Colbert and Stewart's Rally: Why Conservatives Can't Accept "Civility"

Yesterday, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held a joint Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. While both men make a concerted effort to avoid punditry, no unbiased observer could consider them anything but elite, smarmy liberals. This event, a production billed as the sardonic alternative to Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, illustrated their rather obvious bent. Nonetheless, they kept the event largely apolitical as no mention of voting Democrat or pushing liberal policies came to the forefront. What did they do; first they mocked patriotism, a meme I covered last summer when I surmised that American patriotism, as opposed to globalism, was seen as a prole ideology. Second, they regurgitated trite slogans about civility and cooperation.

He admitted not knowing what exactly the rally was about. "Some of you see it as a clarion call for action. Some of you more ironic cats see it as a 'clarion call' for 'action.' " He could only speak to his own intent, he said, which was to show that civil discourse and cooperation are possible. "We work together to get things done every day," he said. Most people are not political animals—they "don't live solely as Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives. Most of them [are] just a little late for something they have to do." Likewise, things are not as bad as they seem.

I've previously expressed my disdain for moderates, summing it up with this maxim:

To moderates and liberals, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to appeasing all sides and avoiding "extremism" (read: an actual position)

But how could I argue against civility, cooperation, and compromise? Well if liberals love it, there's probably something wrong with it. Some observations from the Rally attendees and a Salon.com article on the theme:

Kevin Guertler, 26, carried a sign saying, "Meh!" As a "raging apathetic," his goal was to protest protests. "If you really want to get things done, you don't go to a rally," said his friend, Chris Ellis. "You go get a job. You go start a social group. You don't hold a sign."

The Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear, held on the National Mall Saturday afternoon, ridiculed the whole idea of a political rally. But it also managed to send a message about the broken political system, how the media abets it, and why it's OK to care—even for professional ironists.

When we move together, you see, we can literally create a groundswell.

But if you didn't feel a lump in your throat watching thousands of Americans on the Mall soulfully command us to join hands. My fellow Americans, if we don't have love, we've got zip.

What this crazy, not entirely well-thought out, quasi-free-for-all was about, it turns out, was we, the people. The proud, generous, spirited, non-yelling and non-bullying real Americans who know that "If we amplify everything we hear nothing."

This insistence on "calmness" and togetherness, reaching across the aisle and coming together is intended to paint conservatives as spit-spewing crazies. They contend conservatives are all irrational haters who engage in reflexive opposition and refuse to yield on anything. On the surface, they only ask that the Right opens their ears, listens to their side, and works together for the good of everyone. How could anyone oppose such a noble goal? How could anyone argue with a political landscape defined more by compassion than by enmity, one where the brightest of both parties come together and offer solutions combining the best of both worlds? Yet note that embedded within the calls for compromise is an underlying animus, an omnipresent allusion to the bucolic Right's presumed rage. From the Salon.com article:

Was Saturday the beginning of a new dawn in the American character? Did it cure hysteria, paranoia and rampant jerkwaddery? Only time will tell, but don't hold your breath. It was a message to the world that we are not the sum of our loudest, angriest parts.

In essence, this isn't a call for compromise, it's a call for surrender. As a conservative, finding common ground is tantamount to failure. Adopting apathy and not engaging in active opposition means the progressive zeitgeist moves forward. Conservatism and traditionalism only work if its adherents have a steadfast loyalty to the underlying principles. If only milquetoast, half-hearted right-wingers exist, then the Ivory Tower and mainstream media push against an impotent force. They push against a cohort that will slowly cede ground and ultimately lose everything. And if we must express anger and rage at injustice, inexorable failures, and harmful policies, then alright. Only a man without principle could stand by silently as injustice reigns and a great nation falls. [FWIW: I do find both Colbert and Stewart quite adept at comedy. I often find them hilarious, yet I abhor their content and intentions.]

Update: HotAir calls it the "Rally to Support Hipster Irony". Of course, when they say hipster, they're really referring to SWPLs, but we can forgive their ignorance. Great quote:

Basically, this is a celebration of political laziness masquerading as ironic detachment, which is something generations have enjoyed in their early adulthood without making it an industry. Instead of having making actual, serious, and developed political arguments, it’s much easier to make fun of those who do on both sides of the political divide and pretend that one is above it all.

Adults Dressing Up for Halloween

Saturday Audience Participation

A couple days ago, I got the following e-mail from a reader:

I haven't seen you discuss the general trend of grown ups in the West dressing up for Halloween. I find it a good example of the general decline of our civilization. The slutty costumes now seem to be the required wear for younger women.

The reader didn't elaborate on his reasoning other than mentioning slutty Halloween costumes incisively noted in Mean Girls. As to his larger point, I imagine he's lamenting the puerile nature of dressing up for Halloween and the escapist fantasy engaged in by supposedly upstanding adult citizens. A healthy society would not encourage its members to act like children, to gallivant around town in absurd costumes. And it surely wouldn't sanction girls dressing up like whores all in the guise of fun and fantasy.

But honestly, I'm not sure I buy this. And I'm unaware of Halloween's history amongst adult groups, so I can't put it into context historically. I personally don't get why grown men and women like this sort of thing, but it seems pretty innocuous to me. Of course, I'm also open to the opposite point of view.

Today's Question: What do you think of the larger societal implications of this practice? Did you dress up and go out socially this Halloween season or will do so this weekend? If yes, what did you wear and what other costumes did you see? If not, why not? Do you think it's stupid, fun, juvenile, or value neutral?

Masculinity and Male Emotions

Men are allowed to express exactly two emotions: aggressive anger and sexual lust. If a man divulges his disappointment or sadness, he's labeled an effeminate p*ssy and he loses much of his social respect. As a result, man becomes a stoic automaton, effusive only when he perceives a slight to his pride or in pursuit of a sexual target.

On the Jersey Shore finale last week, Mike "The Situation" surprisingly shirked such restriction on male emotionality. In this link, at 27:00, Mike belies his meathead exterior and expresses genuine hurt concerning purported badmouthing from his best friend Paulie.

That would be upsetting for me to even think that. I'm extremely upset if it was him. [He walks around visibly agitated.]

Pauly also refers to his relationship with Mike as a "friendship", a welcome deviation from pseudo-masculine neologisms like "buddy", "boy", "dawg", and "Bromance". All these terms are ways of exclaiming the "no homo" refrain popular amongst rappers. Men can't even define their own friendships without resorting to techniques for hiding their affection. Some commenters will dismiss this as minuscule, but I'm very encouraged to see this.

And how has such a despondent situation arisen? How has the prevailing social landscape shamed men from their own emotions and demanded they express nothing but carnal tendencies? Men no longer have a social qualifier via their larger societal status. Prior to the women's lib movement, each man had a comfortable position in the social hierarchy with a corresponding confirmation of his status as a man. But "equality" politics has created a generation of supplicating beta males eager to assume the position. In doing so, these men have ruined it for the rest of us; now, regular men must feign hyper-masculinity to distinguish themselves from the beta masses. He must engage in absurd displays of maleness in order to project his worthiness as a provider. He must shirk all stereotypically feminine traits because any hint of beta-tude will befall him in the sexual marketplace.

It's ironic that a man who epitomizes the meathead would so publicly subvert the stereotype. But good for him. Of course, this doesn't mean men should start wearing hipster jeans and crying during a Julia Roberts movie. Have some balls guys, please.

Obama on Daily Show, Dude

Obama was a guest on the Daily Show last night. In an astounding moment of irreverence, Jon Stewart referred to the President of the United States of America as "dude":

You don't want to use that phrase, dude.

Frat Boys and anti-PC "Humor"

There's a class of individuals who I call either frat-boy conservatives or South Park conservatives. A disgusting incident at Yale illustrates:

Delta Kappa Epsilon pledges marched through Yale's Old Campus -- where most first-year female students are housed -- chanting, "No means yes, yes means anal!" The fraternity pledges were marched blindfolded while barking like soldiers ... with marching orders of anal rape. They also threw in, "My name is Jack, I'm a necrophiliac, I fuck dead women."

Surely their intention was to be purposefully subversive and with the subsequent outcry from feminist groups, they achieved their goal. These types of ostentatiously anti-PC expressions are quite common in our society, but to me, almost all of them exude complete vapidity. Take the haste apology offered by the fraternity President - at the campus Women's Center:

Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it "a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste." He called the chants "inappropriate, disrespectful, and very hurtful to others."

Are we to believe that a bunch of Yalies didn't foresee the anger brought forth by their despicable actions? Are we to believe these Yalies found the statements within bounds? Are we to believe these Elis considered the statements innocuous? Of course not, yet the frat President presents their "lapse in judgment" as if the furor came about unexpectedly.

I'm having trouble articulating what I hate so much about South Park, Family Guy, dead baby jokes, and the purveyors of such material. Perhaps, it's the intellectually empty nature of the humor or the often servile manner in which people apologize. Perhaps, it's the desperate attempt at social acceptance that I find sad and the "look at me, I'm so edgy" posturing associated with the content. Again, there's just something shallow and unnecessarily crass about such humor.

I usually try to offer some larger point or a more hashed out thesis, but since I'm stuck right now, maybe the readers can help me out. Ill end with an example from the FriendlyAtheist and his running gag about eating babies:


Update: Vanishing American has some very interesting thoughts on this post and the individuals I condemn.

Sharon Angle's "Racist" Ad

In Monday's post, I argued that the left's unrelenting war against traditional America has finally spurred an awakening amongst the "unwashed masses". Conservative Americans (everyone outside NAM ghettos and the Ivory Tower) have realized the threat posed by liberalism. And in the face of such danger, the rhetoric becomes more pointed, more open, and more honest. Take Nevada Senate candidate Sharon Angle's most recent campaign ad:



Ms. Angle doesn't pull any punches in this ad. To anyone with eyes, it's rather obvious what message she intends to put out there. Of course, the other side has responded with sanctimonious invective, with Joy Behar confirming Godwin's Law and damning "that bitch to hell" for appealing to sound statistical facts. And a few days ago, though not in direct response to this ad but to the sentiment it reflects, Obama roused up Latinos by alluding to their "enemies":

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

One notes the starkly invidious nature of the discourse. Both sides have reached a now bitter impasse, a situation caused by an anti-American administration and economic turmoil.

A number of years back, Fox News and other mainstream religious Right voices were pushing the so-called "Culture War." To Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, this "war" reflected the growing moral destitution of our nation, a problem fomented by anti-religious liberals. That meme caught some traction amongst the base, but it never elicited the Tea Party-level response witnessed today. Instead, I think the "culture war" idea has been expanded, with elements of race, nationhood, and non-religious American culture added to the ostensibly religious aspects of the debate. And instead of the universalist principles of religion dominating the discourse, this new type of rhetoric doesn't always shy away from defining the "other" and the "foreign". Angle's ad ends by declaring Reid is "not on your side" and many Tea Party candidates have stoked populist fire by using slogans like "I am You" and "We Want Our Country Back". And why should they fear the PC. The implications are so grave and, thankfully, the population has finally noticed it.

DJ Hero 2: Culture and its Effect on Politics

The main failing of libertarianism, or more aptly "liberaltarianism", is their insistence on expanding laissez-faire attitudes to the cultural and moral sphere. Their reluctance to censure decadent (broadly defined) culture and their singular focus on economic issues blinds them to the confluence of culture and politics. In a previous post on social conservatism and limited government, I discussed this important political phenomenon:

It is the entrenched societal values that allow or disallow certain initiatives to come to fruition. For example, only a completely emasculated society that holds women as possessing higher moral value than men could enact such misandrist divorce and custody laws. Only a first-world society that has normalized non-heterosexual attraction could suffer from a 1980's AIDS epidemic. Only a society bent on diversity as the greatest moral triumph would enact affirmative action and forced desegregation. A society's collective morality dictates its acceptance of ineluctably harmful liberal policies.

Popular culture, encompassing TV shows, Internet memes, and movies, pushes the zeitgeist and politicians fall in line. It's a process buttressed by leftist indoctrination facilities and spurred by gradual, pervasive, and unrelenting bombardment of the populace. Then, the feedback loop gets going, whereby profits in a free-market motivates others, which in turn affects politics, and slowly the avalanche builds.

In recent weeks, a television commercial for the video game DJ Hero 2 illustrates how culture subtlety reflects the left's cherished ideals.



Let's review: mostly white dance party listening to hip-hop, blond white girl flirting with black thug, aforementioned white girl asserting female dominance, couple dancing very proactively, tattoos, another black guy and blond white girl couple kissing, black girl and Asian guy couple (realistic!), piercings, white girl and black girl dancing together, wide shot of extremely diverse crowd, and the coup-de-grace end shot with white guy and black guy switching arms.

Now, the game is promoted as DJ Hero 2: Mix 2Gether. So the commercial fits the product. Side note: I'm not going to rail against the almost non-existent but absurdly hyped up prevalence of interracial couples. Instead, this commercial wonderfully illustrates how culture can affect what society values, even if said ideals would never work practically. Ostensibly, the commercial writers considered racial diversity as the ultimate expression of "Mix 2Gether". So we see this vibrant scene of diversity, all races intermingling pleasantly with women open for business, tramp-stamped, pierced, and everything. And who doesn't want to see this in their own lives? Who doesn't want to join in on the fun? Unfortunately, the "joiners" aren't just the wigger down the block, the neighborhood doorknob, and some pot-smoking free love New Ager on DailyKos, but most of Congress who will gladly try to manufacture this scene for self-aggrandizement, both socially and politically.

HBD Slowly Seeping into Public Sphere

Here in the HBD-osphere, many commenters lament the absence of race realist ideas from mainstream discourse. In just the past few years, we've witnessed the firing of James Watson for his candid statements on African dysfunction and a similar campaign against Larry Summers for his qualified musings on gender differences in quantitative ability. Harvard Law Student Stephanie Grace attained notoriety for her similarly constrained ruminations on racial intelligence disparities and eminent physicist Jonathan Katz was dismissed for an unassailable essay on gays and AIDS.

But desperation often unfetters man from the constraints of politeness. I made this point concerning Obama's abject leftism and its connection to the Tea Party uprising:

In an ironic turn of events, Obama has come to personify not our post-racial society, but the foreign, alien means by which the left seeks to reconstruct America. He hasn't spurred a nascent Progressive movement, but instead enlivened conservatives from their collective slumber, as in this past weekend's "Restoring Honor" rally. Obama is a symbol to rally against, a figure that encompasses all the suicidal leftist ideals. Conservatives needed a stark representation of leftist thought, the strain that smears all whites as racist, believes America has no national sovereignty, views this country as a historically amoral entity, and seeks uniformity in all aspects of life. And that's why Obama is so important. He typifies it all.

When the economy tanks due to PC politics, an antagonistic leftist regime takes over, and Americans see a radical shift in their nation forthcoming, social grace becomes unimportant. And its in this environment, one defined by pursuit of economic, personal, cultural, and national survival instead of gross affluence, that the masses understand they can no longer "afford" the PC. They can no longer sit by idly as a nefarious elite re-engineers a nation, with the middle-class enduring the repercussions of these policies. As such, the drinking maxim, "a drunken mind speaks a sober heart" applies here. With the political environment defined as above, it's unsurprising that local HBD-related stories keep popping up. Here's two interesting ones from the past week.

In Washington state, two State Supreme Court justices publicly state what anyone driving through a city at night knows: black people commit more crime. Note how the article tries to spin their comments as nonsensical.

State Supreme Court justices Richard Sanders and James Johnson stunned some participants at a recent court meeting when they said African Americans are overrepresented in the prison population because they commit a disproportionate number of crimes. Both justices disputed the view held by some that racial discrimination plays a significant role in the disparity.

Sanders later confirmed his remarks about imprisoned African Americans, saying "certain minority groups" are "disproportionally represented in prison because they have a crime problem." "That's right," he told The Seattle Times this week. "I think that's obvious." [I love his nonchalant tone.]

Take a guess as to the response:

Some who attended the meeting say they were offended by the justices' remarks, saying the comments showed a lack of knowledge and sensitivity. Kitsap County District Court Judge James Riehl, who attended the meeting, said he was "stunned" because, as a trial judge for 28 years, he was "acutely aware" of barriers to equal treatment in the legal system. Bondon said she told Johnson that was unacceptable and that she didn't believe that to be true. [How can a falsifiable hypothesis ever be unacceptable? There should be no bounds to scientific inquiry.]

"I know that people in all walks of life hold biases, but it was stunning to hear a Justice of the Supreme Court make these outrageous comments in my presence," Bondon wrote. [Yes, "people from all walks of life hold biases", like Chris Rock.] Bondon said she took the "comments personally, as though he were saying that I and all African Americans had a predisposition for criminality and I was offended." [Once again, liberals don't understand statistics.]

In another story, a Florida State Representative, William Snyder, probably has a good idea who contributes most to his state's dysfunction. He has proposed an illegal immigration bill that basically just focuses on Hispanics.

Florida is one of at least 20 states designing an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s SB-1070, which requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they think might be in the country illegally. State Rep. William Snyder (R) introduced the legislation in August, and Rick Scott, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for governor, favors such a bill.

However, the bill he introduced does appear to do just that — it exempts all Canadian and Western Europeans from extensive scrutiny.

Of course, in an attempt to depict the bill as white racism, the article slyly focuses on the exemption of Canandian and Western Europeans, but only mentions the Asian exemption once.

However, the bill he introduced does appear to do just that — it exempts all Canadian and Western Europeans from extensive scrutiny. The exception, first reported by the Miami New Times, says a person will be “presumed to be legally in the United States” if he or she provides “a Canadian passport” or a passport from any “visa waiver country.” Four Asian nations and all 32 Western European countries make up the visa waiver list. So under the proposed law, Canadians and Western Europeans will simply be presumed to be here legally, and they are not required to document it.

It's rather obvious to me that this State rep understands HBD (I wonder if he reads my blog?). And perhaps many in Florida, those not tucked away in an East coast Ivory Tower surrounded by other "open-minded" liberals, share his views.

How to Sell Pop Music: Good Girls and Sensitive Guys

The top consumers of Top 40 pop music are pre- and early-teen girls. Fittingly, the music played by Top 40 radio (KIIS in Los Angeles and Z100 in New York) and championed by MTV piques the sensibilities of this cohort. Basically, two categories of pop music singers exist: beautiful girls who grouse about spurned love and men who gush about a faceless female muse.

The former comes in two distinct flavors: the good girl forever invisible to her secret crush or the irascible girl relaying a love gone terribly wrong with the man always at fault. I covered the good girl archetype last summer in discussing Disney's pop star conveyor belt:

Disney formulates narratives for Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato much in the same way educational romantics treat Einstein. By framing adolescent problems so that even the coolest and best-looking girls go through it, Disney creates beautiful, talented and ACCESSIBLE stars.

I'll explain the former with a recent example from Orianthi, an angst-ridden Australian singer whose hit "According to You" oozes alpha-male yearning and beta-male settling:

According to you I'm stupid, I'm useless
I can't do anything right
According to you I'm difficult, hard to please
Forever changing my mind

But according to him I'm beautiful, incredible
He can't get me out of his head
According to him I'm funny, irresistible
Everything he ever wanted

According to you I'm boring, I'm moody
And you can't take me any place
According to you I suck at telling jokes
'Cause I always give it away

Here's another example from Beyonce, the queen of angry fem-pop:

Ring the alarm
I been through this too long
But I'll be damned if I see another chick on your arm
Won't you ring the alarm?

You can't stay, you gotta go.
Ain't no other chicks spending your dough
This is taking a toll, the way the story unfolds
Not the picture perfect movie everyone would've saw

The latter archetype thrives on the alpha-beta dichotomy. Women want the alpha male, a man pursued aggressively by other women, who only has eyes for her. The Top 40 male singers attain alpha status by virtue of their celebrity and adoring female fans and use their songs as evidence of beta provider ability. Most Top 40 songs by males, excepting bad-boy rappers like Eminem or 50 Cent, are overwrought odes to female beauty. Take the current US number one single entitled "Just the Way You Are" by Bruno Mars:

When I see your face,
There's not a thing that I would change.
Cause you're amazing,
Just the way you are.
And when you smile,
The whole world stops and stares for a while.
'Cause girl you're amazing,
Just the way you are.

It works because young girls imagine themselves the target of such ambiguous affection. So in honor of these ideas, I dedicate this post to John Mayer and Taylor Swift. Ms. Swift simply couldn't resist Mayer's sappy ballads like "Your Body is a Wonderland" and "Dreaming with a Broken Heart" and his legendary penchant for scoring Hollywood's hottest. She has responded in song form below:

'Dear John
I see it all now that you're gone
Don't you think I was too young
To be messed with
The girl in the dress
Cried the whole way home
I should've known.

My mother accused me of losing my mind
But I swore I was fine...
You'll add my name to your long list of traitors who don't understand
And I'll look back in regret I ignored what they said
"Run as fast as you can".'

Believe me, he won't lose any sleep over this. If anything, it will only further his legend and make him ever more popular amongst women. And that's what sells - piquing the largely uniform and surely undeniable emotional interests of the populace.

Gaming: What's the Big Deal?

Saturday Audience Participation

I don't understand video game hysteria:



I've seriously played under ten video games in my lifetime and none in the past decade or so. I simply don't get why people enjoy them so much or why people devote such large amounts of time playing them. I understand the social aspect of gaming, especially playing with friends. But in the end, I find games boring. I don't have a deep analysis of this or why others react so differently, so I'll leave that to the readers.

Today's question: Do you play video games? What games? How long have you played? Have you ever veered into gaming addiction? Who do you play with? What's so great about gaming?

The FriendlyAtheist: Liberal Atheists Focus on Gays

I've written before about my disappointment with "establishment atheism". For many atheists, secularism represents an intellectually haughty way of denigrating Christianity and its corresponding traditionalism. Their atheism doesn't derive from disinterested consideration of the arguments, but rather from a repudiation of traditionalism. In essence, as I've argued in one of the links, atheism coupled with modern leftism acts as an amalgamated pseudo-faith.

The FriendlyAtheist, Hemant Mehta, and his merry band of leftist doppelgangers epitomize this largely intellectually vapid atheism. While one presumes Mr. Mehta would focus primarily on the societal-level malevolence of modern religion, his site offers something ironically different. I've read the site for the last four years or so and I've noted the following somewhat contradictory ideas supported there: Christianity is as bad as Islam, Europe should welcome Muslims, burqa ban is bad, Buddhists are our allies, and others. For example, yesterday I commented on Islamic fecundity in Europe and a commenter offered this pithy rejoinder:

Congratulations, that was the most xenophobic shit I have heard all week. Because brown immigrants having babies is the real problem, not brutal violence against queer people? Go fuck yourself.

But the oddest thing about Mehta's site, and the atheist-sphere in general, is his focus on gays. (Note: Mehta is not gay.) Right now, out of eight front page posts, four are about homosexuals. Additionally, there are two categories entitled "LGBT" and "Love" and the latter includes many posts about gays. I know this isn't an exhaustive study of the site content, but believe me, he posts almost every day about gays on a website with "Atheist" in the title.

So in yesterday's post, I brought up this apparent disconnect and the venerable commentariat responded as below:

I thought this site was about atheism, not gays. Because, it’s not like religion is causing other problems in the world.

Kids are dying due to anti-gay bullying and an entire segment of the adult public is denied a fundamental civil right due to religious bigotry against gays. How is that not relevant to atheists or a large enough concern to devote significant space to?

@OneSTDV, the reason atheists care about religion is because of the damage it does through its actions. Sure religion does more damage in the rest of the world, but this is a US-centric blog and hence the issues are going to be about the sorts of issues that arise out of religion here; creationism, gay inequality etc.

I never said religion doesn’t hurt gays (though the cited statistic of, what, 10-20 recent suicides is almost laughable). What I’m saying is this site focuses any incredibly disproportionate amount of effort on combating religious hatred of gays. When the consequences of religion can be so grave (i.e. Islamic fecundity basically taking over Europe), this relatively tiny problem affecting a relatively tiny population shouldn’t get anywhere near the amount of time it does amongst (liberal) atheist sites.

also this is mostly Hemant’s blog…so he could write whatever the fuck he wants. It’s not like you’re paying to get only religious articles. Obviously homosexual rights are important to Hemant and he knows they are important to many of his readers…except you apparently? seriously? If you have problems with this start your own blog and talk about what you want, but i’ll bet you Friendly Atheist will continue to have more readers than you, because Hemant cares about EVERYONE and homosexuality in America just so happens to be a very important issue to him and his viewers

Maybe you should try getting your information from someone a bit more reliable than Wilders or Dewinter.

OneSTDV, somehow I’m not surprised that you can’t see how opposing religiously-inspired hatred is relevant to atheism.

My main point: a website ostensibly concerned with atheism/religion should consider the noxious consequences of modern religion commensurate with said impact. In other words, almost all of the problems of modern religion are associated with Islam, as in terrorism, Western demographic jihadism, and the Middle East conflict. Yet, the most recent post about Islam includes Mehta's evidently reluctant criticism of George Washington University's Muslim-only swimming program. Mehta and his acolytes ignore the larger societal repercussions of religion (such as Islam imposing itself on Europe and Third-World superstition) and instead focus on relatively minor problems affecting exceedingly small populations.

I'll concede that religion hasn't been good to the gays, yet when compared to the atrocities of yesterday and the battle currently waged by Islam, the problem is assuredly minor. So why do they do this? Why do they focus so much energy on gays? Because these individuals don't accept atheism on intellectual grounds; instead, they use it as a convoluted strategy to undermine traditionalism. And gays, being a central aspect of the extant culture war, are a potent means of doing so. Further, as gays represent a minority, they can apply the majority vs. minority, oppressor vs. victim narrative. Notice also that the best arguments the commenters can articulate against religion involve esoterica (creationism) or trumped-up abuse (gays). Not even actual religious-based abuse from the Catholic Church comes to their minds first.

And if you want more evidence for the pseudo-faith of modern secularism, see the Foundation Beyond Belief's latest beneficiaries. It includes the Animal Welfare Institute, Campaign for Female Education, Foundation for African Medicine and Education, and Soulforce (gay group). Notice a trend.

Basically, modern atheism is a parallel ideology to modern leftism. It will do nothing but harm traditional American constructs, a system of cultural edifices that perhaps only the intractable opposition of religion can maintain.

[Note: I have no animus towards gays nor do I think gay sex is immoral, though I do oppose gay marriage.]

Faith-Based Citizenship

In the LA Times (h/t: Mangan), Gregory Rodriguez admonishes what he deems "irrational demagoguery" and "hatred of strangers". In his diatribe, Mr. Rodriguez ignores about 200 years of history and champions the neocon/leftist conception of American-ness:

Instead of the shared ethnicity, religion and mores that bind together many nation states, we have only the political ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In a speech last summer, Obama expressed a similar sentiment:

Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith.

Of course, such a position completely rejects the notion of nationhood, national boundaries, and traditional ways of life. It implies abject globalism, as mere belief implies inclusion rather than nationhood stemming from a succession of culturally and genetically related progeny.

But such short-sighted positions are expected from liberals. Instead, let me broach the inherent weakness of Rodriguez and Obama's national construction. What of those that don't buy into these shared ideals? What of those that, I don't know, never felt proud of their country until about three years ago? What of those that reject American freedoms, government, or anything else President Obama defines as American? Simply, the "faith" definition is completely untenable, for both its ambiguity and its ironic slippery slope into fascism. One could very easily extrapolate a "faith" litmus test for American citizenship. Would Rodriguez countenance such an initiative?

The left is so fearful of demarcating national boundaries that they refuse to acknowledge how tradition and ethnicity shape countries and maintain cultural institutions. The left completely ignores demography (the melting pot just so happened to be almost entirely European), tradition, and national folklore in defining the American people. Instead, we get bromides about shared ideals, a laughable statement considering America's still ongoing history of internal political enmity.

But of course, rhetoric exists for purposes of advancing an agenda, not passing any logical critique. Obama and Rodriguez express these ideas because they never have to define them precisely, a fact allowed by our liberal zeitgeist and sustained by a fearful conservative establishment.

Koch Brothers: Painting the Tea Party as Idiots

Recently, liberals have depicted the Tea Party as a corporate-backed entity disguised as a grassroots uprising. In late August, NYT op-ed columnist Frank Rich described the situation as such:

There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.

The Times one again championed this portrayal with an article entitled Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead. Rich envisions furtive backstage dealings amongst these "potentates", a cadre of supposedly egotistical radicals using money as marionette strings. Much in the same style as Rich, the article cited paints a rather risible caricature of this cohort. I can imagine the authors sitting there, DailyKos open, ominous music playing in the background, and an image of the Superman tribunal in mind.

A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.

The invitation, sent to potential new participants, offers a rare peek at the Koch network of the ultrawealthy and the politically well-connected, its far-reaching agenda to enlist ordinary Americans to its cause, and its desire for the utmost secrecy.

The Kochs insist on strict confidentiality surrounding the California meetings, which are entitled “Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity.” The letter advises participants that it is closed to the public, including the news media, and admonishes them not to post updates or information about the meeting on the Web, blogs, social media or traditional media, and to “be mindful of the security and confidentiality of your meeting notes and materials.”

That's all I can access since the second page is not available for free. But consider why the left has gotten behind this idea so strongly. Why is Frank Rich referring to the Koch brothers as "sugar daddies" and the cited article uses phrases like "far-reaching agenda" and "secretive network"? One could naively surmise that the left seeks to undermine corporate swaying of politics. The left despises free enterprise and big corporations take full advantage of the free market, soaking up opportunity and inhibiting wealth redistribution so popular amongst liberals. Individuals like Rich foresee a morally vapid capitalistic society that dismisses moral concerns in blind pursuit of wealth. So Rich unmasks this powerful entity that he believes harbors far more power than justified.

Surely anti-corporate ideals motivate Rich and others, but inveighing against corporations is but a secondary aim of modern leftism. Leftism dominates higher-class social circles, with elite colleges and upper East Side dinner parties ardently devoted to the cause. As a result, the left's eminent voices must continually remind their constituency about the enlightened nature of their ideals. They must constantly associate liberal ideas with high-class people, at once inculcating a new generation and maintaining their own status. Simply, one can't ignore the social benedictions of leftism, especially in an era where elites have convinced themselves that only the cognitively adroit can rationalize delusion.

Yet this associative relationships requires a foil - and that's where those hick teabaggers (LOLzz!!) come in. Rich and others don't merely argue that corporate demagogues hold too much power; instead, they use condescending pejorative to depict Tea Partiers as pawns. But not just pawns, he considers Tea Partiers useful idiots, motivated by xenophobia and fear, ignorant of political doctrine, and controlled by a faceless puppetmaster. Going back to Rich's original article, here's some illustrative phrases for noting his perspective:

the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it

those who serve as spear carriers

[Side Picture] Honk if you fail to see the irony in this!

knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests

Do any of the Fox-watching protestors at the “ground zero mosque” know that Fox’s profits...

See, conservatives are stupid idiots who don't know anything! All these phrases depict the Tea Party as a wholly compliant entity incapable of independent thought. This notion of smart liberals and dumb conservatives, a class-based political weapon, is a popular one. And this continued coverage of the Koch brothers represents a less obvious way of insulting conservative intelligence.

MSNBC: Lean Forward Campaign

Continuing yesterday's discussion on immigrants, assimilation, and culture as a means for social cohesion, here's MSNBC announcing their new branding campaign - Lean Forward. Posting without comment as I think it speaks for itself:



Orwellian doublespeak highlight:

Our differences are what unite us.

Angela Merkel: "Multiculturalism has utterly failed."

A German nationalist has denounced the failure of multiculturalism and the imposition of foreign norms on dominant German culture. (Hopefully this turns out better than the last time around.) Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke about the growing concern over (mostly Muslim) immigrants:

We kidded ourselves for a while that they wouldn't stay, but that's not the reality. Of course the tendency had been to say, 'let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other'. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly.

Thank you Captain Obvious. She continues:

We are a country which at the beginning of the 1960s actually brought guest workers to Germany and now they live with us, and we lied to ourselves for a while, saying that they wouldn't stay and one day they would be gone.

Germany's debate over immigration has become more acrimonious since a central banker published a book accusing the country's four million Muslim immigrants of lowering the intelligence of German society. He was censured for his views and dismissed from the Bundesbank, but his book sold well and polls showed a majority of Germans agreed with many of his arguments.

The pragmatic concerns are just as grave as the cultural ones.

There is a labour shortage in Germany. The chamber of industry and commerce has said Germany is short of 400,000 skilled workers and the gap costs €25bn a year, equivalent to 1% of growth annually.

If Germany did not revise its immigration policies, he said, it was in danger of becoming "the world's welfare office".

Of course, when a country imports a permanent lower class, these shortages are inevitable. The productive must compensate for the unproductive, a bad situation compounded by disparate birth rates. Thilo Sarrazin sums it up:

Integration is the achievement of one who has integrated … I don't have to recognise anyone who lives from the state, rejects that state, refuses to ensure his children receive an education and continues to produce little headscarfed girls.

But implicit in Sarrazin's statement above and explicit in Merkel's subsequent qualifications of her comments is the notion of possible integration. I'll grant my immoderation in denying even that. In an ethnically homogeneous country such as Germany, any foreign group, even one as closely related genetically as say the French, will find difficulty in adopting German mores of behavior and culture. This pragmatic truism of race and ethnicity, the simple idea that people get along best with their ethnic kin, continues to evince itself in just about every multicultural experiment ever undertaken. At no level of social interaction has multiculturalism succeeded, a situation worsened still by hidebound immigrants unwilling to even learn the country's language.

In addition to the ostensible practical consequences of immigration, what of the cultural autonomy of a peoples? I personally have minimal reverence for cultural traditions as I see them lacking in objective value. But I do want to conserve American culture because that's the country I know and I do sympathize with the collective importance others bequeath unto these cultural traditions. I believe that every collective has the moral right to define their own nations, especially one of long historical precedence such as Germany, on whatever basis they so desire. Yet in the prevailing globalist zeitgeist, such positions are denounced as jingoistic and unenlightened. Cultural communism now dominates.

If this accomplishes anything though, it will be the surge in Internet commenters evoking Godwin's Law. I can't think of another situation so amenable to that end.

Newsweek on Global Cooling: Scientists' Unjustified Confidence

I once viewed establishment science as the foremost purveyor of truth - a collective heir to the first great scientific rebel, Galileo. I considered science an unadulterated entity full of energized and intellectually curious thinkers who sought truth above all else. Unfortunately, in regards to my own idealism and the greater societal implications, establishment science is vulnerable to the same social and political biases that motivate every other aspect of life. Research funding, adherence to PC, and general social pressures for conformity often dictate what hypotheses gain support.

As a result, one realizes that seemingly trustworthy pundits and scholars promulgate outright, 100% lies. See Dean Ornish praising a Harvard study purporting to discredit low-carb, high-protein diets. Astoundingly, the diet has essentially nothing to do with Atkins-type diets. In fact, the diet examined in the study and the one Mr. Ornish holds up as reflecting the harmful consequences of Atkins were basically high-carb diets!

With this in mind, consider Newsweek's 1975 article entitled The Cooling World. Now, I'll refrain from arguing global warming esoterica or criticizing the article's specific content. And note my understanding of science's fluidity and the notion that the results of yesterday are sometimes negated by the progress we make in the interim. To begin, the article summarizes the evidence for global cooling:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.

OK, perhaps this is all legitimate scholarship. But in the context of scientists' current unanimity regarding global warming, the expressed confidence is rather ironic:

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. [Well, they've never lacked "ambition".]

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

So maybe the science changed and they were wrong (global warming proponents argue this way when discussing the cited article). Maybe they focused on some aspect of the data later deemed unimportant. OK, all reasonable paths to finding the truth. But if subsequently the data turned out to be woefully inaccurate or false, why the confidence? Read the above quotes again; why are the scientists "nearly unanimous" in the accuracy of their prognostications? Why was there so much data in support of the hypothesis? Why did the article end by conceding this "grim reality" from global cooling?

If they were so incredibly off-based, then why the confidence? And if this confidence and forthright language can derive from such misguided ideas, then can we really trust academics and scientists when political and social initiatives depend so heavily on their work?

Do you Follow Paleo?

Saturday Audience Participation

If you read this site, you know I'm a passionate proponent of the paleo lifestyle. I believe essentially all of modern disease (absolute, not relative scale) is derived from our neolithic nutritional habits and the dissembling cadre of academics, big business, and government institutions that champion these lies.

It was only recently that I engaged in a rigorous examination of the evidence (h/t: Mangan who I originally dismissed as crazy on this issue). I always had a gut feeling that the paleo lifestyle was the way to go and my diet/exercise generally skewed in this direction, but my knowledge lacked both breadth and academic countenance. Until this past summer, I still believed the following:

• Carbs cause sloppy weight gain, but whole grains must be a central part of one's diet.
• The vegetarian diet is healthy.
• Saturated fat from animal products is the primary cause of modern disease.
• Eating foods high in cholesterol and fat (eggs, meat, oils) will have horrible consequences for one's health.
  
• Steady, grueling cardio is beneficial.
• Fat loss is spurred primarily by exercise.
• Modern disease is an inexorable aspect of life.

Thankfully, I've since been disabused of these fallacious ideas. For information on these ideas, see these posts and the links therein. Unfortunately though, I've been reticent in fully adopting the paleo lifestyle. Primarily, I don't lift weights often enough and I cheat way too much with carbs (pasta, pancakes, and baked goods are my vices). I really want to get serious, but it's a challenge I haven't taken on yet.

Today's question: Do you follow the "paleo lifestyle"? Do you eat a high-protein, high-fat, low-carb diet? Do you lift weights, go to a CrossFit gym, and eschew unending cardio sessions? Or do you accept the premises of the caveman way of life, but you just can't stick to it? You eat too many treats and can't give up pasta and bread? If the latter, is it just not worth it or do you simply lack the self-control? If the former, how has the paleo lifestyle impacted your life? Cured your acne, digestion problems, lupus, blood pressure, diabetes, etc...? Left you energized and robust?

Duke F*ck List: Beta Males Screwed by Feminism

So the Duke F*ck list has gone viral this past week. Originally a mock thesis sent to friends, the documents details Karen Owen's salacious activities during her four years at this eminently prestigious Southern university. The list has spurred a national debate on female sexuality, the male-female sexual double standard, "empowerment", and privacy in the age of social media.

As with any debate, few judicious voices enter the intellectual battlefield, with almost no one expressing the iconclastic truths presented at sites like this one. Instead of criticizing the feminist defense of Ms. Owen or the liberal media's inconsistent criticism, I'll briefly discuss how this reflects the sexual marketplace in our post-feminist world.

Awhile back, a New York Times article noted the growing gender disparity amongst college students and argued that this benefited young men looking for female companionship. But it failed to understand how feminism has opened the sexual marketplace, thereby allowing women full freedom to pursue their hypergamous urges. In more quaint times, women either didn't attend college or considered it primarily a social endeavor in which they attracted an upstanding provider husband. Essentially, the marketplace was in equilibrium, holding itself in a tenuous position as it opposed the pull of our natural desires.

But feminism, in an attempt to open the marketplace to lower status (read ugly and fat) women, changed all that. Instead of demureness, grace, and beauty, an additional form of sexual currency, being a whore, became acceptable social capital. By enervating social shame associated with the sexually libertine, young women could forgo settling for hapless betas. And this social initiative, championed under the guise of female equality, has left a generation of beta males hopelessly absent from the sexual marketplace. Yet, no shrill commenters mirroring the fat acceptance or "sex-positive" crowds exist for these ostracized beta males. In essence, the feminists haven't succeeded in imposing sexual uniformity, rather they've simply expanded female participants at the expense of lower status males.

So back to Ms. Owen. Note Ms. Owen's thirteen paramours are all Duke athletes, not a single electrical engineer amongst them. But how could this be?! How could Ms. Owen coincidentally find herself enraptured by all these, per her own judgment, uncaring and often apathetic young men? How could Ms. Owen possibly ignore the astute, hard-working nice guys surely in great supply at a place like Duke? In the context of the above discussion, the answer is obvious - women congregate at the alpha apex of the male sexual hierarchy.

And that gets me to the bad news. Duke is likely full of idealistic beta males who worked tirelessly throughout high school to attend such an institution. They envisioned an intellectual utopia full of similarly deep thinkers who eschew the social oddities of their less erudite peers. They foresaw a class of nubile young women who would revel in their unique charm and endearing idiosyncrasies. All of this derived from the rigorous intellectual standard demanded by Duke and the popular assumption that intelligent women rarely fall for the vapid conceits of larger society. Well, to these men, I assure you Ms. Owen isn't an aberration.

But there's some good (?) news for you guys: here's a glimpse at Ms. Owen, 40 penises down, Art History master's degree, PR job and all, in 15 years (h/t - Dalrock):



[FWIW: I do find Ms. Owen somewhat physically attractive.]

Conservatives and Religion: Avoiding Personal Morality in Motivating Policy

Last night, Christine O'Donnell and Christopher Coons had their first debate as they vie for one of Delaware's Senate seat. (Digression: From the little I've seen, Coons destroyed her. While his elitist disdain was evident, Coons came off as polished, bright, and only mildly unctuous.) In the linked video, the two candidates discuss the importance of faith in shaping their political decisions. Well, more accurately, both candidates offered libertarian-esque bromides concerning Constitutional loyalty:

O'Donnell: My faith has matured over the years...but regardless of my personal faith, when I go down to Washington DC, it is the Constitution that I will defend. And it is by the Constitution that I will make all of my decisions and that will be the standard bearer for every piece of legislation I vote on.

Coons: ..she would not have her faith be a central driver of her decisions if elected. And I'm interested if we could explore further, your suggestion that the Constitution would be your guide...and making sure we've got on the record Ms. O'Donnell's views on things like prayer, abortion, evolution...I'm someone who stands firmly by the Constitution as it stands today.

First, Coons brings up the issue of evolution, not to depict himself as a champion of science, but to hint at the connection between belief in evolution and class. There are few issues that carry as much class-based potency as evolution, constituting a marker of the rarefied intellectual class and a means by which individuals like Coons can classify themselves as such. Last summer, I enumerated the stark parallels between liberal and religious creationism. In general, the insistence that evolution be taught in public schools has nothing to do with truth-seeking. Rather, it's a weapon lanced in the class-based culture war. Funny though that liberal creationism, a similar delusion that has given us vegetarianism, social construction, educational romanticism, and feminism, pervades our universities' classrooms.

Second, both O'Donnell and Coons do their best to denigrate morality-based political decision making. But is such a position even achievable and if so, does this acute division between morality and politics constitute a beneficial strategy for our nation's future? As for the first question, I'd wager no, as man is a social animal unwilling and usually unable to process his thoughts independent of his carnal urges. As for the second, I'd caution against such a distinction as legal reductionism is insufficient in spurring national passion. Additionally, it allows leftists to inject a pseudo-religious morality camouflaged as (their own mendacious) Constitutional interpretation.

The willingness for mainstream conservatives to abdicate their faith in general forums derives from multiculturalism. No longer can conservatives appeal to even a general Christian ethos (now prefixed by Judeo); they are instead forced to offer empty slogans and libertarian reductionism. No longer can conservatives appeal to a traditional religious construct as part of our national vigor. They shirk such forthright language because the current zeitgeist demands total universalism, faith now awash in nebulous language and inexact spirituality. It demands that conservatives avoid condemnation and rejection of parallel belief systems in our culturally laissez faire landscape.

And by rejecting morality, they enervate their message. As I've argued before, nations need a palpable narrative to prosper (see Israel, Manifest Destiny). Without a narrative that enlivens the emotions of its constituency and spurs a loyalty to something larger than themselves, conservatism will fail. Of course, as a secularist, I'm hesitant concerning the slippery slope to theocracy, but the Constitution, especially in its current form so removed from the Founding Fathers meritocratic vision, needs an ancillary ethos. Could this be a more pragmatic ethos than religion? Sure, but again, we can't dismiss the basics of morality (life is important, people should be treated as people, I have a right to live my own life, family is the bedrock of society, etc...) in making policy.

Further, as elucidated in my post The Modern Left's Religious Faith and communism, the left will gladly inject a proxy morality without religious opposition. As Alexander Hamilton once said, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." They will champion equality of outcomes, wealth redistribution, feminism, etc... and contend it has nothing to do with a moral code promulgated by the left's "religious" edifices - universities, public schools, and Old media. This pseudo-faith replaces the traditional one and you get the crap we're in today.

The Origin of Political Shifts

Oscar Wilde presciently describes online political commenters:

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

Malcolm Gladwell belittles the potency of new media in motivating cultural and social change.

Communism began in coffee houses amongst the insular European intellectual class.

BBC political personality attacks bloggers as "socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting."

Robert Gibbs discusses "crazy Internet rumors" in discussing opposition to Obama.

The Beatniks started out as a handful of bicurious, drug-addled San Francisco poets, their movement ultimately cascading into post-60s liberalism.

Obama and the Left Adopt Bizzaro Sailer Strategy

In 2000, iconoclast blogging godfather Steve Sailer discussed a political idea he creatively deemed the "Sailer Strategy":

[T]he GOP could win more elections by raising its fraction of the white vote minimally than by somehow grabbing vastly higher fractions of the minority vote.

Unfortunately, with Bush Jr's "soft bigotry" minority homeowner initiative, RINO undermining of the Republican party, and the right's defensive stance on perceived racism, mainstream conservatives have not heeded Mr. Sailer's advice. Compounding this bad news is the left's own ostentatious willingness to create a conglomerate of loyal voting groups. Here's President Obama illustrating:

See what the other side is counting on is you're going to stay home...They're counting on young people staying home, and union members staying home, and black folks staying home.

Not only does this reiterate the collectivist social loyalty present amongst these groups, but it reflects the rather obvious Democratic strategy. They depict their party as the "minority" party, the hip party, the party of everyone, and in doing so, attract idealistic young people and the vacillating moderates swayed by anti-right media rhetoric.

Two questions arise. First, when will a schism arise amongst this tenuous collection of groups? When will shared hatred of whites and traditional America become insufficient in motivating political policy? Second, how long until the fence-sitting whites begin defecting from a party so reflexive in their enmity, so transparent in their ends? Until about a year ago, I'd have been skeptical of such a movement, but the Tea Party has made it somewhat socially acceptable to oppose the PC. And it's this collective assurance that will hopefully create a critical mass of traditional, pro-American voters to combat the left.

Blank Slate Academia: Prison-to-Poverty Cycle

On a hat tip from frequent commenter 'Underachiever', Slate.com discusses a study that claims to show "precisely how the prison-to-poverty cycle does its damage." Let's play a quick game: before even reading the article, brainstorm a number of leftist academic phenomena that will arise in this disinterested (/sarcasm) study...

If you guessed: HBD denialism, blank slatism, confusion of correlation and causation, passive language, ignorance of confounding variables and alternative hypotheses, failing to qualify conclusions, anti-jail rhetoric, and moral sanctimony, you're right! Some highlights follow with my comments in bold:

It's well-known that the United States imprisons drastically more people than other Western countries. Here are the specifics: We now imprison more people in absolute numbers and per capita than any other country on earth. With 5 percent of the world population, the U.S. hosts upward of 20 percent of its prisoners. This is because the country's incarceration rate has roughly quintupled since the early 1970s. [In the same exact time period, something connected to incarceration rates has decreased substantially.]

In devastating detail in Daedalus, the sociologists Bruce Western of Harvard [Surprise!] and Becky Pettit of the University of Washington have shown how poverty creates prisoners [Note passive relationship between poverty and criminality. Has anyone actually explained this causative relationship or done a controlled study across similarly impoverished racial groups?] and how prisons in turn fuel poverty, not just for individuals but for entire demographic groups. [Causation arrow is the wrong way.]

Crunching the numbers, they concluded that once a person has been incarcerated, the experience limits their earning power and their ability to climb out of poverty even decades after their release. [Why do Harvard professors not understand the correlation/causation dichotomy?]

Using that more realistic measure of unemployment, they found that fewer than 30 percent of black male high school dropouts are currently employed. [Umm..duh?] Seventy percent are jobless. Those are the sorts of unemployment figures one associates with failed Third World states rather than the largest, wealthiest economy on earth. [I wonder what "World" black and Hispanic Americans come from. Might be important in analyzing this data.]

When high school dropouts buck the trend by coming out of prison and finding steady work, they overwhelmingly hit a dead end in terms of earnings. Western and Pettit found that after being out of prison for 20 years, less than one-quarter of ex-cons who haven't finished high school were able to rise above the bottom 20 percent of income earners, a far lower percentage than for high-school dropouts who don't go to prison. [So criminals without a high school degree have trouble achieving socioeconomic ascension? This is what passes for scholarship these days?]

They conclude that the ex-cons end up passing on their economic handicap, and by extension the propensity of ending up behind bars, to their children and their children's children in turn [So the only thing parents pass onto their children is "economic handicap"? Anything else?]. As evidence, they cite recent surveys indicating children of prisoners are more likely to live in poverty, to end up on welfare, and to suffer the sorts of serious emotional problems that tend to make holding down jobs more difficult.

Widespread HBD or bioconservative acceptance is imperative because the type of idiocy presented above motivates policy. The intractable achievement gaps, demographic behavioral predilections, and the basic fluidity of society's classes all derive primarily from biology. Without appeal to the ultimate reason for why and how we behave, one can't articulate a viable counter-argument against liberal creationism. Though with the purposeful dissimulation above, who knows if anything will ever convince the other side?

Flocabulary: "Old Dead White Men" is Key to Black Education

In Oklahoma City, an innovative approach to education has found resistance from a bunch of ossified killjoys (/sarcasm). The now delayed program is called Flocabulary and takes a rather honest, though not entirely new, approach to teaching American history:

Known as Flocabulary, the program is a music-based educational tool that uses raps, rhythms and rhymes to help students learn and memorize everything from vocabulary and English to math and social studies. Flocabulary has been creating original hip-hop music and standards-based curricular materials to teach academic content for grades 3-12. Flocabulary programs are proven to increase student motivation and achievement and are currently being used in over 10,000 schools nationwide.

And look who has lauded the program - none other than Cornel West and Howard Zinn. Let's see why:

About 15 teachers have complained or expressed concern about the rap song lyrics, said Ed Allen, president of the Oklahoma City American Federation of Teachers. It is the U.S. history curriculum that has raised concern. One of the rap songs — "Old Dead White Men" — chronicles the shortcomings of the early leaders in the United States.

White men getting richer than Enron./ They stepping on Indians, women and blacks./ Era of Good Feeling doesn't come with the facts."

"Andrew Jackson, thinks he's a tough guy./ Killing more Indians than there are stars in the sky./ Evil wars of Florida killing the Seminoles./ Saying hello, putting Creek in the hell holes./ Like Adolf Hitler he had the final solution./ 'No, Indians, I don't want you to live here anymore.'"

But don't worry, the SWPL Flocabulary founder ensures us this makes for effective teaching:

Flocabulary CEO and co-founder Alex Rappaport said the lyrics are made intentionally provocative and sometimes humorous to create student engagement among some of the toughest-to-reach students in the nation.

"In general, the purpose of our program is to motivate students, and we often say the enemy here is student apathy," Rappaport said. "We want students to ask questions and challenge assumptions that are made and think critically about historical themes."

In liberal doublespeak, "we want students to challenge assumptions" actually means, "we want students to hate white people and blame them for all the world's ills." Naively, one could view this as a victory for conservative politics. It is the school system that first, and most effectively, inculcates children with all sorts of revisionist history smearing early American settlers. The white oppressor vs. dark victim pervades almost every scholastic history text. As a result of educators framing history as a struggle between rapacious and inimical whites and their noble savage antagonists, children readily extrapolate these ideas to the modern day. I've previously argued that this underpinned Obama's dominance of the youth vote.

So while this transparent display of anti-white rhetoric has found opposition, what of the more surreptitious means in current textbooks and curricula? Until the school system takes a more pro-Western approach via initiatives like the recent Texas textbook rewrite, this will remain a minuscule victory.

Were you ever a Wigger?

Saturday Audience Participation

I admit it - I was a "soft" wigger for a few of my teenage years. I use the qualifier "soft" to distinguish my attitude and behavior from that of hardcore wiggers. Principally, I looked to blacks as an exceedingly vibrant collective, their culture epitomizing "cool" and association with them giving one a uniquely deep social experience. For a few years, I listened almost entirely to (mainstream) rap, wore mildly baggy clothes, and adopted some hip-hop slang terms, though I still used them ironically as well. Paradoxically, I was still anti-PC, a traditionalist conservative, and an HBDer, more or less. But my perspective on race lionized blacks as the primary innovators of vibrant culture.

I know frequent commenter Camlost has relayed some anecdotes about his wigger past and Mangan and Jared Taylor were once idealistic liberals. So today's question: did you go through a wigger phase? What time period in your life was it? How hardcore were you in adopting black modes of behavior, dress, and culture? Do you regret this phase or do you apathetically dismiss it as the whims of adolescence? What changed for you?

Christine O'Donnell, Social Conservatism, and Limited Government

The mainstream media continues to attack Christine O'Donnell (quite an ebullient 1990's cutie), drudging up this witchcraft tripe (Hilary Clinton held seances as First lady) and, in general, reveling in every miniscule tidbit from her past. Their unending smear campaign against Ms. O'Donnell has essentially no relevance to her qualifications or her ability as a potential Senator; instead it's a tactic to depict Ms. O'Donnell as the "wrong" kind of person to run this country. These attacks seek to paint her as an unrefined idiot, an obstinate Christian fundamentalist, and a cultural destitute. See this base oral sex joke proffered by Jay Leno as he and smarmy liberal Seth MacFarlane belittle her.

In between demonstrating their cultural elitism, the leftist media denigrates Ms. O'Donnell's religious moralizing and how it founds her larger worldview. I could digress and cogitate on the media's hierarchy of acceptable religious beliefs despite essentially all religions demanding odd observance rituals and faith in sights unseen. Because apparently, only crazy people talk in tongues but wrapping your head in leather and throwing a baby off a rooftop for good luck are totally reasonable. But back to O'Donnell's faith and its centrality to her politics.

On a Slate.com article I responded to awhile back, a commenter opines about the incongruity of social conservatism and limited government:

The Tea Partiers' objection to Big Government is rather selective: When it comes to such issues as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, non-procreative sex, recreational drug use and assisted suicide, they're passionate interventionists.

Over at Cato, an article summarizes the growing discord between social conservative Tea Partiers and their more libertarian peers:

Walker explained that the tea party isn’t opposed to social conservatism, it just doesn’t take a position on those issues...I think that the Tea Party movement is more of a Libertarian movement...Toby Marie Walker, lead facilitator for the Waco [not Wacko] Tea Party, told NPR Thursday, ”Well, we focus around three main issues, is constitutionally limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.”

At Richocet.com, a commenter surmises:

Speaking at a Greater Freedom Rally at a Baptist church in South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint made a few comments that surely resonated with his socially conservative Baptist audience, but raise a few eyebrows among our libertarian brethren...Ricochet member Trace Urdan, who e-mailed me the article attached a note that said, "Doesn't sound like limited government to me..." Fair enough. But Trace's comment hints at a larger question: Is social conservatism reconcilable with the notion of limited government?

While I suspect most of Ms. O'Donnell's moral preening derives from an evangelical notion of religion, one can't dismiss the influence of social and cultural mores in shaping public policy. It is the entrenched societal values that allow or disallow certain initiatives to come to fruition. For example, only a completely emasculated society that holds women as possessing higher moral value than men could enact such misandrist divorce and custody laws. Only a first-world society that has normalized non-heterosexual attraction could suffer from a 1980's AIDS epidemic. Only a society bent on diversity as the greatest moral triumph would enact affirmative action and forced desegregation. A society's collective morality dictates its acceptance of ineluctably harmful liberal policies.

Further, especially in relation to the abortion issue, much of social conservatism deals with moral ideals we all agree upon. To put it more concretely, everyone agrees on the sanctity of human life and its utter importance on any moral scale. For example, despite leftist dissembling on woman's rights and supposedly archaic conservative notions of sexuality, abortion reduces to a question of life. And limited government does not preclude, in fact it welcomes, the government protection of innocent lives and subsequent punishment for harmful acts. In other areas, such as recreational drug use, military aggression, and basic law and order, the limited government viewpoint does not blithely ignore government responsibility in maintaining societal stability. In fact, this is the one area where limited government types should ascribe power to the state. No contradiction arises in pushing government out of our personal choices yet demanding that government protect our ability to make them.

Geert Wilders and Media Coverage of Muslims

Blogger Randall Parker has declared October 7th a protest day for Geert Wilders. Parker writes:

Geert Wilders is on trial this week in the Netherlands for using his basic right to free speech (said right not recognized in the Netherlands) to advocate against the Islamization of the Netherlands. It occurs to me we should choose a day when all bloggers who support a basic right to free speech ought to write posts protesting the prosecution for Geert Wilders.

Despite some of his leftist-leaning policies and the flamboyant bouffant hairstyle he wears, I wholeheartedly support Mr. Wilders . He is a man of great courage, a true patriot, and a beacon for those willing to oppose political correctness. We should all admire his willingness to state the truth in the face of undeniable danger. But the international left views him as an incorrigible bigot who dissembles on Muslims' assimilation into European society. As with much of leftist media, "journalists" use specific language and downright anti-reality idiocy to smear these truth-tellers. An example follows, entitled Why is there so much anti-Muslim rhetoric in the Netherlands?, with my commentary in bold:

Dutch political leader Geert Wilders goes on trial in Amsterdam next week for allegedly inciting hatred and insulting Muslims. [Notice use of passive voice - "Wilders...incites hatred" and "insults" Muslims. Tacit approval of Muslim reaction.]

As head of the right-wing Freedom Party,... [subtle shaming/smearing tactic. Wilders actually promotes some leftist causes like feminism.]

In 2004, filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered after making anti-Muslim remarks, as was the anti-immigrant politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002. [Note the author denounces van Gogh as making "anti-Muslim remarks," failing to actually consider the veracity of the relevant observations.]

Why is there so much anti-Muslim rhetoric in the Netherlands? Because it's a tiny, densely populated country with a high immigration rate. [Yes that must be - population density! The author doesn't consider any other possible reasons: Diversity + Proximity = War]

But what makes the anti-Muslim story so juicy is Holland's reputation for pluralism and tolerance [Well, one generally moderates his tolerance when someone's trying to kill you.] As it turns out, permissiveness when it comes to drug use does not always translate into accommodation for any and all lifestyles and religious views. [Depicts Islam as solely a lifestyle and religious view without the commensurate ideals that underpin Wilders opposition.]

The prefix "anti" appears seven times in the short article.

The article is replete with shaming tactics, smearing Wilders and his acolytes as reflexive haters instead of passionate defenders of their country, way of life, and the freedoms therein. The author also fails to even consider that Wilders might be right - that Islam violently imposes itself on its adopted country. But even with such sanctimonious delusion and Wilders' trial, Europe slowly rises from its collective slumber. That warrants some optimism and hopefully, America's next.

C.S. Lewis on Modern Leftism: "Of All Tyrannies..."

From 1948, C.S. Lewis describes modern leftism:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”

While one can surely admire Mr. Lewis' prescient wisdom, does this portend something bad for modern conservatism? Mr. Lewis and GK Chesterton fought against social and cultural marxism in their own time yet it still persists. And if it's still here, after years of failure, showing itself impervious to the opposition of Lewis, Chesterton, E.O. Wilson, and Charles Murray, then what hope do we have of ultimately defeating it?

Because I care, I won't leave you with such a cynical ending. For previous generations, these ideas still existed in the Ivory Tower vacuum. Leftist delusion had little impact beyond insulated, morally preening intellectual circles. But in our era, a time fraught with economic peril, a nefarious religious uprising, and widespread demographic shifts, the populace can no longer let such delusion fester. The people have no choice but to dissent and risk their social standing in polite society - because without such audacity, this nation will see dysfunction it has never seen before.