a paper that could be accessed but no one had. And then, a few hours after sending my note off to the coordinator of the seminar I received the following email:

Hi Professor Kates,

Hope you are doing well.

I would like to introduce myself as [redacted], one of the fastest growing research acceleration firm. We have been working with academicians from 35 of the top 100 universities across the globe including researchers from Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, MIT, NUS, and INSEAD.

We help researchers with Data Harvesting, Analytics, Visualization and Technology Implementation. As an organization, our primary focus is to increase research productivity, reduce research costs, and enable researchers focus on the most important facets of their research. You can read more about us here .

As we read through the abstract of research paper on The Use of Multiple Choice Questions with Explanations for Economic Assessment, we thought it would be a good idea to set up some time for a short call and explore how we can help you accelerate your research. Let me know a good time and we can schedule a call accordingly. I look foward to hearing from you.

Regards

I do not believe in coincidences, specially not one in a million shots like this would have been. This was, moreover, not just someone who had read my email but had been able to open my attachment, read its title and presumably anything else they chose to read within the contents, and then send me a follow-up email, all on the same day.

It’s not just the NSA and it’s not just our foreign enemies. My google account information is not just being shared but my attachments can be opened by total strangers. And the more I think about it, the more it burns me up.

I then had very helpful assistance from someone in our IT department who was as interested as I was in whether Google really was reading my emails and allowing others to read them as well. After quite a number of emails back and forth to each other, this was the final email sent to me.

Hi Steve,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

I’ve had some ongoing discussions with Google Support and here is the summary. They say that a message that travels only within Google servers can’t be accessed in transit, so could only be seen by a third party if the sending or receiving account is compromised by eg. phishing.

However, they also say that their mailflow algorithms mean that an email sent from one Google account to another, even sent from a Google user to themselves, may leave Google’s mail servers and come back in again. In that case, messages travelling on the internet would be subject to the inherent insecurity of email.

I’ve done a quick search to find a good explanation of why/how email is insecure, and I think this one sums it up pretty well:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/can-email-ever-be-secure/

As I understand it, hacking of email in transit, by eg. packet sniffing etc, is thought to be pretty rare. But it’s possible. However, there’s no way we or Google can establish whether or not this has happened since it would have occurred out in the wild, on servers or connections to which we have no access.

Not only is it not “out in the wild” or “pretty rare”, it even turns out to be integral to the google mail (gmail) system and no doubt common. The fact of the matter is that you do not know who your emails are being diverted to or who is reading them or the attachments. And now that Google has said so in public, it burns me up even more.

Same for Facebook, Twitter, and every other form of social media as well.

Fantasists pursing a collective delusion

Two articles on the same issues entered my inbox almost simultaneously, both with a similar message but told differently with with slightly different imagery. Different versions of being at the end of times. I will remind you again at the end, but you really ought to read both in full.

First Peter Smith at Quadrant Online on Invasion of the Principle Snatchers.

Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig played in the last version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers…. Alien pods float to earth and begin converting into those whose actual bodies disintegrate while they sleep. The result is lookalike people whose minds are regimented and insensible. They also have the nasty habit once they have virtually taken over of shrieking in unison at people they spot as still being human.

He is of course talking about our modern youth, those who teach them, and our education system in its vast expanse of empty space, plus the social media that surround them all. A phenomenon and a half, since it would be one thing if they stood for some kind of principle that showed at least a trace of self interest, but these zombie-fellow-citizens are as near insane as anything I could imagine. How they think they are creating a better world is unknown to me.

Then there is this from David Solway: The Insanity of Progressivism Comes Right Out of Gulliver’s Travels. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a movie so at least there are some people under 40 who may get the reference even though won’t see themselves in it. But this, no one will get, not one in a thousand of these millennials, not their teachers, and I suspect, few others as well.

Our intellectual classes today are utterly disconnected from reality. As Milo Yiannopoulos writes in a review of the film Joker, “We are reeling from a disaster still unfolding, the unmaking of reality at the hands of millennial progressivism.” Indeed, when it comes to unmaking reality, our cognitive elite may as well inhabit the parody world of Gulliver’s Travels. Proposing blueprints for radical social change and meddling in the complexities of domestic and economic policy, they have come to resemble Jonathan Swift’s pixilated “projectors” in the Academy of Lagado (Book 3, Chapter 5), a conclave of intellectuals and academics “full of volatile spirits acquired in that airy region” of vacuous irrationality.

Swift of course thought he was writing satire. Instead, many idea much like this come out of our schools today.

In its effort to save the nation, Swift’s Academy put forward various endeavors to advance the economy, improve education, and become energy-self-sufficient. For example, it proposed “extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers.”

Sounds as plausible as anything anyone has come up with recently, although perhaps knocking over power stations and running water uphill are a bit more farfetched. As David writes, worrying, and not without reason, that some readers may not appreciate that he think’s they’re insane:

Swift inadvertently foretold our “social democratic” and progressivist future as typified by the Democrat Party’s “Green New Deal.” This project is designed to achieve net-zero carbon emissions; to convert 100 percent of power sources to renewable energy installations, thus replacing cheap, reliable energy with expensive, unreliable energy; to retrofit every building in the country in the interests of efficiency, at a cost destined to bankrupt the nation; to supplant air-travel with high-speed rail; to eliminate cows as methane infidels; and, among other vacant notions, to provide, in the words of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “economic security for all those who are unable or unwilling to work”—with regard to the latter, a lifelong paid holiday exploiting a shrinking working class.

And if you are looking for a paragraph that captures the insanity of the times in which we live, you will search a long way before you find something better than this.

Indeed, on the major issues of the historical moment—climate change, the war on terror, national borders, “social justice,” gender politics, race conflict, post-colonial theory, immigration—the tribe of progressivist mountebanks wherever we find them get everything wrong, opting for measures that only magnify the problems they affect to settle. We should not be surprised to find Lagadian absurdities in abundance, as for example: journalists who advocate exorbitant spending to neutralize debt (Paul Krugman); politicians who endorse socialized medicine, at a cost of trillions (Barack Obama); senators who propose tax rates over 100 percent (Elizabeth Warren); teachers who believe that history is a narrative to be manipulated for ideological ends (Howard Zinn); leaders who champion near-unlimited Muslim refugee migration, generating communal strife, outright violence, and unsustainable welfare expenditure (Angela Merkel); philosophers who affirm that truth is a relative concept—except for the truth of their own claims (Michel Foucault); revisionists who deplore the “mindless authority in European writing” (Edward Said); writers who promote violence as the road to millennial harmony (Slavoj Zizek); feminists who advocate the homicidal culling of men to create a better world (Mona Eltahawy); sciolists who argue that Islam is a “straight path” (John Esposito, Karen Armstrong); charlatans who claim a cooling world gradually entering a new Little Ice Age is actually warming (Al Gore, James Hanson, Michael Mann); medical practitioners who promote transgenderism and sex re-assignment surgery since the biological bodies we are born with are merely physical accessories (Ray Blanchard et al.); post-colonial theorists who claim that successful free-market societies are profiteering relics (Homi Bhabha); geo-engineers who recommend shooting particles into the atmosphere to block the sun’s harmful rays (John Holden); Luddites who want to selectively eliminate the fruits of technology and kill jobs (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez); and so on.

And so on indeed. Read them both, and to the end.

I will just mention that David Solway may be the Jonathan Swift of our times, except that it has become impossible to exceed in satire the reality with which we are now surrounded.