A news report today out of North Korea suggests that its leader, Kim Jong Un, has stepped back from a plan to test fire four missiles in the direction of Guam.
This could be related to China’s decision this week, under strong pressure from the Trump administration, to finally go along with UN sanctions and ban imports of iron, lead, and coal from North Korea.
The last few days have not been good ones for American free speech and freedom. Not only have we seen violence perpetrated to silence the free expression of dissent, we have seen an effort after the fact to use that violence as a club for destroying any opposition to the liberal and leftist dogma that dominates the American political and academic community.
The following links will provide a nice overview of how our cultural elites, especially on the left, have responded to this weekend’s terrible events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where one person was killed and almost twenty injured when a car rammed into a crowd of competing racist demonstrators.
That is how our elites responded, not with conciliatory remarks aimed at bringing people together, but with anger and hate, hate of Trump, hate of the Republican Party, hate of the NRA, hate of whites, hate for anyone that dared disagree with their leftist agenda. Then, when Trump issued a statement condemning all violence in the name of bigotry, the response was equally hateful:
» Read more
A dispute over the design of a new Chinese optical telescope has broken out between the astronomers who will use it and the engineers who will build it.
In April, an international committee convened by [Chinese Academy of Science’s] Center for Astronomical Mega-Science, which is responsible for the project, reviewed the competing designs and recommended the three-mirror option [the preference of astronomer Jiansheng Chen and China’s astronomers]. On 10 July, [Xiangqun Cui, the instrument’s chief engineer] organized her own review committee that picked the SYZ design as better. Cui’s panel “leaned toward one side,” Chen says. And one member says that the three-mirror design was not sufficiently presented, partly because no one from the Huazhong team was there. Cui and Su explain in their open letter that a member of their own group who knows it well introduced the Huazhong design. “Members were repeatedly reminded they could abstain from voting,” they write. One-third of the 21 committee members did abstain.
Meanwhile, to date, more than 130 young astronomers have signed an open letter to the astronomical community urging that the recommendations of the international panel be respected.
The fundamental disagreement, according to Chen, is “whether a large science project should be technically or scientifically oriented.” Cui and Su say the choice is between incorporating “rapidly developing new technologies” that ensure a long life for the facility, or “simply replicating a 10-meter telescope built 30 years ago.”
This spat reinforces the impression gained from the recent other story about China’s inability to find a manager for its newly built radio telescope. Its top-down management approach (where decisions are made by well-connected powerful bureaucrats at the top of the chain of command) produces office politics that generally does not lead to good technical decisions.
Racism goes all around: A demonstration of white nationalists gathered today at the University of Virginia, holding torches and shouting pro-white chants.
Sharing a photo of the torch-bearing march on Friday, Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler wrote on Twitter, “Incredible moment for white people who’ve had it up to here & aren’t going to take it anymore. Tomorrow we #Unitethe Right #Charlottesville.”
Prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer, who led a similar march in Charlottesville in May, was also at the rally on Friday night.
You hate people merely because they are white, and what you will get is alliances forming to defend whites, focused entirely on their race. The result is that everyone becomes bigoted and racist.
It is important to remind everyone that no one has been a slave in the United states in more than 150 years, and discrimination solely because of race ended pretty much a half century ago. The nation, which is dominated by whites, elected a black president twice in the past decade. For minorities to hate whites today is absurd, and can only be founded on the basis of race hatred. For white leftists to do it is even more absurd, and is the epitome of self-hatred.
As always, the battle here is between those who treat each person as an individual, and those who can only see them as members of a group. The former believes in individual freedom and personal responsibility. The latter believes in bigotry and racism. I proudly rank myself in the former group. To which group do you belong?
Link here. This memo clarifies for everyone what is expected of Google employees. I especially find this quote informative:
Please remember, as you no doubt read in the Employee Handbook, Google’s commitment to diversity is complete and unequivocal. Any variance from diversity is not permitted and will be dealt with immediately. It is only when all of us think exactly the same thoughts that we can achieve perfect diversity.
Of course, Google is also completely committed to the advancement of science and human knowledge. If history has taught us anything, it is that science can only flourish where the allowable topics of discussion are highly circumscribed. Approved subjects of conversation are posted throughout the campus, so please look before you speak.
I believe some of the problem lately has been a simple misunderstanding of my last memo. Unfortunately, I mistyped that Google “approves of free speech.” I meant to write that Google must “approve free speech.” I want all of our employees to feel perfectly free to express themselves however their political, moral, or religious beliefs impel them; provided of course that they receive prior written authorization.
Read it all. It really explains everything.
Want to see bigotry on display? Read this New York magazine article: Political Peroxide: Blonde privilege
Attributes associated with whiteness — light skin, narrow noses — have dominated American beauty ideals as long as there’s been such a thing. Which means that blondness has always been … charged: The ’50s gave us Doris Day, who once said that her only ambition ever had been to “be a housewife in a good marriage” (“Preordination had other plans”). To be blonde was to be a good American woman, pure of intention and heart — which implied also, of course, that to be a good American woman, pure of intention and heart, meant being blonde. Betty was blonde, Veronica was trouble. Ditto Sandy and Rizzo. Hitchcock liked to cast blondes because he said they made the best victims: “The color was virgin snow that shows up the bloody footprints.”
Fox News and Donald Trump have given blonde hair a new chapter: Now, blonde is the color of the right, for whom whiteness has become a hallmark. Over the past decade or so, as inclusiveness became the hallmark of Obama-era liberals, the left found feminist icons in Rachel Maddow, Samantha Power, and Michelle Obama, who make no apologies for their failure to fit traditional ideals. But #MAGA, Fox News America is a place where all the classic signifiers of privilege and wealth work on overdrive: country-club-issue blue blazers with brass buttons and khaki pants, and above all else, for women, that yellow-blonde, carefully tended hair — a dog whistle of whiteness, an unspoken declaration of values, a wink-wink to the power of racial privilege and to the 1980s vibe that pervades a movement led by a man who still believes in the guilt of the Central Park Five. During that Republican Preppy Handbook era, when Dynasty and Dallas were on TV, the type of conspicuous ostentation that would lead a real-estate developer to sheath his entire apartment in gold leaf was actually in vogue. Look at the movies: Jake’s girlfriend in Sixteen Candles with the lush swoop of thick, blonde locks that ended up stuck in a door (losing the boyfriend to a redhead of all things meant, literally, losing that luscious hair). Johnny, the villain of the Karate Kid films, had a decisive swoosh of blond hair that obscured his headband. We knew, the moment we saw that hair, that small, ethnic Daniel was up against more than another teenager, he was up against privilege itself. [emphasis mine]
Not only is this incredibly stupid, it reeks of hatred and bigotry. You have blond hair? You must associate with white supremacists. You choose to dye your hair blond? You must be a white supremacist!
Don’t be surprised when these leftwing progressive bigots take the next step and strongly suggest that we need a final solution to this problem of “whiteness,” that maybe we should round up all these evil whites so they can’t do society any harm anymore.
Academic bigotry: Stanford University is planning to offer a course in the fall that will study the evils of “whiteness” in order to figure out how to abolish it.
Citing pundits who say “the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise of white identity politics in the United States,” the upper-level anthropology seminar will draw “from the field of whiteness studies and from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new directions.”
Questions to be posed throughout the semester include: “Does white identity politics exist?” and “How is a concept like white identity to be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white privilege, and whiteness?”
“Students will consider the perils and possibilities of different political practices,” according to the course description, “including abolishing whiteness or coming to terms with white identity.” The course will be taught by instructor John Patrick Moran. Reached by e-mail, Moran declined to comment, instead directing The College Fix to Stanford communication’s office.
Ernest Miranda, a spokesman for Stanford, told The Fix via e-mail that “‘abolishing whiteness’ is a concept put forward in the 1990s by a number of white historians. Their belief was that if other white people would, like them, stop identifying politically as white, it would help end inequalities.”
If the course was solely designed to look at bigotry, by all races and ethnic groups, I’d applaud it. That it is specifically aimed at only whites and white nationalism tells me instead that this is merely a bigoted way to attack whites, and whites only, as well as to politically smear the people who voted for Trump (as indicated by the first paragraph in the quote above). I note also that this course doesn’t seem to have a problem with those people who focus on their “black identity,” even as it condemns those who focus on their “white identity.” Both are bad, since they are both race-based and bigoted. That the course picks on only one illustrates its bigotry.
If you give money to Stanford University, you might consider this information before you consider future donations.
This is a victory: Southern Methodist University (SMU) has backed down from a decision to shift its annual 9/11 memorial to a remote place on campus so that it might not offend some students.
[In its original decision] the campus administration cited a new “lawn display” policy which, it claimed, tries to balance “the right of all members of the SMU community to express their opinions” and the right to “avoid messages that are triggering, harmful, or harassing.”
A bipartisan coalition of students blasted the policy, including the SMU College Democrats whose co-vice president said “If expression is banned from a part of this campus, that is detrimental to the education of the students.” Fox News reports SMU donors, alumni and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined the criticism, as well.
The school changed its mind late Wednesday. “I thank the students from across campus who came together in the spirit of mutual respect and civil discourse to achieve this outcome,” SMU President R. Gerald Turner said in a prepared statement. “Throughout these discussions, students have expressed their commitment to freedom of expression – a value the University shares.”
Conservatives on campus expressed guarded caution, noting that though the university has backed down here, it has also not yet revised its new more restrictive speech policies.
In an official editorial, China has admitted that it will do nothing to stop North Korea from using missiles to attack the US territory of Guam.
Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China’s interests, China will respond with a firm hand.
China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.
In other words, China will not stop North Korea from carrying out its attacks, but if it does so China will also not do anything if the U.S. responds.
The editorial is intellectually dishonest however. It also states,
The real danger is that such a reckless game may lead to miscalculations and a strategic “war.” That is to say, neither Washington nor Pyongyang really wants war, but a war could break out anyway as they do not have the experience of putting such an extreme game under control. [emphasis mine]
The highlighted words are simply wrong. It has been very clear now for several years that North Korea is eager for war, and has been doing everything it can to instigate a conflict.
Link here. Considering the increasingly fascist attitude of Google towards its employees and its users, I thought it worthwhile to provide this list of alternatives. I use Startpage, which isn’t listed because it is actually a slightly different version of Ixquick.
There is no reason to blindly and mindlessly depend on Google. There are many choices out there. Use your freedom and choose. It is our own personal responsibility to do so.
Bigoted intelligentsia: A Minnesota writing conference was cancelled yesterday because people complained the line-up of speakers did not have enough minorities.
Twenty-two authors were set to speak at the event, but only one had an ethnic background. William Alexander, winner of a National Book Award, is a Cuban-American author. Udesen said the event was canceled in part because of the lack of diversity in the line-up, but also because not enough people were going to attend.
[Britt Udesen, executive director of the event] added that they invited more than 30 people of color to speak at the conference, but none accepted the invitation.
So, now it is unacceptable to even hold an event if minorities are not interested in participated. They must be there, since whites don’t count.
Utter and blatant bigotry. That’s all this is.
Bigoted academia: For the second year in a row Brandeis University is offering a racist $10K journalism grant only to minorities and women, specifically excluding white males.
The grant’s entire eligibility requirements, from the university’s press release, are quite blunt:
Applications from women and journalists of color working in any type of media — print, audio, video, online — will be considered.
Applicants must be U.S. citizens but can be reporting from abroad.
As the article above notes, federal law forbids any organization that receives federal funds (as Brandeis does) from discriminating based on either sex or race. But then, bigotry today in the leftwing community is perfectly all right, as long as you are oppressing whites or men.
I think Lous Brandeis, for whom this university is named, would be horrified by its actions.
