• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BaalChatzaf

  1. 18 hours ago, Peter said:

    Nicky wrote on another site: For instance, in NYC (or NYS, I'm citing this out of memory, so I'm not entirely sure which), an overwhelming majority of genius level IQ tested high-school students are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews. A crazy amount, something like 49 out of 50 "genius" IQ students in NY are Jewish. That's a natural consequence of Ashkenazi Jews being, on average, about ten points above the average population, in IQ. Which is not that much. But small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences when it comes to outliers (in this case, geniuses). end quote


    Those statistics  are reasonably sound.  But  what of the causes?  There is a hypothesis which I moderately subscribe to , to wit, the mating  customs of Ashkenazim in Europe  put a high value on males who mastered the intricacies of the Babylonian Talmud and the very strict reasoning  of the Scholars, Rabbis and Sages. These bright young fellows had their pick of the women in the villages and shtetils.  The matchmakers (marriages were arranged  to advantage the families of the women who paid  a bride prices for  a good husband)  would often pair up the brilliant young  Talmud-Bucher  with the daughter of the richest man in the Shtetel.   It turns out this was a breeding program to make intelligent children (although the mechanisms of human biological inheritance were unknown at this time).  Now contrast this with how Catholics arranged things.  The best and the brightest sons  were encouraged to go into the Priesthood where their opportunities for biological mating were .... limited.....  So the Catholics were taking half of the gene pool for intelligence out of circulation.  There you have a crude and semi-plausible account for why the Ashkenazim   were "so  smart".  Also for cultural reasons every Jewish male was encouraged to become as learned as he could in matters of Talmud and Torah.

    The logic of and about the Talmud (and logic there was)   was a kind  of hybrid between inferential logic and inductive logic.  It was, at its root  Bayesian reasoning.   To become an accomplished Talmud scholar of repute  required decades of study.  Jews have traditionally put a high premium on "being smart"  and practical!  It is just the thing one needs  to survive in a hostile or potentially hostile environment. So in a strange way, the anti-Semites promoted the  breeding of  super-smart Jews.  One had to have one's wits firmly attached to survive in that environment.

    Breeding programs  of other sorts have emerged in the Asiatic nations.  China is renowned  for  turning out its share (and more than their share) of very smart people.  Some thousands of years ago China was several light years ahead of Europe in both abstract thinking and practical engineering.  China, which has dumped Lenin and Marx for good old practical reasons is in the  process of reclaiming its eminent position in the world of ideas and technology.  Japan has also done well  and in the smaller  Asiatic nations as wells as Japan and China  the "tiger-moms" who push their son's  unmercifully is a known phenomena.  There is a shortage of women in the Asiatic nations (sons are preferred to daughters for cultural reasons)  so the brightest and most ambitious males are more likely to "score" in the reproductive  struggle and competition.  

    And so it goes.  A combination of genetics and culture, in some cases, is an effective breeding program  for intelligence. 


    Ba'al  Chatzaf  --- a descendant of Abraham, if not in the flesh, then certainly in the spirit.


    • Like 1
  2. On 5/18/2019 at 9:41 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Australia Just Did A Trump

    It looks like Australia just had an election that was reminiscent of 2016 in the US.


    I've only skimmed this issue online and I know precious little about Australia, but it looks like the entire establishment and press corps. were 1,000,000,000% sure of the election results favoring the left, with poll after poll after poll.

    Also, they were badgering Scott Morrison (the incumbent PM who won) to say whether he would step down if he lost.

    The press I saw seemed just like the press against Trump. Just switch out the names and I bet the texts of many Australian news articles were identical to anti-Trump ones here in the US.

    Here's an article about the election win from The Daily Mail for the sake of info:

    Scott Morrison WINS: Liberal leader claims an extraordinary upset and will remain Prime Minister - as Bill Shorten loses the unloseable election after voters reject his radical left-wing agenda

    What I saw just now on Twitter was equivalent to that lady who screamed, "Noooooooooooooo!..." when President Trump was inaugurated. One after another. Man do these lefties hate...

    Now all we need is an investigation into whether the Russians did it.



    Yup.  Austrialion just had its own Rebellion of the Deplorables.  England had BREXIT, the U.S.  got Trump  and Australia  got rid  of the Labor-Green  kabal to impose wind turbines on the public,  at public expense of course.   Good for Oz!!!!!!

  3. On 9/1/2014 at 9:38 PM, Samson Corwell said:

    So the whole positive/negative rights dichotomy--never quite liked it myself--is one of the major themes present in libertarianism and Objectivism. It exists in the wider field of political science, but it's not raised much as an issue. Most people, even if they're political junkies, probably haven't heard of it. "Positive rights" are the prevailing problem libertarians and O'ists face, as you know, because it involves, as they see it, expansion of government power.

    Negative right: A duty imposed on others to refrain from acting.

    Positive right: A duty imposed on others to act.

    A "right to food" is a "positive right". A "right to life" is a "negative right". The "right to food" requires others act to provide someone with food...or does it? The reason I ask this is because there are certain commands in the Bible that in effect say "under certain conditions, this stuff that you think belongs to you actually belongs to the worse off". Note that I'm not endorsing this, merely pointing out what I think is a potentially serious problem. An example of stuff that might belong to the poor: the scraps from a crop harvest. In this case, this isn't necessarily a "positive right". Because these scraps would belong to the poor, it means that these scraps are their property, and therefore there is a negative right in them.

    I think that the implications of this are that looking at this situation in terms of negative rights versus positive rights mistakes the point. Any thoughts on this?

    No.  A right to food mean you are free to grow your own food or seek the means to purchase food from others.  It is NOT mean someone has to feed you.


  4. On 5/12/2019 at 12:24 PM, atlashead said:

     I live in a tension unbearable pain because I want to create and there's so many things I want to do but oddly what I want to feel most is jealousy a clean battle where I've lost the only way to kill the pain is to work but I feel like I'm not ready yet that I'm learning the responsibility of creating I'll know when this is passed I feel like I'm a masochist because I love my work that's why I'm not doing it I want to be broken

    My particular God is John Galt I want to be broken by John Galt

    R U  Serious?


  5. Our detection of electron and other subatomic particles is theory laden.  What we perceive is the output of a device which taken together with a theory or  model that asserts the output is from an electron (or other subatomic particle)  constitutes a "detection" of the particle. If we didn't have a theory we would not be talking about electrons and other non-perceivable objects.  


  6. On 5/6/2019 at 2:35 PM, Peter said:

    We have speculated about this before and not just on this thread, but I want to know if anyone else has come up with some new ideas based on scientific speculation, or just wild ideas. Three theories with questions:


    One. Can we humans rightly assume that on the planets’ of so far UN-detected aliens, their LESS intelligent life, if it exists, is like our own primitive earth life? Is it irrefutable to say that any alien life which MAY exist, evolved to survive and reproduce like life on earth? I think life will be the same throughout the Universe, down to the microscopic level but more evolved life will not be the same. So, is it possible that in the Universe some intelligent life reached or will reach the *Volitional Level* and HOW MUST aliens be like us? I know it is silly in a way to speculate about possible intelligent beings, but life on earth may be seeding the solar system and the galaxy as time passes and as we evolve here on earth. If life does not exist elsewhere it may exist in the next millennium from the action of panspermia.  In the realm of religious belief, one could speculate from a Hindu or Christian perspective for example, that life was JUST created here on earth. But here we come Universe!   


    Two. The distances in the universe are extreme. Yet, in a what-if scenario, could you imagine something that an alien would travel great distances to attain? There could be things similar to the fictional elements Latinum, (on Star Trek The Next Generation) or Unobtainium (in Avatar). So, if we have something of immense value, even if earthlings do not know it, is the idea of space traders or raiders plausible? Any thoughts on that? And I recognize, as Jules Troy did, that air, water, food, and fuel may be what is most sought items by any alien visitors.


    Three. Any new ideas on why we have not received any communications from somewhere in the universe? If messages are available for humans to receive how will we finally receive them? Radio and light transmissions are picked up here on earth all the time. But what might a quantum leap in communications be?




    Right now we have no way of knowing for finding out.  Anything done now is speculation and supposition.

  7. On 5/4/2019 at 1:33 AM, Jon Letendre said:

    So that means asserting Trump is secretly a Jew. This presumably from things like moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. When he announced the embassy my thought was that he had some mild screwing of Israel (or Jews, many) on the schedule and wanted to first win over as many Jews as possible. That way when he pulls the screwing out of his pocket he could defend: “The one and only US President to ever ...  embassy, Jerusalem ... so how dare you question my commitment to Jews ... “ When he announced support for Israel keeping the Golan my thought was — oh, so it’s going to be a moderate screwing, then. My sense is that soon the world learns that Israel has been up to some indefensible things, Trump will have to act, and it won’t go over well at all. Unless by the time it happens even the Left is convinced the man must be Jewish himself.

    Ask the cartoonist what it means.


  8. 10 hours ago, Peter said:

    I was being facile and not facetious. That is what I remember from an article in Scientific American Magazine. Now I am being facetious. I think scientists have tried to duplicate that formula but they have never been able to create life, even with a bolt of lightning added into the  . . . "mix." Mud, ooze, time, evaporation, and then add more water. Repeat. It still never works. They have duplicated the "building blocks" but not actual life. So, what are we missing? Ba'al might have a suggestion. Peter  

    Someone left that cake out in the rain.  I don't know if I can take it, it took so long to bake it  and I'll never have the recipe again... oh no......

    • Like 1
  9. On 4/29/2019 at 5:19 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Who Is The Nazi?

    Take a look at the cartoon below.

    Doesn't it look like something right out of Nazi Germany when the Nazis were in power? 

    If you don't know much about what that looked like, do the following. Type (copy/paste) into Google, or hell, any search engine:

    antisemitic propaganda in nazi germany

    Then click on "Images."

    Then look.

    Now look at the cartoon below.


    Who would publish that today?

    Well... Doesn't that look like something right out of The Daily Stormer or some other Neo-Nazi white power publication?

    It wasn't them, though. Not them... nor anyone like them.

    That thing was first published in the New York Times international edition last Thursday.

    After a shit-storm, the New York Times took down what they could and, finally, a few days later, issued an apology--on Twitter. They also said they don't know how that could have happened, blah blah blah...

    But think of it.

    Jew-hating Nazi-like picture propaganda.

    The New York Times.

    International edition...


    Let that sink in...


    There is a subliminal anti-semitism wired into our culture.  Mostly it is out of site, but it is always there. One might think the Right Wingers would be most likely to manifest this attitude, but  not so.  Anit-semitism is alive and ill in the camp of the liberal progressives.  And I think know why.  Jews have overcome the disadvantages of their marginal position in our society primarily on their own initiative and effort.  In short, they did not need the government to manage the problem.  The fact that Jews have succeeded without government largess and assistance is proof positive that the the assumption government is needed to overcome  racism and bigotry  is  a canard.  And this pisses the Liberal Progressives off mightily. 


  10. 15 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:


    I grieve for the folly of true believers in climate change. It's an article of faith at BBC that we have to abandon internal combustion engines, kill coal and liquid fuels, walk to work or use an electric scooter in winter, in a thunderstorm, or on a blazing hot summer day, no way to carry groceries and jugs of milk home to feed a family of five. Silly me. Plastic bags and jugs will be outlawed, no refrigeration at home or in the store, no air conditioning, no big rigs to stock a dimly-lit WalMart, no dairy or meat, no mechanized agriculture. Childbirth will be dangerous, medical care filthy, and surgery a rigged dice roll without one-time-use plastics. No utility pumps to push water over the mountains in the California Aqueduct. No sewage treatment or garbage trucks. No fire engines, buses, or digital server farms. That's what solar power implies. A couple of LED lamps at night while you charge your electric scooter.

    Mistakes of this size are not made innocently, as Miss Rand used to say. The only difference between an industrial society and savages squatting in mud huts is a portfolio of high voltage power distribution, heavy equipment, and widely available refined petroleum products.

    Say Amen, someone.

  11. 9 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:


    Where did Cher learn all that right–wing drivel from?

    Doesn’t she know that unlimited immigration is a boon to all? They come here “to work” and every lover of logic and reason knows they could have no other motivation to come. They bring their energy, creativity and enthusiasm. And they enrich us culturally. What’s this nonsense about them needing help or being a burden in any way? To hear Yawon Bwook explain it, she should personally take them all in and thereby have all the wonderful benefits of immigration for herself. She doesn’t seem to understand how mass immigration works and how good it is.

    Do I detect a note of sarcasm and mockery?


  12. On 3/23/2019 at 7:03 PM, Peter said:

    Unfortunately, President Trump will “never” tackle the debt, though he is still a good choice for reelection. It would be nice if Jimbo would come back to o’land. I think he has left the day to day running of Wikipedia to someone else. Peter


    From: Jimmy Wales To: atlantis Subject: ATL: One Amendment Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 12:04:27 -0700. In the vein of the question about a bill of rights for a hypothetical Iraqi constitution, here's a similar question: if you had the power to put into place one amendment to the United States constitution, what would it be?


    I got this idea from libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh:


    Be sure to read his post for all the "rules of the challenge" so to speak. My own suggestion, as you might have guessed from my comments earlier today, would be an amendment modifying the Article I, section 9 power to spend money: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."


    My amendment would read:


    Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.


    Section 2.  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.


    The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar.  This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think. --Jimbo

    The politicians will ALWAYS  deem it inecessary

  13. 21 hours ago, Peter said:

    As Johnny Carson playing Carnac to Ed McMann said: Thanks for the clarification, oh bearded guru. Mea culpa. People who confuse the words “burro” and “burrow” don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground.


    witty.  Very nice


  14. 9 hours ago, Peter said:


    Treason is cruel and unusual. If you violate your oath of office by trying to overrule the Constitution that is very unusual. During a time of war traitors in the Army were shot by firing squads, and a "rebellion" would be a time of war. In modern fiction, a segment of the Army is "recruited" to fight against the legitimate government but it would not happen in real life.

    So where would a hypothetical leftist, rebellious army come from? A small segment of The National Guard? A private army? Now Pelosi's army might "think it" but they would not act on those treasonous thoughts. I still remember the violent 60's, black rebellion, and the protests / rebellions against the Vietnam War and that is the closest we will ever come to rebellion.

    My wish is that a policy of "endless war" is no longer on the agenda either. It is not on the Trump republican agenda and I don't think jokes slash serious candidates like Beto O'Rooked are going to advocate war. Is there still a military - industrial complex and conspiracy to keep fanning the flames of war? I don't see it. America has evolved. We are becoming more like our Founding Fathers wished.

    Four more years! Four more years! And then another eight years of someone else who is a decent, honorable, sort as Commander In Chief and we will have fewer troops abroad. Though we probably will never have zero troops abroad, since we are a part of intelligent alliances like NATO. but no one on our side will be initiating violence or foreign "take overs." We will be out of Afghanistan and other foreign ports. Perhaps out of Germany, South Korea and Japan? I think so.            

    treason is the only felony defined in the Constitution. It means making war against the United States or given aid an comfort to any party making war against the United States.   Violating an oath of office would be a reason for impeachment and removal, but it is not war.


  15. 8 hours ago, Peter said:

    Well, in that case pilgrim, I think the President should try on a helmet and fatigues to look more like General Patton, and convey a sense of “command” over the military as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. President Trump wouldn’t need to fake it or put on airs. He IS The Commander in Chief and POTUS. An overwhelming majority of the military personally support him and on top of that he is an admired and revered boss. A huge segment of American males have been in the military. This former Army Specialist 4th class would die for him. Other veterans would die for him.


    Rush Limbaugh was describing the sheer hatred the Democrats and the others on the left have for “a successful” President Trump who is everything they are not. He won the election which horrified them and now he is so successful as President, that they see themselves dwindling away into obscurity. Their dream of a socialist heaven with the “true elite” in charge is just too hard to abandon, but they must . . . . unless they go “true believer” and rebel.


    If a rebellion occurred obviously the military would support President Trump. The vast majority of Americans would become “activists” and take up arms for the President. The rat bastards would be beaten in a few days. What should the judgement and sentence be for the hard left after they are quickly subdued? Try them for attempted murder? Treason? Should their sentences be death by firing squad? I would support executing the ringleaders and banishing or imprisoning the rest.


    Devil’s Island? I have had this idea before but there are several islands in the Hawaiian chain that would be perfect. One could be wired with cameras and microphones and we could watch a reality show featuring the traitors learning to live with their lives in exile. Yuk. Seaweed and coconut again? Hey. Pelosi. Get your pretty ass over here . . .            


    Unlikely.  Such a penalty would probably be regarded by the Courts as cruel and unusual, which violates the Bill of Rights. 

  16. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I have a conspiracy theory about Smollett.

    Now that his hoax is tanking for real, does anyone believe his sole motivation was more air time on Empire and get more money? 

    He's stupid, but is he that stupid? After all, he's in the big time.

    So I have a theory.

    In 2007, he lied to the LA police and got busted.

    Now... as I was sitting here mulling things over with my shirt buttons, I wondered, if I were an anti-Trump dirty trickster and I wanted the publicity equivalent of a suicide bomber, i.e. if I could get someone famous to file a false police report implicating Trump supporters with MAGA hats on, how would I go about getting such a person?

    1. The first thing I would look for would be past behavior that would show no fear of doing the deed. I would look for someone who has lied to the police before. Is that Jussie Smollett? Check.

    2. The next thing I would look for is someone famous who loathed President Trump. Here is a tweet from the beginning of 2018:


    And there is plenty more where that came from. I have read that this stuff is all over his other social media accounts. I haven't looked, but I believe it. So does Jussie Smollett loathe Trump? Check.

    3. Also, I would find someone famous who has a major beef in life. Someone who is disgruntled. Someone who thinks he or she is not being treated fairly. (This is how ISIS recruits.)

    Apparently, Smollett's star was starting to fade on Empire (as Empire itself was starting to fade). I don't have time to look into this very deeply, but the following article from last November shows a bit of what I am talking about: Jussie Smollett Explains Why He Said ‘F**k No’ to a White Boyfriend on ‘Empire’.

    For Smollett to say, "Fuck no," that means something was already written among Empire's show runners and approved by the producers. It's a controversy point aimed at keeping the target audience engaged and yacking about the show. The belligerence of Smollett's public reaction hints at long-standing tension backstage. I bet there was plenty, too.

    So was Jussie Smollett disgruntled about his work? Check.

    4. Now all I need to do is find a "friend" who shows up out of nowhere stroking Smollett's vanities and sympathizing with his beefs as "the friend" gradually explains to him that "the people on our side" got away with it with Treyvon Martin, they got away with it in Ferguson, they got away with it in Baltimore, and so on. Just look at all that publicity. So what if he--Jussie Smollett--did something outrageous? He could get away with it, easy peasy...

    After that simmers for a while in his soul and "the friend" lets him come to his own conclusions, "the friend" then tells him how to build an appropriate suicide vest (first with a fake "white powder" terrorism letter, then with bleach, a noose, and so on). I bet a lot of brainstorming went on (amid God knows how much drugs and alcohol... :) )

    I'm not sure of this last point about the fair weather handler, but it would be real interesting to see if someone became Smollett's close friend recently, then disappeared when the controversy blew up. And see if this "friend" has any relationship with the Deep State, with the Media Matters machine, with dirty tricksters in the Democratic Party and so on.

    I might be wrong, but that's my theory...

    Smollett seems too vain and not smart enough to do all this on his own, even as poorly as it was done. Now, if he was a tool for more cunning people, I can see it.



    What can I say?  That is quite a story.  And who know?  It might even be true.

  17. 12 hours ago, Peter said:

    Ah ha. Now I see where the name Baal comes from. It’s not a “false god.” I wonder if Bob C. has a beard? Excerpts about Hasidism from the WWW. As the character Raymond Babbitt played by Dustin Hoffman, said to his brother Charlie played by Tom Cruise in the movie “Rain Man,” “They make excellent ambulance drivers.” Who knew? Peter


    Born circa 1700, the founder of Hasidism was Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer, better known as the Baal Shem Tov (literally “master of the good name”) and sometimes referred to by the Hebrew acronym the Besht. Little of the Baal Shem Tov’s biography has been firmly established by historians, but stories of his charismatic leadership and skills as a miracle worker became entrenched in Hasidic lore. In the early 1700s, in the area today known as the Ukraine, a young orphan boy named Israel ben Eleazar loved to wander into the forest, even sleeping there overnight. His father’s last words echoed in his mind, “Fear nothing, fear no one, but G‑d Himself, and love every Jew as you love yourself.”


    4. Hasidic Jews Use Technology Hasidim use mobile phones, drive cars and use other forms of technology. Why not? After all, the sages taught that “All that G‑d created in His world, He only created for His honor.” (Avot 6:11) Chabad Hasidim in particular say that this applies especially to the scientific discoveries of recent years—their purpose is to add honor to G‑d by using them for holiness, Torah and mitzvot, and bring the world to its ultimate, messianic state. At the same time, Hasidim are very wary of Internet use, as should be anyone concerned about their moral and psychological well-being. Television is also considered off limits. In virtually all Hasidic communities, minors are allowed zero or very limited access to the Internet. Those who use Internet for business are advised to employ filters and other safeguards. The principle concerns are exposure to pornography, FOMO addiction and other forms of compulsive behavior associated with unguided Internet use.


    8. Hasidim Are Generous Hasidim are disproportionately represented in volunteer ambulance corps and other communal organs of kindness. The bikur cholim (hospital visitation) of the Hasidic community is legendary, as are the gemachim, free loan organizations for everything from porta-cribs to to wedding gowns. The early Chabad Hasidim would say, “this piece of bread is yours like mine,” placing the “yours” before the “mine, since the focus was on the other.


    11. Hasidic Jews Don't Identify as “Ultra-Orthodox” As far as Hasidic Jews are concerned, they're just Jewish people trying to do things right and keep Jewish tradition in the best way possible. Many find the term "ultra-Orthodox" to have a pejorative connotation. So what is a better term? Hasidic (or Chasidic) Jews. Or the Hasidic communities can be included within the larger umbrella of “Hareidim,” a term referring to all who are truly concerned about keeping G‑d’s Torah to their utmost capability. Or just call them Jews.


    Yes. I have a beard.  My youngest son has never seen me bare-faced and he will be 47 this March.  Ba'al  (transliteration of the hebrew word)  means "lord of"   or "master of".   Ba'al  Chatzaf  is Hebrew for "master of chutzpah".  "lord  or cheekiness"


  18. 22 hours ago, Peter said:

    Are any new dictatorships happening or are the existing ones the last?

    N. Korea still exists.  PRC  has gone from Marxism to more or less conventional political thugism.  In the  "Darwinian"   struggle  for survival  mixed economies are winning out over totalitarian states. In Steven Pinker's latest  book  "Enlightenment Now"  he makes are fairly strong case that enlightenment and humanistic values have  been advancing and are currently on the rise.  Pinker's books are always a good read.  He is a very intelligent and witty writer..