Science is superior to native traditional knowledge. And no, I am not sorry.

 

 

Science is a procedure of verifiability, or if you prefer, falsifiability. It is not a racial or cultural trait. If you cannot establish a proposition that is capable of being shown to be untrue it is not science, it is belief, it is conjecture, it is myth, it is “traditional knowledge”

On the other hand, science – by the post modern (racialist) definition – is “white” by accident of being derived from Europe. I am not asserting racial superiority here, but I am asserting that neither Hindu, Islamic or Chinese civilizations managed to develop this form of knowing the world, the one that has produced the greatest improvement of the state of most people in the world in the last 400 years.

In the current environment of insanity, it is dangerous to suggest that there might be conflicts between assertions of traditional knowledge and science. It is a ‘racism of intelligence’.

A Quebec civil servant raised a ruckus when he pointed out that a conflict could arise between science and “traditional aboriginal knowledge”. Bad man! Outrage proceeded from the professionally outraged.

Quoting the National Post article in question:

Bill C-69, which received first reading in the House of Commons on Feb. 8, would require that before a project subject to a federal assessment is approved, “traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada provided with respect to the project” be taken into account — though it provides no definition of “traditional knowledge.” The bill further states that when traditional knowledge is provided in confidence, it “is confidential and must not knowingly be, or be permitted to be, disclosed without written consent.”

A federal law of general application to the assessment of projects would establish, or fail to establish:

  • no definition is given of “traditional knowledge”, and
  • if presented in confidential format, no disclosure of it is required in open court.

The civil servant quite reasonably observed that

“to systematically place Indigenous knowledge on equal footing with scientific data “could prove problematic in cases where Indigenous knowledge and science are found to be in contradiction.” He said criteria should be established to evaluate the accuracy of the traditional knowledge.”

If I were an aboriginal, by these provisions I would be  enabled – for example – to submit to the Court confidentially that the Great Spirit has vouchsafed us a knowledge that He would be wrathful if a pipeline went across our “traditional” territories. It would be “traditional knowledge” if we said it was, and hence its contents would be unverifiable; indeed their contents would be unknown to the parties in the proceeding, they would be undiscussable, and the reasons of the court could not be made available if they relied on it, without written permission of the aboriginal group. So we could have a system of legal review that could not review the reasons for a government decision. A court could not rely on the accuracy or completeness of a record of a proceeding.

Anyone familiar with the trial of Galileo knows that he asserted that the earth went around the sun, that some of the moveable stars, as they were then known, like Jupiter, had their own moons, and that the surface of the moon was pockmarked with craters. The Church held that Aristotle was right, and that these three points were contradicted by the Great Philosopher. Yet in the case of Aristotle, the Church asserted a known, public doctrine.

So the position of the future Galileos in Canadian society is even worse in a way than it was for Galileo. Because you will be brought to trial for offending a traditional doctrine without knowing what that doctrine was, unless the Aboriginal band decided to make it public. To the uncertainty of what will arouse the wrath of Social Justice Warriors will be added secret doctrines, known to the initiates of tribal customs, and unknown to all others.

If you doubt for a moment it will soon be a hate crime to contest traditional knowledge, observe the accusation by the Ottawa law professors against the Quebec civil servant, Mr. Beauchesne, of “racism” for favouring science in a ‘hierarchy of knowledges’.

When I heard Jordan Peterson say that the social constructionist attack on knowledge will soon attack biology for contradicting what the Left says about race, sex, and other biological facts, I thought he might have been extrapolating reasonably. It has become my clear conviction that the days when “white science” will be attacked as racist, sexist, homophobic etc. is already underway.

First they call you a ‘settler’. Then they call you a ‘scientist’.

 

 

 

 

The Norwegian Special Olympics

 

Norway, population 5,336,297, has the following medal count in the White People’s Special Olympics. Norwegians are trying not to boast in public too much.

 

Total Medals By Country
Group G S B Total
NOR 13 11 9 33
GER 12 7 5 24
CAN 9 5 7 21
NED 6 6 4 16
USA 6 4 6 16
FRA 5 4 5 14
OAR 0 4 9 13
JPN 3 5 3 11
AUT 4 2 4 10
KOR 4 3 2 9
ITA 3 2 4 9
SWE 4 4 0 8
SUI 2 5 1 8
CHN 0 5 2 7
CZE 1 2 3 6
GBR 1 0 3 4
FIN 0 0 4 4
SVK 1 2 0 3
AUS 0 2 1 3
BLR 1 1 0 2
POL 1 0 1 2
ESP 0 0 2 2
UKR 1 0 0 1
SLO 0 1 0 1
KAZ 0 0 1 1
LAT 0 0 1 1
LIE 0 0 1 1

Aboriginal Representation on Juries

 

The Liberals just cannot help themselves.

There is saying attributed to Jesus that you had better get the beam out of your own eye before you try to extract the mote in someone else’s.

As the federal Liberals threaten to tamper with jury selection, and overthrow centuries of common law to make theft by Indians of property more easily achieved by the disabling the rights of landowners to self-protection, here is something you need to consider. The federal government has stopped making jury lists of Canadian aboriginals, so that finding aboriginals to sit on juries has been made much more difficult. The reasons are given below.

The Department of Indian Affairs stopped compiling jury lists because of privacy concerns. So says the website Lawnow.

Until 2000, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) compiled lists of First Nations persons for jury rolls. These lists were used in the situation where band electoral lists were not available. In 2001, INAC stopped providing band lists because of privacy concerns.  The key issue in the Kokopenace case was the Ontario government’s efforts to address problems that had arisen since the INAC band lists were not available, as this had an impact on the right to a representative jury.

The Ontario courts relied on a report prepared by Justice F. Iacobucci, First Nations Representation on Ontario Juries (2013) for data on why Aboriginal on-reserve residents were reluctant to participate in the jury selection process. Reasons included:

  • their views about conflict resolution;
  • systemic discrimination experienced by First Nations people within the justice system;
  • a lack of knowledge about the justice system and the jury system;
  • the desire by First Nations leaders to assume greater control of justice matters in their communities; and
  • concerns for the protection of privacy rights.

Additional concerns included some aspects of the content of the questionnaire itself (e.g. penalty for non-response) and the requirement to declare citizenship. The Iocabucci Report concluded that the ad hoc system for identifying jurors was ineffective, and thus, results in a jury roll that is unrepresentative of all First Nations peoples on reserve. While the report focused on the situation in Ontario, Justice Iocabucci noted that the problem with underrepresentation of First Nations peoples on juries exists in a number of Canadian provinces, as well as in New Zealand, Australia and the United States.

“Privacy concerns”?!

Here we see in action the confusion of legal objectives: “privacy concerns”, which are of distinctly secondary importance, are used to trump the availability of jury lists that could be used to increase the number of Indians on juries, which is, to Liberals, of greater importance.

The decisions cited in the Lawnow article make it clear that a jury is not required to be a random selection of all people, and that failure to achieve statistical representation of the entire community is not a bar to effective justice.

 

The Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that the right to a representative jury roll is qualified. For example, “it does not require a jury roll in which each group is represented in numbers equivalent to its proportion of the population of the jury as a whole” This would be practically impossible and any attempt to achieve this type of representation would not work with random selection process that is used to choose people to receive jury service notices.

The Ontario Court of Appeal focused on the steps taken by the state to prepare a jury roll that provides a group of people, from which to select a competent and impartial jury. The test arrived at was:

In my view, [wrote the court] to meet its representativeness obligation, the state must make reasonable efforts at each step of creating the jury roll. That includes the state’s actions in compiling the lists, but also in sending the notices, facilitating their delivery and receipt and encouraging the responses to them.  The objective of the state’s actions must be to seek to provide the platform necessary to select an impartial petit jury and to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system by providing groups that bring distinctive perspectives to the jury process with their fair opportunity to be included in the jury roll.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal 5-2.

The Liberals just cannot help themselves. 

Safe, happy and free

The Guardian has an article today on the world’s happiest, safest, freest society, Finland. I have visited the national historical museum in Helsinki, and saw a replica of a 19th century Finnish peasant’s hut. They were so poor they had no chimneys, and smoke just seeped out of the thatched roof. Only with the coming of the industrial revolution did they achieve wealth through waterpower and mills. There is little agricultural wealth to be found in taiga and post-glacial scrape.

The article points out the degree of cooperation needed to survive in a cold climate. I point out that Finland is not colder than Canada. Average January temperature variation in Helsinki is -2C to -7C. The same figures for Ottawa are -6C to -14C, and I use the capital cities as stand-ins for large countries.

What the article fails to point out is that the Finns are 100% white. I mean really really really white. They almost invented melanin-deficiency.

Nothing can reduce my admiration for a society so industrious, clever, and lawful. But when people burble about the values of  multi-culturalism, they seldom stop to think about how much easier it is to engender trust when everyone is your third and fourth cousin, and the place is mono-cultural. We may have forgotten that fact, but our Canadian French compatriots have not.

They were the first country to decolonize from the Russian Empire, in 1917, and have ever fought their larger neighbour to maintain that independence in the Winter War of 1940. By the way, the Russians believe the Finns still practice powerful folk magic, and are barely Christianized.

General Mannerheim was their leader in World War 2. His strategy and the immense bravery and battleworthiness of the Finnish people kept the numerically superior Soviets to a draw, meaning that they killed many more Soviet soldiers than they lost themselves. The Germans thought the Finns were, man for man,  their only equals in the art of war.

 

Listen to their national hymn, composed by Sibelius. The “slavery” mentioned in the hymn is that of the Finns to the Russian Empire. Be inspired.

 

 

Wizards versus Prophets: How to feed 10 billion people

The Atlantic carries a useful discussion of two schools of thought, one of which is broadly eco-doomist, and the other is ameliorist. The dispute takes place in the vital issue of agriculture, and the author situates the dispute as one between William Vogt (1902-1968) and Norman Borlaug, (1914-2009) father the Green Revolution. It will come as no surprise that they knew and despised each other.

Vogt published his views in 1948 in a book called the Road to Survival, which, according to Wikipedia set forth

…his strong belief that then-current trends in fertility and economic growth were rapidly destroying the environment and undermining the quality of life of future generations. Vogt’s most significant contribution was to link environmental and perceived overpopulation problems, warning in no uncertain terms that current trends would deliver future wars, hunger, disease and civilizational collapse.

Road to Survival was an influential best seller. It had a big impact on a Malthusian revival in the 1950s and 60s. After its publication he dedicated many activities to the cause of overpopulation. From 1951 to 1962, he served as a National Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Borlaug, says Wikipedia:

…was often called “the father of the Green Revolution”,[5][6] and is credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[7][8][9][10] According to Jan Douglas, executive assistant to the president of the World Food Prize Foundation, the source of this number is Gregg Easterbrook‘s 1997 article “Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity”, the article states that the “form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths.”[11] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

As a Bengali-born professor of economics once told me, in relation to the Green Revolution, “when I first came to Bangladesh I could see the ribs of the rice farmers; now I can’t”.

The Atlantic article is entertaining and informative, but it fails to mention the vital point, which determines whether Vogt or Borlaug will win the argument. As soon as women can be guaranteed that they will have one or two surviving children, they cease to have more. Everywhere in the world, industrialized or not, population growth is crashing. This process is occurring with great suddenness in Islamic countries. The world population will be 10 billion by 2050; what the article fails to mention is that it will be 7 billion by 2100, according to David Goldman, who bases himself on UN population projections and the latest birth rates.

These issue are explored in David Goldman’s How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is dying too). The book overturns a number of beliefs that were drummed into us in the 1970s and beyond: overpopulation, ecological disaster, resources running out, doom, in short.

Goldman advances the view that throughout history, but especially now, population decline is mostly to be feared, because it throws economies into a tailspin. Fertility rates have fallen below replacement in nearly all wealthy countries, and are doing so in Islamic countries.

In the great ideological debate about human nutrition, one can only hope that Borlaug’s practical optimism will prevail. The eco-doomist vision has never failed to produce want, misery and failure. Stick with the optimists, it will be tough enough even if they are right.

Of the questions that need to be asked bout human society in the next decades, the relevant one is whether we will still breed in 2050 enough to avoid social and economic collapse. There will be enough food, enough water, and enough resources. The truly important question is whether there will be enough humans to enjoy them by 2100. Spengler maintains that birth rates are falling between the green line and the yellow line in the UN population projections, shown below. (I leave aside the important question whether the remaining humans will be slaves or masters of their robotic machinery).

World Population Estimates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#/media/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

Goldman says the green line is the correct one.

 

Shit hole countries

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/haiti/tonton-1.jpg

 

I know a former UN official, who holds all the right progressive attitudes, or else she did until recently. A fellow UN official whom she knows lived in Haiti for several years, trying to see that Haitian prisons performed up to some standard, such as feeding the prisoners, and not jamming 250 people into a cell that can hold 20. His task was utterly futile, as you can imagine.

This is what he saw on the streets of Port au Prince one day. One car chased another. The lead car crashed or came to a stop. The following car stopped and a man got out with a machete. He went up to the lead car and dragged out the man he was chasing. The man with a machete chopped his head off and threw it away on the street. Then, without so much as a glance around in fear or apprehension, the man with the machete sauntered away. No fear. No police. Nothing, just sauntered away through the crowds, with no concern whatever. She did not say whether the murderer kept holding the machete as he walked away.

Shit hole countries?

Once again Trump is calling things by their real names, and once again the media believe they have him cornered. The rest of us breathe easier knowing that the man in charge of the administration of US immigration policy is not deceived.

“One of the sources who was briefed on the conversation said that Trump said, “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries … We should have more people from Norway.”

“The second source familiar with the conversation, said Trump, who has vowed to clamp down on illegal immigration, also questioned the need for Haitians in the United States.”

I sympathize with Haitians seeking to leave Haiti. I read somewhere, maybe from Steve Sailer, that the highest earning doctors in the US  by ethnic group are Haitians. Let us take in the talented, as we are doing in Canada. Witness a recent Canadian Governor General.

As Conrad Black remarked recently in National Review:

Trump has mannerisms and foibles that are legitimately unattractive to many, and that is certainly adequate reason to disapprove of him, if there is a better alternative. There isn’t.

But then, as is his habit, the president sortied out of what David Brooks calls the “Potemkin White House” and dealt his enemies a shattering rebuff. He had the cameras present in the cabinet room for almost an hour as he led, rather magisterially, as all admitted, a discussion of immigration issues with 22 Democratic and Republican leaders of both congressional houses, and sat himself next to leading Democrats Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Steny Hoyer. The country saw that Donald Trump is reasonable, persuasive, and knowledgeable. To prove to skeptics that miracles occur, CNN’s ne plus ultra of fake-news authorship, Wolf Blitzer, uttered words of respectful admiration for the president.

The “shit hole countries” was almost certainly said by Trump. It is another breach of confidence and another media hit to distract attention from the progress the US is making in enforcing its existing immigration laws, and to devise new ones that will allow the US to control its flow of immigrants. Few Canadian realize that the flow of immigrants into the US is not within the control of the US government. Canadians would not put up with uncontrolled borders, neither should Americans be expected to.

The Jayman: you have to read him

From the Jayman, who for your interest and information, is Jamaican.

Clannishness and how to mitigate its dire effects on (lack of) development, trust and progress.

My earlier entry (Clannishness – the Series: Zigzag Lightning in the Brain) established that there are deep distinctions between Northwestern European peoples and most of the rest of the world, and that these differences have a huge impact on the world, including on levels of human development, the strength of democracy and democratic institutions, scientific output, and levels of social trust. If you’re unfamiliar with this division, the previous entry and materials linked within cover it all in extensive detail.

But the question is, how did it happen? How did these divisions come to be? Well, of course, my answer is evolution through natural selection – specifically, gene-culture co-evolution.

Before we can ascribe these differences to evolution, it must be understood that these differences have a genetic basis. That is, they are heritable. This means that genetic differences between different peoples lead to differences in their behavioral traits, which, collectively, manifests as cultural differences. We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each. As John Derbyshire put it, “if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities.”. See my Behavioral Genetics Page for more. The rest of this entry proceeds assuming an understanding of this reality.

Now, it’s also very important to understand that evolution proceeds quicker than you’ve been led to believe. Certainly a lot faster than mainstream ideology posits (i.e., claiming that human evolution somehow came to a halt 50,000 years ago) which is demonstrably nonsense:

 

Figure 1: Age of human selected genetic variants

Figure 2: Distribution of Lactose Tolerance

Global-Lactose-Intolerance

As seen in both the age of genetic variants and the distribution of lactose tolerance, much human evolution took place within the last 5,000-10,000 years.

But evolution can proceed within the space of a few centuries, as governed by the breeder’s equation. A few centuries of sustained selective pressure can make a considerable impact on the characteristics of a human group. We see that with Ashkenazi Jews, whose high IQ (and many other traits) evolved only within the last 2,000 years.

With all of this out of the way, what selective pressures explain the differences between Northwestern Europeans and the rest of the world? Here, we can, for now, only hypothesize. As opposed to the reality of the differences, which is easy to establish, how these differences came to be is a harder puzzle to untangle. That said, we do have some good ideas.

 

Read on:

http://www.unz.com/jman/clannishness-the-series-how-it-happened/

A warning: the Unz Review contains views of wildly incongruous and incompatible positions and personalities, from bananarama Left to Pat Buchanan on the Paleolithic Right.

 

Letter to a liberal friend

 

Greetings friend:

 

Despite my profound respect for the good  you are doing in the world for the Internet, I cannot agree to this wave of anti-white male-ism you appear to be engaged in (reference your recent email).

At your leisure, read this:

https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit#download&from_embed

By taking cognizance, I mean giving it more than a dismissive glance. By any rational standards Google is engaged in an obvious, clear, forthright, proud, explicit pattern of anti-white male discrimination, which can be defended only by saying ”they deserve it”, or “it is not discrimination when it is done to white males”, or “the greater good demands it”. Any way you argue it you end up in an ugly moral and intellectual position.

It is evident where all this anti-white male animus leads, and it is not to any place pretty, desirable, just or liberal. Nor a place where people such as yourself will prosper being, as you are, a white male and exceptionally gifted. None of us are immune to the tides of history, not even you. By which I mean that the forces you are seeking to unleash will not stop, will not abate until the momentum behind it is exhausted, leaving not merely Harvey Weinsteins in its wake, but Garrison Keillors. Indeed, the history of the twentieth century gives me no confidence that this movement will not end in bloodshed.   It is one thing to have an anti-Semite raging against the Jews, for example, but to have a white male sneering against white males strikes many as being ………….one searches for the word…. absurd?

 

It is stuff like this that makes me believe that Trump will be re-elected, and quite handily. There are a lot of white males out there, and their wives, daughters, sons and dependents, who believe their life chances are being blighted by this kind of prejudice and racial and sexual discrimination.

A liberal and democratic society demands liberals and democrats. I am concerned that we are descending into the grossest forms of tribalism, authoritarianism, and legally-sanctioned racial and sex-linked privileges. The Left affects to believe that Trump and conservatives are the cause. To the contrary, the forces that are impelling this outcome are coming from what the Left would call “progressives”.

You have known me for long enough to know I believe every word I have said, and I am not speaking for personal advantage – to the contrary, I would reckon –  but to appeal to your reason and better nature.

Think carefully about where all this stuff you preach is going.

 

Best regards,

Dalwhinnie

Let’s blame the victims, shall we?

More realistically, and more precisely, let’s admit the limits of whites to do anything to remedy American black social pathologies. We can not take the existence of racial disparities as the evidence for white  oppression.

Professor Amy Wax presents a useful perspective on the ban on “blaming the victim”, in which the group suffering the harm is the only one that can undo the harm caused to him.

There is no way around it, the victim must help himself. But there have been injuries to human capital. These are the most enduring traits of the African American situation, and there is little white society can do about them. So says Professor Amy Wax, in the most rational way.