Michigan Crowd Chants ‘Nobel!’ When Trump Brings Up North Korea

Michigan Crowd Chants ‘Nobel!’ When Trump Brings Up North Korea, by Tyler O’Neil.

On Saturday night, President Donald Trump opted to speak at a campaign-style rally in Michigan instead of addressing the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. The crowd proved so enthusiastic, they would have given the president the Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaking of China’s President Xi Jinping, the president said, “He’s been a great help on the border with North Korea and a lot of good things are happening there.”

Moments later, one loud voice started chanting, “Nobel! Nobel!” Flattered, President Trump chuckled with understanding, saying “Nobel” and walking away from the podium.

The crowd took up the chant, “Nobel! Nobel! Nobel!” for ten seconds as the leader of the free world stood speechless before the podium. He looked like he was on top of the world.

“That’s very nice, thank you. That’s very nice,” the president said, truly meaning his words. “Nobel,” he said, with a massive grin on his face.

Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Price on his first 11 days in office — the nomination period closed then. But as everyone knows, he was awarded it for being left-wing and black — just virtue signalling and self-congratulations by the Norwegian Prize committee. Donald Trump could walk on water and their only comment would be to complain that he cannot swim.

How The Death Penalty Saved Civilization

How The Death Penalty Saved Civilization, by Lance Welton.

The first scholars to develop this king of all Left-triggering ideas were Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost and the late University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending. …

When Europe became Christian, the death penalty was abolished. Right up until the beginning of the Middle Ages, people were left to settle their own disputes by fighting each other or demanding, from the state, that the murderer pay a fine for killing their relative. But, as Frost and Harpending put it, the Church gradually came to accept that, the “wicked” should be executed “so that the good can live in peace.”

With biblical justification, more and more crimes became subject to the death penalty. By the High Middle Ages, every single felony (any crime serious enough to have traditionally warranted the confiscation of property) was met with the hangman’s noose.

Those sent to the gallows were almost always high-testosterone young men prone to violent crime. In fact, Frost and Harpending calculated that one percent of the male population were executed every generation throughout the Middle Ages. And another one percent were killed at the scene of the crime or died in fetid prisons awaiting trial or execution. So two percent of young men were eliminated every generation.

And because they tended to be young, this process meant that they had fewer children than if they hadn’t been executed. Thus, they would have passed on fewer of their genes.

It’s here that Frost and Harpending perceptively draw their conclusion. Capital punishment must have changed the nature of European personality — by, in effect, culling out the psychopaths.

Criminality is strongly predicted by three key traits associated with psychopathology:

  • Low impulse
  • controlLow altruism
  • Low mental stability.

These traits are at least 50 percent genetic.

The murder rate collapsed between the 14th and 20th centuries and they statistically proved that part of the reason for this was the continual killing of the most impulsive and disagreeable young males every generation. The pool of violent men essentially dried up.

Those who were executed were overwhelmingly poor, with poverty associated with poor impulse control and low altruism. They had to be extremely poor because, in England at least, if you could read, then you could avoid execution by claiming “benefit of the clergy.”

With modern progressive immigration policies, the West now imports people from societies that haven’t had the same genetic experience –and have a much higher rate of criminality. The left of course deny it all.

But wait, it gets even more non-PC:

[Anthropologist Edward Dutton and Swedish psychologist Guy Madison] use the same statistical methods as Frost and Harpending to show that widespread execution was partly behind English people becoming more religious between the Medieval Era and the 16th century.

They argue that the English definitely became more religious, as evidenced by higher and higher percentages becoming monks and nuns, while heresy and witchcraft, deviations from accepted practice, grew increasingly unacceptable. And they estimate that religiousness is about 40 percent genetic, based on twin studies, and is predicted by exactly the same characteristics that predict not being a criminal: high altruism, high impulse control, and high mental stability. …

Precisely because Europeans were so intensely Christian, they didn’t adopt contraception, something which all previous civilizations had done when they got to about the stage the West reached in the early 18th century. Once contraception was adopted, it was taken up by cleverer and more educated people and used more efficiently by them, due to their higher IQ and better foresight. …

Meisenberg shows this is exactly what happened in Greece and Rome. But because of this religious rejection of contraception, it didn’t happen in the modern West until much later in our development. This meant that we could get to the Industrial Revolution before the positive correlation between IQ and number of surviving children, which you see in all primitive societies, went into reverse due to contraception.

So, in a roundabout way, widespread execution made us more religious. And, paradoxically, if that hadn’t happened, … IQ would have declined, and we would have returned to the Dark Ages, just like the Romans and Greeks and Muslims did before us.

Labor’s identity politics – the left’s blight on the hill

Labor’s identity politics – the left’s blight on the hill, by Adam Creighton.

The Labor Party’s new policy platform provides an opportunity to test the idea that parties of the left are increasingly mouthpieces for the concerns and pieties of the ­educated elite.

A striking analysis by economist Thomas Piketty has shown how the main left-of-centre parties in Britain, the US and France have steadily transformed from being parties of workers to being parties of high education since the 1950s.

He didn’t include Australia but Labor’s new 211-page document slated for discussion at Labor’s ­national conference — “a clear statement of Labor’s beliefs, values and program for government” — helps provide the answer here.

Mentions of “intersex” — that’s the “I” in LGBTIQ, in case you didn’t know — occur 63 times, ahead of those more esoteric concerns such as “wealth” (61 times) and “inequality” (47). Whatever intersex means — or is — it’s also far more important than “ownership” (12 mentions), “production” (18) and “distribution” (10).

That “bisexual” out-mentions “poverty”, 31 to 23, says it all. Ben Chifley and Bill McKell, Labor leaders who once championed the dignity and incomes of ordinary men and women, whatever their bedroom proclivities, must be turning in their graves. The light on the hill is now more like a strobe disco ball in a gay nightclub.

The 15 mentions of “LGBTIQ” and a further 21 of “LGBTI” — ­together roughly on par with “homelessness” (41) — perhaps ­reflects the ascendant intersex faction’s Bolshevik-style crushing of the formerly dominant queers, whose more mainstream views are going out of style.

But I digress. Why is the oldest political party in Australia so ­obsessed with this marginal, elitist rubbish? Why does it care about bisexuality anyway, when, as Woody Allen said, it immediately doubles your chance of a date on Saturday night.

At least upper-class women are still front of mind, given Labor’s promise to “promote diversity in corporate Australia, including a quota of 50 per cent on government boards”. Thank God for champions of change like AMP’s Catherine Brenner. …

What’s not important to New Labor:

In the section on banking you may have expected something with economic teeth. Labor clamoured for this royal commission after all. Breaking the banks apart perhaps, or changing the law to make limited liability contingent on higher taxes on top bankers? Nothing. What about how the ­financial sector siphons billions in fees each year from ordinary people — not all of them alive — arguably the biggest public policy issue in Australia today? Not a peep. …

What is important:

Labor will “establish a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex ­Status issues, to work across government and the private sector”. Just what we need, someone else on $339,460 a year to tweet and ­foment grievance. …

The current left and right parties, handing out the sinecures:

Whatever their rhetoric, Piketty suggests so-called left and right-wing parties have ditched their respective advocacy for redistribution on the one hand or genuine free markets. “The ‘left’ has become the party of the intellectual elite or the Brahmin left, while the ‘right’ can be viewed as the party of the business elite, or the ‘Merchant right’,” he says.

Super is a boon for the finance industry and a tax shelter for the well-off, but a dud for everyone else:

Far from just neglecting the poor, Labor’s determination to ratchet up the rate of compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent positively hurts them. “Raising the super guarantee doesn’t just ­reduce workers’ take-home pay, it also hits the federal budget. It is a myth that superannuation reduces government spending on ­retirement,” concludes the Grattan Institute in a paper out today.

Ok, this is from a US context, but it graphically illustrates how “progressivism” has changed”:

Will There Always Be an England?

Will There Always Be an England? By Andrew Sullivan.

London is close to unrecognizable from the city I knew as a teen. Its skyline has a touch of Dubai to it, the wealth is tangible, even obscene, the prices absurd, the energy young and incredibly diverse.

“It’s not our capital any more, is it?” my brother asks, as if seeking confirmation from me. I can see what he means, by virtue of not being there continuously as change accumulated and transformed. In a little less than a week in London, I have yet to buy anything from someone English. Everywhere I hear foreign accents or one of the more than 300 languages London now incorporates. Thirty-seven percent of the capital’s population is foreign-born — the same as New York City — and that share is predicted to be 50 percent by 2031. But New York has always been a thriving immigrant city; newcomers have always defined the place, and it’s just one of several vast metropoles in America. But London is the overwhelmingly dominant city in the U.K., and has never previously been a city of immigrants in the English psyche. London, in fact, is synonymous with the essence of England, and has been a national center since the Roman era. The counties surrounding it are called the Home Counties, because London has always been home. …

Last week’s PRRI/Atlantic study of the key voters who brought us Trump brings this out with stunning and, for me, decisive clarity:

Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, ‘things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.’ …

What few on the left seem to see is that cultural anxiety, given the ethnic and cultural transformation of the last few decades, is an entirely predictable and entirely understandable response. If people felt that someone in charge actually saw their point of view, sympathized with it, and attempted even minor changes to accommodate it, we would have a different politics. But all they had was Trump. And all they still have is Trump. …

[Britain] has long accepted immigrants, but until the 1950s, net immigration was a rounding error. Since then, it has exploded. In the last 20 years, it has reached American levels. …

It wasn’t their economic insecurity that gave us Brexit. It was that no one in charge even sensed their unease. Elites — and I count myself among the guilty — gave them nothing by way of reassurance or even a sense that they were understood instead of reviled. …

Home is indeed where one starts from. Change it too rapidly and it will disintegrate. We have been fools on mass immigration, we have been fools for preventing an honest debate about the benefits and drawbacks of diversity, and we have been contemptible in our contempt for so many of our fellow citizens. Both countries are now paying a terrible, terrible price.