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


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:

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.


Google and the end of the current regime

An excellent piece by the Z-Man and others on the state of Google. I am not the only one to be smelling a rotting fish. The article reads in part:

The other thing that the printer scams, and now the phone scams, are signalling is the end of the technological revolution. Companies like Google and Apple stopped being technology companies a long time ago. Instead, they are oligopolists. In the case of Apple, they were never a technology company. They were a design and marketing firm that repackaged existing technology into cool consumer products appealing to cosmopolitan hipsters. They sell expensive display items for the trend setters and the fashionable.

As a reader at Sailer’s site observed, Google now resembles an adult daycare center where mentally disturbed women terrorize the few people doing real work. Google has not don’t much of anything, in terms of tech, once it gained a near monopoly of on-line advertising. The reason Susan Wojcicki can wage endless jihad at a money losing division like YouTube is it is owned by an oligopolist given a special right to skim from every internet user on earth. Google is now a tax farmer, not a tech company.

The end of the Industrial Revolution featured civil unrest and industrial scale violence across Europe. In the US, it resulted in great social reform movements that ranged from public morality to economics. By the middle of the 19th century, it was clear that the old feudal governing system was no longer able to maintain order in Europe and the colonial model was not working in America. A century of war and revolution resulted in social democracy, a Western governing system compatible with industrial societies.

What my printer is telling me is not just that the pink has expired, but the social arrangements that allow this scam have also expired. The Technological Revolution has made the old arrangements untenable. It’s why our ruling class struggles to do even the minimum. It may turn out that the managerial state is the perfection of industrial age governance, but entirely unsuited for the technological age. Whether or not we are on the verge of a century of social tumult is hard to know, but that’s the lesson of history.

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:

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,


Google: What goes around, comes around


James Damore has filed suit against Google for discrimination against conservative white men.


Damore isn’t holding back any punches here. According to his filing, Google employs “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.”

The suit also claims that “numerical presence of women celebrated at Google” was based “solely due to their gender” while the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”

Somewhat redundantly, it adds that Damore, Gudeman and “other class members” were “ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males.”

The lawsuit is seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies.

From my real but limited experience in the Google matrix, what Damore alleges reflects the Silicon Valley Democratic consensus, and the company’s actual behaviours. Google preaches PC every day, in every way.

Further evidence for this proposition comes this morning from Breitbart:


The lawsuit further accuses Google of what amounts to racism stating, “Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination — Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.” The lawsuit also alleges that Google operates in an “ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink.”

The lawsuit claims that at one of Google’s weekly company-wide meetings the presence of white males at the company was openly booed by employees. “Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods.”

The full pleading is found here.

I have said before and will say again, Google is in the firm grip of a totalitarian cult. What interests me as a lawyer, is that a cursory look at the pleading evinces a clear, self-declared, unembarrassed, explicit anti-white male bias  on the part of Google and its management and many of its employees.

How to create animosity by government fiat

This is a sign found at the entrance to a trail in the Gatineau Park. The entrance to the trail is an hour’s drive away from Ottawa. Few use it, maybe several dozen a weekend. The trail leads into a ski trail and a set of snow shoe trails. They are called “ski” trails because the National Capital Commission occasionally maintains them from falling trees, and repairs bridges across streams. They are called “snowshoe trails” because they scarcely exist except in the minds of dedicated snow-shoers who maintain them by hand. These trails take one into the deep woods and places unseen by the skiers, whose trails more closely approximate narrow highways.

What does this sign mean?

  • You cannot reach the snow shoe trails by means of the common access trail? or
  • You can reach the snow shoe trails but as a snow-shoer you have to create your own path beside the ski trails?

Supposing it means the latter, why create two classes of user of the Park? One class, the skier, has superior rights. Why?

  • Most of the time the snow showers create the path for the skiers by being the first out on the trail after the snow has fallen.
  • Does a skier have the right to push off a snowshoer, or claim priority, for using his ski-trail?
  • Does the skier have the right to claim a trail as a “ski” trail by going over a previously-made snow shoe trail and thus forcing the snowshoer to make a new trail – at great effort I assure you – so that the higher class Brahmin skier can ski without his shadow falling on the unclean Dalit snowshoer?

I can see the logic of keeping the two classes of trail user apart where the NCC grooms the trails mechanically, but where all the effort to make trail is human, and the labour is shared, then I am ready to tell the skiers to go around me if they get stroppy.

95% of those who get rude or aggressive are French Canadian, in case you wonder.

We snow-shoers get to places seen maybe by a score of people a year, we happy few.

A deeply unserious government

A think tank buried in the Privy Council Office called Policy Horizons Canada has suggested that Santa is moving to the south pole.

Please note the globalist fantasies: “international community” agrees to a “common legal definition of climate change” that “includes refugees as corporations” leading to the deployment of a “global climate change refugee visa system”. In the meantime the real world is beset with problems, many of them created or exacerbated by the type of policies favoured by the wankers in Policy Horizons Canada.


We now turn our attention to the world we live in, which has escaped poverty since 1800 by means of burning fossil fuels.

  • Canadian oil is selling for less on the international market because lack of pipelines keep the supply bottled up in Canada

Says the Globe and Mail:

Western Canadian oil companies have seen the price of their crude drop as a result of the lack of pipeline outlets from landlocked U.S. markets, coupled with growing U.S. production and unplanned refinery shutdowns.

“In a decision cheered by environmentalists but considered a setback by the oil industry, Canada’s national energy regulator says it will allow wider discussion of greenhouse gas emission issues in upcoming hearings for the Energy East Pipeline. The National Energy Board said [on August 23] it will for the first time consider the public interest impact of upstream and downstream GHG emissions from potential increased production and consumption of oil resulting from the project.”

As you see and as the Canadian government itself proclaims, the attacks on the oil industry are predicated on global warming hysteria, and the fatuous idea that CO2 alone is responsible for such little global warming as we are experiencing, and that humans alone are responsible for rises in the minuscule concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (now at 400 parts per million).

Meantime, freely available to anyone who can peruse a science/climate blog, other ideas about climate variation are available, and off limits within the Trudeau policy bubble. This one is about the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation. Climate variation under natural conditions is enormous.

My point is this: what should be a debate, and the occasion for very cautious measures in the face of huge ignorance, is reduced to a religious dogma that the petroleum industry needs to be destroyed to save us all from global warming, as in destroying the village in order to save it.

In the meantime, there is good news from Trumpheim. Scores of officials are resigning from the Environmental Protection Agency. 700 hundred have left, which is only one quarter of the reductions that the Trump Administration is imposing on the EPA.

The tax cuts the Congress has approved will make the American economy much more competitive. Anti-carbon energy regulations are being dismantled.

The progress in eliminating the baneful legacy of Obama will take another couple of years, but already is so marked that never-Trumpers are starting to come around. The National Review, of all places, is beginning its long-overdue repentance, noting not merely his economic successes in increasing investment and reducing regulation, but in standing up for the right values, such as his speech in Warsaw defending the idea of political liberty.

While there are many months of events yet between now and the next US Presidential election, I am beginning to think that Trump will win it again. To express myself more clearly, I observe that there are now plausible reasons and not mere instinct that he will win a second term.

Back to Policy Horizons inside the PCO, here is the staff.  In a Trump or a Harper government, they would face a shake-up of ideas and personnel, not for their winsome contribution to Santology, but for not thinking hard enough about our future, where global warming continues until it doesn’t. In the meantime, I wish all the naifs and drones of Policy Horizons Canada a…



Deconstructing Jordan Peterson


Occasionally there is nothing to add to a perfect piece of analysis. I refer you to Mark Milke’s Deconstructing Jordan Peterson in the C2C Journal:


…his views are worth quoting at length, this from his C2C Journal interview one year ago, where he summarizes the attempts to argue genders and gender identities are mere social constructs. Peterson objects and argues that gender identity is biologically fixed:

“There are sex differences at every level of analysis. There are masculinity/femininity scales that have been derived; they’re basically secondary derivations of personality descriptors. There are huge personality differences between men and women. There’s literature looking at differences of men and women in personality in many, many societies throughout the world. I think the biggest paper examined 55 different societies. And they rank societies by sociological and political equality. The hypothesis was that if you equalize the environment between men and women, you eradicate the differences between them. In other words, if you treat boys and girls the same, the differences between them will disappear. But that’s not what the studies showed. In reality, they get bigger. Those are studies of tens of thousands of people. The social constructionist theory was tested. It failed. Gender identity is very much biologically determined.”

Thus, if Peterson’s characterization of the literature is correct, but for the infinitesimally small proportion of the human population that is anatomically hermaphroditic at birth or anatomically altered by chemicals and surgery, if you are born with male anatomy you are a man, and if you born with female anatomy you are a woman. Pretending gender is subjective and engaging in word games about identity – as if we, not nature, choose our gender – is thus an affront to biological reality, rudimentary empiricism and also honest language.

I want everyone to stop using the word “gender” for anything other than masculine and feminine nouns. I am male. I am of the male sex. I am not of the male gender.  You do not have choice in participating in your sexual  identity, contrary to all fashionable nonsense of the era. “Gender” is akin to the Marxist use of the word “exploitation”. It is ideologically loaded; it is nonsense on stilts. Biology is not a social construct.

The art of dealing with the  world as it is consists of knowing what cannot be changed by talking about it differently.

For more on this, see Hjernevask, the entertaining documentary film in Norwegian and English on the subject of orthodox leftism’s pseudo-scientific rubbish.


Here is more of Mark Mielke:

So the notion that gender identity is fluid is redolent of old, discredited Marxist assumptions. It enables the construct of countless new realities, disconnected from empirical evidence that until now determined whether people were male or female. But if gender is malleable, why stop there? Why not insist – many of us would like this – age really is a state of mind? How about ethnicity a la carte? After all, if the biological reality of chromosome realities can be ignored in favour of a self-chosen label, why not do away with the pesky notion of ages and ethnic origins altogether? To paraphrase Descartes, today I feel like a 21-year-old, therefore I am.

The modern constructivists, pace the economic Marxists, ignore nature and believe people and outcomes are always and everywhere determined by power, imposed, and thus artificial. Human beings are thus subject to infinite deconstruction and reconstruction – whatever imaginary identity or society one wishes to impose and with zero regard for actual, on-the-ground realities.



The Hate Speech Fraud

Back in 1960s and before, we had free speech in the West. In that decade, the assault on freedom started in earnest.

When “hate speech” laws were first introduced, we were assured by governments that they would never be used to suppress freedom of speech or the expression of unpopular views. But, because of the pliable and dubious definition of “hate”, critics warned that there would be unintended consequences of these laws, namely, that they would be used by politically motivated groups to suppress criticism and exposure of the truth about various political and religious groups or organizations.

[Under the Criminal Code of Canada, “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.”]

The critics, however, were wrong about one thing: using the laws for the suppression of political dissent was not an unintended consequence, but the primary objective of those laws.

Hate speech was the pretext; censorship, the objective.  All else was deceit from the government.

The amount of “hate propaganda” in Canadian, or any Western, society is vanishingly small, and can be dealt with quite easily under already existing laws concerning incitement to violence, insurrection, threats to public order etc.

The primary objective of the multicultural globalists comprising the Deep State is to destroy Western Civilization, free nation states, and liberal democratic societies by means of mass Third World immigration and the destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of free citizens.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.”


Since “hate speech” has now expanded to mean anything that can cause offense, always in unlimited supply with some groups, suddenly, all the freedoms you thought you had under the Charter have now essentially evaporated. Now, anyone who feels that his feelings have been hurt is entitled to seek financial compensation using the “Human Rights Commissions” for a variety of claims “including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect”.

There is no pretense of due process in these kangaroo courts, as the claimant is supported by the commissars and the defendant has to pay all costs and is presumed guilty. Naturally, many groups, particularly Islamic organizations, have used these laws to attempt to suppress criticisms and the truth about Islamic behavior around the world, particularly towards women and gays. In a famous, or infamous, case, the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint against Maclean’s Magazine in 2007. According to Wikipedia…

“The substance of the complaint was that Maclean’s was publishing articles (a column by Mark Steyn) that insulted Muslims. The Congress filed its complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.[13] The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint 10 October 2008.[14] The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on 26 June 2008.”

But not until Maclean’s and Steyn had spent a good deal of money on lawyers. They should never have had to; the complaint was pure intimidation.

In Britain, a small sign in a living room window saying “Islam out of Britain” was enough to bring a SWAT team police squad to intimidate that person, whereas public demonstrations calling for the murder and beheading of people who do not support Islam,(here) have, to my knowledge, never resulted in any prosecutions. In Rotherham, gangs of Muslims had been raping young girls for a decade while the police did nothing about it. The Labour Party councillors knew all about it, and did nothing. No-one in authority has been held to account for this collusion with crime, and, it is still going on. But, rest assured, the British police have plenty of time and money to intimidate law-abiding members of the British National Party.

The British police are now the Thought Police working for Islam. [Pat Condell has an excellent video on the corruption of the British police.]

This is how far our rights have been eroded by unscrupulous politicians. By giving arbitrary meanings to “hate”, they have legitimized suppression of any view that any of the approved grievance groups do not approve of.

The latest thought control assault is against anyone who disagrees with all the transgender poppycock. You are now required by law to lie. There are two sexes in the human species: that is simply a medical fact. It can not be changed by the decree of some vapid nonentity in Parliament. This is the level of absurdity in our governments.

As for rights and freedoms, freedom of conscience and all that: the Charter is now vaporware.

Rebel Yell

Fake News In Spades

Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept is not someone I usually agree with (and that’s not just because he’s a lefty), but he gets full marks for his latest analysis of the unspeakable tripe that passes for news and analysis in the US Media.

The latest “story” or “bombshell” that CNN, MSNBC, CBS (all the usual suspects) came up with was the claim that proof had been uncovered that the Trump Team had colluded with “the Russians” prior to the election. Fevered and deranged “analysts” discussed the impending end of the Trump presidency, double shots of glee were passed around fuelling the already hysterical atmosphere.

Then, REALITY hit. You know, the real world. That one made up from stars, planets, atoms, people, not the fantasies of CNN hacks. The email that was supposedly going to rewrite history was from a concerned citizen to the Trump Team suggesting that they look at the documents recently released by Wikileaks. Greenwald says…

The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 — 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online — and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.


There was just one small problem with this story: It was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story — and then hyped it over and over and over — the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.
The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 — which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks — as everyone by then already knew — had publicly promoted. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

Read the whole thing here.

The story was passed around the networks (all colluding with one another) with claims that “multiple sources” had confirmed it, blah, blah. Of course, nobody checked the date on the original email. All the “corroborations” were nothing but lies invented to pretend to credibility.

What will drive into the thick heads of the TV apparatchiks of the Democrat Party that their credibility long ago went up in smoke? Who knows? People that deluded need treatment. Nurse Ratched, here’s a job for you.

Back in the days after the fall of communism in Russia, there was a line going around something like this…. “We knew that the Communists were lying about life in the Soviet Union, but we didn’t realize they were telling the truth about life in the West!”

Doesn’t sound so far off now, does it?

Rebel Yell

Thought for the day

Lifted from the invaluable Takimag:

Probably the best thing about the current nuclear wave of Tranny Mania is that, if left unimpeded, it will destroy women’s sports,    firmly establish that gender is real and that men and women have different mean levels of athletic ability, anger lesbian feminists to the point where they engage in brutal and prolonged bloody street battles to establish dominance over male-to-female trannies, and herald in a new era where everyone returns to traditional gender roles, men stop being such pussies, and women wear chaste and modest Amish clothing while they resume baking pies.


My only objection is to the use of the word “gender” in any context other than linguistic and grammatical. The word is sex. I belong to the male sex. There are only two of them. To use the word “gender” is to accept the left wing idea that sex is a social construction. I refuse absolutely. Clear?