Liberalism as an Excuse for Black Dysfunction

Paul at Stuff Black People Don't Like (link to purchase his new book) writes often about what he has deemed "Black Run America (BRA)." In a recent post, he offered a definition of the BRA:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reality of Black Run America; a nation where every institution is entirely devoted to protecting and promoting the interests of Black people above all others.

Every facet of life is governed by the principals of Black Run America, which means every institution must promote Black interests above all others.

In an e-mail, Paul adds:

Blacks don't run America, of course, but America is run explicity for Blacks. WIth Obama in office, that fact became obvious.

I wouldn't go as far as Paul does in reducing liberalism (after all, that's what we're talking about) to white supplication towards blacks. But his notion of the BRA connects to on an important idea that I first put forth last summer - that American liberalism is the ultimate solution to the "black problem". While Paul fastidiously describes the direct concessions whites make to blacks, I've argued that liberalism is an indirect way to do so.

We can't reduce American liberalism to one particular objective or one specific value, but the "black problem" has always been central to progressive initiatives since the mid 1800's. Prior to the great intellectual Enlightenment of the mid 20th century that supposedly dispelled archaic notions of race differences, everyone knew blacks acted differently. Of course, the intellectual community shifted, with black pathology and dysfunction blamed solely on white racism and other external forces. In fact, without immediately condemning whites for causing it, one can't even discuss the dysfunctional behavior of the black community. The taboo nature of this statistical data spurred controversy over Daniel Moynihan's seminal 1965 report on the failing black family as well as a large number of examples throughout the years.

But liberals then concocted another, perhaps more clever, plan for excusing black pathology - normalize the behavior and undermine societal shame associated with the dysfunction. Any minimally informed liberal knew that blacks had significantly higher rates of welfare use, out of wedlock births, sexual activity, sexually transmitted diseases, divorce, absentee fathers, crime, and drug use. So instead of trying to correct these problems by imposing shame through a strong set of moral values, liberals just adopted them into their grand scheme of subverting those strong moral values.

Today, liberals champion all of the above: complete sexual openness, the notion that criminals are victims or completely redeemable, divorce, drug use, and welfare and other government handouts, amongst many other black-related issues. Notice a pattern here. Instead of accepting the pragmatic and moral importance of core traditional values, liberals attempted to undermine them in an effort to free blacks from reproach. They subverted the moral order so that blacks (and women, but that's another post) could not be criticized for bad behavior.

So black criminals became victims instead of amoral predators. Welfare handouts became a "right" instead of a shameful reflection of personal laziness. Out of wedlock births and absentee fathers became part of our "expanding" definition of the family instead of illustrating one's obvious lack of probity.

Unfortunately though, the strategy has somewhat backfired in two ways. Society has changed and accepted these harmful liberal values. And this has clearly affected all racial groups, including blacks, with rates of out of wedlock births skyrocketing since the 1950's. So blacks, no longer subservient to a white culture that shames bad behavior, have gotten even worse. All the pathologies present amongst the black community, including drug use, out of wedlock births, divorce, and crime, have increased since the advent of post 60's liberalism (perhaps they have since fallen due to the controversial Freakonomics abortion argument and/or higher rates of incarceration). Second, despite all the liberal posturing, everyone still regards black communities as rampant with dysfunction. No honest white person, obviously one has to reside outside the Ivory Tower and its annexes like Evanston and Vermont, looks at the black community and excuses welfare moms, criminals, drug abusers, or "hip-hop hos". Maybe they won't discuss it as the next dinner party, but liberalism definitely hasn't clouded their thought process that much.

In Male Fide 3.0: Reflexive Pessimism, Intellectual Cacophony, and the Importance of Values

Fellow iconclast and blogger Ferdinand Bardamu is relaunching his site In Mala Fide as a group venue. But don't sell him short - Mr. Bardamu has bigger visions than the irascible crimethink currently offered by his site. He sees In Mala Fide 3.0 as a smorgasbord of writers and content:

Unlike more narrowly focused and tamer sites like The Spearhead or Alternative Right, the sort of content I want to publish here will run the gamut from political and economic analysis to self-improvement advice (game and whatnot) and other things – an all-access stop for crimethink, amusement and vulgarity. By pooling the talents of multiple writers on a single site, we’ll have a much greater impact than on individual blogs.

And he isn't exactly choosy about who contributes:

If you’re interested in becoming a contributor to In Mala Fide, either by writing front-page articles or on an IMF-hosted blog, I’ll hook you up with an account. You can write about anything you want, be it feminism or game or white nationalism or HBD or economics or Christian patriarchy or stuff from other venues – whatever you like, as often as you like, from whatever perspective you like.

So what exactly is Mr. Bardamu intending to create and how does his vision generalize to the larger political sphere and the alliances within it?

Ferd opines on just about every topic out there, with a focus on gender issues over cultural and political ones. If I'm not mistaken, he started out as a more classical anti-PC Right-winger and has gradually transitioned to a nihilistic, pessimistic, "fuck the world, I'm doing whatever" view. Ferd's strength lies in his ability to entertain, using jocular discourse as a form of societal criticism. Ferd's "yelling from the sidelines" relies more on his delivery than a tight underlying philosophy, but underneath the acerbic quips lies an informed and passionate voice frustrated with the nation as it stands today. So perhaps he doesn't champion a particular doctrine, like Vox Day's libertarianism, Auster's traditionalism, or Buchanan's paleoconservatism. But I see this as a good thing as I also occasionally veer from the narrow range of Right-wing opinions.

However, the openness of his new venture will likely go too far into the abyss of incoherency. A group blog, magazine, or political movement needs a defined set of values. It needs a basic value hierarchy agreed upon by its members. From this foundational structure arises all other positions. Perhaps the details of these opinions vary, given personal interpretation of those values or a different permutation of the foundational principles by some members. But the most basic objectives should, at least, not contradict wildly. The goals of the movement, however nebulous, should have a level of coherency such that necessary concessions won't completely undermine other objectives. Yes all this is very inexact, but I don't want to go into a huge list of examples.

In sum, I foresee Ferd's array of authors putting forth wildly divergent ideas that could never coexist. Sure most of the content will involve societal criticism, generally from an anti-PC perspective. But without a coherent message based on a tenable set of values, what can be accomplished? What can come out of this undoubtedly cacophonous collection of voices who disagree about what we should hold dearest as a nation? How can a ragtag bunch of people come together when they can't even decide on what's most important? When inevitable disagreements arise, on what philosophical grounds will disputes be resolved?

I've recently championed social conservatism because I believe government spending and anti-white and anti-male social, cultural, and economic policies exist because the West no longer values success, its most productive citizens, or itself as an independent entity. I see only social conservatism whereby culture and social institutions return to traditionalist values, e.g. Taylor Swift or Forrest Gump, as potent enough to oppose leftism. Ferd's new blog goes against this concept because it merely reacts without a strong foundation of values besides frustration. And his insistence on including everyone will only push the message in too many directions. In the end, I want a conservatism that heralds America as a traditional land with a viable culture and peoples, not merely reacts to her decline into a land of feminism and fatties.

[FWIW: I was probably one of the first people to ever read and link to In Mala Fide and I've visited it essentially every single day since it started. Ferd is still one of my favorite bloggers even with the criticisms above; though these are almost exclusively directed at his new idea, not his blog as it stands now. And I didn't just add this disclaimer to keep myself on his Sunday links - OK maybe a little because of that.]

Corporations: Good or Bad

Saturday Audience Participation

The mainstream Right largely ignores the harmful consequences of completely free corporate and financial entities. They believe in WalMart and Wall Street and those that say otherwise get branded socialist liberals. But amongst the reactionary "radicals", such a view finds slightly less favor. Reactionaries understand that corporate and financial interests often oppose those of native Americans, leading to a begrudgingly, qualified acceptance of a leftist ideal - restriction on the free market. Or if not championing a deliberate restriction, then perhaps they don't express the impassioned worship of "value transference" popular in the beltway.

Today's question: What is your view of large corporations? Are they ultimately good or bad for native Americans? Is corporate and financial power an unfortunate trade-off inherent to a free nation? Is there one particular corporation or set of corporations that you feel is more harmful or beneficial than others? Is there a happy medium between government or corporate hegemony? Is there another topic where far-left liberals and reactionaries agree, though for extremely different reasons?

[FWIW: My view of corporations became far more negative after I discovered the paleo diet and its dispelling of many nutrition and health myths perpetrated by Big Pharma (i.e. high total cholesterol is a made-up health problem designed to support the 20 billion dollar statin industry).

Race to the Intellectual Bottom: Veganism, Racism, Feminism, and Speciesism

In an intellectual venue like the Internet, one defined more by bombastic than measured rhetoric, some voices go to extremes to stand out. You have those that curse profusely, put out consistently scurrilous content, engage in incessant trolling, or espouse radical, unreasonable ideas. For these individuals, the relay of ideas doesn't matter so much as getting noticed. So they push the envelope further, hoping to garner attention at the expense of advancing a minimally viable argument.

In the more insular of environments, this desire can explode into nonsense quite quickly. If there exists no damping mechanism to thwart the proliferation of garbage, then the garbage keeps piling up. It collects until someone excitedly climbs to the top, smitten with their own stature, yet not realizing she's atop a bunch of diapers, vomit, and moldy food. And with that I give you: Racism versus Speciesism: A moral Battleground?

This article really speaks for itself, so I'll highlight my favorite bits with the most astounding at the end:

Are white animal rights advocates who promote veganism inherently racist by not taking into account different cultures’ perspectives on animals? I’ll state upfront that I am a white-skinned (half-Persian by birth), queer, feminist vegan who advocates for animal rights and ethical veganism in my writing for both niche and mainstream media, and recognise that anything I say is coming from a position of white and class privilege and white racialised consciousness.

Both sides are working hard in their own ways to create a fairer and just world, whether their focus is on women, people of colour, or animals, and I’d to think (idealistic as it may be) that instead of fighting among ourselves we can unite in the face of the real enemy: structural societal inequality in which food production has been hijacked by white, western corporations that utilise technologies and systems that oppress both humans (predominantly people of colour) and animals...

In her analysis of veganism and animal rights advocacy, Harper points to examples of how globalised racism sustains geopolitically racialised hierarchies of food and animal-free textile production and how the concept of ‘cruelty-free’ touted by animal rights activists pertaining to vegan items doesn’t take into account the human cruelty that may have been involved, such as non-fair-trade cocoa products manufactured under sweatshop conditions by people of colour in the global south.

OK, I seriously can't read anymore, here's the highlight:

Many of us attending believed the catering for such a conference should be vegan so as to avoid supporting an industry that relies on not only the killing of predominantly female animals (meat) but the control of the reproductive systems of female non-humans (dairy, eggs) – more on why animal rights are a feminist issue is set out in my article here.

So the carnivorous diet is misogynist because most of the animals eaten and used for other purposes (dairy, eggs) are female. I'm not sure anyone can "top" that one.

This article serves two purposes: showcasing the increasing inanity of the more niche leftist ideological camps and the correspondence between vegetarianism/veganism and leftism. The author somehow connected feminism, racism, environmentalism, and speciesism, a subset of amoralism, to diet. I've been meaning to collect a number of sources illustrating this connection and thereby supporting my contention that vegetarianism is yet another surreptitious aspect of liberal academia, but perhaps she completed the job for me. I can't imagine finding anything more convincing than that.

I wonder if I should even respond to this article. I mean what exactly can I even say. The author and her peers fall over themselves to identify whatever "-ism" du-jour fancies them. In fact, the article doesn't even really have a coherent theme because one could classify any behavior as "oppressive" or "racist" or "whatever-ist". So the article just goes around and around with an ever expanding list of moral transgressions, almost of which castigate Westerners. I'll conclude by saying that I can begrudgingly accept a vegan who does so for moral reasons, but all the extraneous stuff about racism and elitism is, of course, just plain dumb. I won't apologize for the West, its meat-eating or its cultural, social, national, and technological preeminence. And if someone irrationally takes offense to my personal actions in an effort to attain social power via the imposition of guilt, then I really don't care.

Alabama State University Brawl and Racial Violence

YouTube - the best thing to happen for HBD awareness since Francis Galton. This carnal brawl took place at Alabama State "University" (H/T: Chuck and SBPDL), a distinction that should undermine whatever accreditation standard we have in this country.



You've seen this before so it shouldn't be surprising. Two thoughts come to mind - the predictable false racial equivalency and the logical chain of supposed white racism. First, whenever blacks behave like this, the apologists always say, "well white people do this and this" too. While I won't defend the increasing decadence of white America, you essentially never see whites acting in this completely savage manner. The fighting shown is just plain animalistic; I don't want to call it "ape-like", but. Whites might engage in morally repugnant behavior, such as detestable online social lynchings perpetrated by petty high school girls or even get into drunken fights outside bars, but they almost never do anything that mirrors our primal past like above. In sum, a primary difference between white and black violence is that white violence is largely goal-oriented, rational, and organized (still sickening, of course) while black violence is two girls ripping each others' weaves out because one of them "looked at me like that".

Further, one can blame the increasing depravity of white America, such as out of wedlock births and general social pathology, on our post-60's acritical culture. I've argued that liberals created this post-60's acritical culture to, in part, normalize black dysfunction.

Second, and more briefly, how the hell does supposed white racism cause this? Alabama State "University" is a black college, so evil whitey isn't around to oppress them on a daily basis. Further, this has nothing to do with societal status, as in the outlandish Robin-Hood type argument that blacks steal and kill more because evil whitey excludes them from positions of power. So how exactly can we blame the "Man" for one brotha throwing a punch at another brotha for mean muggin' him. I'm confused as to where whitey comes into that equation.

In Defense of (One Particular) Union

I don't like unions, but I've always sympathized with the underlying goal - protection of the dispensable worker via group power. While we like to think of all people possessing some unique occupational value; in reality, a company doesn't really need any particular individual. Sure, they'll keep you around if you do good work, but once you start agitating for increased compensation or piss off the wrong person, then they'll get rid of you with little recourse. The Cleveland Cavaliers needed LeBron James and Apple needs Steve Jobs, but very few of us contribute that much to a company's worth. Perhaps this instability of employment is a trade-off inherent to any productive society, yet such a concession at least supports the motivation for unions. Unfortunately though, as with all liberal ideologies, it doesn't work out so well in the real world.

But don't start because a bunch of discontents up in Wisconsin don't want to hear a bunch of Milton Friedman balderdash. They want rights, collective bargaining, and other really important stuff - and they want it now dammit! The Republican governor is steadfast in his opposition, citing his state's large debt and the importance of cutting costs. And, of course, the two sides of the aisle engage in the predictable histrionics, using this crisis to further their side's positions.

And here's where I commit conservative apostasy. I support a union and perhaps the most hated one of all - the teachers unions. Why? Because if some crazy woman wants to spend seven hours a day dealing with (babysitting) 30 insane kids, then they can have whatever they want - to a degree. If they want to enter into the combat zones of inner-city schools or chase around 35 second graders all day, one of whom won't stop pissing his pants and another who throws up every day, then give them something. Sure, they get summer vacations and tenure, but we have to provide a few incentives for taking such a crappy job. Of course, no teachers will express these ideas in such candid terms, so public rhetoric in favor of teachers rarely provides tenable support. Lucky for this blog then, huh?

Criticism of teachers unions is currently popular amongst both liberals and conservatives, the former for reasons of educational romanticism and the latter for their hidebound loyalty to free-market economics. Yet, for all the vitriol spewed at teachers, one questions the supposed negative consequences of these public enemies.

First, we have to consider government spending. I admit we probably spend a ton on teachers, but if we're looking for cuts, let's first go after HR departments, administrative overhead, and any other positions largely filled by the propped up affirmative action class. Second, is tenure really so bad? And related to this, do teachers unions and the restrictions demanded by them have any appreciably harmful affects on educating future generations.

Quite simply, the supposed multitude of crappy teachers in our school system doesn't really seem to matter. If tenure were such a harmful ramification of these crusading teachers unions, then the data would look markedly different. From a Slate.com article denouncing the adulation directed at former DC education agitator Michelle Rhee:

If the ability to fire bad teachers and pay great teachers more were the key missing ingredient in education reform, why haven't charter schools, 88% of which are nonunionized and have that flexibility, lit the education world on fire? Why did the nation's most comprehensive study of charter schools, conducted by Stanford University researchers and sponsored by pro-charter foundations, conclude that charters outperformed regular public schools only 17 percent of the time, and actually did significantly worse 37 percent of the time? Why don't Southern states, which have weak teachers' unions, or none at all, outperform other parts of the country? Rhee often noted that poor blacks in New York are two years ahead of poor blacks in Washington, which properly illustrates that demography is not destiny, but New York didn't get ahead by firing bad teachers. Chancellor Joel Klein terminated only three teachers for incompetence between 2008 and 2010.

So schools without teachers unions and ostensibly without those incompetent teachers don't perform any better. Further, the scores of white and Asian American students rank at the top of the world, suggesting that our schools do a fine job at educating our masses commensurate with racial disparities. Basically, students matter, not teachers. They exist primarily to police the combustible social environment of contemporary schools and, while not doing so, ensure the students read through the texts at the proper pace and focus on the most important material.

I understand that some see teachers as overpaid and entitled or resent them for unjustified grousing. I simply don't agree, but even so, their strong arming has little effect on practical results. Maybe the teachers unions set a bad precedent and rile up of public animosity, but that's about it.

(Ferdinand Bardamu sort of beat me to this, though he gives different reasons and, anyway, I swear I brainstormed this last weekend.)

Feminists Caused Lack of "Good Men"

Whenever a mainstream journalist tackles a topic pertaining to sexual issues, the axioms of female supremacism always undergird their arguments. These articles always present women as frustrated that they can't settle down with a "good man", placing the blame for the apparent absence of venerable men on the men themselves. We never hear about the increasing acceptance of sexual licentiousness, the motivations of female hypergamy, or the culture encouraging women to pursue a "Sex and the City" dream. Instead, the clueless authors criticize men for not growing up or taking responsibility.

In this vein comes an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Where Have the Good Men Gone?". I've covered the basic problems above, as have others across the manosphere. I needn't repeat what they've said or the obvious notions often stated in the sexual realist blogosphere. Instead, I'll focus on one particular theme:

Guys talk about 'Star Wars' like it's not a movie made for people half their age; a guy's idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends.... They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home.

So men aren't growing up. They obstinately reside in this adolescent, post-college purgatory of video games, booze, and general slothfulness. OK, let's continue:

Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This “pre-adulthood” has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it’s time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn’t bring out the best in men.

According to this article, financial well-being and a steady residence as well as marriage define a grown man. Let's focus on the first two as these are a prerequisite for marriage, with the choosier sex increasingly turned off by a destitute loser who lives with his college fraternity brothers. Instead of reflexively blaming this generation of men for an organic listlessness, perhaps one should consider the societal forces imposed upon him.

So I think most people agree that a man must maintain financial independence, a stable job, and a stable living situation (e.g. not with one's parents) to project his worthiness as a potential mate, thereby satisfying the standards of today's "good man". Yet what has feminism wrought in this regard? How has feminism undermined his ability to do so, ironically creating a problem that feminists then grouse about incessantly?

First, he has to get a college degree at an increasingly higher cost. There's no getting around this and if he really wants to compete in the job marketplace, he probably needs to go to an elite school. Well that's about 200,000 dollars for four years, a hefty price tag that takes awhile to pay off. So he starts his post-college life already in a large amount of debt. Second, he enters into the mancession where 80% of laid of employees have been men. He can't find a job in government because they've spent too much money engineering an equal gender employment rate, supported by diversity offices, five secretaries when they only need one, and other imperative positions filled by women. So he's broke and he can't find a job - because of feminism and liberalism.

But this doesn't deter him; he buys frugally, spends little on superfluous luxury items, and saves up to get an apartment. Well it's a place to live, but more of a closet really. Barely two separate rooms in his apartment. And why is that exactly? Why can't this hard-working man find a permanent residence by age 30 - because he doesn't live in a two-income family. In previous generations, each family had one income from a man who actually did meaningful work for society. Now, with the market imposed upon by gender-PC forces, housing prices assume a family has two incomes since all women work now.

Yet he doesn't have a wife to pitch in nor does he have any women interested in someone with a less than stable situation. He's stuck in a rut, with little recourse besides waiting out the inevitable dissatisfaction Ms. Carrie Bradshaw experiences after age 30. Then, he'll be good enough despite his "failings", all of which brought upon him by the forces of feminism. Funny that feminists indirectly created the problem they now lament so often.

Update: Randomly came across this video today at HuffPo: "5 year-Old Won't Marry Until She has a Job"

White Men Surrender to Anti-Racism and Feminism

I often wonder which side of the two-pronged liberal assault on Western Civilization is crazier: feminists (think Jessica Valenti) or anti-racists (think Tim Wise). If you read any feminist or anti-racist site often, rife with just about every anti-reality notion you can conceive of, you'll struggle with comparing the two. But can one criticize the dominant, productive American class (read: white men) for being complicit in the unnerving pervasiveness of these two schools of thought? In other words, have white males actually allowed either of these two ideologies to permeate society, thereby restricting our social interactions and blighting our culture.

And if so, what does this portend for the future of this nation. If I had to wager a guess, the first "shoe to drop" will undoubtedly be racial. Obama's presidency has undermined the notion of black impotence and the race card charade has become played out as a result. Hell, even Jon Stewart agrees. But we needn't look at prevailing social trends to distinguish between white male acquiescence to racialism and feminism; instead, we need to only consider the relationships between white males and the two relevant constituencies.

Quite simply, white males will continue to placate the feminists because they need white women. White men don't need blacks, or Hispanics, or even Asians, a concept substantiated by this chart and illustrated by their increasing avoidance of minorities in all aspects of life. Contrastingly, men must exist alongside women, so any perceived slight against them will have dire consequences in a necessary component of man's life. Basically, he won't get any action.

Despite the romantic blathering of anti-racists, a completely mixed racial utopia isn't a necessity. Whites have already set up black-free spaces via exclusion by economy, not exactly state-sanctioned segregation but surely indicative of whites' social desires. White men will feel increasingly more free to criticize blacks and browns, a result of NAMs absence, the injustices of racial wealth redistribution, a social landscape that demonizes white men for merely existing, and the desperate nature of our economy. White men will face relatively less (though not that much, let's be honest here) social risk in disparaging NAMs as their lives have become largely disconnected from them. We have seen this in more spirited debate on race in the past few years, including James Watson's comments, the implicitly white Tea Party movement, and the Skip Gates incident.

So white men will put up with more crap from women because they can't pack it up and move to a Whitoptia like Utah without them. If blacks and their white liberal enablers continue their incessant complaining, then the productive class of white men will simply "go their own way". They have no reason to stay and experience the ungratefulness of the underclass. They have no reason to buttress a cultural edifice that considers them bland at best and eminently pernicious at worst. One asks what do they gain from participating in this reckless racial experiment.

Of course, we have no historical precedence for this unique diversity game playing out right now. And if it's never been done before, then we can't assume all those "invited" will gladly join the party. But we do know men will always want and need women, sexually and emotionally, two necessary components of human life and spirit. So white men will continue their tacit approval of feminism because they unfortunately think this yielding will reap sexual rewards. It won't, but failure or not even playing isn't an option in this Game.

Aging and Buff Hollywood Starlets

In a fit of mindless meandering through the Internet last week, I came across the following photo of A-list starlet Lou Ferrigno Cameron Diaz (bizzaro Rule 5)

Welcome to the Gun Show. Ms. Diaz was quite the beauty back in the 90's, a lithe, feminine blond with an effervescent smile. Clearly, those days are long gone.

I've witnessed this disturbing musculature, epitomized by Madonna's "impressive" arms, far too often amongst aging Hollywood beauties. One wonders what these women are trying to accomplish by adopting the bobybuilder physique. Well, we know they're attempting to avoid the inexorable, age-related decline of female beauty (exempting the "Diane Lane All-Stars"), but I'd say this is actually worse.

These starlets simply can't handle the falloff of their physical attractiveness, a trait that has defined them for essentially their entire lives. They have built a career and an entire social life on their beauty, which declines rapidly before their very eyes. I see desperation in their drastic physical overhaul; they see muscle building as an active way of changing their appearance as opposed to the gradual march of their dying fertility.

Finally, note the accompanying blurb lauding Mrs. Diaz:

Looks like those sweat sessions with beau Alex Rodriguez are paying off! A super-fit Cameron Diaz strong arms her way through a Venice, Calif., parking lot on Thursday.

I won't contend the general public looks positively upon those that ostentatiously subvert physical gender norms, but I believe our culture has become more accepting of feminine masculinity and aggressiveness as evidenced by Title XI, female rock bands, lesbian haircuts, and Marisa Miller's abs. Feminism champions the muscular female, considering dainty, graceful beauties of yesterday as reflecting the imposing patriarchy. And that is why I hate feminism so much, because I love women - being women. I don't want overlapping between the sexes and Mrs. Diaz's arms have crossed that line.

The Reactionary Right's Nihilism

Saturday Audience Participation

Last year I wrote about the defeatist attitude in the conservative blogosphere:

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

Ferdinand Bardamu's recent "Generation Zero" series illustrates the complete pessimism harbored by some on the reactionary Right:

Gee, isn’t the USA the land of freedom and opportunity? A country where anyone can be what they want to be so long as they work hard and achieve? And yet, intelligent and capable American men languish in obscurity and poverty every day while dullards and morons get promoted to prominence based on their family connections and friends in high places. Horatio Alger LIED to us!

God may be dead, but the cubicle jockeys and castrated middle-class drones of this land still think of themselves as part of a warped Calvinist elect. To them, their willingness to have their humanity stripped away day by day sucking at Mammon’s teat is proof that they are God’s chosen people. Anyone who questions the presuppositions of the American cult of “hard work” and “self-reliance” is ostracized from polite society...Both of the major political factions in America worship the myth of the American Dream, whether its CONservatives preaching about the “bootstrap” bullshit or LIEbrals encouraging illegal immigration because Mexican aliens “do the jobs Americans don’t want to do.”

I've also witnessed an "I hate everything and everyone" meme sweeping through reactionary Right. Some reactionaries and iconoclasts who absolutely no positives amongst the conservative mainstream, holding every political voice to an exceedingly high standard. They see a slight deviation from ideological purity or anything less than a reactionary initiative as sufficient reason to condemn everything.

Yet, even if I vacillate on the edges of nihilism and share their immense frustration, such discourse rubs me the wrong way.

Today's questions: Has the reactionary Right's dismay at the mainstream devolved into abject nihilism? Is this good or bad? Do you agree or disagree with this type of rhetoric - the pronouncements of doom and cultural decay? Can a balance be achieved between this full-on skepticism and more optimistic rhetoric?

Effecting Change: Ron Paul, Individualism, and Social Conservatism

On Wednesday, I criticized Ron Paul for his legal reductionism and ideologically-pure libertarianism. By this, I meant that those like Dr. Paul who don't champion an explicitly conservative conception of America, like say his paleo-libertarian peer Pat Buchanan, are ultimately useless in defending this country from its slow multicultural disappearance. Many commenters took issue with my argument, contending that Paul's libertarianism serves the same ends as explicit, race-conscious conservatism. They asserted that Paul's free-market, unobstructed freedom, and legally based ideology would undermine the big-government programs that impose liberal ideals on all of us. In sum, the Paul supporters see only a lack of big government as a sufficient condition for a conservative revival. Without government intrusion, the people will apparently revert themselves to pre-60's norms, even if not motivated by a race-conscious, pro-American, pro-traditional social landscape.

I adamantly disagree with this naivety; as I believe capitalism without a moderating constraint in social conservatism, as typified by the booming porn industry, will push forward subversive, base products because they tend to sell. Further, as Whiskey pointed out, America isn't defined by tax rates nor will anyone find spending cuts emotionally satiating:

When, for the most part, America is and mostly has been a set of cultural alliances of the four British folkways/cultures in conflict and alliance with each other, but united by tradition, over-arching culture, and so on. America is not tax rates, its Christmas and Fourth of July and Apple Pie and Jimmy Cagney, Bogart, Steve McQueen, and Die Hard. Its an emotion (because people won't die for a line on a chart) that speaks to a greatly extended family. That's the only thing people will care about.

One commenter, our resident condescending liberal Dave, also accused me of fascism as he interprets my social conservatism as such. Of course, I don't agree with this conception as I see small government and social conservatism as both necessary components in returning America to its pre-60s roots. Nonetheless, my vision incorporates an overarching societal metamorphosis as opposed to the individualistic one put forth by Dr. Paul. But I do admit that I've treaded closely around the fringes of government intervention in supporting the Swiss minaret ban and the Egyptian dictatorship. I did so in each of these cases because perhaps government sometimes must spur an organic social conservatism - if the situation is desperate enough. In Europe, especially France, the time is near. Obvious HBDer and French "provocateur" Eric Zemmour sees government as the only way to maintain the French nation he once knew. (I also include a passage relevant to HBD.)

He is perhaps France’s best-known professional provocateur, as much adored by the xenophobes of the far-right as he is reviled by immigrants, women and gays. He can be heard daily on French radio, read weekly in the news media and seen all over television; he is routinely accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, fear-mongering and narcissism, or some combination thereof. “I’m reviving the ‘French polemic’ in a world that’s on the one hand Americanized, and on the other, that people want to see sterilized by antiracism, by political correctness,” Mr. Zemmour said over coffee at the back of a dark Paris cafe. “That it is to say, where you’re not allowed to say anything bad about minorities.”

Paradoxically, Mr. Zemmour often exercises his right to free speech to endorse stricter limits on similar freedoms. He advocates a return to authorizing only Christian first names for children born in France, a restriction lifted in 1993; his ancestors in Algeria had adopted French names, he noted. And he hailed the ban on the public wearing of the full facial veil as a way “to oblige people to become authentically French.” “The state needs to do its job, which it’s always done, of imposing constraints,” he said. “For me, France is the ban on the veil.”

Unfortunately though, our own government might be too far gone to help. Nonetheless, I think this speaks to the fact that many prominent conservatives don't see individuals, acting independently according only to their own wants, as sufficient in affecting widespread change. It must come from above because societal movements need large masses of people united by a common cause.

The Singularity is Coming, But Do We Want It?

Time offers a detailed profile of the most prominent Singularity expert, Ray Kurzweil. Kurzweil and other Singularity prognosticators believe computers will advance past their human creators, then improve upon themselves autonomously. This means an exponential growth in available intelligence and, perhaps, our eventual use of technology in accomplishing the stuff of sci-fi movies.

So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might conceivably come a moment when they are capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they create consciousness — not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethical decisions, appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties.

Maybe we'll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. Maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely. Maybe we'll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us.

Given my philosophical materialism and acceptance of the "brain in vat"/Matrix as assuredly plausible, I find Singularity predictions equally plausible. Nothing in the chain of technological progression envisioned by the Singularity community seems unreasonable, assuming that computers can eventually improve themselves and attain infinite intelligence. Their hypotheses ultimately rest of this supposition, a premise not supported by all Singularity voices as shown below.

The biologist Dennis Bray was one of the few voices of dissent at last summer's Singularity Summit. "Although biological components act in ways that are comparable to those in electronic circuits," he argued, in a talk titled "What Cells Can Do That Robots Can't," "they are set apart by the huge number of different states they can adopt. Multiple biochemical processes create chemical modifications of protein molecules, further diversified by association with distinct structures at defined locations of a cell. The resulting combinatorial explosion of states endows living systems with an almost infinite capacity to store information regarding past and present conditions and a unique capacity to prepare for future events."

Yet no matter how complex the system, such as the human brain, an infinite intelligence can decipher it. Clearly, the memory capacity of the human brain is finite, so surely an artificial edifice can eventually replace it. Supporting this, we can currently replicate rat neurons, but one neuron takes up an entire room of computers. Those that contend otherwise tacitly reject the notion of exponential intelligence growth, with this opposition likely based in rational aversion to all this weird science stuff.

The two most interesting aspects of the Singularity are life extension and the transfer of consciousness to a virtual realm.

Biological boundaries that most people think of as permanent and inevitable Singularitarians see as merely intractable but solvable problems. Death is one of them. Old age is an illness like any other, and what do you do with illnesses? You cure them.

Alternatively, by then we'll be able to transfer our minds to sturdier vessels such as computers and robots...Take the question of whether computers can replicate the biochemical complexity of an organic brain. Kurzweil yields no ground there whatsoever. He does not see any fundamental difference between flesh and silicon that would prevent the latter from thinking. He defies biologists to come up with a neurological mechanism that could not be modeled or at least matched in power and flexibility by software running on a computer.

I wrote the above before I noticed that Kurzweil agrees with what I've said:

"Generally speaking," he says, "the core of a disagreement I'll have with a critic is, they'll say, Oh, Kurzweil is underestimating the complexity of reverse-engineering of the human brain or the complexity of biology. But I don't believe I'm underestimating the challenge. I think they're underestimating the power of exponential growth."

So I agree that the Singularity seems plausible, though Kurzweil ambitiously estimates 2045. Note that the plausibility question rests almost exclusively on the notion of "mind as meat".

The question then - should we allow it? Should we allow computers to gradually replace us, either directly through cyborgs or indirectly through Matrix-style virtual reality? I don't know if we can answer that question today, as our view of computers and technology changes as we depend on them more. How would those living in the 1800's view artificial limbs, which can now be controlled by our minds.

For me personally, it's all really weird. I like natural things and this epitomizes the artificial. Though again, infinite intelligence means computers can mimic us fully, thereby making the artificial indistinguishable from the natural. In the end, it rubs me the wrong way, so forgive me for lacking giddiness about the Singularity's prospects. I imagine there's got to be some Greek or Roman story about a guy who received some gift from the Gods bestowing upon him all the world's riches, yet it somehow backfired horribly. Methinks the Singularity portends something similar, though I can't quite figure out what exactly.

Ron Paul: The Despondency and Failure of Libertarianism

[Update: Typifying distinction between two paleo-libertarian types illustrating why I specifically find Paul reprehensible.]

At CPAC this weekend, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll for the second year in a row. But it wasn't all good news for this libertarian superstar, the Young Americans for Freedom has expelled Dr. Paul from their advisory board.

YAF’s concern with Rep. Paul stems from his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.

“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks continued.

"Rep. Paul has strayed to the left of Obama and allied himself with the radical anti-war left by laying the blame on America for the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11th. Additionally, Rep. Paul has not condemned the 9/11 “Truther” conspiracy theorists that support him, and he has repeatedly insisted, that the United States not bring justice to those who have murdered thousands of our civilians and soldiers at home and abroad. This is simply unacceptable. Clearly Rep. Paul cares more about a doomed presidential run than he does our country,” Marks added.

That sounds about right. The YAF is correct in noting that Dr. Paul goes beyond reasonable criticism of defense spending and military interests. To put it bluntly, he borders on conspiracy loon. As stated above, Dr. Paul despicably blames America for foreign animosity, primarily of Muslim origin, and refuses to support our military as a nationalistic entity. (Aside: Muslims hate us not for "our freedoms" but rather because we're white Christians, though our support of Israel certainly doesn't help matters.) Yet, one can often formulate these arguments in more reasonable terms, devoid of both subterranean conspiracy garbage and the disconsolate reductionism of Dr. Paul's libertarianism.

As with most libertarians, even those of a seemingly conservative bent, their philosophy has no element of transcendence. And by this, I mean they focus entirely on quantifiable metrics with little respect for "spiritual" or emotional concerns. I can just imagine Dr. Paul viewing the Moon landing, if he actually believes it happened, as government largess and not the ultimate expression of Man's intrepidity.

Dr. Paul's obsession with the Federal Reserve also illustrates this point. Dr. Paul has spent his entire career inveighing against this institution, implying he sees money as the perhaps the only measure of a nation. Surely, we have other pressing concerns including cultural depression, a porous border, and a liberally tinged intellectual sphere. Dr. Paul focuses on the Federal Reserve because it deals with numbers and figures. He can thus neglect the more abstract concepts of collective socializing as such analysis rejects the Randroid notion of man as fully autonomous.

Further, as evidenced by his support for the Ground Zero Mosque, libertarians do not understand the transcendent concept of a traditional nation. I directed my initial criticism of this legal reductionism at liberals, but it applies to reductionists like Paul as well:

In their often hidebound pursuit of unfettered personal freedom, libertarians champion culturally depressive ideals and rely on exceedingly sterile policies in reaching this ultimate objective. At the most basic level, they espouse the same "legal reductionism" popular amongst the left - the notion that a collective either does not exist or is so amorphous as to warrant its rejection in political affairs.

To Paul, this nation is merely a vessel that bestows freedom upon its citizens, not a land with a unique history and peoples. This fits into his general worldview that if it can't be measured or written down in rigid terms, then it doesn't matter. Finally, Paul spends so much time bashing America who knows why he even lives here.

In sum, libertarians like Paul might have valid ideas about government spending and the free-market, but their ideology is short-sighted in ignoring how collectives and nations form and maintain themselves. And without an understanding of those phenomena, their bitter rhetoric coupled with utopic idealism won't accomplish anything except the dissolution of society and the communal bonds therein.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whiskey on the main problem with Paul's reductionism:

When, for the most part, America is and mostly has been a set of cultural alliances of the four British folkways/cultures in conflict and alliance with each other, but united by tradition, over-arching culture, and so on. America is not tax rates, its Christmas and Fourth of July and Apple Pie and Jimmy Cagney, Bogart, Steve McQueen, and Die Hard. Its an emotion (because people won't die for a line on a chart) that speaks to a greatly extended family. That's the only thing people will care about.

High Intelligence Solitude

About six years ago, Mangan penned this candid and despondent post on high intelligence solitude:

Yesterday, a friend from work who had checked out this blog said, when I remarked that I hoped that she would read it regularly, that she thought that most of the stuff here was pretty much over her head. Others have said nearly the same.

It's disappointing. (Like most things in life.) I've been told this sort of thing about my interests and ideals and intellect many times in my life. It makes me feel that I am isolated and could not possibly comprehend my fellow man or woman. It's also disappointing in the sense that I had hoped that there were many people out there who are curious, motivated, interested in the world. But that interest in the world usually comprehends little more than family and friends, celebrities, shopping, fashion, and sports.

I think most of the high intelligence reactionary commentariat, many of whom cursed with a discerning eye for social patterns, feel this way. And it's for this reason that blogs like Mangan's and my own serve such a vital purpose - it provides a haven for the seemingly crazy.

Mangan hints at the notion that the highly intelligent simply don't fit in. When I say "fit in", I don't mean the spurious characterization of the highly intelligent as awkward nerds; rather, I mean they, the highly intelligent social anthropologists, simply don't share the interests of their peers. The social anthropologist looks at the world in an exceedingly analytical and exacting manner completely alien to those around him. The social anthropologist harbors an intellectual hunger contrasted with the passivity of others. Quite simply, people just don't notice all the stuff we do. The masses, even those of an intellectual bent, float through life essentially oblivious to the phenomena that underpin their personal behavior and society's at large.

So should we disparage the intellectually listless masses for their ignorance? I don't think so. To each his own, right? But how then should the social anthropologist live his life, a citizen of society but disconnected from it in a meaningful way. He can't wholly reject others as a pretentious means of self-defense, viewing himself as intellectually superior and thus above the unwashed masses. This route leads to a worse alienation than he suffered from initially. I'm not sure though what he should do instead. Perhaps accept the disappointments in life and deal?

"Race Does Not Exist, but Ethnicity Does"

The specious notion that "Race is a social construct" dominates academia, polite society, and even athletic commentary. The more honest race deniers will however acquiesce on ethnicity, saying something like, "well race doesn't exist, but biological ethnicity does." (See my discussion last year with prominent liberal creationist Dr. Jonathan Marks over this issue.) The optimistic race realist sees this as a minor victory, though none of those conceding the ethnicity point will continue into behavioral differences. Nonetheless, at least they agree that one can categorize humans in extended families given DNA information.

However, the pessimistic race realist, living in a PC dominated era, must understand the intended consequences of this seemingly positive intellectual meme. Liberals will only accept a scientific concept if it matches their worldview and allows them to maintain their power. So what then does the "only ethnicity exists" idea accomplish in the American political and social spheres?

First, it undermines value-neutral white collectivism, while doing no analogous harm to the notion of minority collectivism. One notes that the "ethnic" meme is generally only applied to Europeans, with focus on German, Russian, French, Italian, Greek, and British conflicts and animosity. Contrastingly, Americans treat blacks and Latinos as monoliths, lumping together East and West Africans, Samoans, Caribbean blacks, and biracial/one-drop blacks as well as Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Mexicans, and other Latin American peoples. We see this in political speeches referring to "blacks" and "Latinos", school clubs such as the Society of Hispanic Engineers, black fraternities, and segregated dorms, and other examples like Hispanic Heritage Month and Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month (especially that last one!). This allows blacks, Latinos, and other minorities like the tellingly named cohort LGBT political permission to congregate and demand rights as collective groups. None dismiss their collusion as an irrational amalgamation as would be directed at a similar collection of white ethnics.

Second, it undermines the notion of a distinctly white American racial group and culture. By asserting biological families pertain solely to ethnic groups, long-time American whites both cease to exist and relinquish any concept of a white American culture. Most descendants of pre-1900's American whites, those not descended from recent Greek, Italian, or German immigrants, have little knowledge and connection to their specific ethnic background. Further, their ethnic background is usually a composite of a number of early European settlers, including Spanish, British, and French colonists. Thus, if only ethnicity exists and these people do not know their particular ethnicity, then basically they have no perceptible biology.

This cohort as a distinctive group is therefore washed away as non-existent. As argued before on this site, a people and a culture are inexorably connected - therefore if one defines out of existence the people, then their attendant culture becomes largely non-existent as well. One can not adequately point to a white, middle-class American culture without a properly defined cohort to practice and maintain it. Thus, if this group does not even really exist, then unfettered immigration and rampant multiculturalism supplants nothing in imposing new cultural mores.

Food as Fashion

Martha Stewart correctly understands that "food is the new fashion."

I have a noticed a shift in the role that food plays in our lives and in our culture. Food has become more than one of life's great pleasures. It has become a signifier of style, too. The notion that "you are what you eat" extends beyond the virtues of a nutritious, well-balanced diet. These days, it often seems that you are what you purchase in the supermarket or at the farmer's market; your grocery list is a reflection of your values and your identity. Chefs are as celebrated as designers (move over, Armani, here's Batali!) and eating and entertaining have become haute couture: Food is the new fashion.

I've covered the specious science behind vegetarianism and connected this academic phenomenon to the leftist ideologies that underpin the American intellectual landscape. Any observant individual should note that liberalism doesn't exist for mere magnanimity, as any status-seeking liberal must let everyone know where he stands. As Mrs. Stewart points out, food has become a popular "fashion trend", a type of decor that advertises an individual's tastes. And in the enclaves of SWPLdom and polite society, those tastes are inexorably liberal and multicultural.

So what then has the elite gobbled up, literally, as indicative of their worldliness? Judging from recent stores opened near me and conversations with a few vegetarian acquaintances, these foods are very "in". Take a quick guess as to what they have in common:

-hummus
-pita bread
-sushi
-curry
-green tea
-guacamole/avocado
-burritos and beans
-lentils
-falafel
-basmati rice
-arugula

In one of these conversations, I celebrated the closing of a Mediterranean restaurant near me (I think the owners were from Iran) to a vegetarian friend. I said something like, "give me a damn steak, I mean who wants to eat falafel?" She responded, "well, yea all the stupid people won't go there," a telling allusion to the middle class notion that dumb people don't "understand" foreign foods. No, maybe we just don't like eating grass and feeling and looking like crap from carb overload.

I wonder when the status-mongering will stop amongst the upper and SWPL classes. If food, the very thing that keeps us alive, can fall victim to the consequences of social climbing, then what's next. Will they find some different way to breath, undoubtedly paying homage to some foreign custom, then look down upon the unwashed masses for not "getting it."

Social Apathy

Saturday Audience Participation

There's kind of a big thing going on right now in Egypt. But Steve Sailer doesn't seem to care much.

The "stupid American" archetype usually includes apathy or downright ignorance about world affairs. Correspondingly, we're supposed to care about what's going on in the world, even if it has little impact on our lives.

And this insistence on "being in the know" expands throughout the spectrum of social interaction, especially with the rapid information exchange afforded by social networks. We have to know about politics, the newest song, what happened on last night's big reality show, the latest break-up in our circle of friends, and which family member has a gambling addiction.

But on a personal level, I don't really care. Call me misanthropic, but I really don't care about the lives of close acquaintances. I try to avoid conversations about "what's going on in your life" as I neither like to talk about myself nor usually care about what the other person has to say. And I don't really care about what's going on in foreign countries if it has little impact or relevance to America.

Today's question: Do you care about the (more mundane) aspects of your friends' social lives? Do you avoid or seek out information regarding others' personal affairs? Is this apathy (or lack thereof) extended to your interest in global politics? Are others offended or perplexed or simply don't care about your apathy? Should we care about global affairs that don't affect us? Any notion of gender differences in this phenomenon? Is this apathy well explained by a Myers-Briggs personality type?

Random Links: No Sleep, HuffPo/AOL, Leftist Lynching, Taylor Swift Likes Alphas, and Whoonga

Some random links for today:

Arianna Huffington on the "Cult of No-Sleep": Getting little to no sleep is not a badge of honor, it's just plain stupid.

Speaking of, AOL bought HuffPo: Who knew AOL had 315 million to spend? Who still uses any of their products - and what exactly are these products anyway? As for HuffPo, yea it's a sickeningly leftist site, but I actually quite like it. Nice format, easy to scan through, constantly updated, and has some very good non-political content (especially concerning medical skepticism).

Leftists call for "lynching" and to "cut off [Clarence Thomas'] toes one by one": Watch the video. Speaks for itself.

Taylor Swift wants a dominating man, "I want a guy who takes charge, but lets me have my say once in a while." In her recent hit, "Back to December", she ruefully casts off a supplicating beta (Taylor Lautner):

You gave me roses and I left them there to die
So this is me swallowing my pride,
Standing in front of you saying I'm sorry for that night
You gave me all your love and all I gave you was goodbye
I miss your tan skin, your sweet smile, so good to me, so right

South African street drug made from HIV medication: Your tax dollars getting Africans high!

Bias in Psychology

Shocking - social psychologists are overwhelmingly liberal (H/T: Kiwiguy and Inductivist):

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Parroting the type of discourse present in the reactionary sphere, Dr. Haidt notes the pseudo-religious aspects of academic sociology:

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”

Many conservative commentators blame indoctrination for liberal uniformity amongst academics, but I've always found this explanation somewhat lacking. Instead, I see this phenomenon arising from palpable social norms. If everyone around you is a liberal and smart people are all liberal, then better go with it. This environment captures fledgling psychologists and by the time they graduate, they have forgotten their long ago incredulity towards the overwhelmingly leftist conclusions of their profession.

Dr. Haidt finishes by offering some advice and supporting a sort of affirmative action for conservatives:

To overcome taboos, he advised them to subscribe to National Review and to read Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

A few even endorsed his call for a new affirmative-action goal: a membership that’s 10 percent conservative by 2020.

As for his advice, note Dr. Haidt carefully chooses the conservative sources as decidedly academic in tone. Liberals like to advertise their liberalism as a proxy for their intelligence; thus, any opposing viewpoint must be presented with a scholarly feel. As for his endorsement of political diversity, I'm not sure it's necessary. Sociological research is no longer confined to obscure academic journals read by those in-field. Sociologists have moved towards engendering widespread change by opening their research to the public. Ironically, this has somewhat backfired in the Internet era, with amateur voices dismantling specious claims overlooked by their peers. So do we really need conservative voices in psychology? As far as giving the public truth, not really. Unfortunately though, credentialism still runs rampant through society and the lack of a degree often negates an astute amateur's work.

Pepsi Max Ad: Angry Black Woman and Racial Offense

Since I started this blog and became more engaged with discourse in the reactionary sphere, I can't help but notice how popular culture reflects leftist mores. For example, note the preponderance of sitcoms about a dumb, fat, goofy (usually white) father and his steady, reasonable wife, such as Home Improvement, According to Jim, The Simpsons, King of Queens, Still Standing, and even The Sopranos. Commercials are another outlet rife with leftist ideals, such as this advertisement for DJ Hero 2 that I wrote about awhile back.

After this past Sunday's Super Bowl, as always, people talked about the commercials as much as the actual game. In general, Super Bowl commercials reflect the current cultural zeitgeist, via direct appeal to leftist ideas or via allusions to what is acceptable in today's society (thought that Tibet ad was rather anti-PC). Last year's focus was on beta males. This year, probably violence, but one ad in particular has gotten a lot of people talking - the angry black bitch Pepsi ad.

Now, first off, let's applaud Pepsi for not surrendering to PC pressure and casting the ad without regard (or if one assumes more surreptitious motives - with regard) to racial truth. But of course, blacks and their anti-white liberal peers got mad, really mad. Here's a survey and commentary from BlackVoices.com:

Do you feel that African American women should be offended by the Pepsi Max ad featuring the "angry black woman?," 63.7 percent of the black female respondents said "yes," while 32.4 percent of the male respondents gave the same reply.

When asked if African Americans should boycott Pepsi because of the ad, women were more than twice as likely to advocate for a boycott than men. Thirty-seven percent of all female respondents to the survey said that a boycott is necessary, while 16.2 percent of male respondents agreed.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Before I comment, let's see what Dr. Boyce Watkins (Michael Eric Dyson on roids) has to say:

But by not releasing ads that are a bit more racially-sensitive and respectful, they may end up losing quite a few customers in the African American community. What's even more disappointing about all this is that I wouldn't be surprised if the advertising agency that came up with the idea for this ad was run by an African American. By giving our racial stamp of approval to major corporations, we can end up with debacles like this one. I hope Pepsi Max didn't offend us intentionally.

One would ask why this particular ad is offensive at all; but to do so one must ignore the fact that blacks and other minorities have permission to experience collective racial insult. But the more interesting question: if one extrapolates out the negative response from individuals like Dr. Watkins, then what exactly is allowed?

According to Watkins, companies can't release ads like this because it shows black women in a negative light. Doing so perpetuates the corresponding negative "stereotypes". And this justifies an entire race taking offense at such depictions. So what then are we allowed to show about blacks? If this isn't allowed, then what exactly is? Can we ever show a black person in a negative light, even if their race has no explicit relevance to the portrayal?

Let me answer that - no. The "offense" Dr. Watkins experiences here pervades essentially any discussion of black and Latino dysfunction, including their relative disparities of STD infection, crime, and intelligence scores. Any discussion of these statistical facts, if not immediately qualified by censure of whites and racism, is disallowed in polite society. For an example, look at this lawyer's response to Jared Taylor's measured enumeration of the truth about black crime (H/T: Unamused).

Basically, in our PC-addled society, popular culture, even news, can only associate pathology with whites. If anything else is presented, one has committed the greatest sin of "offending someone" and no other evil, not even rape or murder, trumps that. (Paul at SBPDL discusses the ad as well.)

The Murderer, the Lover, and the Rationalization Hamster

Is there anything more amusing than the smugly cerebral career woman who can't escape the base desires of her primitive soul? Is there anything more amusing than said woman rationalizing her behavior as based in the ethereal and not the carnal? If so, here's a great article from one Amy Friedman (guess all those Jewish doctors weren't good enough for her) who writes sentimentally about her love affair with a convicted murderer. (Read on, it doesn't get any "better" than this.)

We're going to hear about it any day now: Jared Loughner, the Tucson, Ariz., gunman and the media's latest "monster," is going to receive love letters. It will make sensational headlines, like when women started courting Joran Van Der Sloot. I brace myself whenever a man is convicted of a heinous crime and his photo gets plastered on TV for months. I know it's only a matter of time before we hear stories of "those crazy ladies."

I hate those stories, and not just because they're written with a tone both snide and misogynistic; I hate them because 19 years ago I met a man who was in prison for murder, and I fell in love with him. We were married for seven years.

She met Will on an assignment from her newspaper. But don't worry; he was such a sweet guy and, in reality, she was really just fighting for justice. And disabuse yourself of those crazy preconceptions about prisoner's wives - their relationships are complicated and deep.

But what I've found is that most of us who marry convicted men are not mad. (I've also found that most men in prison -- even those guilty of the worst crimes -- are not monsters.) Our stories are complicated -- like every true love story is.

But I did want to learn. I had always been a sucker for the powerless. I grew up rooting for the Cleveland Indians, forever sided with my most awkward students, and on the sheep farm where I lived I fell hardest for the weakest lambs and craziest horses. My father was a prisoner of war in World War II, my grandfather a POW in WWI. I understood that prison could cause harm not only to those who inhabit and work behind its walls, but also to those who inherit the scars.

I also told myself my liberal, activist parents would be proud of me for fighting for justice. But as Will opened up to me -- how he'd hurt his mother and his three kids, the shame he'd brought to his sisters, who lived in the shadow of his crime -- I sensed all I needed was a push, and I'd be a goner.

and every inmate I talked to told me Will was a "stand-up guy." He was the guy who calmed them, who brokered peace, and I felt proud for having won the trust of someone so admired.

I also told myself my liberal, activist parents would be proud of me for fighting for justice.

Their courtship was classic Game, underpinned by his ostensible social dominance:

Tattoos snaked around his muscular arms [classic bad boy indicators]. His hair was military short and gray, though he always described it as being blond, the color it was when he was arrested at the age of 31.

That day he was, simply, the only person who greeted me as if I were an enemy [initial aloofness and flat-out rejection]. "I don't talk to journalists," he said.

He smiled. "What do you care?" If I could have seen his eyes, I'd have seen the good-humored tease he could be [neg!], but those glasses were opaque.

In the far corner I spotted a pretty woman and a bunch of kids surrounding Will, and I was surprised to discover what I felt in that moment: disappointment that he was married [pre-selection].

After 10 minutes Will swaggered toward me, confident and unsmiling.

His acceptance was a welcome relief. [push, then pull]

"Sorry," he mumbled. "I was a bit of a player, hard habit to break." Then he added, "Your eyes are sad." ["Your eyes are sad", oh man this guy is good. Women love thinking of themselves as emotionally complex.]

When he asked if he could call me at home, I told him I lived with my boyfriend. "Who is he?" he asked. "A professor. You can call me, but understand this is just a friendship." He nodded and said, "Your boyfriend doesn't make you happy." [A professor vs. a murderer.]

Note that while Will touches all her sexual soft spots, Mrs. Friedman seeks an intellectual rationalization for her feelings. Middle class women like Mrs. Friedman have trouble accepting that biology, and not the social constructionism promulgated in their Brown general curriculum courses, dominates their psyche. After all, only the lower classes fall victim to such base desires, the upper classes immune due to their better conditioning. I wonder now if Mrs. Friedman realizes the basis of her "love" or if she persists in delusion. From the article's tone, I'd wager the latter.

The biggest loser in this whole affair - the nerdy beta lawyer she probably latched onto after 40.

Estimating Rates of Social Pathology amongst Racial Groups

A video of a racist beating perpetrated by five black savages has surfaced online (H/T: Auster and Chuck Ross):



Obviously, only anonymous online voices will disseminate information about this sickening incident and the evident motivations. The mainstream media will either ignore the story altogether or cast it as a racially neutral event, the criminals and the victims but mere coincidences. And if a sort of mainstream pundit like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage dares speak the truth, they will be dismissed as incorrigible racists fabricating enmity not in the pursuit of truth, but rather as a means for fear-mongering.

But we already know this and it's one reason why this blog exists. Instead, I'd like to briefly consider a question raised over at GLPiggy: what percentage of blacks (and Hispanics) are capable of such savagery, or at the very least, incapable of existing in a civilized society?

As I've argued before, black (and Latino) criminality does not stem entirely from genetics; rather, the relative degree of criminality, not the absolute magnitude of pathology, derives from genetics. Thus, one can't even consider the above question without a grasp of the overarching social factors that motivate or excuse such behavior. In the linked post, I argued that:

[t]he Civil Rights movement didn't only legally condemn discrimination, but it also, through attendant social and cultural changes, unfettered black impetuousness and collectively exonerated them from any future wrong doings. Mainstream academia and media adopted a narrative that blamed black transgression on historical wrongs, and later, hoaxes like "institutional racism."

So assuming the extant social factors, how can one quantify the misbehaving subset of the respective racial groups? Of course, this is a somewhat amorphous characterization to begin with, further muddled by the difficulty of finding a viable metric. Perhaps, we should look for the metric first and extrapolate that particular behavior to connected pathology. Incarceration rates are a good place to start, though this isn't exactly what I want. I want not only violent individuals like that profiled, but I also want to include socially and culturally depressive individuals, the kind that make you roll your eyes at the post office or cause a scene at the supermarket.

To get that, I think the best metric is out of wedlock births and two-family homes. I found those numbers last summer: just over 80% of black births and about 35% of white births are out of wedlock. Of course, many black and Hispanic middle class people exhibit stereotypical behavior, like that Columbia professor, but let's ignore them. So I'd estimate about 80% of blacks, probably somewhere around 65% of Hispanics, and 35% of whites are contributing to our social and cultural depression. If anyone has a better metric, please provide it in the comments.

Finally, this question leads into the concept of genetic determinism. Maybe we needn't answer this particular question or obtain an accurate approximation in order to prognosticate on societal outcomes. Sure, this constitutes an interesting intellectual exercise, but in the end, we don't really need to pinpoint the number of morally diseased individuals shown in the video. And we really don't need an accurate assessment of the "Smart Fraction" either. For all the qualifications race realists repeat about the lack of black intellectual uniformity, the facts remain that societies function commensurate with their majority population. See this chart for all the evidence you'll need.

Super Bowl, Dynasties, and Witnesses to History

Today is Super Bowl Sunday, with the Green Bay Packers facing off against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Professional football is the only sport that I watch religiously (and I mean religiously), yet as is often the case, I have no rooting interest in this particular outcome. I basically just root for an entertaining contest.

But today's game features the potential for something special - a modern day dynasty. Since Congress imposed free agency on the NFL in 1993, football dynasties have become increasingly rare. We've recently had the 1990's Cowboys and the 2000s Patriots, with several other teams like the late 90's Broncos and the 2000s Colts contending over an extended period of time with at least one championship. If the Steelers win today, they'll have three championships in the past six years, a somewhat non-traditional concept of a dynasty but a historical streak of winning nonetheless.

So to those of us without a team, should we root for our own chance to witness history? Should we cheer on the Steelers for the sole purpose of "having been there" when football immortality happened?

In general, I think people revel in being part of something special, something they know will have far-reaching consequences for years to come. In fact, I think we all strive for this in our own small pursuits; perhaps the consequences reach only ourselves or those around us, but these moments and accomplishments give us emotional nourishment. And if we can't achieve history ourselves, then at least we can witness it. At least, we can be there when it happened, cognizant of the consequences, honored to understand the significance, envisioning a time when we can say, "I saw it happen."

For this reason, I suspect many will root for the Steelers and get excited if they do win (I'd give them an extremely slight edge due to Big Ben's inimitable ability to make stuff happen). In the context of sports, one can consider this phenomenon innocuous. This desire only causes problems when it morphs into a messiah complex whereby a person or persons motivates historical change with them at the center.

Sleeping...To the Extreme

Saturday Audience Participation

The medical establishment has lots of advice for sleeping well, as apparently general tiredness is a common problem. They say go to bed and wake up at the same time every day, don't use an alarm clock, and get around 8 hours per night for adults.

For me though, none of this applies. They say you should just kind of wake up by yourself, refreshed after a good night's sleep. But I can't imagine ever doing this. Let's say I had a decent sleep the night before. I'm not particularly energetic, but I'm not particularly tired during the day. I have the ability to lie down in my bed, fall asleep within about 30 minutes and, honestly, can stay in bed for about 14 hours.

I'll usually wake up momentarily throughout and probably have a bathroom break at around 10 hours, but it's not too difficult for me to be in bed for 14 hours. Of course, I never actually do this, but if I were to follow their advice and not use an alarm clock, I'd easily go over 12 hours and probably inch towards 14 hours every night.

Today's question: Is anyone else an "ultra-sleeper" like me? If so, is it caused by something or just an unfortunate innate quirk? How much do you sleep at night and at what time do you go to bed and wake up in the morning? (For some reason, I presume a majority of readers are night people.) What causes the modern "tiredness" epidemic? (I'd wager it's the modern carb-laden diet and the overly long 40 hour work week.)

(Related note: If you have trouble falling asleep, take Melatonin about 15 minutes before going to bed. It is not only healthier than all the other sleeping aid crap, but it works better too.)

Conservative Skepticism of Democracy

At VFR, Larry Auster notes mainstream conservatives cautiously abandoning the "democracy at any cost" rhetoric of the neocons:

The regular conservatives are not buying into the neoconservatives' democracy craze, but are forcefully resisting it. Sean Hannity today was referencing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's famous 1979 article in Commentary in which she argued that there's a difference between authoritarian governments which are our friends, and totalitarian governments which are our enemies. Meaning we should not be pushing the authoritarian Mubarak to abdicate in order to achieve a democracy which could well result in an Islamic tyranny--a lesson the neocons, who once admired Kirkpatrick's reasoning, are now incapable of grasping. Rush Limbaugh, I've heard, was making similar points today. And Michelle Malkin, appearing on Hannity's program tonight, said with much urgency that the main danger in Egypt is the rise of an Islamic republic.

Central to partisan enmity is the notion of which side owns violent totalitarian regimes. Just think how many times DailyKos succumbed to Godwin's law from 2000 - 2008 and FreeRepublic from 2009 til the present. Sure, both arguments have merit, but in the case of Egypt, it seems conservatives have largely abandoned the idea that every society can successfully implement democracy. Or that encouraging every society to do so supports American interests independent of some romantic idea about exportation of Western governance.

In other words, the great champions of individual rights and skepticism towards large government actually support authoritarian regimes as the best option. Much as in the abortion debate, leftists contend this constitutes an internal inconsistency, but does it? I've viewed right-wing politics not as an obstinate adherence to a set of principles, but as reverence for what works, which usually means traditional, do-it-yourself, laissez-faire policies. So in this instance, the realist conservative doesn't envision a utopic society mirroring our own. Instead, he supports what works - and if that means an authoritarian government, so be it. Inherent to this pragmatism is the supplementary idea that not all societies function in the same manner. Democracy works here (OK, not that well), but not necessarily in far-off lands with different traditions, religious zealotry, and cultural institutions.

An integral difference between Egypt and America, and why democracy worked somewhat here and not there, is the existence of a moderating construct. In America, we had social and cultural shaming that made government intervention largely unneeded. Western people could govern themselves, their base instincts tempered by cultural pressure. Yet, it appears Islamic peoples have a culture that actually encourages aggression and a history of societal instability owed to their militaristic and violent tendencies. Thus, a strong governmental presence must exist to silence potential uprisings or nothing else will.

Thoughts on "Everyone Going to College"

A new study from Harvard parrots what HBDers like Charles Murray have been saying for years - not everyone should go to college:

A new report released by Harvard Wednesday states in some of the strongest terms yet that such a “college for all” emphasis may actually harm many American students – keeping them from having a smooth transition from adolescence to adulthood and a viable career…

“It would be fine if we had an alternative system [for students who don’t get college degrees], but we’re virtually unique among industrialized countries in terms of not having another system and relying so heavily on higher education,” says Robert Schwartz, who heads the Pathways to Prosperity project at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education.

Rather mundane for this part of the Internet, but note how the study's author implicitly rejects an axiom of educational romanticism:

A majority of the workforce does not have a college degree, and a majority of the things those people do are going to continue not requiring a college degree.

As in Obama's State of the Union, we often hear that "in the future, every job will require a college degree." Of course, this has nothing to do with the requirements of work - it's merely a reflection of the job market's response to more people having a degree. The feedback loop exists between a job market that uses a college degree as a proxy for conscientiousness and a social system that pushes an increasing number to obtain this generally worthless credential. Back to the study, the author predictably avoids the Murray perspective on the problem:

Emphasizing college as the only path may actually cause some students – who are bored in class but could enjoy learning that’s more entwined with the workplace – to drop out, he adds. “If the image [of college] is more years of just sitting in classrooms, that’s not very persuasive.”…

Two important points come up in discussing the issues. First, I still don't see a reversal on education independent of massive debt buildup. Quite simply, rhetoric about failing education is palatable to just about everyone, the idealistic liberal creationists, the anti-union libertarians, and the disappointed helicopter moms. It works, so why would politicians abandon a politically efficacious strategy in order to, ya know, do something trivial like save California? Second, once people start looking into the numbers concerning who should not attend college, guess who'll they'll find. Of course, the left and their right-liberals peers won't have us undo 40 years of minority progress in order to, ya know, do something trivial like save California.

College has become a popular metric of racial disparities, so the interminably cantankerous left needs it to serve their agenda. Further, a society that so values the cerebral would consider a disproportionate funneling of NAMs to the trades a collective insult. After all, honest work like plumbing doesn't carry the same social cache as investment banking - and if we truly want racial equality, then we need (empty) social equality across the board.

Finally, I'll depart briefly from the standard HBD pragmatism here and defend college as more than just a training ground for future work. Our society has become so enamored with practical success, our conception of America increasingly comprised of quantitative traits like high GDP, relatively high educational attainment, and strong business promotion. Thus, the libertarian and right-liberals focus on runaway spending in denouncing "college for everyone", but what of the spiritual benedictions conferred upon society? What of the inspired 18 year-old finding himself in great literature, the intrepid physics undergrad enamored with the heavens, and the professor still excited about imparting knowledge? What of the vast libraries humbling all that enter, the Gothic buildings where Fitzgerald and Eliot cogitated, the history of great minds passing through our universities? If we simply view college as a gateway to work, then we lose not only a generation of thinkers and romantics, but we undermine the general pursuit of knowledge itself. We do need artists, writers, poets, and intellectuals - too bad though that bias has enveloped these edifices of civilization as well.