What the Military Represents

Today is Memorial Day, a day when even diehard partisans honor the fallen. And everyone else has an excuse to imbibe in their favorite alcoholic beverage and make small talk with people they dislike. In concordance with my post last Monday, I've always harbored a strong reverence for the military, primarily due to the ascetic lifestyle and the theatrics comprising military imagery. Perhaps not all of our militaristic aggression has been justified, whether from a nationalist or a wholly moral perspective. Nonetheless, today is one day when America isn't depicted as an entirely noxious entity, but rather one with ideals and values worthy protecting.

But aside from the sentimentality, what does this extant phenomenon tell us about the human condition?

Some conservative voices recently criticized Elena Kagan for opposing an ROTC presence at Harvard. While this claim is disputable, it does reflect the liberal bias against the military, a default position that undoubtedly tells us something about what the military represents. In general, the left opposes any institution that betrays their narrative of humanity. Thus, any truth, no matter how veracious the relevant argument, that undermines the PC construction of man becomes an enemy of the left.

The mere presence of a military, the notion that a nation must possess even a minimal federal protection unit, reflects the unavoidable behavior of man. Man is attracted to nationalism, especially the brand pertaining to ethnic kin. He's a social animal who seeks to form groups of similar individuals and, by default, such inclusion often leads to exclusionary enmity. He seeks hegemonic power and finds much satisfaction in achieving this predominance through aggressive means.

Ostensibly, the ubiquity of war and the prevalence of collectivist uprisings throughout human history corroborate these observations. Yet the left seeks a utopic order absent of nationalist conflict or even national boundaries. They envision an entirely globalist order where individual countries become servile pawns to an international body. They believe diversity initiatives that demand the coalescence of disparate groups can succeed. And that cultural indoctrination can temper man's carnal hostility.

Yet what does history tell us? History tells us such romanticism constitutes an unrealistic delusion. And the military reflects these maxims, thus branding them an enemy of the left.

Abortion Law Requires Ultrasound

In their campaign to undermine all value, virtue, and kinship, liberals have successfully degraded the very concept of life. In doing so, primarily to unfetter the licentious appetite motivating female hypergamy, the pro-abortion advocates have gradually come to dominate public discourse on this subject. This is especially true for those desiring an easy way out, a cohort of individuals accepting the remarkably weak claim that life has an arbitrary beginning sometime during the pregnancy cycle.

Yet, "anti-choicers" are fighting back against these unfortunate embedded norms of our culture. Over 20 states have possible laws requiring ultrasounds prior to abortion, a tactic designed to initiate an emotional response amongst these mothers. Admittedly, this seemingly productive strategy has proved woefully ineffective in achieving its intended objective.

However, the philosophical basis of the program, the notion that women have an biological imperative towards motherhood and that a palpable stimulus could conjure up strong emotions, speaks to the deleterious cultural memes underpinning the abortion argument. Abortion advocates have belittled early pregnancy, the inchoate stages of life, so much that women deny themselves the emotional richness of motherhood. One woman makes this despondency quite explicit:

But a number of women at the Birmingham clinic, which was the site of a fatal bombing in 1998, said they simply did not want to subject themselves to images that might haunt them. “You almost have to think of it as an alien,” said Carmen, 28, who was there for her second abortion in three years.

The proposed law seeks to counter this cultural evil. Will it work?

During the six days the law was in effect, all of the patients at the Reproductive Services abortion clinic in Tulsa averted their eyes from the ultrasound screen, said Linda S. Meek, the clinic’s director. But they could not avoid hearing descriptions of fetal length and heart activity, she said. Many left in tears, but none changed course.

Perhaps the prattling about "women's rights" and "clumps of cells" is far too potent a force to undermine. Nonetheless, by virtue of the proposed law, the abortionists have relinquished some control over the public message and I'm in favor of this increased diversity.

PC or Mac?

Saturday Audience Participation

What's interesting about Apple computers is that they've always depicted themselves as the anti-establishment brand. Here's their breakthrough commercial for the Apple Macintosh showing a desolate Orwellian dystopia freed by a lone dissident. Apple continues to relish in their outsider status as reflected in this recent marketing campaign with the hipster Apple vs. the corporate PC. This advertising strategy has surely resonated with an eager public, especially young individuals who buy into this anti-conformity.

But those that buy Mac primarily to eschew the masses' uniformity ironically adhere to the mores of a slightly smaller cohort. That's the problem with SWPLs and hipsters: they merely exchange one means of conforming for another, with the latter premised entirely on disavowing the more obvious manner of conforming. In buying Mac and then gleefully showing it off around town, one doesn't signal his "dare to be different" attitude. Instead, one advertises a rather fragile ego dependent on the positive social reinforcement of others.

Obviously, I've never understood the appeal of Apple computers. The interface is non-intuitive and my PC computers have always worked fine, not to mention the higher price. I imagine there are some that buy Mac because they prefer the brand, but many do so with the intention skewered in this The Onion article.

Today's question: excluding your iPod, iPhone, or iPad, is your main computer PC or Mac? And why?

Rand Paul on 1964 Civil Rights Act

I haven't covered the Rand Paul fiasco yet, so I'll do so in this post. On Rachel Maddow's show last weekend, Paul made the following statements:

Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Many supporters of Paul's statements, such as John Stossel, have sought to countenance this on economic grounds, believing that the free market will moderate the situation. Yet, such a view glibly ignores the existence of markets entirely comprised of ethnic consumers, such as the hair relaxant market or country music. I foresee the free market further segregating America as companies tailor their outreach to specific racial groups in order to maximize return. Think Tyler Perry's latest movie hawked at his line of grocery and department stores. Ostensibly, even with his iconoclastic notoriety, Dr. Paul couldn't voice such a anti-PC prognostication.

However, Dr. Paul does rightly couch this in a moral framework: the moral right of a private business to associate with who they choose. While I oppose discriminatory practices in hiring decisions, as this exceeds the boundaries of "free association", a private company reserves the right to be racist. We can't arbitrarily restrict the notions of freedom because they happen to defy PC doctrine. We must accept a moral law as is even if it leads to morally reprehensible outcomes, such as aborting a child merely for being conceived in the "wrong" month.

Those that take umbrage at Dr. Paul's ardent ideological loyalty, itself a sin in our relativistic culture, do so based on a desire to impose racial desegregation and a perfunctory dismissal of HBD.

"If you look at any market for which we've done extensive studies, significant discrimination remains," Grant-Thomas said. "It's clearly better than it was. But there's still discrimination."

"There are plenty of private organizations that currently -- and legally -- discriminate on the basis of race, or other grounds, in their membership. That hasn't caused them to go under," he said. "Indeed ... in some key arenas -- like housing and schools, some people pay more for segregated settings."

There needs to be an HBD analogue to the common saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

Never attribute to discrimination that which can be adequately explained by genetic racial differences.

The discrimination conclusion needs no further elucidation here. As for the other idea, the notion that "some people pay more for segregated settings", the author astoundingly believes one must choose his neighborhood with regard to diversity. I can't even argue with such lunacy. And is he that willfully deluded to ignore that crime rates correspond with geographic racial composition?

Finally, the idea that minorities would suffer massive exclusion from society represents a tacit admission discordant with liberal creationism. If minorities are afforded the same economic rights (no hiring discrimination), then surely they could develop and cultivate a parallel community of retailers and upscale residential units without need for white-owned ones. Simply, if we are to believe blacks and other minorities do not depend on the white majority's largess, they should easily maintain their own communities. The histrionics concerning Dr. Paul's statement belies the racial egalitarianism these individuals espouse.

White Knights on ABC: Abused Woman Social Experiment

Feministing.com discusses this recent ABC social experiment concerning abused women:

Trigger Warning* [seriously?]

This is actually really stressful to watch, even thought I know it is a dramatic interpretation but it is amazing to see how people react to abusive situations. ABC's new show "What Would You Do?" set up a series of couples acting out being in a abusive relationship. The way strangers react is totally heart wrenching.

Basically, an extremely aggressive man confronts his "girlfriend", wearing makeup that realistically mirrors bruising and other injuries, in a public restaurant. When the girlfriend is dressed conservatively, the other customers intervene on the woman's behalf. When the girlfriend is dressed proactively, the other customers remain complacent. The Feminsting scribe opines:

The underlying belief is that if women are perceived as sex workers, read "slutty," they were in some way asking for it.

I disagree. I'd wager the different reactions stem from a lack of respect commensurate with the girlfriend's sexual openness. The other patrons' responses reflect the existence of a number of indicators of status and class. Provocative dress implies a sexual luridness most middle aged persons find deplorable.

What's more interesting though is the underlying narrative formulated by ABC. These social experiments serve to measure the general public's adherence to PC norms. In this case, the producers and editors obviously consider intervention the laudable behavior. The interlopers are subsequently profiled in a positive light, while those that largely ignore the situation are subtly attacked. Essentially, ABC believes it is incumbent upon the public, not even one's confidants but the larger community, to moderate such volatile situations. Of course, it would represent an egregious sin against the PC to question the abused woman or cogitate on the female's more carnal motivations.

Simon Cowell and the Culture of Mean

Simon Cowell leaves American Idol tonight. Newsweek columnist Ramin Setoodeh derides Simon's singular brand of insult-laden judgment.

We are a culture that thrives on meanness—mean blogs, mean political campaigns, mean girls. Cowell helped take us there. Before him, we lived in a time of propriety and Miss Manners. The judges on Star Search simply scored the contestants without a line of commentary. Cowell changed all that, maybe because his technique was so easy: blurt out what you really think, and turn up the volume.

Ms. Setoodeh continues by noting the pervasiveness of this over the top criticism:

Not surprisingly, our kids had no trouble adopting the Simon Cowell language. Two years after Idol, Perez Hilton launched his blog, where he dissed celebrities and drew phallic symbols around their faces. His readers would then add their own nasty quips...In the last decade, the Internet has turned us all into players in the game of Simon says.

[T]he truth is, Simon Cowell has dragged the rest of us in the mud with him.

The author seems to blame Cowell for this undesirable aspect of our culture. In doing so, she implies that our cultural icons motivate the larger public's behavior, instead of a paradigm where the public chooses amongst competing alternatives. I'd wager the latter represents the more accurate picture of cultural progression, with the public a proactive component of deciding which memes become ubiquitous and which disappear as fleeting fads.

Simon's discerning yet overly sardonic criticism found popularity due to our vicarious urge for similar honesty. We like it because we have an innate desire to downgrade our rivals, belittle our peers, and engage in self-aggrandizement by virtue of others' failures. But Simon didn't force us to like him. And as evinced by the brutal world of Internet commenting, we gleefully engage in Simon-esque commentary. Though one must note that Simon's judgment of capable singers is judicious, while Internet criticism (see any Youtube video) is rarely so equitable.

As noted on this blog, civilization exists as a means of tempering our naturally pernicious urges. A society without constraint on behavior, without moderation of man's vestigial personality traits, is doomed to fail. The Internet, by way of Youtube, Facebook, and the multitude of porn sites, exists as a social environment free from shame and thus illustrates all of man's carnal characteristics. Simon didn't bring us there; he just so happened to parallel a number of growing institutions symbiotically peddling the same product.

Quick side note: For some reason, an individual can't hear how poorly he sings. Most of the early auditioneers on Idol are unhinged, but surely the vast number of them points to this rather odd phenomenon. I imagine it also underlies the reason why good singers require feedback to stay in tune.

Black-White Wealth Disparity Grows

In the mainstream sphere of discourse, there's interminable grousing about the black-white wealth disparity. The optimism of the Great Society and Civil Rights programs has given way to bitter anger concerning the stagnancy of black ascension. For those who understand the existence of racial genetic differences, these intractable gaps are quite mundane. But even amongst the HBD crowd, I've yet to encounter this following surprising discovery, contained in the article Massive Race Divide: Blacks Will Never Gain Wealth Equality With Whites Under the Current System.

The gap between Black and white household [accumulated] wealth quadrupled from 1984 to 2007, totally discrediting the conventional wisdom that the U.S. is slowly and fitfully moving towards racial equality, or some rough economic parity between the races. Like most American myths, it’s the direct opposite of the truth. When measured over decades, Blacks are being propelled economically downward relative to whites at quickening speed, according to a new study by Brandeis University [well, that's ironic].

The gap between Black and white households ballooned during the 23-year study period, as white families went from a median of about $22,000 in wealth to $100,000 – a gain of $78,000. In the same period, Black household wealth inched up from a base of $2,000 per family to only $5,000.

Guess who's to blame:

Any way one measures it, the numbers show African Americans are tumbling out of the nation’s economic orbit, wealth-wise, on a trajectory that can never achieve parity with whites. I repeat: never. [My agreement with this statement surely derives from a markedly different position.]

Black folks have been integrated long enough to know that the white family didn’t get richer by a quarter million dollars because they were smarter than the Black family. [Ummm..no comment] Privilege, especially cumulative privilege over generations, works wonders, like compound interest only better. Whites are both collectively privileged and capable of bestowing an endless stream of privileges on each other, while Blacks are deliberately positioned outside of the stream, and are preyed upon as a group by powerful (white) financial forces that profit from the wealth differential.

The Brandies report recognizes the “powerful role of persistent discrimination in housing, credit and labor markets” – that is, the institutionally racist crimes of finance capital.

Yes the white privilege canard surfaces once again, along with a decidedly mendacious characterization of the "housing, credit, and labor markets”. Have any of these bombastic commentators ever heard of a control group (Asians, Jews, even Hispanics). Note how the Brandeis authors eagerly extrapolate this wealth disparity into the discrimination narrative, providing no casual argument besides the echo chamber of mainstream academia. The author, a Jeremiah Wright doppelganger, criticizes the culture argument:

Enemies of all colors and sly servants of the rich will use the news of the evaporation of African American wealth to heap blame on Black “culture.” This “shaming” strategy is designed to keep Blacks looking inward for the source of their woes, and to simultaneously despair of finding salvation in our own capacity for group agency.

Only an obstinate ideologue could so readily dismiss the unfettered culture that defines much of black America. The libertine attitudes of black culture following Civil Rights have led to pathological deviancy in their racial community, an argument buttressed by STD rates, out of wedlock births, divorce rates, and drug use (now how is whitey to blame for those?).

As for the discovery of an INCREASE in the disparity, even I found this startlingly, especially the magnitude ($78,000 vs $3,000 in growth for median income). It's likely due to the growth of the technology sector as well an increasingly global market. These two growth sectors are exclusive to those with high intelligence and thus would include a disproportionate amount of whites vs. blacks. Further, white haves higher future time orientation and thus accumulated wealth is usually bestowed upon the next generation, either through educational investment or direct endowment. Occam's Razor once again.

Establishment Conservatism and the Rise of Libertarians

With Rand Paul's win in the Kentucky primary and the Tea Party's connection to libertarianism, there's been recent discussion on non-establishment conservatism. Distinguishing between competing right-leaning philosophies isn't a trivial exercise and I avoid it as to shirk ideological loyalty. Perhaps the most rigorous defense of radical conservatism comes from Alternative Right, by way of founding editor Richard Spencer. Here's his article on Rand Paul's win:

I would have voted for him if I lived in the Blue Grass state. Paul's victory is also indicative of the power of the Tea Party movement, which originated with his father's 2008 presidential campaign but has taken on a life of its own.

I first heard about Ron Paul in late 2007, as his iconoclastic views found favor amongst some atheist commentators. But I had little impetus to investigate him further after learning of Dr. Paul's association with 9/11 truthers. Such a despondent view of the American government, no matter how flawed or expansive it may be, is beyond the realm of reasonable discourse.

In his major TV spots, Rand promised not to close Gitmo, stated (albeit vaguely) that "fighting back" was the proper response to 9/11, and flashed a lot of images of Military-Industrial-Complex fighter planes soaring through the sky. Though I thought this kind of stuff was on the wane, the GWOT, "standing tall against Islam," and even Christian Zionism still remain integral parts of the identity politics of Red-State Christian white people.

Here Spencer admonishes the supposed memes of establishment conservatism. Reactionary conservatives like Spencer, with whom I undoubtedly share many viewpoints, believe opposition to militaristic initiatives is a laudably radical sentiment. Because, ya know, everyone loves going to war. Of course, any rational individual considers aggressive military action an undesirable alternative, but albeit, one that's occasionally necessary. This necessity stipulation doesn't apply to naive democracy exportation or nation building, but rather situations where defensive action is warranted.

In doing so, Spencer seems to belittle the "standing tall" stance against Islam and presumably excoriates the military efforts in Afghanistan. But only an abject reductionist could dismiss the collective melancholy following 9/11 as insignificant as to warrant a military response. We needed a swift and decisive reaction to moderate our collective sorrow. Someone attacks us, we attack back. Further, this position assumes Islam presents no imminent challenge to the West, a notion I approach with much credulity. As for Iraq, I'm with Spencer.

In general, America does not exist as the adjudicator of the world's conflicts or the globe's benevolent guardian angel. We must hold our citizens' rights and desires as the preeminent value; though in highly specific circumstances, we can justifiably veer from this principle. Quick digression on Israel and the Muslim problem: By far the best solution has Israel moving to South America or Africa and Western countries disallowing all Muslim immigration.

Spencer continues by alluding to a seemingly leftist concoction deemed the "Military-Industrial-Complex", perhaps a reactionary parallel to the prison-industry-complex. Here, Spencer does point to an aspect of government profligacy as we likely spend too much on defense. Though, quite simply, Hailburton and Lockheed provide a countless number of jobs. While this isn't sufficient for justifying the high expenditures, it surely undermines the claim that military spending is entirely wasteful. Second, the military invests heavily in research and development of technologies with civilian benefits. One can't underestimate the impact military driven research has for our continuing technological progress. Third, owing to his economic reductionism, Spencer overlooks the nationalistic spirit derived from these admittedly overwrought military memes. The military remains the only decidedly conservative and patriotic American institution, despite the left's attempts at undermining them through multicult and feminist infiltrations. Military strength and defense robustness constitute palatable representations of national strength. The pride engendered by images of fighter planes and austere Marines are integral to our national consciousness.

As for Dr. Paul and Mr. Spencer's libertarianism, I'm a staunch proponent of limited government. But amongst the more heterodox libertarians, abolishment of the federal tax, dissolving the multicult/fem racketeering business, defense of private industry and personal choice, and opposition to welfare and universal healthcare, don't suffice. In this article, Spencer mentions closing Gitmo as an issue of primary importance. I can't imagine Mr. Spencer sympathizes with suspected terrorists (though Muslim apologetics are quite common amongst the libertarian commentariat); instead, Mr. Spencer likely considers this a harbinger of government imposition on our civil liberties. I understand the general argument, though for me personally, I would gladly relinquish some of my civil liberties if it means criminals, illegal immigrants, and suspected terrorists are more thoroughly investigated. Much of this rhetoric appeals to a slippery slope, paranoid argument that I simply don't foresee coming to fruition. While liberty remains an undoubtedly sacred facet of our society, we must make concessions for that freedom. I'm also wary of how this squares with immigration restriction, as many libertarians advocate open borders. Some comments from VFR:

Pure libertarianism sees the state as the first, last, and only source of evil in the world. If we as a society have a problem with a certain group (Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, etc), it's obviously the state riling them up. .

There are many writers who promulgate the idea that our government, not Islam or Mexican irredentism, is the real threat. But they're making a fundamental mistake. And our govenrment is reformable by us, difficult as that may be, whereas Islam and foreign irredentism are not under our control.

On the issue of economics, I obviously agree with many free market ideals, but I don't espouse the anarcho-capitalism envisioned by some utopic libertarians. We need public alternatives for policing, education, transportation, etc. Of course, we also need private robustness and a limited amount of regulation only where necessary, such as for issues of safety. The free market is an assuredly powerful, self-correcting method for economic vitality, but not an omnipotent one.

In my opinion, foundational and Constitutional conservative movements support limited government, but still harbor traditional American values, such as a strong military, glorification of US aggression, denunciation of Muslims and other aggressive foreigners, and little of this overly pessimistic view of government. These movements view America as a fluid democracy defined by its people, not as an ultimately doomed statist entity.

Miss Muslim USA: Islam and Beauty Pageant PC

Last week, Rima Fakih was crowned Miss Muslim USA. The right wing punditry has denounced this affirmative action choice and lamented the polemical question posed to the blond runner-up from Oklahoma. This follows Ms. California's response last year opposing gay marriage. Here are the questions with their respective answers:

Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it’s costly. “I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it’s a controlled substance,” Fakih said.

Woolard handled the night’s toughest question, about Arizona’s new immigration law. [S]he [said she] supports the law. “I’m a huge believer in states’ rights. I think that’s what’s so wonderful about America,” Woolard said.

It's just odd that we even ask beauty pageant contestants about these issues. I imagine it might be a form of public shaming, whereby the media eagerly smears a slightly un-PC blond girl as epitomizing those with ostensibly antediluvian viewpoints. By interjecting this discourse into an entirely neutral event, these individuals, such as Perez Hilton, impose pressure on the contestants. And those without the fortitude of Ms. Prejean and Miss Oklahoma readily cave and further substantiate these PC diktats. Gradually, the left has interjected their ideals into every aspect of American life, including movies, television, the university system, and now this televised "water cooler".

As for Miss Muslim USA, apparently Ms. Fakih has embraced one typifying facet of our America: religious relativism. In addition to enduring overt pandering around the "holidays", it's now logically consistent to practice "both Muslim and Christian faiths". So is she going to commit jihad against herself? I'm not sure how her dual religion is even possible, but surely the "Coexist" media will laud this as symbolic of the melting pot. Only in America could one profess belief in two completely contradictory paradigms and have such cognitive dissonance celebrated.

In regards to her behavior being discordant with Islamic law, well that's pretty obvious. Let me briefly comment on a related point. Whenever Muslim zealots engage in a violent act, a handful of reactionary conservatives will praise these actions. The argument contends Muslims haven't succumbed to the "emasculation" of Western white knights. And that somehow their extremism is justified on these grounds.

I wrote about this over-the-top response in a post entitled Saving the West by Killing the West:

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?

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.

The Muslim world does support some positive political programs, especially harder punishment for criminals. But surely these few praiseworthy ideals pale in comparison to all the injurious aspects of their society. By glorifying Muslim fanaticism, one analogously champions the rapist for subverting the post-1960's undermining of the beta male. (Oh wait, some MRA types diminish rape as not a big deal.) I'd still take the liberally tainted but FREE America over any other nation; and further, the incipient conservative renaissance likely blossoming this November gives me optimism for our future.

LOST Finale: Fate, Faith, and Ultimate Satisfaction

Saturday Audience Participation

On Sunday, this decade's cultist television series LOST concludes with a 2.5 hour finale. LOST, with its intricate storylines and taste for erudite allusions and underlying themes, has cultivated a rabid fanbase eagerly awaiting the series' final chapter. Ostensibly, I can't summarize the entirety of the show, but I will broach the obvious themes of fate, reason vs. faith, good vs. evil, and redemption. The show works well on two levels: as a story driven work and as rumination on these interminably interesting ideas. Without divulging any details, the LOST writers seem to ultimately side with faith and the satisfaction derived from destiny. And even more surprising, LOST constructs a good vs. evil dichotomy, with the opposing sides defined in an exacting manner. Moral relativism might be interjected into some of the storylines, but the overriding narrative makes clear that such a view is false.

Back to fate: its this idea, that life's struggles have an ultimate purpose and that fate decides our fortunes and failures, that I've found the most powerful within the teleological realm. Even nihilistic cynics like myself can't deny the potency of such a belief. I can't deny how such faith can provide unparalleled reassurance and support.

So today's question: If you watch LOST, what are your thoughts on the themes? The finale? The series as a whole? If you don't, what are your views on fate and faith vs. reason? Which provides a better foundation for life and is the relative truth value of the two paradigms important in answering that question?

American Eagle, Bill O'Reilly, Ewoks, and Cross Dressers

In my mind, Bill O'Reilly epitomizes the traditionalist conservative perspective, the notion that there exists a set of social and cultural mores imbued with axiomatic value. They hold that ways of behavior, dress, and speech, such as those related to gender, are intimately connected to our national vigor. The contentious culture war champions such an argument and O'Reilly has been a staunch advocate of this position.

Of course, I agree with many of their viewpoints, but I don't naively presume such traditional roles have an objective basis. In the realm of marriage and family, surely the male propensity for work and the female inclination towards nurturing and socializing readily equate with entrenched gender roles. But in more ambiguous scenarios, such as those concerning dress, it's not a trivial exercise to logically countenance gender norms.

Recently, O'Reilly discussed a lawsuit against American Eagle claiming they discriminated against transgendered peoples. Apparently, American Eagle demanded men dress like men and women dress like women. O'Reilly espouses the traditionalist viewpoint below:

They got a little pamphlet that says to their employees you have to dress appropriately, particularly on the floor. You have got to dress neat. If you are a man, you can't dress like a woman and visa versa. You can't scare the customers. If your name is Fred, you can't look like Dolly Parton. Transgender people come in, challenge. American Eagle folds.

But liberals can formulate a rather cogent argument concerning the subjectivity of gender dress, admittedly one that's logically consistent, but pragmatically absurd. Nonetheless, if I'm to judge the relevant arguments of O'Reilly and the blond lady, who harps on some liberal concoction deemed "gender identity", I have to side with the latter. The other attractive woman comments on the ambiguity of the company's language and a legally nebulous term "appropriateness". Liberals easily usurp the traditionalist argument because they don't respect the presumably valuable institutions of conservatism.

O'Reilly needs to focus on the rights of private companies and private individuals. American Eagle has no standing to define "appropriate dress" or adopt an official position on gender construction. But they do have the right to demand certain behavior and dress of their employees. American Eagle has the right to define the stipulations of employment (within reason of course) and surely, a dress code requiring one wear chicken outfits, Civil War uniforms, or nothing at all, is legally permissible. O'Reilly finishes with this acerbic remark:

If you owned a clothing corporation, you say, you can dress like an Ewok if you want.

But yes Mr. O'Reilly, that is what we're suggesting. If someone doesn't like the rules for employment, he is free to pursue work elsewhere. O'Reilly is really confused here, as he seems to be arguing for some type of larger intervention (from who, I'm not sure) as he admonishes any company that would allow its employees to cross-dress. Unfortunately, he seems blind to any position not equivalent to social conservatism and, as a result, he overlooks a far more rigorous defense of his argument.

Pat Buchanan on Elena Kagan and the Jews

Soon after Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, Pat Buchanan (he of the unnecessary war argument) penned the following polemic concerning Jewish overrepresentation. Let me first mention that I don't care about Kagan's ethnic or religious background. She's an Obama nominee and a leftist; enough said.

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

There are a number of ways of interpreting Buchanan's argument and I imagine his intention was partly motivated by all the reasons I present below.

First, Buchanan rightly admonishes Democrats for obdurately ignoring their own cherished ideal of diversity. The statistic he provides (five out of seven Jewish Democratic justices) surely justifies such an assertion. If Democrats consider diversity a requisite dimension of success, then choosing individuals from a small ethnic group undoubtedly affects pursuit of this axiomatic objective. Perhaps Democrats assume Jewishness will be avoided in vetting appointees, but surely to those that advance the blank slate meme, cultural upbringing weighs heavily in adulthood outcomes. Buchanan's argument rests on the internal logic of Democratic rhetoric, an edict he skillfully uses against them.

Buchanan continues by lamenting the conspicuous absence of WASPs:

Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North. What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?

Likely one of the only mainstream conservatives to audaciously confront this hypocrisy, Buchanan notes that WASPs no longer represent a valuable cohort of individuals. As in Obama's recent campaign ad, the liberal elite have largely ignored or outright vilified the cohort of individuals largely responsible for building this country. There's unabashed and transparent pandering to every group besides the country's backbone, a situation Buchanan rightly excoriates. Exasperation with this outright exclusion, as opposed to open coveting of underachieving groups, has fomented much of the current political firestorm. And Buchanan justifiably questions how the founding American people could become such an afterthought in the political process.

But I would be remiss to ignore Buchanan's history in assessing his underlying point. While the mainstream media and other PC doctrinaires like Abe Foxman readily engage in paranoid melodrama, Buchanan's Jew-rabble-rouser reputation is not without merit. His protestations concerning Jewish liberalism pushing popular culture, Jewish attitudes towards working class Christians, and Jews considering Israeli issues as more important than American ones are reasonable areas of discussion. If Buchanan focused his attention on these issues of Jewish behavior or influence, then I'd be somewhat less incredulous regarding his underlying motivations for this article. Inductivist is a good example of someone who does this and I stand by Mangan as well.

Yet Buchanan can't help belie his own professed judiciousness by castigating Israel for human rights offenses. One could wholeheartedly accept such criticism as genuine sympathy (albeit unjustified and misplaced) if not for Buchanan's comments on similar situations. By noting the disconnect between his risible and dangerous diminishing of the Muslim problem and his comments on South African apartheid and Jim Crow, Buchanan clearly seeks any opportunity to needle Jews.

Supporting South African apartheid: Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

Insinuating slavery was a boon for blacks: America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Supporting segregation: There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The "negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.

Do I necessarily disagree with Buchanan? Not if one views the sordid state of current South Africa or the imposed diversity initiatives of post-1960's America. Further, Buchanan adroitly undermines the white grievance argument in his slavery article. But I'm consistent in my perspective and I don't capriciously switch it to demonize a certain ethnic group, especially one ensconced in a battle with those that seek to destroy Western Civilization. (To be fair, individuals from this same ethnic group illustrate their focused ire by just now waking up to the perniciousness of affirmative action via Miss Muslim USA.)

Inconsistent standards are generally the modus operandi of a hater and Buchanan's impassioned defense of Muslims fits the bill. [There are a lot of related issues broached here, but for brevity, I'll stop here.]

Template Change?

Anybody else think the template is boring and dull? Should I change it? Suggestions?

"College for Everyone" Ultimately Hurts Minorities

A few days ago, NYT published an article brazenly questioning the "college for everyone" meme. Their opposition stems primarily from the disconnect between educational material and the daily activities of real world occupations. I've stressed many of the same ideas, such as in this post, but include justifications premised on HBD and cognitive differences. The article begins by noting the propensity of dropouts, conspicuously avoiding the underpinnings of this pervasive phenomenon.

The idea that four years of higher education will translate into a better job, higher earnings and a happier life has been pounded into the heads of schoolchildren, parents and educators. But...no more than half of those who began a four-year bachelor’s degree program in the fall of 2006 will get that degree within six years.

For college students who ranked among the bottom quarter of their high school classes, the numbers are even more stark: 80 percent will probably never get a bachelor’s degree or even a two-year associate’s degree. That can be a lot of tuition to pay, without a degree to show for it.

And without broaching the existence of innate ability, the article mentions a growing number of scholars countenancing an intensive vocational track.

They would steer some students toward intensive, short-term vocational and career training, through expanded high school programs and corporate apprenticeships. And much of their training, he added, might be feasible outside the college setting.

College degrees are simply not necessary for many jobs. Of the 30 jobs projected to grow at the fastest rate over the next decade in the United States, only seven typically require a bachelor’s degree, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But such a radical shift from the current idealism would undermine a pet project (going on 50 years) of the intellectual elite: closing the racial achievement gap.

Still, by urging that some students be directed away from four-year colleges, academics like Professor Lerman are touching a third rail of the education system. At the very least, they could be accused of lowering expectations for some students. Some critics go further, suggesting that the approach amounts to educational redlining, since many of the students who drop out of college are black or non-white Hispanics.

The Great Society programs and the romanticism derived from it hold that black and Hispanic children will achieve through osmosis and the creation of a critical mass within the intellectual elite class. Fittingly, the college degree acts as the primary means for ascendancy into this rarefied cohort. So by pushing minorities, qualified or not, into this trajectory, the elite hold that eventually our intellectual class will be overwhelmed with "vibrant" diversity.

But perhaps this strategy backfires and inhibits the socioeconomic ascension of minority groups. As noted in the article, the college degree is an assumed credential for almost any white-collar position, even if said position deviates significantly from the given degree track. The college degree really acts as a reasonable proxy for measuring attractive character traits and not as validation for mastering a particular subset of knowledge. In general, college graduates skew towards the K strategy of r/K selection theory. And usually, such traits provide an advantage in the job market.

But what of white-collar jobs that have little use for esotericism and the intellectualism corresponding to it. Instead, these white-collar positions filled entirely by college grads focus on personal relations and demand that a successful individual possess an effervescent demeanor, a congenial spirit, and ability to engage in high energy discourse. Many of these jobs would fit the less bucolic and uncouth blacks, those with an affable manner of interacting, but lacking the diligence and prudence to get a college degree, with this being an exercise in fastidiousness almost as much as intelligence.

By implementing the college degree as a requisite for white-collar work, the elite have instituted a benchmark many specifically capable minorities (especially blacks) can not pass. In an effort to depress racial wealth and achievement gaps, they ignore the implications of HBD and thus proceed with a strategy that is doomed to failure.

12-year-old "Laddie Gaga" Signed to Interscope

Especially in the arts, the Internet often represents the ultimate means of achieving meritocracy. It allows anyone to display their talent without regard for credentials, official experience, or knowledge of a potential gig. Last week, a 12 year old from Oklahoma belted out Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi". This week, he's signed to a major record label.

But Interscope Records didn't hesitate to sign the inexperienced, pint-sized prodigy. The boy's school-aged sister and dad confirmed the Interscope deal to The Post, but said they're under orders to keep quiet about it. "He signed [with Interscope] but the managers said we really couldn't talk about it," sister Alexa Chance said on the front porch of their middle-class tract home.

The youngster's two-week rise to fame hit national TV last week with an appearance on "The Ellen Degeneres Show," where he sang "Paparazzi" before sitting down with Ellen. In his chat with the "American Idol" judge, Greyson said Lady Gaga is his muse. "My number-one inspiration is Lady Gaga because I know how she's so different," Greyson said.

I will refrain from speculating on the obvious.

Ke$ha vs. Taylor Swift: A Microcosm of the Political Divide

Ke$ha (yes that's a dollar sign) is perhaps the biggest conundrum to ever hit pop music. Despite an obvious lack of talent, she's the only "artist" to sell one million downloads of three different songs. And what exactly underpins this singular level of success? It's not her dancing ability, peerless vocal range, or proclivity for innovative musicianship. Instead, its her tawdry antics and apathetic attitude towards such lasciviousness that ultimately motivates her success and the corresponding admiration amongst a pliable teenage audience.

Juxtaposed with the "Ke$ha product" is Taylor Swift who epitomizes the demure good girl forever tarnished by unrequited love. Swift's success, independent of Ke$ha, would underlie a valuable exegesis of the prevailing zeitgeist, but the odd acceptance of both is even more interesting. While Ke$ha's anthems of drunken partying culturally justify this behavior, Ms. Swift stands in stark contrast. And yet she's wholeheartedly accepted by the same class of individuals.

I can't help but see the same distinction between Ms. Swift and Ke$ha as in the current political firestorm. One notes the growing schism amongst the two ideological divides, a divide fomented by Obama's election and the imposition of a foreign cultural and political element into our mainstream. This mirrors the polemical "culture war" championed by Fox News a few years back, a meme vehemently denied by a liberal media quick to dismiss such concern as apocalyptic hysteria.

Yet with the Tea Party movement and the Palin-ites advancing an almost reactionary agenda and the leftist elite further distancing themselves from the majority, perhaps the fragile tug-of-war between Ms. Swift and Ke$ha represents our political and cultural crossroads. We have a President who continually paints any opposition as extremism, with the same man unknowingly sparking a conservative revival. We have entire cities and states boycotting Arizona for daring to enact reasonable laws. We have a growing cultural divide between those that wish to impugn the West for all the world's inequities, all the while demanding largess in every sector.

So is the vacuity of our culture signaling an eminent decline by virtue of relativism and liberalism? Or is the subtle pushback by way of Swift, Disney starlets like Selena Gomez, real breasts for the new Pirates film, and the praise of good girl Lauren Conrad vs. the fake Heidi Montag a harbinger of a Tea Party America? I'm hoping for the latter.

Arizona Immigration Law: Conservatives Avoid the Race Issue

The controversy over Arizona's immigration law continues. The left continues to promulgate mendacious formulations of the law, including a concocted division amongst citizens and the ever popular racial profiling hysteria. I recently summarized the underlying premise of the latter and I'll repeat it again:

If a non-white racial group breaks a law more often than whites, the given law should not be enforced, else the proper enforcement of this law will be considered unjust racial profiling.

In admonishing the law and its presumed insidious progression, these rabid multiculturalists never actually provide an alternative. Occasionally, the marginally less hidebound zealots will support sanctioning large businesses who hire illegals, but generally, the left just criticizes. They remain conspicuously silent because, in reality, they just want completely open borders.

Yet the left does successfully interject race into the argument. Here's a wily veteran of racial racketeering, our favorite Newsweek columnist Raina Kelley, illustrating this almost subtle, yet deeply effective prevarication. Note how she brazenly states that ethnic "cleansing" is the main intention and not simply deporting illegal interlopers (who just happen to be almost all Hispanic).

But how can we trust them not to profile when the law's very intent is to detain and deport a class of people defined by their ethnicities?

Because race remains taboo amongst the polite class, mainstream conservatives quickly circumvent the issue through defensive denial. And by capitulating on the race issue, mainstream conservatives automatically lose the debate. In essence, this debate is not about maintaining American culture (however nebulous a concept that may be) or protecting a flailing economy from further ruin, it's about the stark realities derived from imposed "diversity" and the importation of third worlders.

Mainstream conservatism still champions the assuredly laudable concept of the American Dream. Of course, I won't denigrate this linchpin of our democracy and our value as a nation, a notion that originally piqued my patriotism. The land of opportunity narrative comprises a central theme to the American story. It's disseminated to youth and used as inspiration for each coming generation, illustrated by its potency amongst the Tea Party movement. But one can't naively, or deliberately, disentangle the consequences of racial differences from the realization of that Dream.

Yet, mainstream conservatives, with their hidebound adherence to religious morality and individual pugnacity, tacitly ignore race as a preeminent factor in achievement. The unique American story, evinced by the social ascension of 20th century immigrants, is wholly dependent on the racial composition of those groups. If one ignores this imperative component of the story, instead focusing on the still important aspects of individual responsibility and personal probity, then leftists can easily undermine the argument.

Leftists view cultural sensitivity training and imposed coalescing of racial groups as sufficient means to create a cohesive nation. Perhaps mainstream conservatives do well to illuminate these programs as racial grievance schemes. But ultimately, albeit via different methods, conservatives still champion an implicit blank statist ideal. And by shirking race and assuring the public this has absolutely nothing to do with race, they equivocate on how their lying eyes do provide ample motivation.

I support a colorblind society where individuals can ascend without regard to race, but one can not ignore the gross ramifications of a society's racial composition. The Great Society programs will continue interminably if mainstream conservative persist in their pusillanimous stance on race. If higher Hispanic crime (subsequent generations) derives from lacking moral guidance, ironic due to fervent Hispanic Catholicism, or lack of proper family structure, then why can't the American cultural edifice bequeath our mores to these new immigrants? If lower graduation rates result from lacking proper role models, then surely school choice and an endowment of intellectualism can improve the situation?

Leftists for some reason ignore these obvious answers as well, content in spewing vacuous insults and insinuations to make their point. But the internal logic of mainstream conservatism fails because it ignores the scientific reality of race. And until mainstream conservatives brazenly accept these truisms, their opposition will falter.

[Just for fun, here's my response to Ms. Kelley's arguments:
1) Too expensive: Isn't reducing drug trafficking, crime, and the importation of a lower, uneducated, foreign class worth the few extra million?
2) Racial profiling doesn't work: Of course not. And they just wanted to have a nice conversation with Mr. Goetz.
3) It'll hurt police/community relations: Because it's already so good.
4) They do hard labor we don't want to: Teens would do it, but employers hire illegals. And how did our economy survive before our saviors from the South came?
5) It's un-America: Borders exist and see article above.]

The History Channel has Jumped the Shark

The History Channel aired a program today explaining the demonic symbolism inherent to the design of Washington D.C. and the monuments within it.

Miley's Lap Dance and 7-Year-Olds Dance to "Single Ladies"

Two related stories caused a stir this past week. First up: everyone's favorite impending trainwreck, Miley Cyrus, bumps and grinds with a 44 year-old man. [An aside: note that alpha female Miley still solicits favor from ultimate prude and good girl Taylor Swift. This approval-seeking derives from the latter's higher social value by virtue of music success, more male attention, and formerly dating one of the current teen idols.]

Second: this video of seven year old girls dancing to Beyonce's "Single Ladies". [An aside: note Beyonce's misandric anthem of female independence still can't hide her desire for subservience: "...Your love is what I prefer, what I deserve/Here's a man that makes me then takes me/And delivers me to a destiny, to infinity and beyond/Pull me into your arms, say I'm the one you own]

So today's question: Are these two videos innocuous fun or a disheartening sign of the times? Feel free to comment on the asides as well.

Poll on Arizona Immigration Law and Its Implications

Here are some results from a recent poll on the Arizona immigration law:

Seven in 10, 70%, of Hispanic respondents said they are somewhat or strongly opposed to the law, compared with 34% of all respondents in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll set for release later today.

Among Hispanics, 27% are somewhat or strongly supportive of Arizona’s law; that compares with 64% of respondents overall.

Despite the left's palpable vitriol and their depicting this law as an initiative advanced by a jingoistic fringe, the actual numbers paint a starkly different picture. A significant majority of Americans, 64%, support a law intended to maintain the sovereignty of our nation. Yet, this seemingly centrist position is deemed the stuff of incorrigible ideologues; and they say the media has no bias.

Second, note the overwhelming opposition offered by Hispanics. Of course, such rank hypocrisy concerning ethnic or racial incentive is buttressed by the prevailing social landscape. Imagine if the Tea Partiers were to countenance sustaining racial homogeneity. Perhaps the left can shirk such obvious inconsistencies by appealing to the axiomatic value of "diversity"; yet in the real world us 64% live in, such protestations remain quite dubious.

Third, we encounter the inescapable histrionics concerning racial profiling. From my perspective, the argument for racial profiling reduces to the following (presented in rather transparent terms): "If a non-white racial group breaks a law more often than whites, the given law should not be enforced, else the proper enforcement of this law will be considered unjust racial profiling." In fact, the odious left extrapolates this stupefying assertion to the entire justice system, what with their sympathetic portrayal of sociopaths and other criminals.

Fourth, is it finally time for whites and their few non-white conservative brethren (e.g. Sowell and that crazy preacher) "to go their own way"? Appeasement, social subservience, and the lionizing of non-white males amongst other revisionist history have proved futile in amalgamating disharmonious groups into a national construct. Perhaps it's time to accept defeat and no longer pander to a fixed system, a system that demonizes whites for merely existing, for prospering, and for creating the greatest human civilization ever erected. If non-whites see America as intractably damaged, then perhaps "racially conscious" conservatives should stop caring.

Disney Unveils a Male Fairy

Despite having only postulated on the still unknown genesis of homosexual preference, we now have a foolproof method by which to detect homosexuality in early childhood.

Disney's popular website Pixie Hollow just welcomed a new fairy to its mystical ranks -- and surprise! It's a boy.

Pixie Hollow is an online world where kids can create their own Tinker Bell-styled fairy personas, interact with each other, and play enchanted "talent games." Up until now, kids could only don a pair of virtual wings and flit around Pixie Hollow as female fairies -- but all that's all changed now that Disney has introduced its first fairy-dude to the formerly all-girl world: A boy by the name of Slate.

"I think it is great for Pixie Holow [sic] to add Sparrow Men," wrote gamer Alina Moonshine. "Now my grandson can fly a boy fairy instead of a girl. It will make him feel special."

I hate to break this to you Ms. Moonshine, but there's something else "special" about your grandson. On a serious note, it's interesting to note the conflicting manner in which feminists demand the general public views homosexuality. On one hand, they champion the notion that homosexuality is a biological proclivity. They do so mostly to undermine the religious position that frames homosexuality as a moral transgression by means of free will. Yet, any allusion to stereotypical homosexual mannerisms and behavior, which constitutes the best evidence for the biological explanation, is strictly forbidden. In essence, one must argue for a particular position by not appealing to the most potent evidence.

What "I Want My Country Back" Actually Means

The Tea Party movement continues to arouse derision amongst the mainstream media. This weekend, NYT op-ed columnist Charles M. Blow and foremost example of OneSTDV's law of black intellectualism, levied the same hackneyed pejoratives against this supposedly racist movement. And at Salon.com, yet another article seeks to psychoanalyze this reactionary ire by dissecting the Tea Party's pithy slogan, "I Want My Country Back":

By contrast, 2010's most effective madmen come from Main Street and are literally angry men — specifically, the Tea Party crowd that is, according to new polls, more wealthy, more white, more male, more Republican and more motivated by racial resentment than the general population.

"I Want" — Humanity's most atavistic exclamation of selfishness — and thus the appropriate introduction for a Tea Party motto — this caveman grunt may end up being the epitaph on the nation's tombstone. America once flourished by valuing what "we" — as in We the People — need (food, shelter, infrastructure, etc.)...What matters is that the "I" now assumes an entitled right to any desire irrespective of its affront to the allegedly Marxist "we."

Here's the requisite admonishment of individualism and the tacit claim that collective interests are the only reasonable objectives. Inherent in the allusion to "We" is the notion that this amorphous collective inexorably includes anyone wishing to join. But who actually comprises the American "We" : is it recent immigrants professing loyalty to a foreign nation, the current citizens "selfishly" opposing an influx of competitors in their job market, or perhaps the entire world for whom America represents a mere means to a financial end? These anti-Tea Party commenters dissemble on this integral definition because, ultimately, they see America as a fluid conglomeration of interchangeable demographics and a history with no valuable insight into social and economic prosperity.

"My Country" — In his quintessentially American ditty, Woody Guthrie said, "This land was made for you and me." It made sense. In a democracy, the country is We the People's — that is, everybody's. If, over time, our diversifying complexion and changing attitudes create political shifts, that's OK — because it's not "my country" or "your country"; it's all of ours.

But is such a vision even viable? Is the mendacious "melting pot" meme a realizable scenario? Sure, dissent and a diversity of opinion can create innovative ideas and motivate progress. Yet, when does this "diversifying complexion" and "changing attitudes" irrevocably undermine the nation we know today? An illustrative example suffices: Is Japan still Japan if 50 million Brits emigrate there?

"Back" — To underscore feelings of grievance and nostalgia, the slogan ends with a word deliberately implying both theft and resurrection...As one Tea Party leader told the New York Times: "Things we had in the '50s were better." To the Tea Party demographic, this certainly rings true. Yes, in apartheid America circa 1950, rich white males were more socially and economically privileged relative to other groups than they are even now.

Of course, the trite 'privilege' argument appears, combined with the specious claim that Tea Partiers are all slothful ingrates unfairly endowed with wealth. Do Tea Partiers advance America's return to 50's style apartheid? I won't even deign to oppose this argument, but I will comment that a renaissance of the 1950's needn't constitute official discrimination. Instead, I interpret this nostalgia as deriving from opposing our increasingly lurid cultural scene, a desire to vest social power from feminists and minorities, and a passion for pro-Western ideals and a meritocratic economic system.

Cloaked in the proud patois of patriotism and protest, the refrain has become a dog whistle to a Caucasian population that feels threatened by impending demographic and public policy changes.

The author doesn't even consider the notion that these "impending demographic and public policy changes" could ultimately undermine our way of life and our hegemony as an international entity. But such glib rhetoric is common amongst these sanctimonious prattlers. After all, Mexicans are just like the Irish and Italians, right?

[If it's not already obvious, I'm really starting to like this Tea Party thing.]

Youtube "Haul" Videos and the Public Reaction

Slate.com, via Double X, covers the Youtube "haul" trend where attractive 16 year-old girls flaunt their most recent purchases. I read this article about a month ago and checked out a few videos as sort of an anthropological venture into the teenage abyss. Here's an example from the featured Youtuber, JuicyStar07, who averages about 500,000 views per video (it takes Sailer about two months to get that many hits). The author reflects on the phenomenon:

With their perfectly flat-ironed hair (and there is many a commenter protest if a hauler's hair looks imperfect or out of place) and copious eyeliner, these are a beautiful, if overly made-up, group. The majority of teenagers can't afford to imitate Blair Waldorf from Gossip Girl, whose Chanel flats would look seriously out of place in most American study halls. But they could be another Blair, aka Juicystar07, buying those rear-diminishing jeans from Forever 21. To the average teen, her seal of approval might carry even more weight than Anna Wintour's.

From the few videos I watched, all of them so wonderfully reflect the frivolity of youth. But I won't be overly cynical here and contend that the ostensible vapidity of this trend illustrates some cultural malaise. To the contrary, I applaud such whimsy as opposed to the ascetic lifestyle championed by the war on childhood. Why can't comfortable suburban girls extend their social sphere and engage in something they like. Why demand they engage in erudite activity more than they already do.

The most common criticism hurled at these "haulers" is the contention that they're spoiled. For instance, note Blair's defensive attitude:

So today I wanted to film a birthday haul. And this is not to brag about what I got for my birthday, what my friends and family can afford to buy me, or anything like that. I just think it's really fun to watch people open their presents...Now if you are going to get offended by any of the stuff I'm showing because of any reasons...go ahead and turn this video off.

It's more like, I'm 16, I work two jobs, and this is what I've saved my money up for, and I'm excited to share it with you guys.

Note that Blair feels compelled to defend herself for obtaining these somewhat expensive items. She even alludes to some viewers "being offended" by the products. This stems from two phenomenon: jealously and the notion of "privilege". The latter motivator asserts that any benefits attained by one's circumstances of birth represent a gross inequity partially tempered by suburban kids lamenting their own good fortune. Even if Blair spent her parents' money to attain a relatively opulent lifestyle, she needn't apologize to the masses for her parents' lack of parsimony. Does Shaq grovel for forgiveness proceeding a vicious dunk? Simply, life is unfair; free yourself from soul wrenching bitterness by accepting this fact.

The Slate.com/DoubleX author then concludes with a haul video of her own. Bet you can't guess which store.

"Allowable" Racial Views for Conservative Whites?

Saturday Audience Participation

In any Internet endeavor, the attraction of trolls and haters is an ineluctable phenomenon. But the most impassioned opposition, often couched in puerile invective and gross obfuscation, occurs when discussing politics and the undeniable connection to race. In the current paradigm, any racial opinion not adhering to the PC doctrine is met with derision and, quite often, political ostracism. Of course, noting the palpable outrage roused by the Arizona immigration law, these embedded social mores disallow whites from having any racial consciousness.

Let me briefly clarify this somewhat amorphous and pliable concept. In the context of this post, "white racial consciousness" does not refer to white collectivism or racial cohorts engaging in grievance politics. Rather, I'm considering many of the activities and opinions wholly acceptable if applied to non-whites and the corresponding social and political groups. Additionally, racial consciousness includes knowledge of crime disparities, differences in accepted behavioral norms, an opposition to multiculturalism and the anti-American sentiments espoused by the likes of Tim Wise and Howard Zinn, eschewing diversity initiatives, criticizing obvious racial pandering, etc.

It seems that if one engages in any of these behaviors, no matter the motivation, his intentions are automatically decried as insidious and racist. Even black 'conservatives', such as those over at Booker Rising criticizing Dennis Mangan, engage in such attacks: (they had a similar reaction to my Law of Black Intellectualism).

I think it['s] instructive, enlightening and should at least give them pause that this conversation, these ideas [race realism] routinely attract this unsavory racist element. Why does that not give them some indication that perhaps there is something aberrant, perhaps even abhorrent, about these ideas and the conclusions they lead to?

That such individuals would call themselves "patriotic" is ridiculous. Blacks have made many contributions to America, even when we had zero rights. Race is primarily a social construct. Just look at American history, when the Irish, Italians, Jews, etc. weren't considered white. I wonder if the "race realists" white supremacists discuss the differences within what they regard as the white race? Because the inevitable next step would be to rank the white sub-groups on "desirability". Despite the victimologist rhetoric, nobody is stopping white Americans from reproducing.

So the question is: What racially conscious opinions and observations are actually acceptable from whites? Is a white person allowed to hold the following views and not be a racist: opposition to diversity and affirmative action programs, attraction to homogeneously white residential areas and schools, opposition to non-white immigration in order to preserve traditional culture, and belief in genetic racial differences in IQ, crime, obstreperousness, beauty? Are whites allowed to discuss race and espouse un-PC opinions, such as Barack Obama's history implying an animus towards white Americans and racial profiling/institutional racism being false constructs? Are whites allowed to comment on pathologies within non-white communities?

What are whites allowed to discuss in terms of race without being branded a racist? If the means of communication are grounded in statistics and facts, is such judiciousness still not sufficient in shirking the racist pejorative?

I'm honestly curious what the answers are. Obviously, many interlocutors consider me an unrepentant racist for, what, noting the obvious fact that racial composition has an impact on society. I honestly don't get it. What racially conscious views are whites even allowed to have? Hell, in this environment, whites aren't even allowed to congregate together without any mention of race.

Race and IQ...In Lights!

Beta Revolution Blog: Prime is Not Dead

A few days ago, I received an email from Prime, formerly of the Beta Revolution blog. As most of you are probably aware and have asked about, he deleted the Beta Revolution blog a few weeks ago. It seems there's no deep reason for doing so, not a conversion to the religion of secular liberalism, becoming an acolyte of Tim Wise, or getting arrested for attending a Tea Party. It seems like he simply wanted to stop the blog, though he will likely continue contributing to HBD blogs as a commenter.

Campus Drug Culture and Reed College

Exempting Wheaton, Liberty, and BYU, most colleges host a huge party at the end of classes. Everyone gathers in a central location (the plaza, Frat Row, the stadium or field house) and decadent mayhem ensues. Such drunken hedonism is expected amongst schools in the Big Ten and the small private schools catering to privileged but academically slothful students. Yet, the students at elite schools engage in similarly scurrilous behavior, imbibing in copious amounts of alcohol and, for the more intrepid, illegal drugs. This year, after two recent deaths, the police near Reed College in Oregon are increasing enforcement for the annual Renn Fayre festival.

After the heroin overdose death of a Reed College student last month, law enforcement authorities in Portland, Ore., told Reed’s president, Colin Diver, to rein in drug use at his campus.

Most campuses have students who abuse alcohol and drugs, and the spring festivals at many colleges are known for their excesses. But Reed, a small liberal arts college in southeast Portland, has long been known almost as much for its unusually permissive atmosphere as for its impressively rigorous academics. Two years ago, after the heroin-overdose death of a freshman, Alejandro Lluch, at the campus, Mr. Diver said as much in a cover story in the newspaper Willamette Week.

To most outsiders, Reed would seem to constitute an anomaly, having both an entrenched drug culture as well as a rigorous academic environment. Yet this probably reflects the average elite college moreso than the overly studious archetype presented in media. And amongst those "in the know", this seemingly incongruous dichotomy is expressed by the common elite school aphorism: "Work hard, play hard". This idea permeates many campuses where during the week, students endure an arduous academic schedule and, during the weekend, engage in often feckless partying.

One could blame this behavior on a small subset of rich frat boys and lacrosse players. But as noted in the Reed article, the drug culture permeates all regions of the social landscape. From my perspective, the juxtaposition arises from a number of different motivations that I'll very briefly state.

There's the adolescent nerd envisioning a completely new social life (hint: it won't happen unless you join a frat). There's the slightly awkward individuals who wish to realize the eminently popular conception of the "college experience, bro". There's the burned out student enervated from a childhood spent at Key Club meetings and student council, all in an attempt to overcome the growing frivolity of our college admissions process. There are the well rounded individuals, mostly girls, who seek "success" in all aspects of life, including the ever important campus social sphere. And there's a cohort of apathetic druggies who mystify their peers in merely garnering an acceptance.

Back to Reed. Here's the students' reactions:

Some Reed students thought the law enforcement e-mail message was threatening and overly sensational.

I'm not a passionate anti-drug ideologue, but come on. The e-mail was threatening because, ummm, you're breaking the law. Only a campus defined by cultural relativism could express such indignation over the enforcement of law. I do wonder though what ramifications a strict official policy would have on applicants and the exorbitant fundraising provided by them. Would elite schools, presumably attractive on academic merits, lose a significant amount of students due to a stringent anti-drug, anti-alcohol policy? I don't have an answer, but as noted with the Flutie Effect, students incorporate a number of vacuous reasons in their college choice.

Am I the Only Person who Thinks Adoption is Strange?

Several adoption stories have been in the news recently: Americans rushing to excavate Haitian babies after the earthquake, Sandra Bullock posing on the cover of People with her new child, and the devilish orphan from Russia causing a firestorm. The last story, concerning the adoption of a purportedly disturbed child, was met with anger from Russian officials. In America, the public expressed ambivalence on the matter, though some criticized the woman for her supposedly frivolous behavior. Here's an excerpt from a local newspaper op-ed:

Despite the boy's threats and the family's fears, the fact remains that this was a 7-year-old child — not an ugly sweater received as a gift, a CD that skips or some other piece of merchandise that can be returned to a store because it's unwanted or defective.

Perhaps the family did give its "best to this child," but it's hard to comprehend how someone's "best" culminates in putting a boy — an allegedly dangerous 7-year-old — on a plane alone to fly halfway around the world.

Not exactly the most virulent condemnation, but note the tacit assumption underlying this piece and the Russians' umbrage. It's also present in People's saccharine portrayal of Ms. Bullock and the unconstrained happiness evident in this video of adopted Haitian orphans. The basic premise: that non-family adoption actually makes any sense. Watch the Haiti adoption video in this paragraph and note the immediate "love" showered upon these children by their adopted parents. Now I'm not belittling their happiness or the potential of these children, yet how can such potent feelings manifest without any time to cultivate such a bond.

These adopted parents meet their "children" and without a modicum of hesitation, claim an ethereal love absent of kinship (in this case, means aunts and grandparents), commonality, and the faintest sense of personal relation. And the media lauds these unions as wholly reasonable endeavors.

From my perspective, non-kin adoptions are an extremely odd practice countenanced only by the prevailing "it takes a village" paradigm. In any other context, such effervescent expressions of ardor would engender confusion and perhaps fear. Imagine someone approaching a random baby on the street and immediately professing love for the child. Or on the first day of kindergarten, the teacher quickly pronounces she loves a certain student.

One would rightly admonish such odd behavior. Yet in our cultural zeitgeist, the one that diminishes kin as a substantial component of man, this inanity is celebrated. I'm not engaging in a wholesale denigration of the adoption process and it does often lead to situations far better than those with the biological parents. But by considering adoption as a regular enterprise generally devoid of incorrigible barriers, idealists ignore the very strong bonds of family. And in the end, what adopted kid doesn't substantiate my point by eventually searching for his birth parents?

Miley Cyrus' Can't Be Tamed and Child Star Descent

Update: Click on the link for the actual video.

Almost every female child star will eventually produce a lurid product in order to progress into adult roles. Alyssa Milano appeared nude in a B-movie, Saved by the Bell's Jesse Spano starred in the infamous Showgirls, and Christina got Dirrty. This marked change from their fastidiously crafted adolescent wholesomeness is often couched in pseudo-feminist rhetoric about "control of one's own image" and the presumably axiomatic trajectory of feminine expressed sexuality. Basically, they slut it up as much as possible then retroactively justify this by appealing to some garbage standard about growing up.

For most, an abrupt progression simply doesn't work. Perhaps, the previous image was too entrenched in popular media or the public cherishes child stars as a fleeting vestige of their own romantic conception of childhood. Yet, they still try. The most recent to do so: Miley Cyrus, the unabashedly frank and unrefined country girl turned Hollywood pop star. In her newest video premiering today, Can't Be Tamed, Miley (17) doesn't seem concerned with being decorous and modest.


Well there's always Taylor Swift.

Stephanie Grace, Harvard Law "Racist":A Positive Spin and Other Thoughts

Every so often, our sphere of discourse gets into the mainstream. As you're well aware, a Harvard Law 3L and Princeton alum, Stephanie Grace, had a private e-mail disseminated to the public by a vengeful and vile romantic rival. Since most of the conservative coverage laments the Orwellian response, I'll start off with a positive spin on the issue:

Grace felt comfortable advocating the herediatarian view: Sailer has surmised that Ms. Grace was actually the lone dissenter amongst her discussion group. I'm not sure about that, but it's encouraging that she would even broach the genetic perspective in a somewhat public setting. I imagine the general topic was the intractable racial gaps and the banal arguments concerning discrimination and culture were offered. But in almost any social setting, especially in the rarefied air of Harvard Law, one mustn't commit an act of treason against the prevailing wisdom. We don't know the specifics, but we do know that their group was likely amenable to this discussion and the obtrusive PC hasn't affected the most intrepid thinkers.

It's Harvard Law: This wasn't a TTT law school where students graduate with more debt than job prospects. This is the zenith of the intellectual class, the cohort of individuals comprising the next generation of elites. Ostensibly, social pressures preclude outright acknowledgment of HBD, but clearly some Harvard Law students aren't indoctrinated by the multicult/liberal agenda. Fittingly, we're witnessing a growing amount of academic support for race and gender related differences (Summers, Pinker, Harpending, Cochran, Gottfredon, James Watson, Jensen) and the increasing nullification of the racist invective amongst conservatives. In fact, I'm fairly certain at least one state senator (large state) and once Republican nominee for Senate reads my blog.

And now the other side. It's funny how well their response matches the discussions on this blog.

Conflating Intellectual Ability and Moral Value: Mirroring the prevaricating mischaracterization of James Watson, the PC police have unfairly attributed a moral supposition to Ms. Grace's statements:

I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people.

Yet Ms. Grace's judicious and measured consideration of racial intelligence differences wholly avoids the concept of "genetic inferiority". Equating the two disparate features of man belies the egalitarianism espoused by this Harvard dean and her media parakeets. Besides the correlates with violence and pathological dysfunction, there's no coherent basis on which to equate intellectual acuity with moral value. And of course, Ms. Grace's sole focus was on the evident intellectual difference.

Blaming Privilege: In almost any debate concerning race, anti-racists revel in concocting some chimera deemed "privilege". Apparently, Ms. Grace was imbued with such a gift:

The deeper issue here is how and why Harvard Law breeds a racially tense environment, which often culminates in "race wars." As an African-American woman and a HLS alum, I dealt with the Harvard racism everyday. I felt like I was an outsider on campus; and often invisible. [Or maybe it was your surly attitude and the huge chip on your shoulder.]

I believe HLS' current battles with race are a result of it having a significant population of sheltered, often white-bred students, who went to non-diverse prep schools, many of whom were made to think at an early age they were geniuses and everything they spewed was brilliant. When these students attempt to intellectualize racist views, they often cite statistics and/or science to support their views.

Outside of crew teams and Skull and Bones, there are few Ivy League enclaves comprised of this 1920's stereotype. Her mendacious characterization of Harvard students is straight out of an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, not exactly a timeless reference. And when is growing up in suburbia indicative of being "sheltered"? Sheltered from what exactly: drive-bys, gang turf wars, and crystal meth? Also, I highlighted the bold above just because I laughed so hard: "yea those racists with their science and statistics!"

Finally, there's been debate concerning whether this is an "allowable" topic for discussion. 80 years, no change despite obvious social, economic, and culture improvements: I think that suffices in providing justification for the affirmative stance.