Fake election, fake president

The Arizona audit has uncovered more evidence of fraud, sufficient to prove the statistical evidence that has clearly demonstrated how the 2020 election was faked:

According to the Maricopa Arizona Audit account, they are finding “significant discrepancies between the number of ballots therein and the batch reports included in the boxes”.

We already know exactly how the election results were faked due to the algorithm that was reverse engineered. The same ratio of nonexistent votes were injected everywhere, which is why the number of ballots in Maricopa, or anywhere, will not match the number of recorded votes. 

And that’s why there were 159,633,396 votes reported cast, compared to the 128,838,342 in 2016, 126,849,299 in 2012, and 129,446,839 in 2008. Occam’s Razor indicates there were at least 30 million fake digital votes for which there are no ballots to be found.



Ground forces enter Gaza

It appears Netanyahu has not been reading van Creveld, as he has ordered the IDF infantry and armor into Gaza:

Israeli ground troops have attacked Gaza as its air force bombarded targets and officials ordered everyone living within miles of the border to go to bunkers amid fears of fierce retaliation from Hamas.

The Israel Defense Force tweeted from its official account on Thursday night: ‘IDF air and ground troops are currently attacking in the Gaza Strip.’

Military spokesman Lt Col Jonathan Conricus confirmed: ‘There are ground troops attacking in Gaza, together with air forces as well.’

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted moments later: ‘I said that we would charge a very heavy price from Hamas. We do it and we will continue to do it with great intensity. The last word was not said and this operation will continue as long as necessary.’

It is not yet clear whether the offensive was to destroy rocket sites or Hamas leaders or part of an extended campaign to invade Gaza.

Earlier Israel called up 9,000 reservists to bolster its forces as it deployed troops to the border in preparation for the ground assault.

One can’t help but wonder what Hezbollah has in the works, or if they want to see Hamas destroyed by the Israelis. 


The media “corrects” the model

Don’t read too much into my posting this. I’m just a little surprised by the current spin on the latest phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being pushed by the mainstream media. I mean, it has literally never occurred to me to pay any attention to anything that Bella Hadid, or any other fashion, swimsuit, or glamour model, happens to say.

Large numbers of Jews began moving to Ottoman Palestine – a predominately Arab region – following the 1896 publication of Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State, which promoted the idea of a haven for Jews in their ancient homeland to escape anti-Semitism in Europe. There has been a community of Jews in the region for millennia.

The exact population balance is hard to tell, because at the time people frequently avoided the census. According to the Ottoman census of 1878, the Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre districts were home to 403,795 Muslims, representing 85.5 per cent of the population.

Christians made up 9.2 per cent (43,659); Jewish people 5.3 per cent (25,000).

So Bella is wrong to describe Israel as a colony, because Jewish people had already been in the region for centuries. 

The Holocaust increased the pace of arrivals with Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, and many emigrated from Eastern Europe and Russia.

In 1947, after years of Arab-Jewish violence, the UN General Assembly voted for the establishment of two states in Palestine – one Jewish and the other Arab. 

Bella is incorrect in describing ethnic cleansing and a military occupation, because the redrawing of boundaries was done under UN auspices.

Shortly after the UN ruling, the Jewish community in Palestine declared Israel an independent state, prompting hundreds of thousands more Jews to emigrate, and precipitating a war launched by neighboring Arab states.

She is also incorrect in describing the region as being under apartheid, because Israelis and Palestinians are free to choose their own leaders and live under their own rules. 

For their part, Palestinian Arabs say Jews have usurped their ancestral homeland with help from Western powers, including the United States and the United Kingdom. 

The current conflict is notable for pitting Israelis against Israelis, in addition to the depressingly familiar exchange of rocket fire.

Israel’s 21 per cent Arab minority – Palestinian by heritage, Israeli by citizenship – is mostly descended from the Palestinians who lived under Ottoman and then British colonial rule before staying in Israel after the country’s 1948 creation.

First, it’s strange that the British media felt it necessary to cover and “correct” Bella Hadid’s statements. This wouldn’t have happened in years past, and tends to indicate a public shift toward the Palestinian perspective and rather less of the Boomer sympathy for “plucky little Israel, our greatest ally.”

Second, whoever is handling the “corrections” is almost ludicrously incompetent. If the mere idea of troubling to correct a model’s opinion wasn’t bad enough, doing so in an obviously inept manner just makes it that much worse. A “colony” is defined as “a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.” This means the fact that there were already a few thousand Jews in the region doesn’t change the fact that groups of people left Poland, Russia, and other places where their ancestors had resided for generations in order to settle in British Palestine.

Nor is it incorrect to describe the ethnic cleansing and military occupation taking place there as ethnic cleansing and military occupation simply because the UN drew some boundaries. The UN also recognized the India-Pakistan boundary after the 1947 partition, and the post-partition movement of peoples that took place there was arguably the largest in human history. And no one hesitates to describe that movement as religious cleansing.

While it is incorrect to refer to any political system as “Apartheid” other than the historical South African policy, it is also indisputable that the laws of Israel are specifically designed to ensure that the nation of Israel is dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation’s Jewish population, as per the Basic Law’s assertion that the Jewish people have the unique claim to national self-determination in the State of Israel. While technically incorrect, apartheid is a perfectly reasonable way to describe these policies at a rhetorical level.

My personal opinion is that all of the historical posturings on both sides are pointless. The original Jewish claim is based on the right of conquest of the Land of Canaan, so they cannot reasonably complain if any other group of people decides to lay claim on the same basis. The situation is difficult, but it is hardly insoluble; a positive resolution will simply require a lot more carrot and a lot less stick.

Of considerably more concern to me is the fact that those who claim that Palestine is not a country and the Palestinians are not a people are the exact same individuals who claim that America is just an idea, Americans are not a people, and Western Civilization is nothing more than combination of Judaism and Greek philosophy.



The modern constant

Is the low-intensity violent squabbling over territory between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Israeli Martin van Creveld provides his usual insightful perspective.

Several factors explain the low number of casualties. First, the rockets coming from Gaza are enormously inaccurate. They hit targets, if they do, almost at random. Second, the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system works better than anyone had expected.  The system has the inestimable advantage in that it can calculate the places where the rockets will land. Consequently it only goes into action against those—approximately one in five or six—that are clearly about to hit an inhabited area. The outcome is vast savings; in some cases, realizing that the incoming rockets are not going to hit anybody or anything, the authorities do not even bother to sound the alarm. Third, civil defense seems to be working well; people obey instructions and are, in any case, getting used to this kind of thing. Fourth, as always in war, one needs luck.

In turn, the small number of Arab casualties and the limited amount of damage inflicted has enabled the government of Israel to keep the lid on its own actions in the face of extremist demands. It suggests a degree of control and precision never before attained or maintained in any war in history. But while the Israelis have been extremely effective in avoiding collateral deaths, the impact of their strikes against Hamas’ short-range rockets in particular is limited.

Israel’s lucky run will not last forever.  Sooner or later, a Hamas rocket that for one reason or another has not been intercepted is bound to hit a real target in Israel and cause real damage. Imagine a school or kindergarten being hit, resulting in numerous deaths. In that case public pressure on the government and the Israel Defense Forces “to do something” will mount until it becomes intolerable.

What can the IDF do? Not much, it would seem. It can give up some restraints and kill more—far more—people in Gaza in the hope of terrorizing Hamas into surrender. However, such a solution, if that is the proper term, will not necessarily yield results while certainly drawing the ire of much of the world. It can send in ground troops to tackle the kind of targets, such as tunnels, that cannot be reached from the air. However, doing so will almost certainly lead to just the kind of friendly casualties that the IDF, by striking from the air, has sought to avoid.

Whether a ground operation can kill or capture sufficient Hamas members to break the backbone of the organization is also doubtful. Even supposing it can do so, the outcome may well be the kind of political vacuum in which other, perhaps more extreme, organizations such as the Islamic Jihad will flourish. Either way, how long will such an operation last? And how are the forces ever going to withdraw, given the likelihood that, by doing so, they will only be preparing for the next round?

And so the most likely outcome is a struggle of attrition. 

Now, consider that he wrote that in July, 2014….


Canceling biology

Richard Dawkins certainly never saw this coming. I warned him, and everyone, that post-Christianity is not compatible with science, indeed, that Christianity was not only necessary for scientody, but is arguably necessary for a functional scientistry as well. Now we’re learning that even the history of science is being canceled:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of ‘racist’ scientists as part of a guide to ‘decolonise’ its biology curriculum. 

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help ‘tackle racial injustice’ by ‘reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science’.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 ‘problematic’ scientific figures – including Darwin – whose views ‘influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data’. 

An explanation next to the 19th century naturalist’s name says that Darwin ‘believed that his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others’.

With the exception of James Watson, the list of problematic scientific figures reads like a who’s who of atheist heroes. Atheists have falsely claimed that science and Christianity are incompatible for decades, but what they’ve learned in just three short years is that it is science and social justice which are totally incapable of coexisting.

Ronald Fisher

Known for: Pioneered the application of statistical procedures to the design of scientific experiments. He was a Professor in the Eugenics department at University College London.

Sheffield’s view: He believed that races differed ‘in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development’.

One of his works, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, ‘endorses colonialism, white supremacy, and eugenics and discusses his belief in the higher and lower genetic value of people according to their race’.

Carl Linnaeus

Known for: Formalising the modern system of naming organisms

Sheffield’s view: He applied his system of classification to position human races, with white Europeans at the top, and black, indigenous, and other people of colour groups gradually descending his hierarchy.

James Watson 

Known for: Proposing the double helix structure of the DNA molecule with Francis Crick

Sheffield’s view: The 93-year-old has previously made outwardly racist public comments about the innate inequality of people from different races, particularly with regards to intelligence.

Thomas Henry Huxley 

Known for: Supporting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and proposing connections between development of organisms and their evolutionary histories.

Sheffield’s view: Huxley’s belief that ‘no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes, that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man’ was used as justification for segregation. 

Francis Galton

Known for: Coining the term ‘eugenics’, he was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences.

Sheffield’s view: He was obsessed with a eugenic ‘utopia’ in which the genetic elite were encouraged to breed, segregated from the sterilised underclass. It has been said that his work ‘invented racism’.

Karl Pearson

Known for: Pioneering work in mathematical statistics and creating a methodology to identify correlations.

Sheffield’s view: He believed strongly in racial segregation and that races other than his own were inferior. 

Alfred Russell Wallace

Known for: Co-developing the theory of natural selection and evolution with Charles Darwin, something Darwin is most often credited for.

Sheffield’s view: He carried out all of his field observations in a colonial environment. In a similar concept to the ‘Wallace line’ separating biological realms, he drew a boundary line between what he classified as different ethnic groups in the colonial Dutch East Indies.

Henry Walter Bates

Known for: Expeditions of the Amazon rainforests where his studies led him to propose the idea of mimicry in unrelated animal species. 

Sheffield’s view: Like Darwin and other explorers, he travelled and collected specimens from colonial South America and was a proponent of colonialism in the Amazon.

Julian Huxley

Known for: Supporting the theory of natural selection, he also worked for the Zoological Society of London and was the first director of UNESCO. His brother was the writer Aldous Huxley.

Sheffield’s view: He was a prominent figure in British Eugenics Society and believed that the lower classes were genetically inferior and should be prevented from reproducing and even sterilised.

JBS Haldane

Known for: Introducing the ‘primordial soup theory’, which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life.

Sheffield’s view: He published a book in 1924 describing the use of in vitro fertilisation for eugenics purposes. 


More useless than the French

 After 60 years of completely failing to defend America’s borders or protect the nation from invasion, a group of retired US military officers is… encouraging everyone to get involved in local and state politics.

More than 120 retired generals, admirals, and military officers signed a letter that warned that the United States is embroiled in an existential fight and called on “all citizens” to get involved in local and state politics.

“We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty,” stated the letter (pdf), which was signed by 124 former generals and admirals, released by “Flag Officers 4 America.”

The letter also posited that opposition to proposed bills and laws that would strengthen election initiatives has troublesome implications.

“Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such commonsense controls ‘racist’ in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections,” the letter added.

According to the Flag Officers 4 America website, it is a group of former military leaders who “pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,” who are “domestic” and “foreign.”

Of note, signatories of the letter include retired Army Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc—a Senate candidate in New Hampshire, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, and retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter—who was the deputy national security adviser for President Ronald Reagan.

“China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically, and technologically. We must impose more sanctions and restrictions to impede their world domination goal and protect America’s interests,” their letter also said.

OK, Boomers. The extent to which this letter completely misses the point and the problems is downright amusing. Civnattery and vooting harder will accomplish precisely nothing.

What a joke. With an officer class like this, no wonder the USA hasn’t been capable of defeating any foe bigger than Panama.