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.]

Update on 'Exciting Blog News' and Suggestions

Two weeks ago, I informed readers of some exciting blog news. Unfortunately, the "news" is still in limbo. I'm still hopeful it will happen, but as of right now, I'm starting to doubt it. If anyone guesses what the news is, I'll tell you if you're right.

Also, if anyone has any general suggestions for OneSTDV (layout, content, blogroll, guest posts, etc...), feel free to offer it in the comments.

Obama Radical Anita Dunn and Liberal Tactics against Conservatism

Update[10/19/09 10:04 PM]: The White House is asking major news networks to boycott Fox News. It is now perfectly reasonable to compare the Obama White House with Big Brother. "War is Peace" and the "Opposition Must be Silenced!".

Last week, Glenn Beck aired the following video on his show. It represents yet more evidence of the type of individuals surrounding the President and speaks to the radical nature of their politics. Accusations pertaining to Obama's socialism, anti-white hatred, and altogether demagogic platform were quickly dismissed during the campaign. Yet, with the selection of Van Jones and Ms. Anita Dunn below, amongst many other far-left persons, Obama isn't engaging in any obfuscation concerning his anti-American and leftist objectives.

Here's the most frightening quotes:

"The third lesson and tip comes from two of my most favorite political philosophers Mao Tse Tung..."

Relays an "inspiring" anecdote about Mao having little backing amongst his own political party: "And Mao Tse Tung said, 'you fight your war and I'll fight mine'."

In a pithy commentary following the clip, Beck lays out the insanity of such a confession. Perhaps Ms. Dunn could have found a political figure of esteem who hadn't killed millions of people. But focusing on this would constitute a redundant post. Rather, I'll focus on the defense Ms. Dunn provided for her incendiary comments:

Here's a recap:

Fox News almost operates as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party.

While Fox might be slightly biased towards the neoconservative ideals of current Republicans, the person on a personal crusade against this administration's radical ideology doesn't even consider himself a Republican. Beck's ideals seem quite similar to the HBDosphere, promoting limited government, conservative ideals such as strong family, and an honest discussion of racial issues.

But notice the manner in which Dunn shirks the actual basics of the discussion. Rather than defending her indefensible comments glorifying a Commie murderer, Ms. Dunn instead offers an ad hominem depicting Fox News as a partisan establishment. Let's assume that Fox News is merely an offshoot of the Republicans. Does that change the implications of her comments? Does that excuse lauding Mao? It does nothing to temper the fear many conservatives have regarding the political direction our elites are taking.

Further, it reflects the manner in which liberals argue. They rarely engage with actual arguments, instead they're content to undercut an individual's supposed morality or motivation. They consider such a strategy sufficient in not only thwarting specific opposition, but also dissuading any potential opposition from swelling. [Not that mainstream conservatives aren't guilty of similar tactics, e.g. Bill Clinton.] As I've discussed on numerous occasions, the liberal elite are slowly making conservative opinion obsolete by associating any traditional ideal with ideological loyalty and, often, pure lunacy.

As we're all aware, the Steveosphere is especially privy to such attacks. If conservatives allow this dodging tactic to continue, the more important (and more politically incorrect) truths of HBD will never find traction amongst the mainstream. Unfortunately, this strategy plays well to a credulous public indoctrinated by the thoughtpolice, unwilling to even consider facts beyond their comfortable ken. An undeniable push through New Media, one carrying too much momentum to be stalled by such avoidance, might constitute our best hope for a retreat (not a regress) back to traditional, limited government, racially honest norms.

Juggling, Brain Plasticity, and Intelligence

A new study from Oxford University finds evidence that the brain has a measure of plasticity. This continues the work of other researchers attempting to discredit the static model of cognition.

A group of young healthy adults, none of whom could juggle, was divided into two groups each of 24 people. One of the groups was given weekly training sessions in juggling for six weeks and asked to practice 30 minutes every day. Both groups were scanned using diffusion MRI before and after the six-week period.

The research, funded by the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council and published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, appears to show improved connectivity in parts of the brain involved in making movements necessary to catch the balls.

The study shows that white matter can undergo changes, building on research processes causing similar improvements in grey brain matter. The researchers don't moderate their enthusiasm when discussing the potential insights arising from their work.

We tend to think of the brain as being static, or even beginning to degenerate, once we reach adulthood. In fact we find the structure of the brain is ripe for change. We’ve shown that it is possible for the brain to condition its own wiring system to operate more efficiently.

What they say surely has merit. While shocking, it's probable that repeated, intense training can actually "rewire" the brain's connections. A clever device used to treat phantom limb syndrome shows that the connections between specific nerves can be altered. Individuals suffering traumatic brain injuries have experienced marked changes in behavior and aptitude. On The Plastic Fantastic Brain program, they profiled a woman who lacks a left hemisphere, but her right hemisphere has actually rewired itself to be able to control her entire body. So this study, amongst many others, helps support the process of what might appropriately be deemed "brain therapy": the process by which one alters his brain through intense tasks designed specifically to excite and rewire certain regions of the brain.

Yet, most of these studies have an underlying implication for engendering increases in intelligence. To put it simply: it's not going to happen. Physiological activities like juggling walking are incredibly complex tasks, stable upright motion being an important problem within current robot control theory. However, it's a process mastered by essentially every single human being. Intelligence, and by this I mean solving novel problems, not merely regurgitating learned skills, probably involves a detailed arrangement of feedback loops, electrical stimuli, chemical reactions, gene expression, and a multitude of other variables. We can teach rudimentary intellectually based skills, but the process of intelligence remains an assuredly nebulous problem.

The brain has a measure of plasticity, but the plasticity found in studies such as these are likely not modular in nature. More clearly, the changes probably relate to highly specific functioning, such as the peripheral vision increase in this study. The white matter might increase in efficiency, but such a metric is a dissembling one because it couches the changes in a more general framework than they warrant.

Will we ever formulate a closed solution of intelligence? I doubt it and if we do, it'll likely result from the insights of self-evolved computers.

I'm a Made-Man!

Anyone check out Sailer's new blogroll? You may find a familiar name on there.

Worst Instance of Affirmative Action

Saturday Audience Participation Post:

Last week, I asked readers to share how they got into HBD. I'm considering making this a weekly exercise if the next couple posts garner a good number of responses. On Saturdays, I'll ask an HBD, race, or intelligence related question, providing my own experiences as a starting point. This week, I'll offer the worst instance of affirmative action that I've ever personally witnessed.

I attended a selective college where one presumes most everyone, besides the athletes and the few developmental admits, is of high intellectual quality. The rigor of the academic environment is well known amongst current students and relayed consistently to any prospective applicants. The professors, in all concentrations, assume the students are properly qualified to handle intellectual challenges.

My sophomore year, I took a seminar type writing course where we penned a number of essays that the class subsequently discussed in workshops. As a result, each person had each of their essays carefully read and critiqued by their peers. Around the second week of the class, I received my classmates' essays and spent a Saturday afternoon reading through them. In general, I found the essays quite disappointing considering the supposed selectivity of the university. Nonetheless, for the most part, the diction and writing ability was at least appropriate for college age students. Then I came upon a Hispanic girl's essay.

She was a sophomore in some fluff humanities major that I don't remember. She rarely spoke in class, probably wisely following the advice "better not to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I read through the essay twice just to make sure I was actually reading it correctly. What I'm about to say is not an exaggeration. This girl's written work, both in regards to form and substance, was at the level of a smart 6th grader. Yes, a 12 year old. Here's kind of how it sounded:

And then I felt so good. It was so good that I had achieved what I did. I wasn't afraid anymore because I had tried something new. I had tried and I had succeeded. I was happy that I had overcome my fear.

Needless to say, the workshop was quite awkward. The instructor was a brilliant South Asian PhD student unafraid to rip apart everyone's work. But with this essay, she treated it with kid gloves, subtly hinting that the sentence structure, word choice, and overall organization needed work. The rest of the class just plain ignored how poorly it was written and instead focused on some shallow aspects of the essay. At the end of the discussion, I basically told her the writing was low level and that she needed to vary her word choice and not use exclusively simple sentences. She did improve in subsequent essays, allowing the instructor to praise her "progress". Yet by the end of the course, I'd estimate her writing level was around an advanced 7th grader.

How about you?

The White Stereotype Threat

There's a bizarro world to the Steveosphere, populated by individuals referring to themselves as "anti-racists". Tim Wise is probably the most prominent voice in this circle. Last night, I gave readers a glimpse into this world of cognitive blindness, where the obviousness of everyday life and the statistical robustness of HBD studies have no bearing. Such willful delusion surprises us, but their perverted narrative of Western history has gained traction amongst our culture, media, and educational system. In this world, terms like "white privilege", "white racism", "white norms", "European aesthetic", "people of color", "white denial", and "apartheid and inequality" are actually accepted and not openly mocked as the invention of anti-Western ingrates.

The Steveosphere has spent ample time discussing the reconstructed history of the West, the idea that White Christian Males (WCM) represent the ultimate evil against dark noble savages. It's clear that such a narrative persists in our nation's classrooms, where the liberation of blacks takes precedence over the achievements of whites in formulating successful Western civilizations. I could continue regarding the media's obsession with blacks, the excoriation of any racially conservative viewpoints, and the anti-white rhetoric of not only our schools, but the socially acceptable verbiage of everyday life. To put it simply, whites are constantly told they need diversity training, sensitivity training, outreach, retribution for the sins of their race, and a better understanding of inherent racial inequities and institutional racism.

The anti-racists can't stop promulgating such aggressive admonishment of WCMs. Yet, (OK here's the point), is it really the fault of WCM's that they apparently act in this manner? Now I reject the maxims of the anti-racists; namely, that the white norms of society cause whites to unconsciously exclude minorities and that whites lack a proper understanding of or outright are racist towards "people of color". But for a second, let's say we accept these wholly biased statements.

It's clear whites are reminded of these pernicious social phenomena rather frequently. We just apologized for slavery for the 100th time. White kids go to elite colleges to recieve "re-education" in orientation seminars, they listen to Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates rant about institutional racism, and hear the President offer an unsubstantiated slap at racist white cops. So when whites are constantly reminded of how they supposedly act, what do these anti-racists think the result will be? [Remember I'm accepting their absurd arguments to make the argument here.]

Here's the main conclusion: Just as blacks taking standardized tests are subject to stereotype threat, so are whites in their dealings with minorities, especially blacks. Whites have no inherent racist tendencies, rather, it's the constant repetition of the anti-racists and the MSM that implores whites, subconsciously, to adopt these racist behaviors. When whites engage with a minority, they have no choice but to act in a way commensurate with the larger social current that constantly reminds them of how they supposedly act in such situations. When a white college student attends a Tim Wise seminar and is informed that he is a blight unto the black people, he, being simply a product of his environment, will undoubtedly internalize such truisms, later reflecting them when approached by a minority.

So, you see, whites aren't racist, it's just the stereotype threat created and persisted through the tireless efforts of anti-racists. Just as blacks are unable to escape the stereotype threat created by a dominant white power structure, whites are unable to escape the lessons of the anti-racists, the school system, and media portrayal. They are bound by the anti-racists and their powerful message concerning the evils of WCM.

Race vs. Gender: A Reply to Obsidian

Recently, 'Obsidian' has begun "participating" in the comment threads. I use quotes around participating because making unjustified generalizations, offering specious data with no subsequent responses, ignoring counterarguments, attacking HBDers as "losers" and "qaunt nerds", and interjecting the "more brains, less penis" law into every conversation barely constitutes "participation". But nonetheless, he's an undeniable presence on this site despite the multiple requests that I ban him.

Obsidian basically repeats two things endlessly. First, the white women-led feminist movement is a far more dangerous threat than a growing NAM culture and population share. Second, HBDers, all of whom are supposedly "sour grapes nerds", focus too heavily on IQ. Instead, we should focus on, umm, who gets laid the most? Well it's something like that.

As for his first point, the feminist movement is surely an important factor in civilization demise. But besides a hilarious argument attempting to show white women benefit the most from affirmative action, Obsidian fails to buttress this assertion. First, white women have gained during the affirmative action era, not due to affirmative action, but due to the concurrent women's rights movement. The female Bell Curve is approximately equal in average to the male distribution, but has less variability and thus less representation at the highest levels. Women have gained simply because they have been encouraged to pursue work outside the home. The current male-female disparity is a result of the variance disparity, not a glass ceiling that's even championed by the modern "Right". White women outperform blacks, prepared to be shocked, because their intelligence distribution is higher, not due to the "white power structure" choosing the "lesser of two evils".

The main problem with white women isn't that they steal the jobs of more qualified white men (other than in science and engineering). Rather, it's the odious feminist value system that disenfranchises the male, subjugates family stability, effects the proper nurturing of children, stigmatizes male norms, depresses the birth rate, evokes negative portrayals of males, and forces males to be dependent on females for a suburban income. But I digress.

So Obsidian is correct that there's a gender problem. But to assert this is the defining factor of civilization decline is assuredly fallacious. Gender relationships have little predictive power in separating successful from non-successful civilizations. As Lynn shows in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, it's race and the association to IQ that defines societal stability. A society with perverted gender norms might falter, but a society composed of third worlders will undoubtedly fail relative to Western standards. Look at a world map for obvious evidence of this. White women might grouse about perceived injustice, but they have no Al Sharpton, no "nation of cowards", no OJ Simpson trial. Feminist movements might depress society, but it's the composition of society, both with regards to IQ and related lack of dysfunction, that mostly defines its trajectory.

Second, Obsidian always reverts the subject to "who gets laid" most. The motivation for such a digression is obvious. While he contends HBDers are a bitter bunch (I urge my readers to find anything in my writing that suggests bitterness instead of grave concern for the West's future) only out to scapegoat "darkies", his bait and switch technique is a transparent attempt to show blacks as the superior peoples. We'll ignore the fact that blacks have higher sexual rates because they pursue lower class women.

So Obsidian constantly denigrates the high IQ by stressing their lack of social skills. Instead, he seems to champion the idea that high sexual rates are what support society and define widespread success. Seeing through this absurd argument is rather easy. IQ has strong correlates not only with technological advancement, but also social stability, discretion, and low crime rates. That's why societies with high IQ individuals, such as the WASP elite of New England, suffer little social pathologies as compared to low IQ areas like New Orleans. Yes, low IQ areas have higher birth rates, but what does this have to do with the quality of life of its denizens? Arabs and Hispanics have extremely high birth rates, yet live in destitute environments. What does "getting laid" have to do with societal stability and saving civilization? How are high birth rates a predictive or motivating factor in creating stable civilizations? While high birth rates are necessary for population replacement, the HBD characteristics of those births are what predict the success of these cohorts. That's why IQ and the related personality distributions of racial groups trump gender.

Oh and yes, you have Larry Summers. I raise you James Watson, William Shockley, Margaret Sanger, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek, Glenn Beck, Francis Galton, and Arthur Jensen.

Black Women are Not More Aggressive

For a good laugh, please see my comments and the responses they garner in this comment thread. Here's a sample:

OneSTDV: So it's just my imagination that black women TEND to be highly aggressive and Asian women TEND to be highly passive with white women somewhere in the middle?

Julia: OneSTDV, Yes, it's just your imagination. I'm 100% serious.

Willow: we are talking about stereotypes, which are first and foremost perpetuated by the media rather than "anecdotal" day-to-day experiences.

Damn those lying eyes of mine!

Spanking vs. IQ Study and Two HBD-related Phenomena

A few weeks ago, a study was published claiming to show the pernicious effects of spanking. Children who were spanked lost a few IQ points in two tests administered four years apart. The authors conclude that:

"The more spanking, the slower the development of the child's mental ability," Straus said in a news release. "But even small amounts of spanking made a difference."

Straus suggests that the chronic stress created by regular spanking creates post-traumatic stress symptoms in children. PTSD is linked to lower IQ.

The authors then suggest political policies based on their data:

"It is ... time for the United States to begin making the advantages of not spanking a public health and child welfare focus, and eventually enact federal no-spanking legislation," he said.

This study represents two cultural phenomena within modern America. First, it represents the liberal (non-political) viewpoint of child rearing. The elite contend that children need freedom to explore and learn by themselves; that strict parenting only leads to emotional enervation and strife. Further, the establishment holds that any constraint on behavior will undoubtedly lead to negative effects later on. It's considered bad parenting to motivate behavior through anything other than unrestrained positive reinforcement.

Unsurprisingly, this viewpoint ignores the underlying aspects of human nature. While positive affirmations do have their place, potentially harmful activity must be counteracted through overtly negative reinforcement, the most effective of which is physical punishment. If dysfunctional behavior is to be curbed, then fear is the most appropriate disincentive. Yet liberals, blinded by their relativism and ignorance of basic human nature, believe lollipops and Barney can make all the difference. This position is also reflected in their foreign policy, where diplomacy and groveling trump portraying strength.

Let's take a universal example. Every kid puts their hand near a stove and some touch it. The pain is unbearable. And what happens after that? They don't touch the stove anymore. Physical pain is the most palpable type of pain and the most easily recalled by the body's impulses. Thus, it's most effective in dictating behavior.

Second, this study continues an interesting trend where IQ means nothing unless it squares with liberal policy. A similar example was the asbestos vs. IQ study that attempted to explain the racial disparity, as the problem overwhelmingly affected blacks. The liberals can't have it both ways. They can't use IQ as a metric to quantify the effects of some supposedly negative social phenomena, yet also claim that IQ measures nothing of significance. As with all science, liberal creationists accept only the results that buttress their positions (generally anti-religious and anti-white Christians).

Moral Perspectives: Homosexuality vs. Pedophilia

Since the 1960's, homosexuality has become a somewhat mainstream sexual preference. While it still has some social stigma, it's generally accepted as a common aspect of biology and not that of mental illness or social deviancy. Given the ubiquity of homosexuality and several theories regarding the "gay gene", "gay germ", or even the "ghost twin syndrome", there's a reasonable argument that truly homosexual individuals, like RuPaul and Rosie O'Donnell, didn't choose to be that way. As a result, polite society has embraced homosexuality as different from the normal, but still "normal". [This is an important point of the argument, so if it's not clear, please say so in the comments.]

Yet, if such acceptance is afforded to homosexuality, how can the modern view of pedophilia be justified? Maybe this is a contentious idea, but in my opinion, pedophilia is a biologically based abnormality affecting a surprisingly large number of people (who else watched those Dateline marathons?). The non-violent, non-intrusive pedophile has an inherent desire for underage children. Just like homosexuality, this deviates from the normal sexual preference.

If one considers homosexuality, due to its biological basis, acceptable even though it differs from the norm, then why is attraction to (not assault of) underage children considered so morally abhorrent? The two situations are almost identical scenarios, yet the social framing of them differ widely. Either one must accept both as immoral or accept both as biologically based abnormalities with no moral connotation.

[This argument holds only for non-offending pedophiles. Additionally, one might counter the argument above by asserting that attraction to young children differs markedly from homosexual attraction. Yet, while sexual activity is used as a means for pleasure, it's most basic utility resides in the realm of reproduction. Thus, both pedophilia and homosexuality fail in this regard. So, a stark distinction between the two, assuming the pedophile is non-offending, doesn't seem obvious.]

Not all Alphas are Obvious

As I do every Sunday, I watched a lot of football yesterday. In the Sunday Night game, a product the NFL naively believes can trump MNF, the Indianapolis Colts played the Tennessee Titans. The Colts are led by the peerless Peyton Manning. You look at Peyton and you see a football player, the kind of alpha male that prepares relentlessly, focuses intently on the task at hand, leads both by example and by expression when necessary, and, ultimately, succeeds. Peyton has become the face of a franchise once epitomized by the great Johnny Unitas, a man who symbolized Old World maleness.

And then we get to Peyton's little brother Eli. Do you see alpha male?


Well I sure don't. But if one doesn't judge Eli entirely on his dopey looks and his overall spaz factor, then Eli represents the male ideal. As with any successful NFL quarterback, Eli has a tireless work ethic that requires both mental and physical diligence. He just signed a contract worth over 100 million dollars. He plays the ultimate male sport, in the ultimate glamour position, regularly standing firm while 350 pound men charge at him. Despite his underwhelming first impression, the Giants increasingly look to Eli for leadership. On draft day, he flat out told the San Diego Chargers he wouldn't play for them, voluntarily entering the New York sports pressure cooker. But the thing that cements Eli's alphaness is his steely resolve.

Ignoring the overrated Tom Brady, Eli is the most clutch QB in the game today. I'd wager he has the most 4th quarter comebacks of any quarterback since the start of the 2005 season. Only top end alphas can master the 4th quarter comeback. A quarterback must endure the pressure of millions counting on him, the physical and mental intricacies of a tight NFL game, the strategic variables involved in pacing the game, and the cool confidence to instill hope in his teammates. In the 2008 Super Bowl, when the GMen got the ball with scant time left and down by four, I guaranteed my brother that Eli would win the game. And he came through.

Eli shows why mere physicality doesn't define the alpha. He must embody the principles of persistence, desire, and confidence for alpha consideration.

Immigration Efforts of the Past

Liberals often oppose widescale repatriation of illegals as impractical. They contend the benefits of deporting millions of illegals would do little to undercut the immense cost required of this task. (An aside: If you discuss low-skill immigration with an open borders advocate, you will inexorably encounter the "They do jobs no Americans will" bromide. Parapundit recently dissected this fallacious argument.)

But such a view of deportation ignores that America has actually done this already, multiple times. Here are three efforts by the American government to decrease foreign (primarily Hispanic) nationals:

-During the Great Depression, Hoover ordered all illegal immigrants to be deported in the Mexican Repatriation program.

-After WWII, Truman ordered a similar task force for the same goal: deporting illegals to make jobs for Americans and to curtail social conflict.

-In 1954, Eisnhower instituted Operation Wetback (seriously, that was its' name) with the same exact goal.

Prior to the 1960's, it was socially acceptable to voice what your lying eyes were telling you: certain groups are more prone to dysfunction than other groups. Further, an imposition of "diversity" generally leads to increased ethnic strife instead of racially heterogeneous peer groups. Finally, importing an entire class of workers is simply bad business. You don't import competition into an economic sector with ample human resources.

Blog Recommendation

I frequently read a blog called Angry White Dude. I'm sure many of my regular readers have found it already. Don't be fooled by the somewhat off-putting blog name, AWD would fit in perfectly with the HBD crowd. He offers honest and unbiased commentary on race issues, generally done so in an absolutely hilarious manner. His coverage of the Obama (or as he calls him "Hussein Hopenchange") phenomenon rivals Sailer's. Please check out his site.

How Did You Get Into HBD?

Saturday Audience Participation Post:

I'm curious how you, the reader, got interested in and convinced of HBD. What prompted you to start researching racial differences? What authors, scholars, intellectuals, or Internet bloggers convinced you of racial cognitive differences? And what evidence did you find most compelling?

I'll give my story, though I'll leave out some of the minor details.

My HBD awakening actually started with female, not NAM, affirmative action. I had worked closely with a female peer. Throughout the course of our working together, I found her to be highly incompetent. As a result, I actually completed her assigned work instead of risking my reputation on her subpar efforts. Other peers and supervisors, as well as various metrics of performance, mirrored my opinion of her mediocrity. Yet, when competing against each other for an incredibly selective honor, she was chosen despite being unqualified in almost every respect.

After hearing this news, I immediately started researching negative opinions of affirmative action. I stumbled across various blogs, notably Discriminations.us, voicing similar opposition. It was refreshing to see individuals who felt the same way that I did. Meandering through various links, I came across Sailer, who I had visited a few times during the then-recent James Watson controversy. In about a day of reading almost every one of his archived article, I was an HBDer.

For me the most convincing piece of evidence is this SAT vs. Income chart. Anyone involved in an HBD argument or hoping to convert a friend should start with this chart.

So how about you?

Help for TUJ and Guest Posting

Awhile back, 'The Undiscovered Jew' asked me if he could write a guest post for OneSTDV. As of now, he needs help finding data for his post. He asks:

Could you put up a post tomorrow on your blog which asks readers to provide links to data about the average age of first time home buyers?

-The data should have been collected no earlier than 1998 and no latter than 2004 because I am using 2002 CDC fertility rate data by state and because I want to minimize the statistical influence of the 2005-2008 housing bubble as much as possible.

- Exclude DC, but insist that data covers all 50 states.

-I would like if the data is broken down by race, but I can still do the analysis without a racial breakdown.

-I don't need to see a lengthy technical analysis by the survey authors, just a list of the average age of first time home buyers broken down by state will be more than sufficent.

Other regular commenters, like mike, silly girl, sabril, Jokah, Stopped Clock, Peter, Florida Resident, Dalrock, or sestambi, are welcome to guest post as well. Please contact me if you're interested.

Not just SWPLs Bamboozled by the Obamessiah

Next year, he'll win it in Physics (hat tip to 'mike'):

Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize.

Politics of the Ivy League

The Ivy League is comprised of eight of the most elite universities in the country. The graduates of these universities and the professors that teach them do much to shape America's politics. As an example, the current administration is full of Ivy Leaguers. So one might ask what the political climate is at these schools, both amongst the students and amongst the professors. The following are my general observations from various sources, both primary and secondary.

The professors: Pretty simple. Over 95% are liberal. Each government department will have one token conservative, and he's generally more libertarian than Old World.

Brown: The quintessential liberal and liberal arts college. There are no grades, no core curriculum, plenty of fluffy humanities majors, lots of gays, and lots of naked parties. Brown has few prominent alumni because most of kids become SWPL urbanites with little practical skills.

Columbia: Located in New York City. Allowed Iranian President to speak there last year, so that about covers their political leanings. Alma mater of both Pat Buchanan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Cornell: Located in the bastion of hippie liberalism: Ithaca New York. Cornell gave rise to both Keith Olbermann and Ann Coulter. Probably the most practically based campus due to their high ranked engineering school and lots of pre-meds. Students tend to be highly liberal, though a large Greek system harbors some of that "frat-boy" conservatism. Site of the one of the most racially charged incidents at a college: The Straight Takeover.

Dartmouth: In my opinion, this school and the general atmosphere there epitomizes "frat-boy" conservatism. What is that in particular? Watch Animal House which was based on the fraternity scene at the school. Dartmouth is a cesspool of drugs and alcohol in the middle of nowhere. It should be kicked out of the Ivy League, though most people besides their own graduates and other overly ambitious future I-bankers don't even know it exists.

Harvard: The head of the Big Three. The colossal of higher education. Harvard has a bigger endowment than the country of Ireland and the clout to prove it. Larry Summers recent controversy and his subsequent firing reflects the political scene. The alma mater of too many to list, including Al Gore, both Obamas (law), and home to anti-HBDers Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould and professional rabble-rouser Henry Louis Gates. Bush the First once mocked Harvard as being leftist, which is ironic given what I have to say about his alma mater.

Princeton: Part of the Big Three. Previously the second most conservative Ivy behind Dartmouth due to their obdurate insistence on being a school for male WASPs. They went so far as to create the Institute for Advanced Study to house von Neumann, Einstein, and Godel (guess what they have in common). Princeton has a slightly more conservative student body, primarily due to their eating clubs. But it's home to rap star Cornel West, an alum. The alma mater of Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and, infamously, Michelle Obama.

UPenn: In the heart of Philadelphia, where liberal (mostly Jewish) white people send their children to live in a "diverse" community. Highly pre-professional due to Wharton. Site of the Water Buffalo incident in the early 90's which sparked racial tensions across campus. The alma mater of Donald Trump and Noam Chomsky. Constantly confused for Penn State, to the eternal chagrin of its graduates. Campus politics are somewhat affected by Philadelphia's climate, which is heavily influenced by blacks such as former mayor John Street and current mayor Michael Nutter.

Yale: Part of the Big Three. Used to be a blue-blood school for Andover prepsters, but since the 1980's, it's been known as the Gay Ivy. A "diverse" community, New Haven's crime problem caused applications to drop in the early 90's. The alma mater of Hilary Clinton (law), William F. Buckley, and the home of anti-HBDer Robert Sternberg. Yale's strengths lie in the humanities and law, as they have little presence in sciences or engineering. The infamous secret societies (which ironically, publish their "tap" list every year in the Yale Daily News) have been home to both John Kerry and Bush. Yale-Harvard game every year probably the last widespread refuge of conservatism at the school.

Saving the West by Killing the West

Western Civilization is slowly rotting. Europe is being flooded with fecund Muslims and ostracizing anyone willing to express opposition to unfettered immigration. America has succumbed to the PC doctrine promulgated on our college campuses and in the polite conversation of our living rooms. Soon, we'll be a NAM-majority country and the results of countries with similar demographic structures aren't uplifting. So what is necessary to save the West?

In the Steveosphere and the connected MRA-sphere, political correctness, women's suffrage, indiscriminate government spending, NAM dysfunction, and a decay of the beta have been blamed. We have ample answers to the underlying causes of the West's demise. We have odious groups, conniving enablers, and the naively blind. Yet, what is the ultimate solution for our problems? And if we implement these solutions, will the solution itself change the West so much that it no longer embodies the characteristics that make it THE WEST?

What I'm referring to is a totalitarian governing body buttressing the beta, outlawing hypergamy through divorce and custody laws that favor the independent male, defending American and Western culture against Hispanifcation, sterilization and eugenics programs for the dim, destructive, and drug-addled, and altogether accepting the implications of HBD. One can plausibly envision a government saving the West from its own destruction. Society would fall in line and Old World values would see a renaissance. Thus, the battle is won and the West survives.

Yet, is this the West we want to survive? In this West, the concept of the individual and his individual pugnacity is tempered by HBD grouping (come on, it's bound to happen). In this new West, the beta has sexual options, but this new West mirrors the Muslim world in its subjugation of women. In this new West, crime reduces, but a possibly more pernicious entity of control lingers. In this new West, the dumb don't procreate, but their freedom of choice, and thus our gross utility, is significantly lowered.

Perhaps, this new West, the one we've created in saving the old West, isn't a civilization better than the decrepit one we all foreshadow. Perhaps, if we give up too many of our Enlightenment values to defend said values, then we actually hurt ourselves in the long run.

Babies Are Not Only Racist

In The Philosophical Baby, Alison Gopnik argues that babies are quite adept at learning and understanding intellectual concepts. Using recent discoveries concerning brain development in young children, she connects the molding of childhood to the experiences of adults. I won't comment on the Blank Slate hypothesis she seems to be propagating, but it's another study into the minds of babies.

So not only are babies racist, but they're also philosophical.

Brain-Brain Interaction and Thoughts on Free Will

Is the "God-gap" for the "mind" shrinking? A new brain-computer interface allows people to communicate merely through thought.

Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI) can be used for capturing brain signals and translating them into commands that allow humans to control (just by thinking) devices such as computers, robots, rehabilitation technology and virtual reality environments.

While attached to an EEG amplifier, the first person would generate and transmit a series of binary digits, imagining moving their left arm for zero and their right arm for one. The second person was also attached to an EEG amplifier and their PC would pick up the stream of binary digits and flash an LED lamp at two different frequencies, one for zero and the other one for one. The pattern of the flashing LEDs is too subtle to be picked by the second person, but it is picked up by electrodes measuring the visual cortex of the recipient.

The encoded information is then extracted from the brain activity of the second user and the PC can decipher whether a zero or a one was transmitted. This shows true brain-to-brain activity.

This is an absolutely stunning development that implies the Matrix isn't far off. But what about the implications for thought and free will? Given the incredibly self-evident nature of daily experience, questioning the existence of the self and the free actor is rather sensational. But where do thoughts and free action originate? And, in the context of modern neuroscience and technology as in the above, is the domain and concept of free will shrinking?

Almost every person believes free will exists primarily on the basis of personal experience. If I want to move my hand, I can move my hand. If I want to type this sentence, I will type this sentence. In my opinion, the notion of free will can only be saved by invoking an incorporeal mind, somehow connected to the brain, but not imposed upon by the laws of nature. Thus, the "I" we use in common language would be reflected in the will of this spiritual "mind", that nebulous concept first expressed by Descartes.

Why do I require the mind to be outside the realm of physical processes? If it isn't, then it becomes not at all dissimilar to any other physical system. And if we aren't willing to grant free will to computer and rocks, then how can an entirely physical mind "choose" its actions when the laws of physics and the impulses of external reality dictate action?

If one doesn't presume the mind is incorporeal, then how can the concept of free will still exist? One must first define the "I" or the "myself", the individual choosing his actions. Presumably, such an edifice would exist within the brain, but from what structure (frontal lobe, cerebral cortex, etc...) or nexus of structures does this "I" emerge? And besides quantum randomness, how does the "I" escape the processes of physical nature?

Is it possible free will is merely an evolutionary adaption intended to stave off depression? Or create more stable communities by imbuing individuals with a sense of control or hope?

Curious to hear your thoughts.