Channel 4 on Race and Intelligence

In late October, UK's Channel 4 produced a series entitled Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo. Why is it "science's last taboo"? Perhaps because a multitude of evidence supports the viewpoint opposed by Ivory Tower elites. Unfortunately, I'm unable to view the series in America. Instead, I'll respond to the tired arguments put forth by Jonathan Marks (yes, that's his real surname!), a professor at UNC-Charlotte.

Anthropologists have long since abandoned discussions of innate racial aptitudes as quaintly antiquated mindsets...there is no valid scientific reason to think that human groups differ at all significantly in their intrinsic abilities.

See it's true because he said so. Can anyone think of a "valid reason human groups differ significantly in their intrinsic abilities"? Same reason why blacks have dark skin. They're from Africa where it's sunny. Why are East Africans great distance runners with significantly enlarged lung capacity? It derives from their environment. This is the most basic concept of evolutionary biology. But remember, evolution only applies when used to mock Midwestern creationists.

Human biological variation is continuous, not discrete.

So? I could say the same for climate zones. But are you going to wear shorts in central Pennsylvania during January just because it's not discretely disconnected from Florida?

Clustering populations is arbitrary.

Not really. Noah Rosenberg parsed individuals into five global groups that correspond with the traditional races. In his algorithm, separating individuals into five groups (as opposed to two or ten) provided the most accurate and robust solution. Here's another article, from Galtonian, showing selection pressure in human "populations" or in un-PC speak, races. And one more. If the populations were truly arbitrary, then they would cluster people from Sweden with people from the Congo. That doesn't happen.

While modern genetic tests aggregate clients according to their mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome, the test is often less revealing than simply looking in the mirror.

Yes, you're right. Physical appearance coincides very well with continent of origin. This is a result of divergent evolution on continental scales.

Populations are biologically real, not races.

Races, populations, extended families? Does it matter what we call it? People can be classified, through just DNA analysis, into groups that coincide with continents. Again, see Rosenberg study.

There is much more variation within groups (polymorphism) than between groups (polytypy).

Lewontin's fallacy repeated. As I posted last summer, why don't these Boasians make the same argument concerning the male and female height distributions? Or black and white income distributions?

Racial classification is historical and political, and does not reflect natural biological patterns.

Continuously repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

Humans have little genetic variation.

Humans are also 98% identical to chimps. Should we began treating them as our equals?

Racial issues are social-political-economic, not biological.

Of course. So why don't we ponder these socio-economic issues. Blacks have seen marked improvement in every possible aspect of quality of life since the end of slavery. They've been granted voting rights, equal pay, an end to discrimination, then a complete reversal of the zeitgeist, with laws designed explicitly to motivate their collective gain. They dominate popular culture, benefit from reverse discrimination laws, and are completely immune from criticism. Yet, the black-white IQ gap, along with NAEP scores, has been essentially constant at one standard deviation. If racial disparities derive from social and political phenomena, then shouldn't desegregated schools and access to more academic and occupational opportunities have spurred a minimal decrease in the achievement gap?

Demise of the West: Can It be Stopped?

On Friday, I discussed the growing pessimism amongst conservative bloggers. [OT: Mozilla's spellcheck is horribly antiquated. It doesn't contain "blogger" nor "Obama", amongst many words.] After noting that individual preferences don't necessarily have to parallel political goals, I asked if the West's demise is an inevitable consequences of the past 50 years of liberalism.

Are they? Are we already doomed to wallow in a PC hellhole where the mainstream and the honest un-PC facts of nature reside on the fringe? Have the forces of PC crept too far into the moral fabric of the West that we're at the point of return? Is an Enlightenment, spurred by cutting edge science and a commensurate social backlash against the harmful objectives of liberalism, coming?

If one takes a narrow view that science leads to public acceptance of truth, then the goals of HBD may appear more realizable. Yet, the obdurate and persistent existence of religious creationists shows that large percentages of the population won't relinquish their cherished personal beliefs even in the light of scientific truth. So while the biological existence of race and disparate evolution becomes an undeniable fact, the elites will continue to dissimulate on the issue, such as referring to distinguishable groups as "populations" instead of the politically charged "races". The masses can't accept the lessons of science because they lack the intellectual capability and the elites refuse to accept truths that contradict their noble lies. It's hard to see a dismantling of the PC doctrine through empirical means.

Instead, the most prudent means might be through the moral and practical edifices of society. I'll briefly consider each. Since the 1960's, racial honesty and even benign discussion have become completely taboo subjects amongst whites. The thoughtpolice not only command the entirety of public discourse, but they have seeped into the private domain disallowing even conversation amongst close relatives. In a moral framework, this is akin to the religious concept of sin. Guilt and fear disallow racial honesty.

From an exclusively moral perspective, it's difficult to see such a situation being reversed. Even the main arbiter of morality, the church, regurgitates racial egalitarianism. In my opinion, you won't get anywhere from a moral perspective and I'm not sure how I would even approach it. What needs to occur is a practical awakening, where people simply can't see past the obvious truths of HBD. The masses need to be jolted from their complacency.

During the election, Larry Auster was somewhat optimistic that an Obama win would revitalize conservatism as it would give conservatives a leftist radical to rally against. From moderate conservatives to the far right, an Obama victory and his band of radicals would scare any pro-West person from their political slumber. The demise of the West needed a face and Obama's gang could provide one.

So maybe only a bleak and close encounter with racial truths can save the West. Maybe we need Congress enforcing desegregation, Henry Gates publicly pontificating about white racism, illegal Hispanics marching for amnesty in broad daylight without fear of arrest, and a black President instituting obvious redistribution schemes. The pro-West contingent, almost entirely comprised of whites and some Asians, needs to have these socialist, anti-West policies affecting their bank account, their children's schools, and their neighborhoods. Only then will they demand a return to pro-Western values and policies.

Are You a Skeptic?

Saturday Audience Participation Post

I intended to continue the discussion of yesterday's post, but then I remembered it's reader participation day. As I've mentioned before, my initiation into Internet debate came through secularism and skepticism. I still consider myself a strong secularist, though in practical terms, I'm doubting that the notion of "religion as the root of all evil" is a tenable one. In regards to the practical consequences of belief in the paranormal (or 'woo'), I probably take a similar stance. If someone believes a 300 pound diamond resides in their backyard and keeps that belief to the confines of his home and family, then how does it affect me? Unfortunately, these beliefs often transcend the private sphere and seep into the public domain.

So while I can dismiss 'woo' as a harmless diversion for otherwise rationally functioning individuals, I still can't escape the sheer stupidity of the whole enterprise. First let me clarify what constitutes 'woo', though I'm sure it's probably clear anyway. It encompasses astrology, ghosts, spirits, aliens and UFO's, psychics, near death experiences, demonic possessions, telekinesis, remote viewing, etc. Believers in these phenomena span the entirety of the Bell Curve, from braindead acolytes of Sylvia Browne to a Dean Emeritus from Princeton.

I won't use this a forum to dispel these ridiculous beliefs (e.g. how can a ghost, supposedly an incorporeal entity, reflect photons or near death experiences are delusions of a dying brain with culturally entrenched notions of the afterlife). However, if you'd like to do so in the comments, I surely welcome it.

The HBD community considers themselves the ultimate skeptics, willing to discard the noble lies of race and gender. But, while I knew a heavy proportion subscribed to atheistic or at least deistic beliefs, I've been surprised that a few commenters have expressed pro-woo sentiments.

Are you a skeptic? Do you believe in ghosts, UFO's, astrology, and the afterlife? If so, what evidence do you have, why do you dismiss rational explanation for these phenomena, and how do you resolve this with your scientific reasoning in the context of biology? If not, how do you feel about 'woo' belief and, if you're willing, please provide an argument against woo.

Defeatist Attitude amongst Conservative Blogosphere

Is HBD suffering from a nihilistic crisis? It seems that way. Mangan writes:

[I]t no longer feels like my country. As Ferdinand says, our country seems intent on screwing us over, at least those of us who are white, male, and native-born. What is one to do? While I haven't quite yet given up on the struggle to change the nation into something better, something a lot closer to what it used to be, it begins to appear a lost cause. Is rebellion the only option? Another option is indifference and looking out for oneself, which, for now, seems to me the best option.

Prime echoes these thoughts, seeing SWPLism as the best option for his progeny and maybe himself:

Maybe I should just marry an East Asian so I can be that much more diverse. I probably should also raise my kids as tolerant, SWPLs too. It's the best adaptive measure I could take. A lot of other smart, educated guys are doing it. Is this such a bad idea? Are there any good arguments against joining the present zeitgeist?

Ferdinand took the red pill and he's not going back:

Once you’ve learned that following the rules is a sure way to get screwed over, you can’t go back to being Boobus Americanus. Western civilization, in its politically correct, feminized state, demands that you bend over and grab your ankles in order to be a good citizen, and breaking the rules will earn you the contempt of society at large – and yet, breaking the rules is the only way to survive.

Such a pessimistic, defeatist view ostensibly undermines the larger goals of conservatism and the specific goals of the Steveosphere. How can a group of iconoclasts succeed if they've accepted defeat prematurely? How can we save the West, or at least motivate a marked improvement, if the leaders of this "rebellion" view acquiescence as the only viable solution?

It's not secret that the maladaptive forces of feminism, multiculturalism, racialism, third world immigration, and the PC thoughtpolice constitute an entrenched and recalcitrant opponent. Yet, nihilism, at least in a global or collective sense, can not be the answer. One must first distinguish between individual versus collective or utilitarian loyalties. The choices relevant to one's own life needn't parallel those of one's political bent. For example, note my favorite book list includes Rand's insightful philosophical work, The Virtue of Selfishness. In it, she espouses rational egoism, the notion that self-interest should be of paramount value in one's life. Despite this insistence on personal gratification, such a view doesn't preclude larger collective loyalties. Thus, it's consistent to champion ideals opposed to indifferent egoism in the political domain, where value is pertinent only to large groups.

What's the relevance? Perhaps, such a defeatist view for the individual doesn't contradict an HBD rebellion in the political arena. The choices of one's own life, whether one yields to the coming SWPL zeitgeist in order to procure social favor or stands in obstinate opposition against these pernicious social currents, don't necessarily affect one's political objectives, such as skewering naive SWPLism in the wider cultural forum. But if such a stance is to work, the goals of the HBD movement and the wider pre-1960's conservatism mustn't be dismissed as futile.

Are they? Are we already doomed to wallow in a PC hellhole where the mainstream and the honest un-PC facts of nature reside on the fringe? Have the forces of PC, the forces that expelled Watson from the institution he created, crept too far into the moral fabric of the West that we're at the point of return?

The "your eyes are always lying" meme, whether it be with regards to Muslim immigration, racial intelligence, or anti-male culture, works because we've truly become a "nation of cowards" unwilling to break social taboos even within our minds and surely in polite company. Is an Enlightenment, spurred by cutting edge science and a commensurate social backlash against the harmful objectives of liberalism, coming?

Tomorrow - More on these last points: Has the war already been lost?

Sesame Street Sucked

Google is really pushing this Sesame Street 40th anniversary. According to my parents, I abhorred Sesame Street growing up. I refused to ever watch it. Same thing with that singer Raffi. Instead, I was really into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Virginia and New Jersey Elections: "Obama Voters" Absent

The Republicans struck back in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, winning both governorships in these states. While one could consider this evidence for a conservative renaissance and a reflection of the town hall uproar this summer, a more accurate analysis focuses on who didn't show up rather than who did show up. Unsurprisingly, participation of the Obama contingent, that idealistic conglomerate of youth and minority voters, dropped significantly in both elections. In Virginia, the numbers were as follows:

Though African Americans made up 20 percent of voters in 2008, they made up just 16 percent of voters today in Virginia. Voters under 30 made up only 10 percent of the voters in Virginia – half the percentage that turned out in 2008 – and more than half of those who did turn out voted for McDonnell. In the 2008 election for president six in 10 voters under 30 picked Barack Obama.

What this dropoff represents is the ideological mission and underlying motivation behind last year's surge in these cohorts. Instead of hoping to motivate our nation's improvement or seeking to implement fair, just, and democratic policies, these Obama voters showed up explicitly to support their demagogic hero. These voting groups don't champion the success of America or the West in general. Rather, their prime motivation lies in being part of a "historic" moment, ostensibly one connected to race. As I wrote in my very first post:

Today's youth have internalized the overemphasis on black achievement. Subsequently, they subconsciously connect American progress with primarily the progress of blacks. The most important events in our history classes aren't American Independence or the defeat of totalitarians regimes or Communism; no it's protected minorities being granted rights (not that there's anything wrong with that). The Civil War has become a tale of slavery, not economics. The Civil Rights Era trumps Sputnik and the end of the Cold War. MLK has become a demi-god, the only individual besides Jesus with a national holiday on his birthday.

When the youth saw Barack Obama, they actually did see "Change and Hope." They saw their unique opportunity to be a Rosa Parks, a Union soldier, or a Harriet Tubman. The media deluged them with the monumental possibility of the "first Black President". This could be their "first Black ____" and they were going to make it happen! Their vote was indicative of the ultimate type of change: the kind where blacks achieve some monumental ascension. So the youth voted to engage in the kind of change their history teachers taught them was the most important.

So when the boring, traditional American institution of democracy returns, where voting regresses to normal candidates and not apotheosized rock stars politicians, apathy, not hope, makes a comeback. We again see the inherent malaise amongst youth and minority voters if the relevant goal isn't some idealized progressive initiative, one almost always opposed to the traditional norms of the West.

But perhaps, we shouldn't see this as a negative. Instead, it's an opportunity for conservative institutions to attack when the opposition isn't even concerned with mounting a counter. If the SWPL's and minorities refrain from engaging in these boring elections, then only an enervated opponent stands in the way of real change. Though one must note that any whisper of the most important (and contentious) issues, like race-based policies and immigration, inexorably piques their interest.

James Watson on Charlie Rose: The Race Question

On October 30th, James Watson appeared on Charlie Rose. The video is located under the "Archive" tab. They mostly discussed modern genetics, disease, the brain, and his life as a scientist. Watson, quite surprisingly, doesn't stay true to the curmudgeonly, misanthropic image that he himself has helped foster. Instead, he appears energetic, passionate, and altogether congenial in the interview. [Though I must say as an aside, I've always felt his slandering of Rosalind Franklin was unjustified. I believe he's always downplayed her role in the seminal discovery and his personal attacks on her seem juvenile.]

Of course, towards the middle of the interview, Rose can't help but broach the race issue. I had assumed Watson would engage in yet another repudiation of his comments. Instead, he mostly skirts the issue, using laughter and irrelevant anecdote as a distraction. Transcript of the germane part follows:

CHARLIE ROSE: You get into trouble because you can’t control
yourself. But sometimes we don’t know, I mean, just take the race stuff in
Africa and Europe. You have apologized profusely and you said I’m sorry, I
didn’t mean it, I’m whatever. You have done everything that I know a man
can do.

JAMES WATSON: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Question still is, how could someone as smart as you
are say what you did?

JAMES WATSON: Oh, I was saying something to a girl -- I never thought
of her as a reporter. She lived in our house for a year. [Completely irrelevant!]

CHARLIE ROSE: But that doesn’t make any difference. I mean, you said
it.

JAMES WATSON: I was treating her like a daughter. And...

CHARLIE ROSE: But that doesn’t make any difference either. Did you
think the thought?

JAMES WATSON: Sure, I thought the thought, whether it was right or
wrong. I didn’t think it was appropriate ever to say it in public. And
someone had sent Steve Pinker and I (sic) a book, and so I just looked at
the book. And there were these facts. The girl, who, you know, she lived
with us 10 years ago. She had lived in Africa a few years ago. I have
been to Africa a number of times and liked it. And we started talking
about Africa. And that is all. So you know, I -- it was just awful.
And...

CHARLIE ROSE: You recognized it was awful.

JAMES WATSON: Oh, God, yes, instantly. I saw -- you know, this is
worst trouble I’m ever in my life...

CHARLIE ROSE: It was.

JAMES WATSON: ... because it hurt people, and I didn’t intend to hurt
people. And it implied that some people I work with I have poor
impressions of. I don’t. I don’t have people around me that I don’t have
high impressions of. And, you know -- so I -- I didn’t want to get into
trouble, it was not my main interest. I don’t think about it, you know, 1
percent of the time. I had no reason to -- and I am not an expert on it.
When I talk to you about cancer...

CHARLIE ROSE: You know something.

JAMES WATSON: I just read a book, and some other people said it. And
so I can’t -- I’ve never measured IQ in my life. I did take a course on
it...

CHARLIE ROSE: I don’t want you to get into any deeper trouble here.

JAMES WATSON: No, no, but I’m saying I took a course on IQ at the
University of Chicago in 1947.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

JAMES WATSON: Because I was interested in why I had a low IQ.

Anyone else curious what book he read that contained HBD facts? Basically, Watson agreed that it was awful to say, probably because everyone construed it as a moral judgment instead of a statistical one. But he doesn't deny the validity of his actual statements concerning relative racial intelligence distributions. I wish Watson, given his old age and retirement, would have been more indignant over the manner in which the establishment treated him. After all, the entirety of data supports the race realist view. And his partner Crick had the same opinions. Though at one point, he seems to advocate the IQ denialist platform, likely as a way to temper anger towards himself, by asserting he has a low-IQ. Keep in mind, Watson attended the University of Chicago at age 15.

In a related story, I found a similar incident occurred in 1995 involving then-President of Rutgers University, Francis Lawrence. I had never been informed of this particular 'Watson-ifing' before, but the New York Times has a plethora of articles on the incident. Ironically, Lawrence had previously "built a reputation for courting and recruiting minority students." Here's what he said:

The average S.A.T.'s for African-Americans is 750. Do we set standards in the future so we don't admit anybody? Or do we deal with a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic, hereditary background to have a higher average?

It seems he's advocating affirmative action on the grounds that without it, the black college population will never exceed a small proportion due to HBD. Of course, he later disavowed those statements by deploring the SAT as a measure of academic ability, though his conciliatory gestures didn't temper anger and protesting.

When more than 150 student protesters took over the midcourt at a Rutgers basketball game with the University of Massachusetts on Tuesday night, their demands had already been prepared. Mr. Lawrence's resignation was just one.

They pressed for the resignation of the university's board, a group that the students said was composed of "executive employees of large businesses with vested interests in research, banking, construction, or legal services at Rutgers."

They attacked the president's naming of two African-American administrators, saying the selection of a black vice president for student affairs was "nothing more than a token pacification of the oppressed."

"The media isn't interested in what we want," said Rodney Jackson, a student in dreadlocks and leather jacket who had helped lead the basketball sit-in. "They need to back up or we won't say anything until they're out of here."

Lawrence kept his job and retired in 2002.

How to Read Loquacious, Illogical, Angry Rants (If You Must)

On Sunday, I linked to Obsidian's new blog. Already, in the span of four days, he's attacked me twice: here and here. In the second link, he hilariously claims that I'm anti-Game. That's very funny. Since I have a job that doesn't involve a telescope, tarot cards, and a book of spells, I'll refrain from responding in detail to his attacks. Instead, I'll tersely summarize the entirety of Obsidian's blog and any future posts containing puerile attacks against yours truly. Somehow any social phenomenon is reduced to this easy to follow argument:

-White women are the worst.
-"Big" black women are awesome.
-Male sexual success is the prime metric of individual and societal value. I mean, look at Lil Wayne, South America, and the Islamic world. And as a result, black men are the winners!
-High-IQ is completely overrated, it's not like intelligence has ever resulted in anything useful.
-Most blacks are not ghetto, they're middle class. I mean 15% of blacks have an IQ over 100 and all of 5% have an IQ over 115. That's a lot.
-White women own you, so never say anything that might offend them. Of course, you're a coward for not speaking honestly about race, but apparently not so if you're afraid of the "New Grrl Order".

So that's about it. Oh wait forgot one of central importance:

-You're a racist nerd with Asperger's.

Genetic Determinism in Court

The issue of genetic determinism has been discussed frequently at this blog. The standard, and quite obvious, rejoinder to these accusations is as follows: Genetic determinism surely does not apply to individual success, but as sample sizes increase, statistical averages become the overriding determinant of future behavior. Such a view accounts for the dichotomous impulses of "nature" and "nurture", while also understanding that relative group success is largely independent of the effects of individual variation.

Recently, the issue of genetic determinism played out in an Italian court case. The relevant gene, MAOA, made news within the HBDosphere several months ago as it correlates well with a propensity for violence. A lawyer used this information to argue for a more lenient sentence, implicitly reasoning that one's "choices" are often overridden by innate urges.

In the report, Pietrini and Sartori concluded that [the defendant's] genes would make him more prone to behaving violently if provoked. ... On the basis of the genetic tests, Judge Reinotti docked a further year off the defendant's sentence, arguing that the defendant's genes "would make him particularly aggressive in stressful situations". Giving his verdict, Reinotti said he had found the MAOA evidence particularly compelling.

As the Slate article notes, incidents of genetic law arguments have risen in the past five years. A new study, linking car crashes and gene variant BDNF, seems to be a likely candidate for future cases.

The fact that such an argumentative strategy has proved successful should give HBDers optimistic hope in our championing of a more "nature" centered perspective. Of course, the issue of violence doesn't involve the social taboos of race and intelligence. But nonetheless, if this is the standard for proof, then HBD is essentially at that level.

What is more interesting is the precedent such a case creates. If an individual's behavior is so dependent on underlying genetics, then what other concessions are justifiable? Is imprisonment of "future" criminals acceptable under these guidelines? If a gene exists that predicts violence in 50% of its carriers, then can society morally arrest these individuals prior to them committing a crime? And in regards to eugenics, the Italian case seems easily extrapolated to forced sterilization of the dumb and mentally ill (NAM or otherwise).

In my opinion, this new science-y argument is an unconvincing as the old canard "well I had a bad childhood". You do something bad, you pay for it. If anything, genetic evidence for anti-social behavior should justify a longer sentence, as it decreases the chances of repeat offenses.

Vampires: Master PUAs

So I decided to rent Twilight and see what the big deal is. For anyone not familiar with the current vampire trend, Twilight is about a high school girl in upstate Washington who falls in love with a vampire. Imagine The Notebook mixed with Dracula or just Buffy. The movie mainly revolves around the relationship between Bella and Edward, the vampire. Apparently, the author of the Twilight book series is a Mormon housewife. Yet rarely does such an accurate portrayal of the efficacy of Game arise in popular culture.

I first noticed the hilariously multicultural cast. Bella's best friends include two nondescript whites, a black guy, an Asian guy, and an ambiguously biracial girl. Again, the movie takes places in upstate Washington.

Edward, the main vampire, uses essentially every Game trick available. He's introduced as a mysterious individual with little known about him. In his first meeting with Bella, he can't temper his physical revulsion towards her, an act that, of course, prompts Bella's interest. After that initial meeting, Edward engages in the classic push-pull strategy of Game, where he shows genuine interest in her, even showcasing higher value and sarcastic negging during a class assignment. In the climactic moment of the first act, Edward saves Bella's life by stopping a runaway car, then plays it off as if nothing happened.

He continues the push-pull method, rejecting her curiosity, then quickly displaying interest in what she thinks. He again saves her, but furnishes the mysterious image by skirting her questioning.

Of course, Bella becomes increasingly intrigued by this bipolar, standoffish, yet charming individual. She obsesses over her new friend and finally discovers the truth about him. Bella confronts him in a shadowy forest where the following scene plays out (paraphrasing):

Edward: I want to taste your blood. I want to kill you. You're like a drug to me. I've killed people.
Bella: I don't care. I'm not afraid.

Then they laid down together in the grass looking up at the sky. I won't continue as to avoid spoilers. The movie on the whole is quite boring. I don't understand the hype.

Bunch of HBD Related Stuff

Once again, Sunday brings a lot of interesting links. An amalgamation of them is in order. Enjoy.

A few weeks ago, following the New York Times article on Michelle Obama's family history, Raina Kelley laments the lack of "blame whitey" sentiments within the article. This is ironic because the article represented obvious pandering to black readers and their white liberal buddies.

But I found the piece alienating. It presented Michelle's lineage as an ineluctable five--generation march to the White House, without seeming to account for any of the real human struggles behind the genealogy. The article's tone was so bloodless...

Not to quibble, but they're glossing over a lot of upsetting history in that sentence. So many African-Americans were too traumatized by events earlier in their lives to discuss that sad personal history readily with their children and grandchildren—something I've seen in my own family. As a long-dead white man once famously wrote: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

But let's tell it like it was—200 years of struggle; hard work; memories, good and bad; failures; and resurrection. Despite the historic election of Barack Obama, discrimination and racism still exist and they are still tied to the color of our skin and linked to our country's past. The more honestly and completely our story is told, the easier the present is to bear or celebrate.

I do sympathize with the anguish an unknowable family history might bring someone like Kelley. Yet, instead of moving forward, forgetting these horrible events, and being optimistic that times have changed, Kelley wallows in past transgressions, even citing a "long dead white man". For individuals like Kelley, the "past is never dead" and thus whites will always suffer for the sins of their fathers. In a few years, the "200 years of struggle" will morph into 250 and then 300, and one wonders why our post-racial society never comes to fruition.

Yesterday, commenter Aa gave a hilarious, and accurate, analogy concerning the modern political dichotomy.

Western society is a lot like a middle class nuclear family. The liberals are the caring, generous and forgiving mom (i.e. women, pussies). The conservatives are the strict, disciplinary dads who tell their kids to stand up on their own to feet and deserve all the punishment they get when they are naughty.

NAM's are the semi-retarded homeless people who couldn't get their own family's shit together, and show up at the doorstep asking for some change and a room for the night.

Inductivist explains why group rates matter despite the individual variation contained within these groups. I've been meaning to write a similar post for months.

Americans are taught to judge people individually, and in situations where you can get to know someone, this makes sense. But the truth is that you can predict aggregates better than individuals.

This is why Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen's approach is so effective in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. You grab a random guy in Japan, he might be smart or dumb; he might be rich or poor. But tell me the mean IQ of the country is 106, and I'm putting my money on it being a wealthy place. HBD-ers are criticized for focusing on groups, but reality is most predictable at that level, and being scientific is being concerned with prediction.

The success or failure of nations is dependent on the collectives which comprise them. While this surely leaves out the outliers and exceptions, making judgments based on these group traits is a statistically, and politically, sound approach. To make the matter more palpable, are you going to start a track team in Chinatown?

My favorite interloper, Obsidian, has started a blog and he's even dedicated one of his first posts to me. Anyone else curious why he has such an "affection" for me? I'd reply to his post here, but his arguments are trite, illogical, and rife with ad hominems. Obsidian advocates my complete silence, while charaterizing all my views as extremist and inane; such attacks remind of the White House in their vendetta against Fox News.

Finally, I follow Rule 5: "Everybody loves a pretty girl". Watching Kimmel a few nights ago, I discovered the ultimate nerd princess, Olivia Munn. She's the host of a geek themed program called Attack of the Show on some network G4. Here's a picture (SFW):

Why are Liberals Liberal

Saturday Audience Participation Post

These reader response posts will be a weekly feature. Last Saturday, I asked how open readers are regarding their HBD and other un-PC beliefs. This week's topic is the primary motivations of modern liberals.

I was previously quite apathetic with regards to political issues. I always had an innate aversion to liberalism, but outright conservative views, especially as they're presented in the Steveosphere, were relatively rare growing up. My "intellectual awakening" came through religion and the connected themes of skepticism and metaphysics. This eventually led to HBD, its commensurate conservatism, and ultimately, an outright disdain for the damages engendered by modern liberalism. As such, I have little personal background in understanding the liberal psyche. I can codify it, describe it, and muse on its repercussions, but I have trouble providing an explanation for these radically misguided and perpetually failing initiatives.

Why do seemingly sane individuals view the world in such an inaccurate manner? Why do they readily form tenuous collectives instead of championing the individual's resolve and success? Why do they hate the productive classes and wish to appropriate wealth for the lazy and stupid? What motivates the anti-white, anti-male obsessions of liberals, always castigating the creators of society as evil and exclusive? Why do they care so much about pet minorities and collective achievement? Why do they hate the West and view America as an imperialistic force of harm? Why do they ignore the maledictions caused by their "anything goes" relativism?

Basically, why do liberals think the way they think when it's so obvious they're wrong?

Woman Demands All-White Nursing Staff: Hospital Quarantined due to bad case of Racism

It's commonly known that white Christians are forbidden to freely associate with each other; yet, the same luxury is actually encouraged amongst minorities. For example, Walter Williams describes some absurdities occurring at elite universities:

What about segregated graduation ceremonies? Vanderbilt, Stanford University, the University of California, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania are among those that offer separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events" for black, Hispanic and Asian-American students. University administrators not only condone segregated ceremonies but racially segregated student housing, as well. This "enlightened" policy not only occurs at backwater colleges but at our most elite universities, such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT, Pennsylvania and California-Berkeley.

And here's a site for a counseling service specifically designed for blacks.

At Afro-American Counseling & Psychotherapy Institute, Inc., the Counselor/ Psychotherapist is a product of and continues to be a part of the African-American cultures and communities. The Afro-centric, Afro-Cognitive approach used at AACPI empowers the client by providing a unique corrective experience that is liberating, relevant, and solution-oriented.

Well at least they're HBDers ("Afro-cognitive" must refer to innate cognitive traits unique to blacks, right?). There are innumerable outlets for the "unique needs" of minorities. In any context, they have access to care provided by individuals of their ethnic background and suited to their particular needs (what those are I'm not sure). But in addition to the gross immorality of white flight, how dare white people ask for the same thing? Someone did and it didn't turn out well. In fact, they launched an investigation into her blatant thoughtcrime!

Hospital staff have complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission after a woman in labour demanded an all-white team to deliver her baby.

The hospital began its own internal investigation and it has now been reported to Equality and Human Rights Commission, which received complaints from hospital staff about the incident and how it was dealt with.

In this age of affirmative action, such a choice might be the most prudent one. But don't worry, the thoughtpolice are on it.

A spokeswoman for the hospital said: “There is an ongoing investigation, which commenced after the incident occurred, relating to medical complications and because some staff expressed concern about the potential for racial discrimination, should such demands be raised by patients in the future.

In my opinion, this women is free to choose her caregivers and if she does so on a racial basis, then so be it. Such a choice doesn't necessarily imply animus, rather it implies a freedom of association. People tend to feel most comfortable with individuals like themselves and the first indicator of such similarity is generally physical. Perhaps this woman is a racist, but if we're willing to afford such concessions to minorities, then why aren't white people given the same outlets? Why is whiteness considered an absence of culture and thus not privy to the same ethnic concerns or issues?

Liberals, the Wealthy, and Leftist Pessimism

A few days ago, I had lunch with a friend of a friend. He graduated from Berkeley with a degree in English. Can you see where this is going? Somehow we broached the issue of wealth and wealthy communities. As he pontificated about progressivism and the disdain he felt for the wealthy, he uttered this gem:

I hate these wealthy suburban communities with their elitism, their incessant social climbing, and their big, ostentatious dwellings. When I drive through them, I can't stand it. But then you continue through and after about five minutes, you escape these communities, and you're back in the real world.

When I thought about this conversation, I originally intended to write about the liberal disdain for wealth. Yet, I don't know if I can provide a cogent exegesis of this phenomenon. Rather, it's interesting to note how liberals view the appropriation of wealth as somehow "unreal". In this, we see the underlying despondence of modern liberalism; that such an integral part of the West's cultural value, the ability to garner capital through hard work and talent, doesn't even exist. That such a precious freedom is so unattainable as to be considered merely a chimera.

The deluded pessimism of liberals stems from their favored narrative of the West: classism, racism, and sexism. To them, these social mirages represent the actual reality. Unsurprisingly, the "real" is the sole property of supposedly oppressed groups. In their "real" world, the evil white male Christian power structure creates a system that stifles ascension for those outside this class. Here's an excerpt from Princeton professor Cornel West's Race Matters:

The unique combination of American terrorism - Jim Crow and lynching - as well as American barbarism - slave trade and slave labor- bears witness to the distinctive American assault on black humanity. This vicious ideology and practice of white supremacy has left its indelible mark on all sphere of American life - from the prevailing crimes of Amerindian reservations to the discriminatory realities against Spanish speaking Latinos to racial stereotypes against Asians. Yet the fundamental litmus test for America democracy - its economy, government, criminal justice system, education, mass media, and culture - remains: how broad and intense are the arbitrary powers used and deployed against black people. In this sense, the problem of the twenty-first century remains the problem of the color line.

In the liberal perspective, to live is to struggle and that struggle is always against an insular and oppressive ruling body. The only "real" people are those imposed upon by this injustice. Can you imagine viewing the world in this manner? That the only real experience, the only valuable and laudable experience, is to fail against a corrupt system. Liberals love the world's failures because it buttresses their utterly pessimistic and downtrodden worldview. The groups entrenched in failure become the heroes for suffering at the hands of the privileged white male class. Thus, it's clear why NAMs get the "noble savage" treatment. In the minds of the left, their gross failure represents the nature of "reality", where success is confined by the gates of entitlement.

The Untapped HBD Lobbying Group

The problem of HBD acceptance is twofold. First, we must rid the establishment of "educational romanticism", the appealing but ultimately false notion of intellectual uniformity. Second, understanding the nature of cognitive differences, we must implement a utilitarian educational initiative where our best students are given the best environments in which they can be appropriately nurtured. This invariably involves racial collectives. Unfortunately, the educational establishment focuses on the statistically least able groups (NAMs) in reform strategies. The HBD community has suggested numerous means of realizing these goals. Yet, a powerful group, likely due to their relative absence from HBD forums, remains ignored in affecting these changes.

Awhile back, 'silly girl' (I think) suggested that white middle class mothers (WMCM) are an untapped HBD resource. What's interesting about this group is they have a motivation completely removed from HBD, yet their goals square well with those of HBDers. In regards to the above two problems, white middle-class mothers are actually guilty of the first: the so-called Lake Wobegon effect. Non-Ivy League decal mark suburban cars and their passengers with shame. WMCM, many of whom epitomize the "helicopter parent" archetype, will do anything to avoid such a fate.

Yet, this doesn't contradict the aims of HBD, as HBD also claims that the sons and daughters of WMCM represent an intellectually able group, despite the parents glorified appraisal of their children's talents. Since their motivation is palatable across a large swath of the population (who doesn't want their kids given the oppurtunity to succeed), they needn't appeal to racial averages for justification. Instead, they just talk about their own children, who just happen to be the children America should be investing in.

"Experts" on America's Failings in Math and Science

A group of education "experts", no sign of Charles Murray, met recently to discuss America's problems with mathematics and science education. This tired affair repeated the same failed policies inevitably ignoring the cognitive bell curve. As Sailer says, political correctness makes you stupid.

Why are U.S. children so far behind in science and math compared with those in other developed countries?

The question has plagued researchers, educators and politicians for decades. And finding an answer—and solutions to remedy it—may be a crucial step in keeping U.S. science, medical and technology fields at the top of their game.

This is a common mistake made by education commenters. The United States lags behind Asian and European countries primarily because we have a large NAM population. If only white and Asian scores were included, America would rank in the top five globally. Thus, given the right basic material for scientific achievement, our school systems are largely successful.

Research and experience has shown that even more than good schools, good teachers are key to improving individual students' learning. "We know today that good teachers make all the difference," Amy Gutmann, president of the University of Pennsylvania, said at the panel.

"The most important thing is to bring to K-12 education college graduates who excel in math and sciences," added Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education. Whereas other countries recruit teachers from the top tier of graduates, he said, "America is recruiting our teachers generally from the bottom third."

I've seen the "teachers are everything" argument formulated before, but not in such a mind numbingly short-sightedness context. So we should encourage the top tier of math and science graduates into the scholastic field? OK, well, if I may be so bold, who is going to push the frontiers of science and, less romantically, comprise the backbone of our engineering and scientific workforce?

It's no surprise that the most obdurate gaps occur in the fields of math and science. Unlike reading, writing, and other humanities subjects, math can't be faked. A math problem has a right answer and no amount of coddling or disingenuous compliments changes the objectivity of a math problem. So many people are afraid of math because the standards are obvious; failure is unambiguous. A bad essay or a poorly constructed argument aren't as obvious to the individuals actually producing the crappy work. In fact many actually think their tripe is quite good.

But in math and science, a physical world, a world underpinned by universal laws, provides an objective standard for right and wrong. It's misleading to say children stall in math and science, while progressing further in reading or writing. Rather, their ability in these subjects likely lags as well, but an accurate appraisal of their work is rarely given; or if given, a biased personal analysis supersedes the more blatantly honest one.

Math and science remain the bedrock of progress. It's imperative we funnel our best and brightest into producing novel work and research. They need good teachers, but merely for guidance.

Seven Intriguing Questions in Modern Physics

This is an interesting New Scientist Article entitled Seven Questions that Keep Physicists Up at Night. Out of all the sciences, physics probably has the most enlightening (and frustrating) philosophical implications. From Galileo to Newton to Schrodinger to the current ruminations of string theorists, the findings from physics have been an integral factor in how we view the world and how the underlying structure of the cosmos relates to our lives.

Why this universe?

[P]hysicists have essentially been working under a long standing paradigm: demonstrating why the universe must be as we see it. But if other laws can be thought of, why can't the universes they describe exist in some other place? Sean Carroll of Caltech finds it easy to imagine that nature allows for different kinds of universes with different laws. "So in our universe, the question becomes why these laws and not some other laws?"

To me, the many worlds approximation is implausible because it would require an infinite amount of universes and the concept of infinity is not physically realizable (think Zeno's paradox). I'm not sure this question has an answer if there's no grand unified design. We have these laws just because.

What is everything made of?

It's now clear that ordinary matter – atoms, stars and galaxies – accounts for a paltry 4 per cent of the universe's total energy budget. It's the other 96 per cent that keeps University of Michigan physicist Katherine Freese engaged. Freese is excited that one part of the problem, the nature of dark matter, may be nearing resolution.

It's quite amazing that 96% of our universe is comprised of stuff we don't fully understand.

How does complexity happen?

From the unpredictable behaviour of financial markets to the rise of life from inert matter, Leo Kadananoff, physicist and applied mathematician at the University of Chicago, finds the most engaging questions deal with the rise of complex systems. Life itself, he says, will only be truly understood by decoding how simple constituents with simple interactions can lead to complex phenomena.

Well a tornado in a junkyard probably isn't the answer. While evolution explains the emergence of complexity amongst Earth's living organisms, perhaps there's a commensurate 'survival of the fittest' for stars and galaxies? What "motivation" do stars have for forming, such as our desire to propagate our genomic material? Likely, this relates to an energy minimization concept that normal systems devolve to without external excitations.

Will string theory ever be proved correct?

Cambridge physicist David Tong is passionate about the mathematical beauty of string theory – the idea that the fundamental particles we observe are not point-like dots, but rather tiny strings. But he admits it once brought him to a philosophical crisis when he realised he might live his entire life not knowing whether it actually constitutes a description of all reality. Even experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider and the Planck satellite, while well positioned to reveal new physics, are unlikely to say anything definitive about strings.

I know little about string theory so I can't comment here. Still trying to get my head around the existence of eleven spatial dimensions that wrap around each other.

What is the singularity?

For cosmologist and Perimeter Institute director Neil Turok, the biggest mystery is the one that started it all, the big bang. Conventional theory points back to an infinitely hot and dense state at the beginning of the universe, where the known laws of physics break down. "We don't know how to describe it," says Turok. "How can anyone claim to have a theory of everything without that?"

Perhaps this information is lost forever and we can only formulate hypotheses concerning the universe's creation. My dilettantish supposition regarding the Big Bang is that it occurred when two other dimensional membranes (where universes live according to string theory) collided, expelling a huge amount of energy that lead to the Big Bang. Somehow, in these other dimensional spaces where membranes live, the branes are all wrapped around each other with time being the ultimate dimension that wraps into itself. Thus, the absolute "universal" time of the entire mega-space is curved and thus the infinite regress and the "something out of nothing" paradoxes are resolved.

What is reality really?

The material world may, at some level, lie beyond comprehension, but Anton Zeilinger, professor of physics at the University of Vienna, is profoundly hopeful that physicists have merely scratched the surface of something much bigger. Zeilinger specialises in quantum experiments that demonstrate the apparent influence of observers in the shaping of reality.

The EPR paradox never convinced me that observation affects physical events. I think scientific journalists misconstrue these arguments for the sake of sensationalism.

How far can physics take us?

Perhaps the biggest question of all is whether the process of inquiry that has revealed so much about the universe since the time of Galileo and Kepler is nearing the end of the line. "I worry whether we've come to the limits of empirical science," says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University.

I imagine the most intriguing physics insights will come from self-evolved robots. There has to be a limit to our intellectual potential.

Four Stories on HBD Topics

The New York Times op-ed page was a veritable treasure trove of material yesterday. It was difficult to choose just one so I'll collect them into a Ferdinand Bardamu type linkage post.

Apparently, yet another wildly popular early childhood intervention scheme fails to flatten the bell curve. A video tape series called "Baby Einsteins" purports to help children in their cognitive development.

Parent alert: the Walt Disney Company is now offering refunds for all those “Baby Einstein” videos that did not make children into geniuses.They may have been a great electronic baby sitter, but the unusual refunds appear to be a tacit admission that they did not increase infant intellect.

Baby Einstein, founded in 1997, was one of the earliest players in what became a huge electronic media market for babies and toddlers. Acquired by Disney in 2001, the company expanded to a full line of books, toys, flashcards and apparel, along with DVDs including “Baby Mozart,” “Baby Shakespeare” and “Baby Galileo.”

Does this mean America will get a refund on all those Great Society programs, including Head Start?

In the Mismeasure of Woman, Joanna Lipman laments the lack of women in high managerial positions and stalling female ascension in the past 25 years.

The truth is, women haven’t come nearly as far as we would have predicted 25 years ago. Somewhere along the line, especially in recent years, progress for women has stalled. And attitudes have taken a giant leap backward.

We were sure we were beyond it. We were post-feminists. After all, we lived equally with men. We felt that when we took our place in society, issues of gender — and race too — wouldn’t be a factor.

Consider the facts: When I graduated from college in 1983, women earned only 64 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Today? Women earn just 77 cents. By other measures, women’s gains have stalled: board seats and corporate officer posts have been flat — or declined in recent years.

This stalling has occurred due, unsurprisingly, to variational differences between the gender bell curves. In the social revolution, women were unfettered from their household demands and, predictably, gained in the marketplace. Yet, after this initial surge of working women, little more gain was available to the female collective. At the highest levels of aptitude and leadership qualities, the numbers disproportionally favor men. Because we live in a largely free society, the male/female ratio will be steady as it currently accurately reflects the differing gender distributions. And enough with the "women make less" statistic; look at the rather obvious data.

Charles M. Blow, the most sycophantic fanboy of President Manchurian, gives us yet another fawning piece, but about Michelle this time.

Forgive me in advance for fawning, but Michelle Obama is the coolest first lady ever. I could pile on platitudes here about her professional accomplishments, or explore to what degree she is redefining the role of women, or predict how she will be viewed by historians in the pantheon of her predecessors.

While this article is quite nauseating, I must admit Michelle has been a somewhat pleasant surprise as First Lady. She hasn't been who we thought she was!! But she is who we thought she was anyway.

And finally, making tacit allusions to racial demographics, even when the facts are undeniable, still gets you in trouble with the thoughtpolice. In stumping for Bloomberg, Giuliani made quite an audacious comment concerning racial politics.

Mr. Giuliani suggested that an environment filled with danger might be right there on the next horizon if the voters were to elect “the wrong political leadership.” The “wrong” leadership in this case would be Mr. Bloomberg’s opponent, the City Comptroller William Thompson, who is black.Giuliani said he worries daily that the city might revert “to the way it was before 1993,” the year he was elected mayor. He then pointedly added, so that no one within earshot could mistake his not-so-coded meaning: “And you know exactly what I’m talking about.”

Bloomberg then continued the sentiment, citing Detroit as an example.

He chose instead, later that same day, to raise the specter of one of the worst big-city tragedies in American history: Detroit, which was laid low by every ill you can imagine, including a catastrophic race riot in 1967. Detroit, said Mr. Bloomberg, “went from a great city with lots of good-paying jobs to a city that’s basically holding on for dear life.”

Bloomberg somewhat disconnects the issue from race, though in a not entirely convincing manner, by stating "that Detroit’s decline was more about economics than 'some other things.'” But Guiliani and Bloomberg have it about right. It's pretty simple: For large population samples such as those of a city or country, demography is destiny.

Who Knows of your HBD-belief in Real Life?

Saturday Audience Participation Thread

This has gone well previously, so I'll probably make this a weekly Saturday feature if it continues to garner a large number of responses.

The topic this week is expression of HBD in real life. For the hardcore HBDer that considers himself a part of the Steveosphere, how many acquaintances, friends, and family members know of your HBD belief? By this mean, I mean how many know of your belief that the traditional races differ in average genetic intelligence? Also, how many individuals are aware of your other un-PC ideas, perhaps concerning racial conservatism and "whiteness", immigration policy, eugenics, or feminism?

For me, only one close friend knows of my explicit HBD belief. I often discussed racial hypocrisy with him and thus felt comfortable informing him of the HBD canon. However, he doesn't know the extent of my participation in the HBD community nor that I blog. Other friends and acquaintances know little of my politics, though I do often broach racial topics from a Socratic position. I have also forthrightly condemned affirmative action with numerous individuals.

My immediate family members are acutely aware of my opinions regarding the cognitive bell curve and the practical implications of a human intelligence distribution, my thoughts on religious and supernatural beliefs, and they have become increasingly aware of my concern for the West's future, with subtle allusions to demography and anti-white demagoguery in the form of Obama and his ilk. I have made mention of my views on racial conservatism and HBD, making sure to present the material in a non-aggressive manner. I haven't hidden my ire towards liberalism. All in all, they get the whole picture, though not always in explicit terms.

So how about you? And for the people you've told, how have they reacted and what prompted you confiding in them?

Another Genetic Marker for Intelligence Found

From Trinity College Dublin, the evidence for a primarily genetic explanation for intelligence continues to grow.

People who carry the genetic variant within a gene called NOS1 recorded lower IQ scores than those who do not carry the variant. The research involved thousands of participants in Ireland and Germany with an average difference in verbal IQ of five points. Significant differences were also found in the working memory of those who carried the genetic variation and those who did not.

The author muses on the difficulty of finding these genetic markers.

"Although the genetics of human intelligence has been more widely studied than any other human trait, pinning down the specific molecular variants has been slow, probably due to the complexity of IQ and the large number of variants involved."

Yet another unsurprising discovery to us HBDers.

New Age Medicine and Hatred of the West

In the 1960's, the social revolution helped motivate the mainstreaming of Eastern mysticism and other New Age medicinal practices, including homeopathy, reflexology, reiki treatments, and sweat lodges. These treatments generally come from ancient, non-European cultures, primarily Asian, but with some treatments originating in Native American or South American traditions.

About two weeks ago, three people died, with another eighteen suffering severe medical problems, after attending a "Spiritual Warrior" retreat hosted by James Arthur Ray. This seemingly bizarre activity involves a "re-birthing" process where participants must endure two hours in an inferno-like confined space:

Midway through a two-hour sweat lodge ceremony intended to be a rebirthing experience, participants say, some people began to fall desperately ill from the heat, even as their leader, James Arthur Ray, a nationally known New Age guru, urged them to press on.

Dr. Bunn said Mr. Ray told the more than 50 people jammed into the small structure — people who had just completed a 36-hour “vision quest” in which they fasted alone in the desert — that vomiting “was good for you, that you are purging what your body doesn’t want, what it doesn’t need.”

Unsurprisingly, the experience, including a 36 hour vision quest where fasting occurs, is based on Native American rituals. This represents a disturbing trend amongst the SWPL-type's that see natural or alternative cures as superior to the methods of Western Science. Auster has deemed this episode Death by New Age. Here's my comment concerning the motivation for pursuing such treatments:

This reflects the anti-Western attitude of liberal Americans. Anything that isn't Western is considered valuable. So the healing methods of those exotic Native Americans and East Asians, with their special knowledge not adulterated by the evil of the white man, must work!

The moral and cultural relativism that undermines the stable social structures of the West also motivates believing in such dubious healing methods. Like those that consider sharia law as a moral equivalent to Western democracy, the non-white origin of such practices automatically gives it credence in the eyes of anti-Western liberals. The relativism of culture and morality exists in a somewhat amorphous domain and thus are more susceptible to specious claims of equity; but now, with the advent of "alternative medicine", even the falsifiable science of the West is considered the realm of racist whites.

The anti-white liberals view any product of the West with skepticism because the PC doctrine presumes it's the result of biased thought. Thus, the oppressed non-whites and their noble savage wisdom must possess truths not readily available to the privileged Westerners. Further, the stodgy portrayal of Western science, with its empirical testing and data, speaks to a coldness perpetrated by an oppressive white ruling class. Contrastingly, the non-whites possess an exotic quality closer to the spiritual basis of man, not besmirched by the racist, classist, and sexist West.

Here's some first person accounts of the sweat lodge. Note the occupations.

There were people throwing up everywhere,” said Dr. Beverley Bunn, 43, an orthodontist from Texas, who said she struggled to remain conscious in the sweat lodge.

The deaths have not shaken all of Mr. Ray’s supporters. “He sets up the stage for people to change their lives — he gives you the tools,” said Meredith Ann Murray, a real estate agent in Bellingham, Wash.

Ted Schmidt, a lawyer for Sidney Spencer, 49, who was airlifted to Flagstaff Medical Center after she passed out in the sweat lodge, said Ms. Spencer had intended to leave but fainted before she could reach the door.

And finally, I don't think they'll have a strong case for homicide. After all:

On a conference call Mr. Ray held last week...a self-described “channeler” [claimed] to have communicated with the dead, the channeler said they had left their bodies in the sweat lodge and chosen not to come back because “they were having so much fun.”

Finally, in my estimations, not all "alternative medicine" is completele bunk; yet the explanations for their efficacy, involving purposefully nebulous concepts like chi or "energy", are ostensibly incorrect. It's possible that some of the methods can support conventional therapies, generally by means of a placebo effect or simply reducing stress.

Astrology: Astronomy for Idiots

I've been somewhat surprised that the Steveosphere attracts such a large amount of atheists. Perhaps this arises from the connection between atheism and evolution. The libertarian atheists take the implications of evolution seriously, tire of the PC pseudo-religious liberalism of the atheistsphere, and progress slowly towards HBD conservatism. While HBDers have a somewhat uniform position on religious concerns, infrequently does the subject of skepticism and the supernatural arise.

The only tenuously connected HBDer to broach these topics is Geoffrey Falk. Personally, I consider myself the most hardcore of skeptics. I view the supernatural domain with confident incredulity. As Carl Sagan mused, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The immense number of alternative explanations is what undermines any supposed supernatural event. Think about any ghost sighting. Now brainstorm for ten minutes any possible explanation for someone viewing a shadowy figure walking outside their door at night. Here's a list that took me less than one minute to write: person was half-asleep, person was drunk, person was actually dreaming, camera trick, wind blowing, pressure variations in an old house, light from car driving down the road, an actual person trying not to be noticed, etc.

But in the realm of the paranormal psychosis, nothing gets me riled up as much as astrology. The counteragruments are so exceedingly simple. Basically, astrology fails because the only plausible framework for it is physically impossible. One needn't appeal to the ambiguity of predictions, the logical inconsistencies of the "art", or any other obvious problem.

Astrology presupposes that astronomical bodies exert some influence on individual destinies. For example, the position of a particular moon somehow affects an individual's disposition here on Earth. One assumes the basis of this force resides in the physical realm, as astronomical bodies ostensibly lack a spiritual edifice. As such, there exist four fundamental forces that underpin all of physics: weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity. So if these bodies were to exert a change in our physical brain states, the requirement of dictating human behavior, they would do so through these means.

But what the astrology nuts fail to realize is that forces have an inversely proportional relationship to some function of distance. For example, gravity drops off as r²; so a 10% increase in distance equates to an approximately 9% decrease in gravitational force. Now, imagine the decrease over cosmic distances. How is the fifth moon of Saturn in the right centrifugal quadrant of Jupiter's Leo possibly going to affect a minute mass on Earth? Further, forces between bodies usually depend on the size or mass of these bodies. So, yes the Moon affects the tides, but that's due to the sheer size of the Earth's oceans; the mass equivalent to a person's brain is so small as to be infinitesimally larger than zero.

It is true that electric fields have an anecdotally significant affect on one's brain states and the manifestations of those brain states that we define as human experience. But these fields are measurable. To support the argument of astrology, one would need to show the electric field of some distance star has a magnitude close to those used in said experiments. A rudimenatary physics calculation makes such a contention laughable.

So astrologers must retreat to some spiritual or psychological explanation for the effects of distance bodies. I wouldn't surprised to see a Sylvia Browne define some distance star as a spiritual entity and her deluded drones mindlessly accepting her tripe. Other than that, astrology belongs on the trash heap of failed science. Unfortunately, 400 years later and we still can't get rid of it.

[Anybody want to set an over/under for comments from 'you know who'?]

Live HBD Discussions

As evidenced by the rise of the Steveosphere, the field of HBD is becoming a prominent intellectual force. As these discussions become more frequent, it's important HBDers get the word out regarding recent scientific breakthroughs, the unbiased philosophical underpinnings of HBD, and the wealth of race/intelligence research already out there.

To motivate this, I've created an "All-Points Bulletin" for this blog. In the sidebar, you'll find a category entitled "Live HBD Discussions". In this post's comments section, readers will include a link to a blog discussion, forum thread, or comment thread involving some aspect of HBD. In the sidebar, readers can note when a link was last added and can join the discussion promptly. That way, many HBDers will be aware of the discussion in an expeditious manner and be able to participate as it's happening.

So please, whenever you see an HBD conversation happening, post a link in this comment section. And check back here often to see what other conversations are happening.

(Thanks to Galtonian for suggesting the idea).

The Appropriation of 'Shaming' by NAMs & Women

Shaming is a topic discussed quite frequently within the Men's Rights-sphere. Recently, Prime at Beta Revolution discussed the ubiquity of female shaming as a means for relationship control. The process is quite basic: A female falsely accuses a male of harboring a negative, generally emasculating, trait. The pejorative lacks any substantial merit and is effective for exactly that reason, as the man can only muster a weak, often emotional dismissal of such charges. By engaging in such behavior, females are able to undermine a man's authority position and thus procure power in choosing how to act.

The MRA'ers generally decry the tactic as an irrational part of the modern female's modus operandi. But such a perfunctory admonishment of this behavior obscures the previous effectiveness of shaming. And, in its previous reincarnations, it wasn't merely for the trivial benefits of sexual politics; rather, it effectively drove large scale behavior and helped temper the potential dysfunction of modern peoples.

I previously touched on this topic a few months ago:

In the downfall of civilization, we see men and women attempting to subvert mores that encourage social stability. Invariably, primal desires take precedence over actions that provide for or buttress the common good. If wealth inequality pervades a region, such as in South America, men will murder and steal to appropriate wealth for themselves. If power becomes available, men like Stalin and Pope Gregory IX will claim it, implementing ruthless strategies to sustain their rule. If social norms preclude the shaming of old maids, women, motivated by their hypergamic urges for an alpha-male hunter, will waste their fertile years and end up childless as they hold out for a higher status mate.

Prior to the 1960's, shaming was an integral part of how America reined in the dysfunction of blacks and women. Women were confined to the household, providing structure for proper childhood development and tending to the productive male workforce. Blacks, despite their relative dysfunction as compared to whites, mostly followed the European mainstream culture, stressing conservative values such as family and religion.

In this time, the PC rhetoric that so dominates our culture had little pull in controlling discourse. Thus, an underqualified woman, lacking proper aptitudes for work outside the home, would have been shunned and discouraged from seeking employment. The greater good, the collective stability of the West, took precedence over the insignificant wants of a selfish housewife. The corporate culture would only accept the most astute of women, as all others would be belittled through quips such as "little lady" and more blatantly sexist remarks. Respect was earned for those special few and they generally produced, but an overwhelming of the marketplace by women was moderated by white male shaming and even reiterated by fellow women. Addionally, the shaming of the old maid, a portrayal always shown in a negative light, scared women into higher fertility and away from hypergamy.

Similarly, racial minorities, primarily blacks, couldn't engage in the overt racialism so prevalent today. Instead, the ol' boy network, unwilling to give handouts to "affirmative action" candidates, didn't shy away from advertising the exclusivity of their clubs. Again, only the most competent of blacks would garner respect in such an intense environment. The ol' boy network would shame the incompetent Michelle Obama's, eventually pushing them into more appropriate work. Further, the thuggish, violent, and libertine norms of black communities and culture that liberals consider acceptable (moral relativism) would be shamed as the antithesis of the more proper and successful white mainstream. To deviate from the white norms of the pre-Civil Rights era was to be an outsider from the positive standards of society. This framing was possible because no racial PC rhetoric attempted to couch all cultures as equivalent; rather, the West was held up as a virtue and the standards of it were something to aspire towards.

But today, the entire system of shaming has reverted from those that should have it to those who shouldn't have it. Shaming is no longer the refuge of the most productive class, generally middle and upper class white (and assimilated Asian) males. This was the correct order of things; the most stable and productive of society should dictate the mores of its less able populations. Currently, NAMs and females have appropriated this powerful tool, one that could potentially prove useful in saving the West. White males are now shamed for merely existing, shamed for voicing the most obvious of truths, shamed for voicing opposition to deleterious behavioral patterns, and shamed for not acquiescing to the demands of the less productive classes.

Shaming must be reacquired by those capable of motivating the proper norms of the West. Until then, the cultural zeitgeist will continue to drift into oblivion.

More Idiocy from stuffwhitepeopledo

I posted another comment at stuffwhitepeopledo, an absolutely hilarious satire site of white anti-racist liberals. Here's an excerpt from my comment:

Just a question, isn't this entire blog (and the anti-racist movement in general) guilty of the stereotyping they so adamantly oppose? You seem so opposed to categorizing group behavior ("but of course black women aren't more aggressive, it's just your imagination"), but this entire website is about categorizing the behaviors of a race (i.e. whites).

And correct if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be any data whatsoever backing up your claims. Basically, it amounts to an intellectual vacumn of your own experiences.

this entire site, with absolutely no empirical evidence to back up your claims and only daily, anecdotal musings seeming to constitute the evidence, isn't racist against whites? The generalizations here are acceptable, but the ones about blacks and Hispanics, where actual data is concerned such as the astronomically high dropout rate and crime rate of 2nd generation Hispanic immigrants, is not?

In my comment above, I also listed a number of extremely generalized statements concerning whites made by the blog's author (in italics). The response below lists them, then refutes my points above by arguing (paraphrasing): "It's not stereotyping because it's true!" So apparently, when we categorize behavior, with actual empirical data, it's racist, but not so when applied to whites.

A black and white couple want to get married, but the parents and others object. Especially the white parents: There's nothing controversial about this except for how true it is.

And, of course, like just about every other white person these days who commits an act of blatant racism, Bardwell said he's not a racist: Unless you've been living under a rock, you would also know this is true...most white folks are completely spineless and chickenshit when it comes to race.

white people in general seem to hate sagging: Another true statement.

"I'm including it here because it illustrates a white-wing -- I mean right-wing -- meme these days: Another true statement.

So basically, making these statements isn't racist, but saying blacks have a higher crime rate and a lower average IQ is? If only that site and its commenters weren't engaging in such delicious farce. Haha, good one guys! He then "drops a little Tim Wise":

If blacks commit 1 million violent crimes a year, this means that even if we assumed each crime had a unique perpetrator, the maximum percentage of blacks who were violent criminals, as a share of all blacks, would be 3.3%. Meaning that at least 96.7% will not commit a violent crime this year.

Once again, a brilliant mockery of how liberal creationists don't understand statistics. Let's look at the numbers. OK only 1 million black violent crimes were recognized by the Department of Justice. So that wouldn't include the following crimes/segments of the black population: crimes not caught by police, crimes where evidence was not available, crimes where scared DA's didn't charge a suspect, blacks under the age of 12 and over the age of55 who would rarely commit violent crime, blacks already incarcerated for violent crimes (10% of young black men), blacks who didn't commit a crime last year but will do so in the future, most black women, non-violent black criminals who destroy communities such as drug dealers, doesn't include breaking and entering, grand theft auto, etc..., anyone have more? I'd say that number is pretty useless in and of itself considering the above omissions. Also, crime statistics are inconsequential, all one needs is a five minute ride down any Martin Luther King Boulevard to note the behavioral norms of black communities. As detailed extensively by Heather Mac Donald, the above would also apply to Hispanics.

And then 'Dan' trots out the "white people get more welfare than blacks". This guy has perfected the art of satire. This article requires the simplest of rejoinders:

• Blacks comprise only 14% of the population. Whites comprise about 65%.
• Much of the "white welfare" includes Social Security payments, which while inefficient, isn't exactly undeserved benefits.
• Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children.: What about gross dollar amounts? It's probable that a NAM woman averages more aid than a white woman due to higher birth rates.
• Finally, the article says nothing of the disparate rate of cycling off welfare nor distinguishes those receiving Medicaid due to disability.
  

And here's this stupefying statement (read it twice just to let in sink in properly):

The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black. The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.

So that's about it. The rest is what you'd expect. It takes only twenty sentences until the author blames whitey. Impressive. Finally, there's this article from four years later, which states: "Black and Hispanic welfare recipients combined now outnumber Whites 2-1, according to a New York Times report." So in 1998, the economy surged and whites went off welfare while NAMs remained. Anyone can surmise the reasoning behind this?

[I offered a post length reply to this short-sightedness because Tim Wise type anti-racists regularly trot out these exact arguments.]