Oliver Stone Irony

For his 1987 film Wall Street, Oliver Stone originally wrote the lead character as Freddie Goldsmith, a young Jewish broker corrupted by the rapacious culture of finance. He later changed it to Bud Fox, the son of an airplane mechanic, to avoid promoting the idea that Jews control the financial world.

Thoughts on Jersey Shore

Saturday Audience Participation

Is Jersey Shore really that bad?

Arizona Illegal Immigration Law Blocked and"Faith-Based" Citizenship

A federal judge blocked the most contentious (i.e. important) aspects of the Arizona immigration law this week. The justification, pushed by groups such as the ACLU and the League of United Latin American Citizens, is the same racial profiling tripe I've dissected previously. The vitriolic opposition to SB1070 derives from the following principle:

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.

The trite and almost laughable grousing from the left ("but they'll have to carry ID cards", as if we don't already) is merely a stalling tactic for their ultimate goal: complete amnesty coupled with an entirely open border. By seizing control from states and centralizing immigration reform in the federal government, an entity most subservient to the institutional left and their prevailing PC zeitgeist, nothing will ever happen. Obama will give a bunch of abstruse speeches filled with seemingly patriotic bromides, yet continue to move the goalposts until the proper demographics and social landscape have surfaced. Then, open borders for everyone!

But let's briefly consider the Right's opposition. While the left hurls an unremitting stream of racist invectives, do conservatives put forth a better argument? Jan Brewer, the resolute Arizona governor steadfast in her defense of this law, has expressed the idea below:

The governor, who hired lawyers to defend the law in court, hopes the court will act quickly, saying illegal immigration remains an ongoing crisis. Arizona has more than 400,000 illegal immigrants, and its border with Mexico is awash with smugglers who funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S. The law's supporters say the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.

But when the left finally capitulates on the racist issue, their more nuanced efforts at immigration inundation will succeed. Why? Because the Right's continuing refusal to appeal to HBD undermines the romantic, open-world approach that the left is slowly adopting. For example, see Obama's "faith-based citizenship" speech from early July:

President Obama spoke today about the need for comprehensive immigration reform, arguing that "immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country" and that "being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It's a matter of faith." He continued that "we've always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants," adding that America has also been a "magnet for the best and brightest."

When the left lionizes Hispanics as paragons of Catholic family values, how will social conservatives respond? Sure they can appeal to cultural tradition, but the fluidity of the 20th century cultural landscape somewhat undermines that supposition. Basically, one can't formulate a cogent rejoinder without appeal to race realism.

To be honest, I'm not comfortable with national pride premised on a random collection of individuals. After all, what objective principle justifies one caring more for his national/intra-racial peers than for his foreign ethnic peers (obvious example alert)? My general political philosophy is pragmatism and the notion that one can not disentangle a nation's character from its founding peoples. Of course, these two positions are premised on HBD, an argumentative tool wholly ignored by the mainstream Right.

Obama's utterly inclusive and quite ambiguous definition of American-ness reflects his abject blank slatism as well as his desire to undermine American whites demographically and eventually socially and politically. By couching citizenship in these amorphous terms, he's basically saying, "Mexican fence jumpers are essentially American, so you're basically not allowing Americans into their own country." With a reflexive appeal to assimilation and a cowering Right afraid to face issues of race, Obama wins.

Finally, and only obliquely related to the AZ law, what exactly constitutes "faith" in America? After all, the despondent view of America disseminated by the left (and their libertarian counterparts) leaves little for justifying pride.

Libertarianism Is an Empty Philosophy

John Stossel, a mainstream journalist who actually promotes anti-PC views, supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". He argues that the inclusion of openly gay military personnel does not undermine any aspect of military service, including "unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion or morale". I won't comment on this particular issue, though Stossel does present a rather cogent argument. In addition to the cited data, Stossel continues by invoking his cherished libertarianism:

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. "I want government to leave people alone. I think people should be free to do anything they want -- as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I may disagree with their choices, but I don't think The State should take their choices away."

Technically, I'm not a conservative either, as I find little objective value in cultural constructs and only imbue them with value commensurate with how much I like living in a society founded upon these arbitrary edifices. Basically, I like America how it is and I want to keep it that way. Of course, the limited government principle Stossel appropriates for his libertarian sect is an important aspect of modern conservatism, buttressed by the individualism and self-governing principles of tradition. Stossel concludes with a quote from the Hayek's libertarian tome Why I Am Not a Conservative:

"One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage ... to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead ... ."

In addition to their paranoia about government and unjustified hatred of the military, libertarians smugly express the above vituperative against apparently hidebound conservatives. According to these classical liberals, conservatives reject change not as a reflection of traditional success, but rather to dampen their apprehension concerning progress. One notes the value hierarchy of classical liberals whereby the freedom to act as one pleases supersedes all else. Obviously, I agree with this view from a micro-perspective and it's why I passionately support the tobacco industry. But libertarians, in their Ivory Tower short-sightedness, fail to understand the larger social implications of these private choices. By disavowing shame as a means to counter such noxiousness, their loyalty to "freedom" enervates any libertarian ability to shape society.

And perhaps Stossel would gladly admit to such apathy, believing such abject freedom trumps all else in appraising societal quality of life. But what happens when, in the pursuit of freedom and as a result of shirking condemnation of private acts, society changes for the worse and freedom is no longer a viable construct. What of a nation so enamored with freedom that they allow a cohort, one not as ardently loyal to this concept, free reign to actually motivate "progress"?

In the end, libertarianism has no tangible goals except some nebulous concept of private freedom. And when you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.

Pick Up Artists are Potential Rapists

Is backlash against the Game community starting? An Israeli court convicted an Arab man of "rape by deception" for coercing a Jewish woman into sex by lying about his ethnic background. What does this portend for the United States and the growing pick up community?

Legal experts say those who lie in the course of courtship are unlikely to face jail time — most U.S. states don't have rape by fraud laws, and even in those that do, prosecutions are extremely rare. But in recent years, there have been attempts to broaden rape laws in order to deal with this complicated and controversial issue.

In one case, a man from Westfield, Mass., was accused of rape after he allegedly impersonated his brother in order to have sex with his brother’s girlfriend in the middle of the night. The sex was consensual, but the court ruled that “intercourse where consent is achieved by fraud does not constitute rape.” [In my opinion,this specific case is rape.]

Those pushing these new laws ensure rigid boundaries will be set:

Their goal was to do so without hamstringing the Bostonian at a bar who makes up a story about his heroic feats in order to seduce a woman.

A law professor at a TTT sums it up nicely:

“What’s the difference between ‘I will love you forever and we’re going to get married’ and ‘I am LeBron James?’” Falk asked. “What constitutes romantic inducements and things that are fraudulent enough for the law to take recognition of?”

I understand the purpose of this law or, at least, the expressed purpose couched in a legal framework. Yet in actuality, this represents more aggressive action against beta males, now forbidden from merely adopting alpha male characteristics lest their charade be exposed. In the hands of a rueful co-ed and a crusading feminist lawyer, such amorphous laws could lead to an epidemic of false rape cases.

Call to Other Bloggers: Blogroll Link Exchange

I've decided to add a few blogs to my rather exclusive blogroll, with the agreement that added bloggers will return the favor. A few stipulations for anyone considering this:

-Your content should overlap with mine quite substantively. That doesn't necessarily mean you have the same focus, just that your bent or the particular subject you focus on has relevancy for my readers. That includes any blogs that discuss one or more of the following subjects: race, education, intelligence, gender, Game, politics, traditionalism, pop culture from an erudite perspective, conservatism, science, atheism, and anything else I cover. I'll generally try to restrict it to those with a right-wing leaning philosophy, though that could include almost any subset of the modern Right (i.e. Reagan conservatives, libertarians, moderates, paleos, social cons).

-You should be a serious blogger and update regularly (preferably at least three times a week).

-Your site should be easy to read and navigate.

-And finally, and likely to exclude many individuals, you should have an Alexa Traffic ranking of at most 1 million in the United States. Though I might make an exception for serious neophyte bloggers who intend to significantly build their audience.

Leave your blog in the comments or email me if this linkage exchange interests you.

Federal Guidelines on Textbook Costs and the Educational Bubble's About to Burst

A federal law going into effect for next school year seeks to curb textbook costs and thereby lessening student debt:

Publishers must give professors detailed information about textbook prices, revision histories and a list of alternate formats. Publishers have to sell materials typically bundled with textbooks -- such as CDs, DVDs and workbooks -- separately so students don't have to buy them. Colleges have to include in-course schedules with required textbooks for each class, including the book's price and International Standard Book Number, an identifying tool.

"The cost of education is of concern not only to students and families but to the nation," Durbin said, explaining why the government got involved in textbook prices. "Students are emerging with more and more debt."

First, student debt and the government moneypit that ultimately eats it, arises not from high textbook costs but from the educational romanticism that urges clearly unqualified individuals to pursue higher education. Second, I'm conflicted as I'm struggling to see a solution, given the extant connected variables, besides federal intervention.

College costs, even if we restrict choice to state schools, have ballooned in recent years. This does reflect higher consumer demand as the post 60's social revolution abated university exclusivity. With this came social and political pressures motivating colleges to pursue a wider swath of the population, even amongst groups with little chance of academic success. Further, by engaging in unremitting and limitless advertising campaigns, colleges mendaciously depress their admissions rates, thereby exhibiting high consumer demand and justifying their outrageous price tag.

Currently, elite colleges exist as hedge funds that happen to fund research ventures and house thousands of horny and drunk teenagers. This money funneling scheme is maintained by a combination of government largess, status-seeking suburbanites, and a complicit job market. Yet even with an ostensibly avaricious scheme, one can't redress this situation with more federal mandates and thereby undermine a successful industry. The real solution derives from a drastic drop in demand as we disabuse America of this misguided notion of intellectual egalitarianism. College must return to a symbol of the elite, both in a social context and an intellectual one. Additionally, we privatize loans, thereby ensuring only qualified individuals receive money and government no longer indiscriminately bets on those of limited intellectual potential.

Back to the textbooks: Due to the absence of consumer pressure (these days more people apply and then attend, not less), the textbook industry can unjustifiably increase costs just as the college administrators do. Dr. James Koch, an economic professor at Old Dominion, explains:

The textbook market is like the pharmaceutical market: the people who have the most influence over what is purchased (doctors and professors) don’t have to pay for their choices. Students do.

Further, several studies indicate that most professors don’t even know the cost of the textbooks they recommend, or that this is a minor factor in their choices. This makes the demand for textbooks “price inelastic” -- student buyers are insensitive to price increases.

In the current landscape where only iconoclasts mention cognitive realism, I can't fathom an alternative to federal guidelines if one seeks to protect students. The professors and universities, motivated by personal benefit, have no incentive to upbraid the system and the students, spurred by social and economic pressures to pursue higher education, will continue to fund the collusive effort. Though I don't foresee an interminable situation caused by a coalescence of greed, delusion, and intellectual Marxism. I have a feeling the bubble is about to burst.

Real (White) Men Eat Meat: How Vegetarianism Went Mainstream

A few weeks ago, I discussed the paleo diet and how it further substantiates the eponymous worldview:

The SWPL media has been all too willing to promulgate this lie [about fats being inimical to one's health]. They do so because meat eating has become synonymous with traditional and masculine culture, the bane of the liberal media.

While nutrition would seem independent of politics, the social aspects of food choices weaken such a distinction. On stuffwhitepeoplelike, Christian Lander notes this correspondence:

As with many white people activities, being vegan/vegetarian enables them to feel as though they are helping the environment AND it gives them a sweet way to feel superior to others...as they will talk about how they cannot eat anything and would rather that the meat and cheese be thrown in the garbage than put into their bodies.

Yet these ostentatious displays of nutritious haughtiness (ever known a vegetarian who didn't inform you of this) would seem at best only tenuously connected to other aspects of liberalism. However, if one understands the gradual politicization of science and its use as a social tool against traditional white culture, the motivation for nutrition dissembling becomes evident.

Science was once the domain of dispassionate truth seekers, largely removed from the social biases that dictate public discourse. But following the 1960's mandate of racial egalitarianism, liberal creationists viewed the ostensible gaps in scientific achievement as a potent means of undermining presumed institutional racism. Thus, no longer would institutional science serve as the ultimate symbolism of national hegemony or the romantic goal of our most astute minds. Instead, politicians and social revolutionaries see science as an empirically based but socially pliable aspect of the culture war.

Each polemical issue tacitly connected to scientific inquiry, the biological, environmental, and spiritual, is perverted in a manner as to frame whites and traditional Western culture as pernicious and uncouth and reflexive opposition to it as enlightened and beneficial. For example, the global warming charade elicits ire towards the productive, yet apparently toxic West while painting Africans and other depressed peoples as noble savages living harmoniously with nature. On this site, I needn't note the rampant silencing of racial and gender HBD. Finally, liberals accept a truncated version of evolution not as a reflection of genuine intellectual inquiry, but as a mean to discern the dignified from the ignorant masses.

And now back to nutrition. The typifying Western diet, especially the pre-60's Norman Rockwell depiction, includes large portions of meat. In a 1978 book, Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin sum up the contention that meat eating corresponds with traditional and masculine culture:

Women’s social standing is roughly equal to men’s only when society itself is not formalized around roles for distributing meat.

So meat eating evokes the pre-60's era, traditional meals for Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving, male-dominated hunting, and Western disconnect from the carb and starch-laden diets of Asia, South America, and Africa. Additionally, those that champion vegetarianism are generally similarly ardent supporters of alternative medicines, an explicit denunciation of the allopathic medicine central to the West. For these individuals, the hocus pocus balderdash of indigenous peoples acts as a proxy for the empirically-based methods of Western science. Note the preponderance of anti-vaccine and other pseudo-science promulgated by the Huffington Post. The foremost "luminary" of the alternative medicine community, Andrew Weil, repudiated modern medicine early in his career, instead studying under a Sioux shaman:

After a one-year internship at Mount Zion Hospital in San Francisco in 1968-69, he left the world of allopathic medicine entirely, to go off to an Indian reservation in South Dakota to study with a Sioux medicine man and learn about herbal medicine and ritual healing. "On the reservation," he says, "I participated in sweat lodge ceremonies, grew a beard, and `dropped out.'" At home afterward, "I started to practice yoga, experiment with vegetarianism, and learn to meditate.

[The Natural Mind] is a startling document -- a sharply drawn manifesto of New Age biology, a direct challenge to the scientific basis of conventional medicine, and a revealing window on Weil's style of thought.

I discussed the foundation of these beliefs in a posts on the noble savage phenomenon:

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.

With all these social forces acting in concert, the spurious claims of the pro-carb, anti-meat, anti-fat cohort find favor in our cultural and social landscape. The status seeking media will inundate the credulous public with any paradigm, no matter its veracity, if its foundational maxims connect to a non-white, progressive agenda. And we're all suffering as a result.

[Disclaimer: Bacon is processed meat so it's not paleo. But it was the only hot girl/meat photo I could find.]

Response to James Webb's anti-Affirmative Action Op-Ed

This week, Virginia Democratic Senator James Webb caused mild excitement in denouncing affirmative action. HalfSigma opines:

I think this op-ed is extremely significant, not because of its content, but because of who is saying it: a U.S. Senator from the Democratic Party.

Mr. Webb's argument rests on the premise that affirmative action exists to reduce disparate impact. He criticizes the benefits conferred upon groups not privy to American-based discrimination.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

While I applaud Mr. Webb's brave rejection of the race racket, his arguments are largely short-sighted and still evoke a specious narrative of the American system. Despite disavowing race based affirmative action, Webb still considers government largess a viable and morally tenable position. In the following sentence, he blithely dismisses racial enmity as an elite-constructed illusion and unjustifiably rejects socioeconomic ascension amongst 19th century WASPS:

The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power.

He opposes affirmative action not because it's an egregious moral and economic err or due to its futility at diminishing incorrigible racial gaps. No, he only rejects its limited scope, wishing to implement further reaching government entitlement programs as he prevaricates on inequality of opportunity:

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners.

Webb couches American history in a Marxist class-based struggle and he sees government as a means of disrupting this evidently corrupt system. Further, Mr. Webb argues against a position no longer adamantly advanced by the left. Of course, the left still whines about racial and gender gaps (well the "right" ones anyway), but they've largely moved on to the axiomatic value of "vibrant diversity". Apparently, all facets of life, residential neighborhoods, job output, and college classroom discussions, are intellectually and socially barren landscapes benighted by a lack of racial diversity. According to the left, the racial gaps reflect both a moral failing of our nation, maintained by whites' inexorable racism, and an emptiness inherent to racially homogeneous groups, like the advanced physics classes at your local college.

The zealots at Racialicious or stuffwhitepeopledo find Mr. Webb's article comically naive because it ignores the requirement of diversity for an enriching life. Whites absolutely need to escape their insular world and mingle with blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans in educational environments, social activity, and the corporate world. Because, apparently, going to the Moon, drafting the Constitution, and charting the Heavens are all empty achievements.

Political and HBD Evangelism: Any Converts?

Saturday Audience Participation

In an inexplicable move, the Washington Examiner printed an interview with venerable race realist Jared Taylor in which he divulges this tidbit on his liberal past:

JT: I, too, was a conventional liberal until I was in my 30s. Liberals are happy to consider themselves morally superior to conservatives (and certainly to anyone who could be called a "racist," whatever that means). Also, liberalism is the driving, majority ethos of the United States, and it is more comfortable to agree with the majority. I clung desperately to liberalism.

While I've altered some details of my political and intellectual perspective (e.g. moderated my opposition to religion), I never obdurately clung to a position anathema to those presented here. Each time I've encountered a cogent argument that I subsequently adopted, it was more a revelation than an explicit repudiation of a core principle.

Despite my own intellectual constancy, I occasionally find myself engaging in HBD or gender-realist evangelism amongst real-life acquaintances, more of the latter due to its relative amenability. Back in 2007 when Sailer assiduously covered the buried Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr story, I couldn't help but leak some details out in daily conversation. I found myself repeating these stupefying details completely absent from mainstream discourse, the type of rhetoric not only inimical to our nation but filled with the irrational racial hatred liberals sanctimoniously censure.

Mostly due to our proximity at the time, one frequent "victim" of these cathartic sessions was a female acquaintance named "Susan". Susan is a nominal Democrat with mostly socially conservative viewpoints, though due to her coming of age in Northeastern suburbia, she considers these positions fitting only for the uncouth Southern white. I gradually informed her of Obama's extremist past and slowly ventured into anti-PC positions on race relations, liberal romanticism, diversity, and affirmative action. Over the past few years, she's made passing comments or forwarded emails expressing rather overt HBD-leaning sentiments. I understood this was primarily for my benefit and didn't necessarily imply she agreed with the promulgated material. Nonetheless, her "smiling and nodding" reaction at least reflected her general openness to these views.

Then last week, I saw her in person for the first time in awhile. Over dinner, I somehow segued into a diatribe against non-kin adoption, mirroring this post. Then she made these two offhand remark which, while subtle, provided a pretty clear allusion to genetic HBD:

My mom knew a female doctor from her friend's church. She's no longer practicing medicine because her adopted son beat her. She adopted the kid, who was her son's friend, when he was around 10. I really don't understand why she adopted him...(whispering) the kid was black.

My friend's getting married this weekend. (For no reason really) I can't wait to go see the wedding though; the groom's black.

Did I convert someone to race realism? Is the general environment fomented by Obama's evident anti-white racialism the primary cause? I'm not sure, but one can't dismiss the rise of Beck, Tea Party, AZ Immigration Law, and Palin's fans. Sure, none of these represent an explicit acceptance of HBD (or an overt racism as claimed by liberal dissemblers), but I can't imagine this type of collective frustration existed prior to Obama.

So today's question: Have you ever converted someone to right-wing politics or HBD? If so, how did you do it and what position did they hold previously? Did you commence the dialogue? Were you a "coward" in starting a conservation on race? Leave your stories in the comments.

Homeowner Dispenses Vigilante Justice: Bernie Goetz Style

OK, so the title's a little sensationalistic. Sure glad I didn't live near this guy when I was 13: NY man faces charges after tackling teen prankster.

Van Plew, 37, told police in this upscale suburb south of New York's capital that he was preparing to go to bed shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday when four teenagers pounded on his back door, rang his front doorbell and then ran.

[While in his underwear, Van Plew] chased down and tackled one of four teens who rang his doorbell and fled in a late-night prank called "ding dong ditch," leading to charges against the homeowner but not the boy. The teen was bloodied by the takedown. The homeowner, Daniel Van Plew, and the boy's family disagree over the amount of force used and about where the tackle occurred, which could make a difference under the laws that define self-defense.

The teen suffered a cut on his elbow, a bruise over his eye and a bloody lip, according to the police report.

I won't comment because the facts of the case, primarily the amount of force used, are unknown. However, the mild reported injuries imply Mr. Van Plew retaliated in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the prank. Of course, in a country where people sue over hot coffee, the homeowner victim must face his day in court instead of the perpetrator. Perhaps I should offer more strident criticism of the teens, but who amongst us didn't engage in this mostly benign "doorbell dixie"? Surely there are far more noxious activities popular amongst this age cohort that need our attention.

And maybe this incident will incite the kid to get some exercise. Seriously, who gets caught by a 37 year-old corporate executive?

Shirley Sherrod: Victim of Pro Wrestling Politics

[Update @ 12:45 PM: Response in the comments to the notion I'm not being cynical enough on this issue. Damn, the one time I try to be somewhat conciliatory, 'mike' won't have it. For the record, I'm still a big fan of Brietbart.]

Another racial incident in post-racial America: This week, a tape surfaced of an NAACP meeting where USDA employee Shirley Sherrod discusses her reticence in helping a white farmer. Conservative provocateur Andrew Brietbart released the tape to combat the charges of racism hurled at the Tea Party. Turns out the reflexive and triumphant reaction from the Right was based on a mendacious presentation of the anecdote. Brietbart edited out a bit of context where Sherrod repudiates her previously held racism, though does still contend "it IS about white and black", and replaces her explicit anti-white discrimination with a rather transparent Marxism.

In doing so, Mr. Brietbart promulgates a misrepresentation, undermines credibility for similar incidents in the future, and sacrifices a mostly harmless woman to bolster his own standing. [Though Brietbart now argues that one should focus on the audience's sanction of Sherrod's racism prior to her tempered denunciation of it.] I simply don't understand how Mr. Brietbart could knowingly twist the truth and, as a result, not only reject a basic tenet of moral behavior but actually believe he could get away with it. Further, given the target group, producing evidence of legitimate identity politics and race baiting should have proved a facile task. His desperation in concocting a controversy where barely any existed reflects the continuing devolution of political discourse into vapid pro-wrestling tirades and similarly fashioned archetypes. Though, in our growing Idiocracy, is there a strategy as efficacious in winning converts?

Speaking of deliberate manipulation of public content, apparently liberal journalists knowingly silenced discussion of Reverend Wright's incendiary commentary back in 2008:

“Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have."

Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” [Ackerman ironically authored: What Liberal Media?]

“George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

"We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease."

Color me shocked. Now where was Andrew Brietbart with that story. Basically, I no longer trust the establishment in almost any arena, race, politics, nutrition, global warming, and any other topic with even an oblique connection to liberalism. New Media is the last refuge of truth as mainstream discourse becomes increasingly venomous.

But from all this, one notes a glimmer of positivity. Instead of giving a speech filled with white-guilt banalities obscured by Ivy League vocab and impressive oratory skills, the White House quickly acquiesced to the uproar this time. The Tea Party and its burgeoning political clout has received attention from the highest reaches of government. Maybe Eric Holder is actually getting his wish; we're fast discarding the ignominious "Nation of Cowards" label!

Jessi Slaughter: You Dun Goofed Up

[Disclaimer: Some have commented that the harassment of this girl is downright mean. While that may be true, it's not the crux of my post. Two main points: The Internet is a crazy place and 11 year-olds shouldn't seek notoriety on it. And that father's catchphrases are just damn funny.]

This video of a distraught 11 year-old accompanied by her irate father has become the latest viral meme. Basically, this foul-mouthed and "precocious" 11 year-old became a micro-celeb on some tween sites, posted a vicious reply to "all the haters", and then a notorious group of Internet pranksters resolved to destroy her.



Some of the now infamous and hilarious quotes:

Because I backtraced it.

You've been reported to the cyberpolice.

And if you come near my daughter, guess what, consequences will never be the same.

I'll pop a glock in your mouth and make a brain slushy (from her haters video).

A few quick comments on this: One notes that the unconstrained Internet, coupled with the increasingly nonjudgmental approach of modern society, has spread previously insulated pathologies to large groups of individuals. I mean, how else can one explain the astoundingly salacious ken this 11 year-old possesses? This is your future America! Also, note how social power exists most prominently in groups. Finally, this incident provides further evidence that the Internet doesn't like you and it will show their disdain if callously provoked.

Women are Better at Multi-tasking and the General Acceptance of Stereotypes

A new study from a team of British researchers shows women are more proficient at multi-tasking than men.

They gathered 100 students — 50 men and 50 women — and gave them eight minutes to perform three tasks at the same time. They all got the same tasks, which included solving simple math problems, finding restaurants on a map, and devising a strategy for finding a lost key in an imaginary field. The women had few problems handling everything at once. In fact, 70 percent of them performed better than their average male counterparts...They just jumped into the middle of the field and dashed around looking for the key, never managing to cover the entire area. Women, however, tended to start in one corner, and methodically search the whole field.

I wonder if Dr. Nancy Hopkins has "vomited or blacked out" upon learning of these results. Once again, evolutionary psychology finds favor only if a minority or otherwise "oppressed" group possesses a particular ability above that of heterosexual white males. Surprisingly, Dr. Sanja Gupta of CNN explains these results from a tacitly gender-HBD prospective:

"While ancient men were responsible primarily for hunting and gathering, women had to tend to the children, the house and all the other activities of daily living. Over the years, women may have retained this ability, translating into an improved ability to multitask."

And now onto the gays. A few weeks ago, a study argued that lesbians were apparently better parents than their hetero counterparts. (Ironically, the authors bring forth standardized testing data as indicative of their conclusions in yet another application of inconsistent standards.) The gay commentariat celebrated this triumph of sexual Marxism, believing they had undermined the hate mongering Right with statistics and facts. As a thought experiment, let's ignore the plethora of confounding variables within the data set and accept the purported results. I list the following positive gay stereotypes:

Good looking
Fit
Nice
Tolerant
Better social sensitivity
Better Parents
Smarter
More Creative
Eye for Fashion

I'm quite willing to accept that these are all true given stereotypes arise from consistent anecdotal evidence and not the mere prejudices of a ruling class. Yet, if we seek unadulterated truth, then one must also consider the following observed behavioral patterns as reflecting inborn gay traits:

Promiscuous
Drug Culture
"Eating da poo poo"
Wild partying club scene (especially in the 1980's)
Feminized males and masculinized women

While the "lying eyes" cohort dismisses such ostensible norms as biased caricature, they also outright silence anyone who alludes to the following indisputable facts:

Anal sex is less healthy
Higher rates of venereal disease
Gay sex primary cause of American AIDS epidemic

While the left boasts of a pro-science stance, constant cherry picking of "acceptable" data belies their professed honesty. I used to consider science the sole domain of dispassionate and judicious individuals; yet such a romantic notion withered away as I started investigating anti-PC claims. Shameful behavior from a group that should push forth our progress.

[ I must confess that many anti-racists do actually disavow even positive stereotypes, i.e. Asians' math ability.]

Palin on Ground Zero Mosque

Sarah Palin tweeted about the proposed Ground Zero mosque yesterday:

Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.

Most left-wing condemnation made appeals to "tolerance", the First Amendment in an ironic display of Constitutional fervor, and Palin's grammar mishap as, apparently, one should always fastidiously proofread terse online comments. And remember, Palin's grammatical err is irrefutable proof of her middle America stupidity.

So Palin criticizes the proposed Ground Zero mosque, perhaps the most unabashed insult one could lance at the American people. Per a response at HuffPo, opposing cultural and social capitulation to a pernicious group that openly champions the West's destruction represents bigotry and paranoia. Liberals would gladly welcome their own demise if done so under the guise of tolerance for non-Western cohorts. And while I surely support freedom of speech and religion, survival should always be the paramount value. This entails ardently opposing any overt aggression towards our country and our culture, even if it means subverting a cherished ideal. Though if we listen to some right-wing pundits, we can allay Islamic enmity by winning their "hearts, minds, and friendship". Fittingly, so as to not rouse their ire and pique their delicate sensibilities, perhaps we SHOULD let them build the mosque or even adopt their commendable moral standards. (\sarcasm)

[On a related note, I'm actually starting to like Ms. Palin. I don't think she possesses the intellectual acuity for a national political position, but I do enjoy her endearing folksy charm, quixotic view of American prominence, and occasional willingness to express anti-PC opinions. She'd do well to cultivate this image as a conservative cultural critic representing all those "hard-working, good Americans."]

Declining White Birth Rate: Is it Really a Problem?

The old maid archetype is a key component of our culture war. On one side, leftists celebrate these unmarried, childless women primarily due to their reactionary mindset whereby anything nominally traditional is met with scorn and anything opposed is commended. Further, the left has become increasingly anti-life, given their expressed love of non-kin adoption, abortion, and Gaiaism. The Right, especially its sizable religious subset, laments this as a reflection of our society's increasing baseness.

Data suggesting childlessness has risen engenders passion amongst both groups. Note that while women with advanced degrees are still the most likely to shirk motherhood, the proportion of this cohort doing so has declined by a significant margin (24% from 31% in 1994). Here's Amanda Marcotte, shrill purveyor of all things liberal at Pandagon.net, commenting on the "child-free lifestyle":

Personally, I was happy to see that more women feel free to forgo childbearing. But not everyone shares my enthusiasm. Part of this new self-awareness might mean that women are forsaking motherhood because we're finally admitting that it isn't all it's cracked up to be. Parenthood is becoming increasingly miserable because of the exploding expectations placed on mothers—making the child-free lifestyle seem all the more attractive [Who's to blame for this?].

Author and filmmaker Laura Scott, who is working on a larger project examining the lives of the childless by choice has found that "lack of maternal/paternal instinct" rated in the top six reasons that respondents gave for their decision, along with reasons such as we "love our life [or] our relationship, as it is" and we "do not want to take on the responsibility."

Hold on, but I'm actually going to agree with Ms. Marcotte (is "Ms." acceptable or is that too gender specific?). People are different and just like some don't have a proclivity for science, some women don't have the mother "gene". Ms. Marcotte continues, noting an interesting selfishness that pervades motherhood justification:

Dana, age 34, made this case forcefully. "Many children are treated bad or abandoned. Some live their entire lives in foster care." Tasha, age 27, concurred, noting how many people she's known who had kids simply because they thought it was what you do, and now make their children suffer for it. "Not everyone will be a good parent," she argued. "More people should be child-free."

"When I ask friends of mine who have/want kids what their reasons are, the answers range from 'I don't know' to 'I want someone to love me' to 'I want someone to take care of me in my old age,' which are not only also selfish but poorly reasoned."

A eugenics-based sentiment from an uber-liberal? Couched in language only minimally different, the bolded statement above would find favor amongst the heterodox blogosphere. So here's the point: what exactly is so bad about not having children? Surely I find the notion that women want to be mothers an integral aspect of our society as mothers nurture while fathers provide the discipline. Mothers buttress the emotional backbone of our society and by denigrating this, we undermine an important part of our societal vigor.

Yet from a secular viewpoint, a childless mother has committed no moral transgression. She hasn't constructed a Quiverfull or birthed a generation of right-leaning, pro-family progeny, but surely there are far more expansive means of inspiring traditionalism than the direct approach. Before you accuse me of conservative apostasy, let me qualify myself. I do object to feminist celebration of childlessness based on the following:

(1) The "modern woman" alternative represents a vapid means of finding moral worth: In conjunction with celebrating the childless, the left also glorifies the working woman who eschews motherhood in order to infiltrate that exclusive club of hetero white males. As I mentioned in Friday's post, I'm not seeing why this is so great, especially given the left's ire towards corporatism. Surely, the rewards garnered from raising a responsible, successful LIFE, a person who you created, who reciprocates your admiration, satiates the emotional appetite in a far more fulfilling manner. But who am I to dissuade today's female youth from fetching coffee, filing papers, and babysitting thirty rambunctious six year olds?

(2) Other than the dysgenics associated with intraracial breeding, there's no moral reason why an above replacement birth rate is a necessity, given the correct political initiatives. Cowering mainstream conservatives frame the argument in religious terms instead of appealing to the inimical consequences of diversity and a NAM majority (Mitt Romney in February 2008):

Europe is facing a demographic disaster" due to its modernized, secular culture, particularly its "weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for human life and eroded morality.

But the only reason one justifiably worries about the low white birth rate is because whites are slowly losing demographic dominance in America and Europe. Instead of defeating the problem directly, i.e. Arizona Immigration Law and Geert Wilders, many conservatives are content to grouse about whites simply not having babies. Yet, is the best strategy engaging in a breeding war with fecund Hispanic and Muslim foreigners?

So in the end, both sides of the political spectrum get it wrong. I'm shocked.

UFO's in China: What Would Actually Happen

Saturday Audience Participation

Two recent UFO sightings in China have gotten attention around the world. Unsurprisingly, the woo-sect offers postulations on its extraterrestrial origins and conspiracy nuts (extensive overlap) muse on the collusion of international governments. Hey, maybe the Illuminati are involved.

I've always been a science fiction fan, though my fandom has been decidedly shallow given I only like the movies and have never engaged in any of the fanatical subcultures. And even though some recent scifi offerings have disappointed due to the transparent propaganda inherent to these films, I still get excited when a new blockbuster comes out.

(Lazy writing alert: Insert transition here bringing together both topics): I've always loved Contact, the movie not the book, because it presented a realistic supposition on mankind's reaction to actual aliens. Dr. Sagan hypothesized on the social implications of alien visitation, including mass hysteria, the reconciling of alien life with the supposed primacy of human life proffered by organized religion, and the role of skepticism relevant to this issue. Further, given his expertise as an astronomer, Sagan muses on the possible scientific advancements required for both contact and visitation, doing so in a palatable yet erudite manner. The film's strength lies in the palpable awe it inspires and, by framing the story as a personal epic, in the ruminations on deep questions about our humanity and our personal importance.

So today's question: What would actually happen if aliens visited? How would humans respond? Would they band together in a globalist cabal or would this foment even more division and fear? What would the aliens be like? How would we receive the communications and could we end up visiting them through faster-than-light travel? Do aliens even exist or, as in Fermi's paradox, are we alone in a lifeless universe either by virtue of our fantastic luck or others' extinction and self-destruction? And finally, as Dr. Sagan once considered, who speaks for Earth?

[OT: For some reason, Google has been working slow on my computer for the past couple of days. I've realized how dependent I am on their cohort of sites.]

Crazy Street Preacher Blasphemes Feminism:College Students go "Girl Power" on his Ass

Here's a less safe for work (cleavage warning?) video of a street preacher at the University of Cincinnati.



In general, the crowd expresses a condescending ire towards the man, even before the the young lady at 0:57 begins her rant. And surely the dynamic between the unrepentant Christian conservative and the nominally secular crowd of young people ensconced in college-aged hedonism needs little exposition, including its relevance as a microcosm of our larger culture war.

A few interesting phenomena arise in the video. First, the bombastic preacher speaks in a defiant and forthright tone, admonishing the perceived sins of society and excoriating the crowd for their collective apostasy. Like all ardent ideologues, the man espouses an inflexible concept of morality, at odds with the "everything goes" diktat surely promoted at this university. Note the crowd's obvious derision towards such a clear definition of evil. They can't fathom someone blaspheming the notion that morality exists as a nebulous concept forged by virtue of compromise and emotional desire.

Second, the crowd really goes bonkers when the preacher offers this iconoclastic ideal:

And women if you love your husband, you're willing to submit to him.

Admittedly, the man should have couched this sentiment in terms more amenable to the contemporary zeitgeist. Nonetheless, this appeal to traditional gender roles (I'm assuming he doesn't believe in abject female servitude) engenders a number of white knights to defend their women! There's some vapid grousing about domestic violence, which has apparently become the ultimate moral deviancy.

But the highlight comes at 0:57 when a prole white girl waxes philosophical on women's empowerment:

Do we look like a dog? We don't submit.

I'm sure she's already been through the entire physics department. She continues, implying housework demeans women. Apparently, women find power not in supporting their husbands and nurturing their OWN children, but rather through paper pushing in the sterile corporate world.

We don't belong in a home and stay there and cook for you!

Then, to showcase her indignant condemnation of such anachronistic gender roles, Ms. Girl Power shows her cleavage. Yes, to illustrate the modern woman who eschews capitulating to her male oppressors, a woman who defines her own destiny via that singular female pugnacity, and a woman who rejects these wholly restrictive gender mores, she defiantly "shows her boobs". After all, what greater value (or right) is there than freedom to conspicuously display one's sexuality? I mean, I can't imagine lionizing an individual for, ya know, actually producing something.

The video ends with another girl joining in the "cleavage party" and the crowd mindlessly celebrating such meaningful criticism of this bucolic delusional. This video illustrates the maxim that religious belief manifests in constructs outside the traditionally supernatural. In the end, crazy street preachers express the same intellectual stubbornness of seemingly erudite liberal college professors and their student acolytes.

Alpha Status Counters Beta Behavior

In this post, Talleyrand at Seasons of Tumult and Discord analyzes the relationship dynamic of newlyweds Carrie Underwood and professional hockey player Mike Fischer. By virtue of body language indicators, it seems Carrie understands the extant social value disparity. This realization portends turmoil for their future together given the hypergamous urges of most women. Talley opines:

The look of annoyance. Fisher sees himself as the lesser of the two of them and he displays it in his interactions with her. She’s lucky to have you and you better start acting that way Fisher or she’ll start thinking she isn’t.

While body language "evidence" remains unconvincing without corroborating data, Talleyrand correctly notes the importance of relative social value in female-male relations. But in this particular instance, I disagree with his pessimistic prognostication on their marriage. Mr. Fischer may often express his underlying beta-tude, yet he possesses an incredibly potent external measure of alpha-ness that counteracts this detriment to his social value.

Mr. Fischer is a professional hockey player. By virtue of this fact, commensurate with the characteristics generally attributed to hockey players, Mr. Fischer has ample leeway in avoiding the repercussions of these potentially beta moves. Carrie needn't ascertain his social status via personal interactions because his job provides a wholly sufficient metric for doing so. As a result, she will likely ignore almost any beta prostrating or similar subordination.

In addition to reveling in the benefits of "contrast game", an ostentatious show of beta-tude sometimes goes a long way in substantiating one's alphaness. For example, back in the early 2000's, The Dipset, a rap group fronted by Cam'ron (picture below), wore essentially all pink, even painting their Range Rovers in this color. Recently, celebrities have adopted the hipster fad of wearing gaudy nerd glasses as above. In these instances, an uber alpha can adopt beta, feminine, or nerd traits, yet still fully maintain his social predominance and, in some cases, buttress it further.

One notes that alphaness doesn't necessarily depend on indicators revealed in personal contact, but rather, can be maintained by means of an irrefutable metric. Further, prior to the sexual revolution, society imbued all men with higher value than all women through a rigid gender hierarchy. As a result, sporadic servitude in the form of chivalry was a viable option for men as it provided a show of ardor, but didn't diminish a man's standing.

The takeaway message: attain extremely high level status in a given social context and the picayune aspects of Game will become largely irrelevant.

American Teens Would Gladly Do "Jobs Americans Won't Do"

In debating large scale Hispanic immigration, liberals promulgate the tenuous claim that they do "jobs Americans won't do." While some of us remain skeptical, employers have willfully substantiated this assertion through their hiring practices. Just from my daily goings-on, I can assure you that Hispanics comprise almost the entire service industry, including busboys, convenience store clerks, and janitors. Yet one asks what did our country do before this great influx of highly trained and skilled Latino laborers? I imagine this has something to do with it: Teen Summer Job Market May Be the Worst Since 1951:

Americans aged 16 to 19 face the toughest employment situation since the 1950s, according to job statistics released July 2 by the Department of Labor and analysis by employment experts, AOL's Daily Finance reports.

The unemployment rate for teenagers, however, is triple that: 29 percent, according to non-seasonally adjusted numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And in June, teen job growth sank to its lowest level since 1951, according to analysis by employment-services firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

I don't have an economics degree, but what age cohort lacks both a haughty ire towards menial labor and the requisite education and skills training to procure high wage jobs? The implications expand past teenagers lounging around during summer break:

Unemployed teenagers have negative effects on the economy in both the short term and the future. Without jobs, teens have less to spend on clothing, electronics, and eating out, all easy ways to stimulate the economy.

Basically, the coalescence of H-1B visas, illegal immigration, the "college for everyone" meme, and affirmative action has spurred a tempest in the job market. Marginally qualified college graduates are displaced by H-1B visa holders and affirmative action hires like Michelle Obama. These intransigent middle class whites refuse to settle, instead falling back on unemployment and their parent's largess. With each cohort of "underrepresented minorities" rising about one level above their rightful position (i.e. secretary to middle management, middleman to executive), a portion of the job market becomes vacant.

The individuals who previously worked lower middle class jobs are either unfairly promoted via affirmative action or, in this era, would never deign to pursue such employment because they spent six years getting their degree from a community college or diploma mill. Then we import a labor class to further restrict job opportunity, with this largely Hispanic cohort replacing the blacks, lower class whites, and teens who previously obtained these positions. The teen (and black) employment rate plummets, thereby further enervating the socioeconomic ascension integral to our national predominance. In each class of the occupational hierarchy, a "foreign" group displaces workers and this displaced group capitulates to the unemployment line due to pride, middle class entitlement, and government appeasement.

But let's just bring in more unskilled laborers! That will save us!

The Many Types of Conservatives and Liberals

A recent Gallup poll shows only 12% of Americans describe themselves as "progressive", with most instead expressing an uncertainty about what the term actually means.

Gallup polling reveals widespread public uncertainty about the "progressive" political label -- a label recently embraced by no less than Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. While Kagan described her political views as "generally progressive" during her Senate confirmation hearings, fewer than half of Americans can say whether "progressive" does (12%) or does not (31%) describe their own views. The majority (54%) are unsure.

If anything, this poll tells us that political labels remain a rhetorical device used by the commentariat and not an exacting portrayal of a belief system. Awhile back, HalfSigma enumerated the various gradations of the political Right:

Neoconservatism: ...an important part of the neoconservative platform was using the American military power and economic influence to fight communism and bring Democracy to the world.

Libertarianism: ...which is the belief that the government should spend less money and that there shouldn’t be as many regulations

Paleoconservatism: ...like pornography in that it’s hard to define but I know it when I see it, and there’s also something a little sleazy about it.

Christian conservatism: I don’t have to explain who these people are.

Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide needles a self-proclaimed "Reagan conservative" with sardonic allusions to the guy's military service and traditional patriotism, contending the "[t]he Alternative Right is where it’s at these days, fools." Finally, in a recent back and forth, Richard Hoste classified me as a "conservative and not of the Rothbardian kind".

So what can we learn from the plethora of names meandering about the political arena? From my perspective, these exceedingly narrow definitions of political platforms restrains honesty, promotes insular loyalty, and engenders enmity amongst possible allies. Most of these ideological camps create an amalgamation of various positions and admittedly, the internal logic is usually sound. Yet to ensure potential apostates remain loyal, the bounds of acceptable opinion are rigidly enforced.

As a result, these intellectual brethren either uphold discordant positions (paleos are pro-West, yet passionately stump for Muslims because they're wary of Jews) or reject certain truths because it opposes one of their sacred mores (social cons despise Game). And when the final objective is a robust society, these ultimately internally inconsistent or impliable ideologies fail.

So what's the solution: be an intellectual maverick. I don't know how to characterize my bent and the opinions presented on this site. I find sympathy with positions from the following eclectic collection of doctrines: HBD, social Darwinism and eugenics, traditional conservatism, social conservatism, Reagan conservatism, Tea Party, mainstream libertarianism, Atheism, Christian conservatism, Men's Rights, skepticism, fascism, paleoconservatism, Zionism, compassionate conservatism, and classical liberalism, amongst many others. Hell, I've even found agreement with these camps as well: Sharia Law, feminism, and Social justice. [If you're wondering about the second list: they don't fuck around in punishing criminals, promoting self-esteem and ensuring qualified women get their due are highly noble goals, and socioeconomic ascension of poor people should be a core right-wing belief as well. As for the first list, read the blog to parse the specifics.]

Basically, I follow the truth, in conjunction with upholding a few axiomatic moral suppositions. Unfortunately, there isn't really one cohesive political ideology that encompasses all of these. But that doesn't mean intellectual relativism is the end result; one must expose every position to a certain degree of incredulity and criticism. The most expansive of tents lead to divisiveness, not progress.

In the end, I see a general Right and a general Left, with the core edicts of each defining the branches.

Oscar Grant and Racial Egalitarianism in Crime

Larry Auster writes extensively about white female victims of black male aggression, such as this recent assault of a Barnard student. He contends liberalism unfetters naive white females, essentially encouraging them to engage in reckless behavior. This denial of potential danger underpins tacit sanction of binge drinking, casual sex, and walking alone in areas populated by sordid characters.

Yet to the realist, this exceedingly specious construction of man obscures his capacity for ignoble activity. By rejecting this utopic chimera, the readily discernible behavioral patterns begin evincing themselves and inevitably contradict the sacrosanct lies of liberalism. So the liberal creationist diehards have a choice: discard these falsehoods and experience pragmatic benefit or cast aspersions on the very notion that these patterns exist. Guess which route Adam Serwer, writing at AlterNet.org, chooses:

Johannes Mehserle, the former BART police officer who killed Oscar Grant while he was lying face down and handcuffed in an Oakland train station, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Fear is at the core of questions of justice involving the deaths of black people at the hands of the authorities in the United States of America, dating back to when Toussaint L'Overture put the fear of G-d in slaveowners by revealing that their "property" might someday rise up against them. L'Overture still has that effect on some people.

See how Mr. Serwer equates the dehumanization of slavery with merely noting racial behavioral patterns. These kinds of ostentatious analogies push his arguments towards farce and underlies the increasing enervation of anti-racist tomes. He continues by citing an angry black intellectual:

As Kai Wright wrote in the aftermath of the Sean Bell verdict, "American law has been sanctioning the killing of black people to mollify white fear for centuries. ... We scare the shit out of America. And that fear excuses just about any reaction it spawns." Mehserle is profoundly unlucky to be punished at all.

Liberal tactic #55: Make outlandish claims with no corroborating evidence; silence opposition by hurling unjustified invectives.

Times change, but the radioactive fear of black people, black men in particular, has proved to have a longer half-life than any science could have discerned. This is not a fear white people possess of black people -- it is a fear all Americans possess.

And if this fallacious stereotype has no truth value, how does it persist? Perhaps because anecdotal experience and quantitative study corroborates it. [Seriously, who the hell doesn't know what a "bad" school or a "bad" neighborhood really means?] Sure there are innocent victims as false positives adulterate any uncertain system. But the alternative is much worse. He finishes with this call for, basically, anarchy, all in an effort to exonerate blacks for their collective transgressions:

War on Drugs, War on Crime, War on Terrorism. There's always another War. The question is, when will we stop being afraid?

I challenge Mr. Serwer to move to Jamaica Queens and see how he likes it. After all, it's exactly like living on the Upper West Side: everyone is just as smart and congenial.

Avoiding the Natural Aversion to Homosexuality

This video of a Ugandan pastor decrying homosexuality made it around the Internet recently:



This quote sums up the Pastor's diatribe:

One of the things they do is called anal licking. The man's anus is licked by the other person (demonstrates with his hand and lots of tongue) like ice cream...And then the poo-poo comes out and they eat the poo-poo.

The Ugandan pastor seeks to motivate ire towards homosexuals by fomenting an innate disgust amongst his audience. In the West, such overt descriptions of homosexual acts are almost entirely absent from mainstream discourse. The "gay question" remains primarily an intellectual issue without concrete representations like those provided by the Pastor. Concerning "Don't Ask Don't Tell", I can't imagine a Senator mentioning homosexual erections in the shower, yet this is really the crux of the issue. Despite the protestations of your college's queer studies department, homosexuality reduces to sexual attraction. The issues of discrimination, civil unions, and job benefits remain secondary to the biological urges that define homosexuality.

Yet, in our polite society, we consider this overly detailed presentation quite risible and outside the bounds of acceptable discussion. Instead, in concordance with a tactic advanced by the left, we discuss homosexuality in an ethereal sense as if disconnected from physical acts. And this is how the left has fashioned homosexuality as a normal aspect of man and not a misstep in our development. The homosexual lobby has disassociated homosexuality from the rather obvious implications of that desire, thereby circumventing the palpable aversion most would feel if actively witnessing these acts. Basically, it's really easy to love the gays when the commensurate image is Broadway and glitter instead of "eating the poo poo like ice cream".

[Of course, this entire discussion remains orthogonal to the objective morality of these acts: do whatever you want, just don't let me see it.]

Admirable NAMs

Saturday Audience Participation

One ineluctable phenomenon of HBD sites is the liberal creationist who exhibits a stupefying ignorance of basic statistics. I summarized this idiocy awhile back:

Not understanding rates/probability/distributions: These are the most common mistakes. Generally, they don't understand the predictive value of IQ and racial distributions constitute probabilities and not definite proclamations. These statistics can vary greatly for individuals, but individual variation is canceled out when focusing on increasingly larger groups.

Racial differences manifest on a societal scale (as in cities, nations, and continents), whereby statistics allow for an incredibly accurate means of prognosticating on behavioral patterns. But clearly, such large scale data doesn't apply to every individual within these cohorts. One presumes tacit allusion to this point would suffice for any sociological discussion, yet logic seems anathema to the liberal creationist mindset.

So, I'll make this explicit with today's question: Amongst NAMs (blacks and Latinos), who do you find worthy of admiration? Which female NAMs do you find beautiful? What male NAMs are leaders of industry or purveyors of academic excellence?

Following Rule 5, I present the stunningly beautiful Selena Gomez two weeks prior to her 18th birthday:

And here's a black physicist at UConn who does research in time travel. Some have raised objections to his work, but nonetheless, Mallet showcases scientific brilliance and an endearing sense of wonder and intellectual boldness.

LeBron James is a Traitor?

Bill Simmons believes that LeBron is stabbing Cleveland in the back by leaving. Cleveland fans have burned his jersey and in a scathing letter, the owner contends LeBron has "betrayed" his hometown. What exactly is the justification for branding James a turncoat? Umm, he switched to a team that he believes gives him a better shot at competing for a title. I don't understand why LeBron is obligated to stay in Cleveland for his entire career or why he owes Cleveland, his hometown by the mere accident of birth, anything besides honoring his contract.

In this case, one notes the widely held belief that loyalty depends on unconditional subservience to others' wishes. Yet there's nothing morally abhorrent about rational egoism whereby individuals unabashedly pursue their own ends, not fully dismissing the wishes of others or society, but still holding their own values paramount. LeBron made the right decision for himself and his gracious way of leaving Cleveland, offering his respect and expressing a mild regret at doing so, should be lauded, not demonized by those with a perverse idea of loyalty and morality.

Educational Standards Through the Years

I received this chain email yesterday.

1. Teaching Math In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's OK.)

6. Teaching Math In 2010
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

This is about what you can expect from public schools these days. That and mandatory chivalry lessons.

Feminism: The Veil is Lifted

Sometimes, a former member of the leftist cabal exposes their tactics and corroborates the Right's grousing. In an article on Slate.com, Emily Gould, who had previously worked at Gawker Media, offers a comprehensive elucidation on the feminist blogosphere's surreptitious efforts to attract readers.

It's a prime example of the feminist blogosphere's tendency to tap into the market force of what I've come to think of as "outrage world"—the regularly occurring firestorms stirred up on mainstream, for-profit, woman-targeted blogs like Jezebel and also, to a lesser degree, Slate's own XX Factor and Salon's Broadsheet. They're ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism.

The wily writers frame this petty bitterness as justified by creating an insular intellectual environment and couching any insecurity in the victimoly language of modern feminism.

Instead of mimicking the old directly anxiety-making model—for example, by posting weight-loss tips and photos of impossibly thin models like a traditional women's magazine—Jezebel and the Slate and Salon "lady-blogs" post a critique of a rail-thin model's physique, explaining how her attractiveness hurts women. The end result is the same as the old formula—women's insecurities sell ads. The only difference is the level of doublespeak and manipulation that it takes to produce that result.

To any regular reader of the anti-PC blogosphere, such censure should sound familiar. It's quite gratifying to have an insider describe the same motivations and patterns discerned by the opposition. And I must give credit where it's due: I applaud Slate for brazenly posting an article that offers such explicit admonishment of one of their products.

But I'd be remiss for ignoring the potential connection some interlocutors contend arises in the reactionary-leaning Right. Sure, any political movement relies on an emotional response amongst its adherents and the Right sure foments such zeal. Yet, mere emotion isn't mutually exclusive with an intellectually cogent paradigm; in fact, the veracity of the underlying discourse is what separates the two communities. While feminists take the noble goal of self-esteem and equality and pervert them by castigating every productive edifice for their inadequacies, the Right (for the most part) reacts to actually deleterious progressive movements. Basically, we're right and they're just angry that Olivia Munn is hot (LSFW).

NBA Free Agent Signings Don't Really Matter

This summer might determine the NBA's future for the next decade. Now one would presume this future depends on more than LeBron's upcoming announcement, given the plethora of free agent stars available like Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson (re-signed with Atlanta), Amare Stoudemire (signed with Knicks), and other top flight talent. But are the "other guys" really that consequential or is LeBron's decision the only primary one and the rest merely secondary?

Let's take a look at Joe Johnson, who just re-signed with Atlanta for a max deal worth $119 million over six years. Given the notion that winning a championship is the ultimate objective, on the surface one surmises the Hawks acted correctly. Johnson is a four time All-Star, high scoring shooting guard who has led the Hawks' recent resurgence. But let's be honest, no team will win a championship if their best player is Joe Johnson. He's basically a less athletic version of Allen Iverson: a highly overrated streetball talent surrounded by mediocre talent which allows him to heavily dominate the offense. And by paying him the maximum contract and thus precluding them from obtaining a better player, the Hawks have resigned themselves to playoff-bound mediocrity for the next ten years. I discussed the motivation behind these types of sports decisions after the Joe Mauer deal:

Basically, free agent signings foment passion amongst the fan base, illustrated by a miserable 2009 Sixers team bringing back a washed-up Allen Iverson merely to ignite fan interest. These big name signings in baseball are primarily PR coups designed to sell tickets, not win championships.

The Hawks management likely knows that this move has excluded them from serious championship contention. But despite dissembling to the contrary, sports teams merely want to make revenue and big free agent signings are a logical means to do so. The Hawks had little choice really. If their main long term goal is winning a championship, they should have dumped Johnson, hoped to hit it big in the draft lottery, and then build around this new player. But such an audacious strategy would result in fan mutiny through the rebuilding process and thus undermine their actual goal of appropriating capital.

Currently, only a few teams have any reasonable expectation of winning a championship and each one is centered around a top 20 player of all time (Kobe, LeBron, Dwight Howard, or the Celtics with probably 4 Hall of Famers, and maybe the Thunder with Durant in a few years). In fact, looking at champions since 1985 illustrates the efficacy, or necessity, of this team building strategy:

Bulls: 6 (Jordan)
Rockets: 2 (Olajuwon)
Spurs: 4 (Duncan)
Lakers: 7 (Magic and Kareem / Shaq and Kobe)
Heat: 1 (Shaq and Wade; well Wade played like top 20 all-timer during the playoffs)
Celtics: 2 (Bird / 4 Hall of Famers)
Pistons: 3 (Isiah Thomas / Billups team as only outlier)

But don't expect teams to just give away their best players. They want money and the best way isn't actually winning championships; it's filling seats. Championships are merely a sufficient means to do so, not a necessary one.

John Stossel and the Intellectual Right

Elites flock to progressivism due to the positive social framing of these ideas. Old media, elite universities, and polite society's PC sycophants consider leftism the province of the enlightened. Contrastingly, conservative or right-wing political ideals are denigrated as anachronistic, jingoistic, and downright stupid. Only the ignorant would countenance such an obviously false and evidently amoral value system.

The liberal media's impassioned attempt to undermine the Tea Party movement typifies this process. Despite evidence showing Tea Partiers are wealthier and more educated than average, this mendacious caricature persists. But what happens when these populist movements, presumably championed by an uncouth and emotional cadre, court mainstream intellectuals to buttress their cause. How will the left respond when the intellectually robust espouse forthright support for these same policies, couching these arguments not in pithy slogans, but in the language of academia? Daniela Perdomo comments on John Stossel as more dangerous than Glenn Beck:

He is something of an anomaly for the conservative channel, because while he can make racist statements as well as the rest of them, he couches his particular brand of hate in his passion for libertarianism.

Stossel "came out of a very credible news background as he has slowly morphed into this slanted, inaccurate, opinionated person. I think he has the potential to be really dangerous because he has enough experience in the news business to give him the appearance of credibility -- and I stress appearance," says Strupp. "But he is following the same line as Glenn Beck -- this growth of outrage."

Ms. Perdomo continues, all the while assuming libertarianism (or more accurately, freedom to decide one's own damn life) represents a great social evil:

"With Stossel, when he says businesses should be able to discriminate, that would normally be crazy fringe talk, but it's not because Beck is defining crazy fringe,"

Racism and closed-mindedness, in the respected figure of a Princeton graduate and decorated journalist, whose soft-spoken yet hate-filled speech is made palatable by his disclaimer that although he believes businesses should have a right to be racist, he personally would boycott such establishments.

I won't belabor the issues raised here as apparently only the "crazy-fringe" believes in freedom of association, freedom of action, and free markets. Instead let me comment on a potential underlying motivation for Ms. Perdomo. Ms. Perdomo's histrionics assuredly derive from a fear of Mr. Stossel further legitimizing right-wing policies, but she likely can't stand the notion that an erudite Princeton graduate could agree with aspects of populist conservatism.

In the intellectual echo chamber of academia and places like AlterNet.org, liberals rarely encounter an outlier to the political/social paradigm discussed above. Smart people are liberals; dumb, angry, bitter people are conservatives. In much the same way atheists find intelligent religious people so perplexing, liberals can't fully comprehend the academic right-winger. Stossel's background and his intellectual articulation of the Tea Party's arguments contradict the exceedingly simple political divide put forth by the left. And that really pisses off people like Ms. Perdomo.

More Evidence for "Paleo" Worldview: Diet

If you're a regular reader of OneSTDV (if you're not, subscribe here) and its peers, you've probably noted the coherency of the expressed worldview. The philosophy presented has internal consistency and, I'd like to think, external veracity. On this blog, I've supported the existence of racial intelligence and behavioral differences, gender norms, objective beauty standards, ethnic and racial kinship as underlying social phenomena, Game as insight into the female attraction psyche, egoism as a primary motivation of man, and a bunch of other cool shit.

To the dilettante, the topics presented have a somewhat tenuous connection to each other. But in actuality, besides their common blasphemy against the prevailing zeitgeist, each position is ultimately derived from an evolutionary psychology conception of man. Or equivalently, many of the characteristics of man, from his social predilections to his cognitive acuteness, are vestiges from a pre-civilization past. Man's constitution was long ago constructed in his evolutionary history, forged within hunter-gatherer tribes and the arduous circumstances of nature that mercilessly selected our fittest members.

And while liberal creationists and women's studies professors dissemble on the topic, science keeps championing the reality of this "paleo" worldview (paleo meaning pre-history). For the incredulous, here's some quick references: race and IQ, objective beauty, Game, and gender. And yet here's another win for the evo-psych crowd: the paleo diet has been vindicated by none other than Dr. Andrew Weil. For anyone not aware, the "paleo" diet (Mangan writes about it often) is described below:

Paleo is a simple dietary lifestyle that is based on foods being either in or out. In are the Paleolithic Era foods that we ate prior to agriculture and animal husbandry (meat, fish, shellfish, eggs, tree nuts, vegetables, roots, fruit, berries, mushrooms, etc.). Out are Neolithic Era foods that result from agriculture or animal husbandry (grains, dairy, beans/legumes, potatoes, sugar and fake foods).

Basically, we should eat foods that were common during the pre-civilization era because that's the body we still have. In an article yesterday, Dr. Weil informs us that those bucolic 1950's idiots were actually onto something by eating lots of meat and fats, but avoiding refined carbs and processed foods prior to the introduction of fast food chains and TV dinners. Sure, Dr. Weil doesn't wholeheartedly support the paleo diet, but he does condemn the previously held consensus that animal fat is the basis for modern disease.

An analysis that combined the results of 21 studies, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that "saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk" of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease.

Researcher Ronald M. Krauss of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Center in California found that there was no difference in the risk of heart disease or stroke between people with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat.

Refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other chronic diseases of modern civilization.

A seminal study in the 1970's pushed the incorrect notion that animal fats were unhealthy. The SWPL media has been all too willing to promulgate this lie. They do so because meat eating has become synonymous with traditional and masculine culture, the bane of the liberal media. But actual science proves them wrong as grass-fed meat, if supplemented with fruits and vegetables, is clearly a naturally healthy means of nutrition. Further, the modern food products created by man, the parallel edifice to "culture" in the HBD debate, is ultimately noxious. And once again, the "paleo" conception of man is vindicated.