Vision Zero

Wikipedia:

Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project which aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997.[1] A core principle of the vision is that ‘Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society’ rather than the more conventional comparison between costs and benefits, where a monetary value is placed on life and health, and then that value is used to decide how much money to spend on a road network towards the benefit of decreasing how much risk.

Vision Zero is based on four principles:[3]

Ethics: Human life and health are paramount and take priority over mobility and other objectives of the road traffic system
Responsibility: providers and regulators of the road traffic system share responsibility with users;
Safety: road traffic systems should take account of human fallibility and minimize both the opportunities for errors and the harm done when they occur; and
Mechanisms for change: providers and regulators must do their utmost to guarantee the safety of all citizens; they must cooperate with road users; and all three must be ready to change to achieve safety.
Other principles were added to Vision Zero in order to ensure that motorists would comprehend the full extent of the movements purpose:[4]

Traffic deaths and injuries are preventable; therefore, none are acceptable.
·People will make mistakes; the transportation system should be designed so those mistakes aren’t fatal.
·Safety is the primary consideration in transportation decision-making.
Traffic safety solutions must be addressed holistically.

Vision Zero suggests the following “possible long term maximum travel speeds related to the infrastructure, given best practice in vehicle design and 100% restraint use”.[5] These speeds are based on human and automobile limits. For example, the human tolerance for a pedestrian hit by a well-designed car is approximately 30 km/h. If a higher speed in urban areas is desired, the option is to separate pedestrian crossings from the traffic. If not, pedestrian crossings, or zones (or vehicles), must be designed to generate speeds of a maximum of 30 km/h. Similarly, the inherent safety of well-designed cars can be anticipated to be a maximum of 70 km/h in frontal impacts, and 50 km/h in side impacts. Speeds over 100 km/h can be tolerated if the infrastructure is designed to prevent frontal and side impacts.

Posted in Cars | Comments Off on Vision Zero

Steve Sailer: Animal Spirits on the Highway?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The most important, and most expensive, safety feature is mass. Buy the biggest vehicle you can afford to buy gas for. Airbags, stability assist, anti – lock brakes are all pretty standard now. The only unsafe options sold currently are the little tiny boxes that would crumple like a tin can in an accident.

* At the end of the day Steve, it’s all about mass of the vehicle when it comes to safety. Last number I checked was that the average cars weight in 2010 was 4000lbs (it’s probably trending down now). It doesn’t matter if a ‘smart car’ (1800lbs) has a 5 star crash rating if it is run into by a 1992 F250 (6500lbs) with a 1 star rating driven by a Jose… Even though the trend it to make lighter and lighter vehicles (its even creeping into heavy equipment manufacturing) school buses (19,000lbs) still weigh a whole bunch, and mass is the easiest way to engineer safety.

I drive a 3600lb impala (24mpg) here in Houston and my wife drives her Yukon (5000lbs) with my kids in it, and if I had the funds I would send her and the girls out in an up armored HUMVEE for a number of reasons.

Most cars are pretty darn good right now, so in that regard find one that you like that has good reliability record and make sure it weighs as much as you can stand (i.e. afford). Fuel and tires are going to be more expensive of course, but it’s still cheaper than a ride in a helicopter to a hospital.

* There has been a big push by many large companies during that same period to improve driver safety by their employees and thus lower their corporate accident rates and insurance premiums.

My company starting from 2008 now makes us take mandatory on-line driver safety course modules and tests every year. If you don’t pass, you cannot drive a company vehicle or expense a rental car on company business or claim mileage. Further, if you get in an at fault accident at work you will likely now be fired, and every accident, even where you are rear-ended is now a cause for investigation.

My experience is that many people are now driving more safely because of this both at home and work, and that many people benefitted from the driver safety refreshers. Our corporate accident rates have plummeted.

I know this is going on at many companies in the engineering construction industry and also with many of our clients including industrial, petro-chemical, railroads, and more. I suspect it is a very widespread push.

I’ve also seen that some states are now mandating such testing after some traffic violation as a way to lighten the fines and avoiding getting points on your license.

* The burst of the Sand States housing bubble sent many mexican construction workers back home. Maybe that’s why the motor vehicle death rate took a dive at that time.

* Since I felt pretty safe (justifiably) decades ago driving cars which were far less safe in construction and standard (mandatory) equipment than the current models, I don’t think safety is an issue to consider in choosing a modern car. Put simply, the risks are so low and the objective (as oppose to relative) differences so marginal that it just isn’t worth devoting any concern to it.

* If women show their “empowerment’ when they reject all the men they don’t want in their lives, and the rejects have to accept it and go away, then why don’t whites show “empowerment” when we reject the presence of the world’s vagrants we don’t want in our communities and countries?

* Massachusetts increased restrictions on teen drivers around 2007 I believe, such as limiting them to no passengers under 21 in the first six months of driving. Not sure if other states have passed those rules. The stupidest driving I’ve ever done was as a teen with my friends in the car, so if other states followed MA’s example, it could explain it.

* I worked with 70 year old automotive engineers in the 1990′s who all said that just a few simple measures could radically reduce fatalities, but the industry won’t implement them. Like slower speed limits and uniform bumper heights for all vehicles.

* Miles driven went down slightly during the downturn, but it triggered something much bigger. I remember my daily commute going from 1 hour to 20 minutes and talking to coworkers about it. They all saw the same thing. We were all wondering if the economy was really dropping faster then we were being led to believe. The highways in our city were about half full compared to the usual level. Then I read about congestion studies. at just the right levels, a 5-10% drop in the number of daily drivers can result in a 50% drop in the number of cars on the road at any given time. So miles driven dropped slightly, but hours on the road dropped a lot, and number of cars on the road dropped a lot. I could see that saving a lot of lives.

* Cash for clunkers was a Krugman style “pay people to dig holes and lay them to fill them” economic policy so early in the idiocy and scandal sheet of Obama that you’ve forgotten it.

But it did encourage people to get rid of cars that had no airbags. There are no older used cars available anymore. Cash for clunkers took them all away, and people sooner or later, had to replace them with newer cars. The used car market now has all of the major safety improvements like air bags, aide curtain air bags, anti lock brakes.

* What’s interesting about that graphic is that drug overdoses are soaring, but car deaths are declining. In other words, drug use seems to be up (at least pill popping and heroin use anyway) but the addicts aren’t taking their habits out on the rest of us on the road. They’re quietly medicating themselves to death in their domiciles. So to them I offer a hearty thanks!

As for safety features, I think the more bells and whistles that are in your car, the more distracted you become. I recently test drove a 2016 Focus and was rather alarmed at the cockpit. Buttons, gizmos everywhere. The backup camera doesn’t help you when someone is coming at you from the side, only when there’s a stationary object within the camera’s field. Most of these “safety” features unfortunately are aimed at women drivers, who are the real menaces on the road. Ellen Brody comes to mind.

* I can think of a few reasons why road fatalities have gone down. Demographically speaking, the majority of our population consists of the Baby Boomers, and they’re moving into their retirement years. Older people drive smarter than young people, or at least they do until they start becoming senile.

The Cash-for-Clunkers scheme shrank the used-car market dramatically, removing a lot of ‘starter’ cars from the road that the poor used to buy. Consequently, the poor have been forced to take the bus because the price of new cars is so high they can’t afford one.

The price of gas was bouncing around 4 bucks a gallon for a long time, the most expensive it’s ever been, and more people have been staying off the road because of it.

A lot of people have acquired video games, home computers, internet, cell phones, DVD players, big screen TVs, etc., and a lot of bored guys who used to pile into their cars and go joyriding around town looking for action are now at home playing video games, surfing the internet, or watching movies rented from Redbox.

And finally, if you’re the sort of person who couldn’t make your house payments, then you couldn’t make your car payments, either. People who lost their houses in the crash also had their cars repossessed. They also ended taking the bus. This is why owning a car in the ghetto is a bragging point.

In sum, if you can get the poor and dumb off the road, you’ll have fewer accidents. Smart people drive more safely.

* I have a suspicion that the rise in white death rate from opiod overdose has something to do with the medical profession being swarmed by Indian and Pakistani Dr Feelgoods. Immigrant doctors gravitate to the less desirable medical practices but make a lot of money double billing Medicare and Medicaid and have no empathy for their elderly, mentally ill, or financially distressed patients, especially if they are white.

* The pursuit of a career in the Medical profession for Asian/Oriental communities is mostly about status and money, so they will want to get rid of their clients as quick as possible with as little fuss as possible, ergo just prescribe SSRIs or whatever makes the patient feel good and out of the way.

Since Indian/Pakistani doctors come from a culture that doesn’t even care about the less fortunate amongst them, why would they have empathy for White, Black or Hispanic American patients.

* 1) Going from subcompact to compact to midsize yields big safety improvements. The safety improvements really taper off (or go negative!) above mid-size. One of the reasons for that is not obvious: lower volume sales cars have fewer safety features because the car companies trick out the high volume sellers with more options. Mid-size is a very competitive market. Mid-size looks safer than full size. But look at the newer IIHS scores on full size since they’ve improved. Impala has 5 bar score for automated crash prevention for example. Taurus is only 1 bar.

2) SUVs really are safer on average. But some cars do as well as SUVs in death rates.

3) Within a segment the death rates vary greatly. But some have fewer cars sold and so less statistically significant. You need to consider the crash tests too.

4) Rollover death rates are really low. Don’t worry too much about 4 and 5 stars for NHTSA or IIHS roof tests. Electronic stabilization control has made rollovers much less common even among SUVs.

* A quick and dirty test might be to ask yourself, “how would this car hold up if it were T-boned by a speeding SUV?” Getting T-boned is how a lot of people die, or are maimed. The red light runners you don’t expect. That might readjust your decision to buy a cute mini-cooper.

In Steve’s case, since he’s tall, his question might be, “when I sit in this car, is my left leg above, level, or below the steering column?”

He’ll want it to be below the steering column, since if he’s hit hard from the side, the door collapses against his leg, taking it into the steering column turning what was once a functional leg, a bloody goo. Having his leg below the steering column allows it to move towards the center of the car in the event of an ugly side-collision, instead of being crushed between the door and steering column.

The auto collision warning system is a great feature, since it will chirp or gently ring if some problem seems afoot, just like your wife, without the added feature of screaming like a maniac when everything’s under control, like many, many wives.

* As a fellow resident of the metropolitan LA area I like having all the safety technology I can afford. Driving on our freeways and surface streets is very challenging and, as a reminder, you’re not getting any younger, Steve.

We recently bought two Subarus, a 2015 Outback and a 2015 Crosstrek, because they have a lot of safety features and great safety ratings (and reviews) at a very decent price. Both our cars have Eyesight, which is the pre-collision/lane departure system. It has pre-collision warning/braking/throttle management and adaptive cruise control. My husband’s favorite feature is the adaptive cruise control. My sister commutes weekly between states for her job and also loves adaptive cc on her Audi Q7. I’ve had the pre-collision warning give me a heads up on traffic slowing a couple of time when I wasn’t paying close attention on the freeway so I like it a lot. It won’t detect you running into something as narrow as a telephone pole, as someone above noted, but it should have detected the dumpster in his story. The commenter probably wasn’t going fast enough to trigger the system. As for getting inured to the warning beeps, you don’t. The lane departure doesn’t alert as long as you signal before you change lanes, which you should do anyway. The only time the pre-collision wrongly beeps is when a person in front of me is stopped to make a turn and my car thinks I am speeding towards them too fast, when I’ve judged that I can go around them or they’ll be out of my way in time. I’ve only had the brakes kick in once in a case like that.

My Outback also has blind spot detection and rear cross-traffic alert, which is very handy when backing out of parking spots. I find the blind spot detection useful on our freeways when my quick glance over the shoulder can’t tell if a car is in the next lane or farther over. Both cars have steering responsive fog lights that illuminate the corner we’re turning into. I honestly haven’t noticed that feature that much but I think the fog lights do a great job lighting up faded lines on the freeway at night. I have the V6 model of the Outback which also gives me HID lights that my aging eyes like a lot. I find them much brighter with a wider illumination pattern than the lights on my old Sienna minivan. Though not a safety feature, our cars have auto-dimming review and side mirrors which is a feature you don’t think you need but once you have it find it very nice. Our cars also have keyless access/push button start which means I can open doors just by grabbing the handle. As a woman, I find not having to dig for keys in my purse a wonderful, wonderful thing.

The Toyota minivan I traded in for the Subaru was only a 2009 and an upper trim model at that, but my husband and I were surprised how much auto technology had migrated into lower priced cars in that time. You should take a look at Subarus – they’re getting great reviews and we had to order both of ours since they are hot sellers.

Posted in Cars | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Animal Spirits on the Highway?

What Was The Buzziest Trump Media Moment Of 2015?

WP: “Trump calls for ban on Muslim immigrants to the U.S.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on What Was The Buzziest Trump Media Moment Of 2015?

Jonathan Allen: Face it: Trump’s the true GOP favorite now

New York Daily News:

There’s something the chattering classes along the Acela Corridor don’t want to say about Donald Trump: He’s the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination.

For the Republican Party’s conservative — in more ways than one — establishment, it’s as if admitting that will make it come true. So instead, they squabble over who the “real” front-runner is, whether it’s Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. Perhaps, the parlor wisdom holds, a dark horse like Chris Christie can overtake the field at the New Hampshire turn.

For the first few months, the Trump deniers — loud on national television, insistent on Twitter and ever-present in the nation’s leading print and digital outlets — could be called wishful thinkers. With the primaries just around the corner, as many otherwise smart political analysts keep waiting, aching, for conventional order to be restored, it’s time to call them what they are: delusional…

The funniest, saddest theory out there is that Trump — who has been at this more than six months, shows no sign of tiring and clearly craves the limelight, and power — could get so bored of campaigning one day that he exits the race as abruptly as he took command of it. Yeah, and he could replace Tom Brady at quarterback in the Patriots’ first playoff game.

Instead of continuing to fool themselves, Republican pundits should school themselves in what is going on here. Like the last two Republicans who seized the White House from Democratic control, Trump paints in bold, bright colors. He exudes an almost impossible confidence. And he’s speaking directly to deep anxieties and resentments among GOP voters.

That has proven to be a potent combination among an anxious, Obama-weary electorate.

It’s understandable that Republican elites are mortified. A guy they can’t control is taking dead aim at many party orthodoxies, and profiting in the process. A few months ago, GOP insiders regarded a brokered convention as a nightmare. Now, to many, it’s more like a daydream.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Jonathan Allen: Face it: Trump’s the true GOP favorite now

America’s White Murder Rate Is About The Same As For Whites Elsewhere

National Review:

This brings to mind Matt Yglesias’s recent discussion of the white-on-white murder rate in the U.S., an effort to shed light on what some are calling the “fallacy” of talking about black-on-black crime. Yglesias warns that “white-on-white murder in America is out of control,” and to make his point he compares it to white-on-white homicide rates in a number of other countries:

This is not to say that white people are inherently prone to violence. Most whites, obviously, manage to get through life without murdering anyone. And there are many countries full of white people — Norway, Iceland, France, Denmark, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom — where white people murder each other at a much lower rate than you see here in the United States. On the other hand, although people often see criminal behavior as a symptom of poverty, the quantity of murder committed by white people specifically in the United States casts some doubt on this. Per capita GDP is considerably higher here than in France — and the white population in America is considerably richer than the national average — and yet we have more white murderers.

While one can debate what it means for a country to be “full of white people,” it is worth noting that the white share of New Zealand’s population (74 percent) is lower than that of the United States (77.7 percent), and the non-white populations of France and Britain are quite high. Moreover, non-white individuals in these countries are, like non-white individuals in the U.S., more likely to be killed than whites. It is not clear to me how Yglesias calculated the white-on-white murder rate in these societies, but I’m happy to accept that all of them have a lower white-on-white murder rate than the United States.

But if we instead compare the rate of intentional homicides of these countries to the rate for the white population of the U.S., the white U.S. does not in fact look like a dramatic outlier. (I want to stress that I could be getting something wrong here, so please let me know if I’ve gone astray and I will revise accordingly.)

According to statistics gathered by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the 2011 intentional homicide rates per 100,000 for the countries identified by Matt are as follows: Norway (2), Iceland (1), France (1), Denmark (1), New Zealand (1), and the UK (1). The rate for the U.S. as a whole is 5. As of 2011, there were 3,172 white murder victims in the U.S., according to the FBI. The white population as a whole is 245.5 million, including whites who identify as Latinos. This yields an intentional homicide rate of 1.29, a number almost indistinguishable from those of Iceland, France, Denmark, New Zealand, and the UK and lower than the intentional homicide rate of Norway, Canada (2), Belgium (2), Israel (2), and Finland (2). In contrast, there were 2,695 black murder victims in 2011 against a 2013 black population of 41.7 million, which yields an intentional homicide rate of approximately 6.5., a rate higher than that of Kenya (6) but lower than that of Lithuania (7).

Posted in America, Crime, Whites | Comments Off on America’s White Murder Rate Is About The Same As For Whites Elsewhere

SCENES FROM WEIMERICA

PICTURE: “In Weimerica, instead of exchanging recipes and learning to cook, young women exchange dildos and learn how to perform fellatio.”

COMMENTS:

* What the Alternative Right needs to be worth more than internet bandwidth is for us to meet in groups where the men can learn to fulfill the traditional role of men and women can learn to fulfill the traditional role of women.

* So I did a reverse Google Image Search and the image comes from a (((Russian))) School for “Mastering the Art of Oral Sex”.

Now, of course, the sensible thing would be to get married. In marriage, the woman could “practice” on her husband all she wants and the man would have no problem with it. But, of course, going that route would make sense – and we don’t do things that make sense because… CURRENT YEAR.

* Oral sex is sterile and therefore a perversion, regardless of whether it is done in marriage or not.

* I don’t think we should encourage girls to suck penises, because that just amounts to a form of rejection – anything to keep the penis away from the vagina where it should go in a married sexual relationship.

* The historical enemies of European people and their heritage are doing all they can to corrupt European women by ”normalising” perversion and vice. ”They” are able to do it because of their near total control of media. Art / Culture is in the throes of death as a result.

Said Spengler in his The Decline of West: ”One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be, though possibly a coloured canvas and a sheet of notes will remain, because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone.”

A great reset is needed perhaps. Perhaps we are asking for it.

”I am become Death, the destroyer of Worlds” (The Lord in Bhagvad Gita)

* Even the worst blow job is better than the best soufflé.

* How long before someone complains about lack of color diversity in the dildos?

How long before homos demand that they join too?

How long before dorks get together and practice with plastic vaginas?

* We are told that there is no American race, no American language, no American religion, no American normality, no American ethnicity, no American anything…

America means being ‘tolerant’, ‘inclusive’, ‘diverse’, and etc.

That being the case, no one is more American than anyone else. Since Americanism means being ‘welcoming’ and ‘inclusive’ to people all around the world, it means everyone around the world is already American.

Why? Because America feels inclusive toward them.

So, why do we need immigration? If America is all about being inclusive and diverse, then America should declare that entire world is one big America, and so, everyone is in America simply by being in the world.

If anything can be American, then it means everything is American. It would be wrong to say anything is ‘un-American’ since that would not be ‘inclusive’.

No need to come to America to become American. You are American by being you in your own country because Americanism can mean just about anything.

Why should America define ‘American’ as someone who lands on American soil and gains citizenship? Why, that is blood and soil ideology. It is ‘atavistic’.

It is better to say all the world is part of America and that everyone in every corner of the globe is American. To say that only American soil is part of America is ‘exclusive’.

America must be ‘inclusive’ of all the lands around the world. China is part of America. Russia is part of America. France is part of America. Iran is part of America.

To say ‘this is America’ and that is not America’ is a form of ‘us vs them’ mindset. It is wrong. No, ‘this is America’ and ‘that is America’. We are all Americans no matter where you were born or live.

(Interesting that some people don’t come to American but create a good imitation of America in their own nation. In contrast, some people come to America but never become part of America: Hasidim and radical Muslims.)

Posted in America, Sex | Comments Off on SCENES FROM WEIMERICA

Matt Drudge might elect Donald Trump: The GOP front-runner’s secret weapon is the conservative media icon

Salon.com: Donald Trump has already won one important primary, and that’s why he’s not going anywhere any time soon.

Every time Donald Trump says or does something that would destroy the careers of most politicians, he maintains or even gains supporters. It seems that nothing he does erodes his support. His voters are loyal, that’s for sure.

If you want to understand the Trump phenomenon and the durability of his campaign, you have to understand his voters and how they get their information. Many on the left mistakenly think that Trump supporters are “low-information voters.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, it’s the opposite. They consume a lot of news and information, and almost all of it comes from their most trusted source — Matt Drudge.

Matt Drudge is all in for Trump, and he is making sure that his millions of daily readers are getting the news.

Drudge, of course, is the owner of the popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report, a site that records approximately 2 million unique visitors a day with about 700 million page views per month. His readers are loyal, too. A 2014 Pew Research Center study found that the Drudge Report is among the most trusted news sources among conservatives, while most mainstream media outlets register a very high level of distrust from that group.

His loyal readers don’t trust information coming from other sources, and that allows Drudge to carefully curate links to articles that help to further his pro-Trump point of view among that audience. The most pro-Trump conservative news site is Breitbart.com. Breitbart is so pro-Trump that some have charged that the Breitbart company is being paid by Trump for favorable coverage. The truth is that Breitbart’s loyalty is more to Drudge than it is to Trump.

Breitbart was founded by the late Andrew Breitbart, who was the Drudge Report’s first employee. He founded the Breitbart news site after leaving the Drudge Report, but remained personally and professionally close to Drudge. The Breitbart site established itself quickly as the go-to news source for grass-roots anti-establishment conservatives, with an assist from Drudge who regularly posted Breitbart article links on the Drudge Report. Over the years, the Drudge Report has directed millions and millions of readers to Breitbart stories…

Trump has made immigration the centerpiece of his campaign and he credits best-selling author and conservative provocateur Ann Coulter’s new book, “Adios America,” with shaping his view on that issue. Coulter and Drudge are close friends. In fact, they were seen sitting together in the audience at last week’s Republican debate on CNN. She even dedicated one of her many bestsellers to Drudge.

Posted in Donald Trump, Matt Drudge | Comments Off on Matt Drudge might elect Donald Trump: The GOP front-runner’s secret weapon is the conservative media icon

Why Does This White Neighborhood Have No Diversity?

kiryasJoel

Kiryas Joel

Posted in Hasidim | Comments Off on Why Does This White Neighborhood Have No Diversity?

In 2015, The Dark Forces Of The Internet Became A Counterculture

trump1

Joseph Bernstein writes:

Trump performs for the Chanterculture a very similar function to the one he does for his political supporters: giving loud public voice to culturally unsafe (racist, xenophobic, hateful, choose your adjective) sentiments. He serves less as a real politician with policies and strategy than as the protagonist in a counter-narrative of American culture that sees the forces of modern identity-based liberalism on the verge of genuine acceptance and, it fears, domination. The difference on the internet is, Trump doesn’t need to say anything at all — the creators of the new Chanterculture will say it for him.
In a private group called “Can’t Stump Trump” on the mobile chat service Kik, you’ll find teenagers — between trading weightlifting tips, preferences in female body type, and racist memes — heaping praise on the frontrunner in the Republican presidential race. They claim to support him because he is against “immigration from culturally incompatible ethnic groups,” because “he doesn’t support political correctness,” because “[h]e’s not a good candidate for people who care about others, which I don’t. No lives matter.”

COMMENTS:

* Young American and European males reacting negatively to the fact that the already thoroughly declined cultures in their OWN countries are now selling out to the interests of people who are in many ways foreign to them and intend to stay that way?
and using over-the-top humor in order to cope with an issue which most feel very seriously about?

WOW. Just WOW. It’s 2015.

Please, Mr. (((Bernstein))), enlighten us to the pro-diversity, pro-tolerance ways of Israel. Oh, wait…

* 4chan is full of people being contrarians for the sake of being contrarians. To an outsider not interested at all in nuance and very interested in clickbait outrage culture, it can seem like they’re being serious. I wonder why you’d- Oh.

* I don’t know about the Chan stuff, but it’s nice to see a useless buzzfeed “news reporter” wet his pants over people who aren’t particularly pleased with the PC / SJW matrix of bullshit that has been stifiling everyone for far too long. Oh yeah, and ‘Bernstein’ was totally unsurprising.

* A movement? Good try. Just sounds like young punks having fun, like they have since on the Internet since forever. “Chanterculture?” Don’t think that’s going to catch on either….

* “young English-speaking white men, perhaps the least victimized group of people in the world…”

That’s why studies have shown that impoverished white schoolboys are struggling more than any other demographic in British schools, right? I mean, having it drilled into your brain since kindergarten that whites are evil colonialist jew-gassing mass murderers and males are evil potential rapists and that you, a young child are collectively responsible and should feel guilt for these alleged crimes and are basically the reincarnation of hitler if you defend yourself, (oh and by the way, boy-oriented adventure books and recess games promote violence so here, have this doll), can’t possibly have severe mental and psychological consequences on this so-called “most privileged” demographic in the world?

* The most privileged demographic in the world, yet we’re being ethnically cleansed from every white country.

* Donald Trump is the only candidate in either party who is not owned by the special interests of the left and of the right. He represents America’s silent majority of decent men and women.

* The American left talks about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’ while blocking those who promulgate opinions – or even simply ask questions – they dislike, creating virtual and not-so-virtual gated communities that echo those real gated communities a lot of them were raised in. How were oh-so-marginalized people like Quinn and Sarkesian able to pull strings to get a forum at the UN? Elitism and cronyism, of course. The young and the white are truly marginalized. They talk to each other because everybody else has shut them out.

* Intentionally finding the worst of the worst to tar us all with the same brush isn’t an intelligent move. Clearly you’re so biased in your position that you didn’t think to look at these issues from both sides of the coin.

I know what you think you’re fighting for, as I used to be like you. I used to follow all of the gay rights pages happily sharing cringeworthy memes about religious “bigots”.
I used to watch all of Laci Green’s videos and I alllowed my ignorance of her terminology to get the better of me, and instead of researching what I was being indoctrinated with, I blindly agreed and carried on.

If I googled “misogyny” at that time then I would’ve converted from the liberal side much earlier as soon as I realised how that word is overused and incorrectly used at any given opportunity.

I used to be a loud-mouthed obnoxious atheist. I’m still an atheist, however I haven’t posted any pro-atheist/anti-theist content anywhere for a couple of years at least, as I came to realise how I was on the wrong side of the battle.

Being involved with real internet subculture I saw content that persuaded me away from your side. Simply, I saw screenshots of liberal media articles. Stills of liberal media videos. Quotations from liberal media posts.
The only thing anyone ever needs to do in order to see the underlying bullshit is to consume your clickbait for long enough to see it for what it really is.

I’m not a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an anti-semite, or any of the other bullshit labels you wish to apply to people like me. I’m simply against your systematic introduction of the concept of thought-crime. No thought is criminal. No words are criminal, as long as they’re not hate spe- ah. The real issue.

You folks have been pushing that line closer and closer until there’s nothing left to say at all. Anything that makes anyone feel uncomfortable is now somehow hate speech of some kind, and must be silenced.

This isn’t a movement to send women back to the kitchens and blacks back to the slave ships. This is a movement to send intellect and free speech back to institutions, particularly universities, and the media. You don’t realise it but you’re the new authoritarians, and the cultural libertarians want to bring back free speech for everyone -believe it or not, yourselves included. Your political peers may be really fucking stupid, but if everyone can speak, that means everyone can speak.

You’ve got the wrong idea buddy, but when shit hits the fan for you as soon as you say the wrong thing and lose your job and anything you hold dear, this side is always welcoming.

* A Jew against white identity and solidarity? No fucking way!

* White males aren’t reacting this way because they feel like victims- they’re doing it because they can. The narrative is bullshit. They don’t have to sit there and take it while people like “Bernstein” try to nanny them and morally condemn them. That’s why they make so much ironic content- those that try to condemn them really don’t have the moral authority they think they do, and their hypocrisy is hilarious. Gamergate was a year long laugh festival at leftist hypocrites.

* What we ”neo-Nazi White supremacists” believe about our race is the same what most other races in the world believe about theirs. We don’t want to become a minority in a nation built by Whites for Whites. It’ funny how most other ethnicities on earth have immigration policies in place to benefit them, but if Whites want to do the same, it’s the worst thing ever. Also, if you’re going to pull the ”muh slavery, muh colonialism” argument on me, you should know:
1) There were many other non-White civilizations in the world who practiced imperialism. Turkey was a particularly bad here, and I don’t see anyone demanding they need to open their borders and be bred out of existence.
2) Most European nations never practiced imperialism, yet leftists are still forcing mass immigration on us.
3) The countries of USA and Australia were built by Whites, not natives. Natives just happened to live on that land before they were forced out. And if you say that forcing them out was wrong and Whites should apologize, then you’d have to say that about numerous other civilizations. When are you going to demand the Turks give up their land to the Greeks who lived there before? ”You stole that land from X” is a silly argument.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on In 2015, The Dark Forces Of The Internet Became A Counterculture

Why parenting may not matter and why most social science research is probably wrong

Brian Boutwell, a criminologist, writes:

Based on the results of classical twin studies, it just doesn’t appear that parenting—whether mom and dad are permissive or not, read to their kid or not, or whatever else—impacts development as much as we might like to think. Regarding the cross-validation that I mentioned, studies examining identical twins separated at birth and reared apart have repeatedly revealed (in shocking ways) the same thing: these individuals are remarkably similar when in fact they should be utterly different (they have completely different environments, but the same genes).3 Alternatively, non-biologically related adopted children (who have no genetic commonalities) raised together are utterly dissimilar to each other—despite in many cases having decades of exposure to the same parents and home environments.3

One logical explanation for this is a lack of parenting influence for psychological development. Judith Rich Harris made this point forcefully in her book The Nurture Assumption (an absolute must read). 6 As Harris notes, parents are not to blame for their children’s neuroses (beyond the genes they contribute to the manufacturing of that child), nor can they take much credit for their successful psychological adjustment. To put a finer point on what Harris argued, children do not transport the effects of parenting (whatever they might be) outside the home. The socialization of children certainly matters (remember, neither personality nor temperament is 100 percent heritable), but it is not the parents who are the primary “socializers”, that honor goes to the child’s peer group (a fascinating topic, but one that merits its own separate discussion).

Posted in Biology, Family | Comments Off on Why parenting may not matter and why most social science research is probably wrong