It is an odd thing, to read the thoughts of your opposite. In my readings of conservative blogs, I have come across a blogger who calls himself "OneSTDV"...On every political issue that I have ever seen him address, his views appear to be the complete and total opposite of mine.I don't know how many liberal readers come here, but I don't really get it. I spend a lot of time perusing various liberal sites, but I do so in low doses as to avoid going crazy. It's laudable that someone could actively engage with their political polar opposite on a regular basis.
...with his belief that blacks are inherently inferior to whites intellectually. He calls this idea "Human BioDiversity" or "HBD". I call it "racism" myself, and I believe it to be false.Well, didn't see any of that coming. Mr. "Mysterious Man" then explains why he puts himself through the intellectual torture of reading my blog, i.e. ideas people prior to the 1960's considered axiomatically normal and true. And then he expounds upon why he finds me so detestable:
OneSTDV is also quite anti-feminist. While I would call him a misogynist, he himself would probably claim he is not, so we'll compromise and say he is openly and extremely sexist.
I am a vegetarian, OneSTDV is a carnivore, and quite proud of it--and more than that, he is openly hostile to vegetarians.
I tried for some time to analyze my visceral dislike for his ideas, to comprehend what it was that made us different. I believe I found it when OneSTDV wrote in:Funny that I've always considered this a rather pensive, even bordering on sentimental, blog; others appear to not share this opinion, oh well.
"In the end, we just can't escape biology."
But there is a way in which OneSTDV seems to revel in this fact, as if he is perfectly content with seeing everyone as just "moist robots", as Scott Adams would say. It is perfectly true that we cannot escape biology--but it is my contention that this doesn't mean we ought not to try. For in trying, we become more than just biological entities--we achieve something more meaningful. It is this desire, I think, which underlies all Art and Literature.
Liberalism means freeing the mind to do mental work, Conservatism means freeing the body to do physical work.
And that, I think, is what OneSTDV is striving for. He wants to obey his herd instincts--not a bad thing necessarily, as they got to be instincts for a reason--and this is what most of his ideas are directed towards. The vegetarian issue is a perfect example: as I recently noted, I am a vegetarian because I want to be different, OneSTDV is not a vegetarian because he vehemently does not want to be different.
As to his other point - in essence, Mr. "Mysterious" reduces my paradigm to biological reductionism, a sentiment with which I don't necessarily disagree. However, and this is how I'd define conservatism, I'd say society must understand that a certain structure, to both our personal lives and to our social connections, exists and that tradition has been a trial and error process by which successful mores have persisted through practical vetting. In other words, innate biology, the motivations of group pressure, and the traditional constructs of society should guide us in how to live. It's not that I abide only by "herd instincts"; rather it's that I understand how biology and tradition should inform us on how to live. (Digression: I abhor vegetarianism because it is an extremely unhealthy diet pushed by anti-white, anti-male, New Age-lite liberals and money-hungry Big Food/FDA/Big Pharma.)
And in doing so, by structuring our own lives and that of our social communities in concert with previously successful ways of living, we are free of the practical and emotional burdens that the liberal revolution has given us, free to pursue our own ends, whether that be "mental work", literature, art, or science. Yet if we ignore the guide of tradition and biology, by encouraging female licentiousness, by demanding racial de-segregation, by dissolving national, tribal borders, we will see a society and the people within it suffer.
One of the commenters then gives this tired condemnation:
The most glaring difference between you and One STDV is that you want to examine your life and to do that you compare it to an opposite to challenge your beliefs. You have an open mind. Those that I've encountered like this guy have closed minds and the last thing they would do is seriously consider anything you have to say as valid and attack everything you stand for. They believe in a closed set, not an open set, and they are much the more intellectually poor for such a mind set.Ahh the "closed-minded" shaming tactic. I have informed myself of differing worldviews and come to a thoughtful decision based on the information I have gathered - how is that "close-minded"? In essence, "open-minded" does not really even mean anything; it's a specious liberal phrase meaning, "believe what we believe or we'll call you an idiot." I'd argue that liberals have a worldview as well and while we disagree, I wouldn't necessarily call them close-minded in all aspects of their perspective. More like naive, idealistic, evil, and just plain wrong.
I also take issue with the notion that I cut myself off from differing opinions. The very fact that I regularly challenge mainstream dogma, on race, gender, and diet, points to my ostensible open-mindedness. Note we're not talking Truthers here, as one must distinguish between open-mindedness and plain crazy. I was raised in the leftist American education system; my current beliefs relative to that of the liberal establishment provide enough evidence of open-mindedness. I've also defended teacher's unions and sympathized with fat feminists. But I will not apologize for having a strong opinion based on my own thoughtful consideration of a given issue. Liberals throw around terms like "open-minded" and "tolerance", yet they don't mean the absence of criticism or animus; they really want abjectly positive reenforcement and agreement. Only then can one avoid the labeling of "close-minded."
I will applaud Mr. "Mysterious" though for his even-keeled appraisal of my work. And shockingly, his post didn't devolve into Daily Show sarcasm so popular amongst the smarmy Left.
42 comments:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288253/dude-where-s-my-lifeboat-rich-lowry
Left a response to that post. Let's see if it gets approved or not.
- "It is perfectly true that we cannot escape biology--but it is my contention that this doesn't mean we ought not to try"
Except that "trying" hurts people, destroys communities and cities, bankrupts and demoralized nations. And to sustain these efforts at "trying," methods of dissent-suppression and hypocrisy have to be applied in increasing volume by those who shape public opinions.
"Trying" in the spirit that this leftist blogger advocates is like an unethical doctor who pumps his patient with unproven medication and the worse the patient gets, the more he increases the dosage.
This guy sounds very young, mostly judging by his yet-unjaded style, unlike that of older leftists. He may not yet get the big picture. Fuck, he sounds like me at 19. As I occasionally note, young, smart people of an idealistic bent are not satisfied with materialistic determinism. They want transcendence, a greater cause.
But because of who our opinion-makers are, the kids are ignorant of their own history, tradition, their ancestors' struggle, their inherited greatness, and potential for good.
They are ignorant even of commonplace things they can have, like having their own family. Here I'm reminded of twenty-something church girls who volunteer with ghetto kids but have none of their own.
So the smart, young idealist latch on to the only thing they know, a counterfeit transcendence. And they say "keep trying." The more perceptive among them say this without full conviction.
We can't escape biology: political opinions have a large genetic component.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_dna.html
The vegetarian/vegan thing is interesting. There are billions of people that are forced to be effectively vegetarian/vegan because all they can afford to eat is rice or corn meal or whatever the local staple is. These people are mostly malnourished, and they would love to have animal protein if they could get it.
Then there is another kind, which ought to be called luxury veganism, which exists primarily as a show of status in certain rich countries. It is not a lifestyle of the poor, because it takes money to obtain the nutritional balance lost when animal products are taken out of the diet. In fact, rich country veganism is probably much more carbon intensive than a typical American diet, as reflected in the much higher cost of this type of diet.
just reading or hearing leftist speak makes me see red, they are literally destroying western civilization out of some "ideals" that foster that disgusting sense of superiority they have. he literally used every liberal buzzword available, instead of even countering your arguements with reason. i know ill just call him a mysogenist, i don't have to say why, because he is a mysogenist for simply not agreeing with me (ignore the fact that my minority pals are actually mysogenists, who lead the country in violent rapes and wife beating)
Mr. Mysterious agrees with everything that is currently popular, therefore, he is in his own opinion, open-minded.
Hilarious really.
Just think if he had lived in 1950's Alabama, or 1640's Massachusetts, he would be in complete agreement with all his neighbors. He would have totally different ideas from the ones he currently holds, but they would be derived from the same source, popular sentiment. He is a moist robot.
He accepts every so-called liberal notion without reservation even the most cruel and oppressive notions. It is the exact opposite of open-minded. What every is currently cool is what he adopts.
Sounds like a doormat trying to get laid.
Liberalism elevates 'equality' to the level of religion above all else.
Which is why they see it as a moral crime to eat our chicken brothers and our pig sisters.
Mr. Mysterious agrees with everything that is currently popular, therefore, he is in his own opinion, open-minded.
That's just what I was going to say.
I know the type well. Every thought in his head is snuffled up from the air around him.
People mostly eat what they like. Those who don't like meat don't eat it. Fine. Who cares? But the thing I find insufferable about most vegetarians is their air of moral superiority. "Nyah, nyah, I don't eat meat and you do, so I'm better than you are. Nyah, nyah!" Except for cannibals, I really don't care what other people eat or don't eat. None of my business. And one particular diet doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else.
Liberals are the most close-minded people I have ever encountered. They certainly don't like facts. Talking to a liberal about HBD is like talking to a creationist about evolution. The most penetrating fact-missiles bounce their minds' thick armor of ignorance and certitude. The resistance of most liberals to factual and experiential evidence is stunning.
"The resistance of most liberals to factual and experiential evidence is stunning."
Right. because they aren't liberal. Liberal as popularly employed is a misnomer. Liberal means free thinking, not lockstep with popular opinion.
When you consider the objectively quantified misery created by their social experiments over the last forty to fifty years and their total denial of their hand in it, you have to wonder about their sanity. They are in total denial and blame the their failure on folks who thought the plans wouldn't work. As though simply disagreeing with them would cause their programs to fail. It's utter madness.
It's like a kid who asks his dad what he thinks his chances are of making the team. The dad says he thinks the chances are low because his son is slow and can't pass the ball. The coach agrees and the kid doesn't make the team. The kid then blames the dad for not believing in him. When the truth is he just can't play.
Liberals are actually much more close-minded: they disapprove, scoff and vilify those with THOUGHTS with which they disagree.
Conservatives tend to disagree with the ACTIONS of the Left. This is significant because Leftist actions actually are in play, whereas conservatives thoughts rarely become public policy.
As I occasionally note, young, smart people of an idealistic bent are not satisfied with materialistic determinism. They want transcendence, a greater cause.
Ditto for anyone, of any age, who are of a certain class or caste. Some never really have to confront the broader regions of Maslow's pyramid ----- and there not necessarily luckier or the better for that fact. But that does often go a long way in explaining their philosophies and dispositions.
Maslow's pyramid is misunderstood. Self-actualization is not its apex, like icing on a cake. It's suffused through all layers, activated by struggle, at whatever level of the pyramid you're on.
We shouldn't let liberalism get to us. On the bright side, it is easy to stand out as excellent in this kind of world. Liberals are laying down and begging to be surpassed.
(1) Trying to eat healthy food and going for basic fitness will separate you from the pack.
(2) Aggressive homosexuality sure is annoying but it is not attractive. It makes traditional families look that much more attractive.
(3) Dress well and be polite and beat all those dirty, tattooed hipsters in the competition for jobs.
(4) Thinking about specific careers while hipsters are dabbling in nonsense makes it easy to leave them financially in the dust.
(5) Be that chivalrous, confident guy who will actually pay for stuff and take care of a woman and separate yourself easily from lower class men.
(6) For a woman, be pretty, modest and feminine and leave the angry feminists in the dust.
(7) If a man goes a Godly and Christian route, he will encounter a better marriage market and be headed toward a more excellent life.
(8) When it comes to having a family, this is in some ways the best of times. There is plenty of 'room at the top' as so many liberals abdicate by not producing a next generation. This is the opposite of all history the children of those with status were destined to rule over your children. Now the ruling left has few kids and those with traditional values will see their lineages inherit the Earth. Booyah!
(9) While the skinny vegan is undernourished and low-energy, you can kick his butt physically, mentally and in the workplace. Enjoy!
(10) If taxes trouble you, then escape to traditionalism! Have a number of kids and invest your extra money in them. Taxes don't bother traditional one-income, several child households very much at all.
Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot and taking themselves out of the competition in a hundred ways. The answer? Compete like hell in the old game of life. Win, and run up the score to egregious levels.
Liberals, the smart ones, will be forced to go traditional in many ways because they hate loss of status more than anything!
One, can you please post this if you agree?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/15/2590506/the-new-jim-crow-alive-and-thriving.html
Maslow's pyramid is misunderstood. Self-actualization is not its apex, like icing on a cake. It's suffused through all layers, activated by struggle, at whatever level of the pyramid you're on.
I wouldn't argue with that; I was merely saying ----- perhaps a bit verbosely ----- that either a youthful indifference or a inherited material comfort is what often causes one to not be led by economic determinism in coming up with their causes and passions, etc.
Obvious, now that I think about it a bit more. (what can I say: raw, early thoughts to kick-off a four-day weekend!).
Politics on the left is boring. There are far more toes that people on the left have to worry about stepping on. Any sort of critical analysis about race, sex, and ethnicity are basically off limits which makes even the slightest conversation stultifying. This is heightened by the fact that so many people now look to the government for their daily bread. Politics is a life and death struggle for people on the left hand of the bell curve.
I am a vegetarian because I want to be different ...
Well, he came close to the truth there. When he understands himself a little better, he'll realize he's a vegetarian because he wants to be sophisticated, and like other libs can't think of any way to do that other than to throw all pre-1967 modes of living over wholesale.
PA—
Mysterious- "It is perfectly true that we cannot escape biology--but it is my contention that this doesn't mean we ought not to try"
Except that "trying" hurts people, destroys communities and cities, bankrupts and demoralized nations. And to sustain these efforts at "trying," methods of dissent-suppression and hypocrisy have to be applied in increasing volume by those who shape public opinions.
Yeah and together with the “trying” and preceding it is the lying part of PC, which is enormous. That lying part also involves blaming and in fact demonizing whites, especially white men, who must have “white priviledge” and must be responsible for ineffable “structural racism” because how else other than blaming the black victims themselves, which is axiomatically evil and “raciss”, can we explain the persistent gaps in educational performance, scores on IQ tests, income, and wealth? Without being “raciss” that is.
We explain it by noting that for 100 years, even since IQ tests began to be given on a large scale basis when the US military used them on all volunteers and draftees for WWI soldiers, there’s been a persistent 15 point or one standard deviation difference in the scores of young adult blacks versus whites. We explain it by point to the strong evidence that somewhere between 50% and 80% of the differences in IQ between individuals, and between blacks versus whites, is caused by genetic differences at many, rather than a few genetic locations.
Here’s the first gene sequencing genetics study (rather than twin and adoptee studies) which shows my last proposition, though it only conclusively established the floor of 50% for fluid (or general) intelligence differences, not any likely upper bound.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/09/genetic-differences-intelligence
I don’t know why this study hasn’t gotten more play in the alt.right community. It’s seminal and of great significance. Damn hard for the left to debunk.
"I will applaud Mr. "Mysterious" though for his even-keeled appraisal of my work."
Much more than he deserves. What is his critique other than yet another slick, trendy rant lubricated with catchy swearwords like "racism" and "sexism"? In the same manner that a writer in an earlier timeframe might have accused his opponents of "witchcraft"?
Come to think of it, Anonymous from 10:12 is exactly right about this mentality. I can easily see Mysterious-boy lighting up "witches" in Medieval England. Or joining a lynch mob in Reconstruction-era Mississippi. Not out of any real concern for maintaining the social norms of Southern Americana or pre-Renaissance Europe, but because he's just too dim or too cynical to reflect on why he believes what he believes. His betters determine how "respectable" people behave, and that's good enough for him.
I suppose HBD is all about redefining respectability so that scum like him can safely go with the flow and feel good about themselves. At present, his kind would not dare contradict popular culture openly. Better to keep stabbing European Americans in the back while hoping deep down that White Proles, the police force, etc. keep on paying the freight & insulating them from the consequences of trendy "Postracialism".
"It is perfectly true that we cannot escape biology--but it is my contention that this doesn't mean we ought not to try."
I wonder how our dear liberal critic feels about Christianity.
Doug1:
It's because the newest study doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know from twin studies about the heritability of intelligence (except that the twin studies' methods are sound). The study you reference, Daives et al., does not prove anything like "the differences in IQ between individuals, and between blacks versus whites, is caused by genetic differences at many, rather than a few genetic locations". Lewtonin already tackled the issue involving our ability to infer genetic causes for differences between groups given a high heritability. The short answer is that you can't, but it is still a good hint to start looking in that direction for causes. If you want a good modern treatment here is a reference to google: “Heritability and Causation” by Neven Sesardic.
The idea that the differences in racial groups have genetic causes seems at the very least plausible if you also consider that a handful of individual genes related to behavior have already been identified and found to differ in frequency between races. There is nothing in the way of rigorous, hard science proving this for the totality of human behavior though, and it may be that way for awhile, see: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081105/full/456018a.html .
It's because the newest study doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know from twin studies about the heritability of intelligence (except that the twin studies' methods are sound).
Regarding both the individual and racial genetic component of intelligence:
I don't need twin studies or fancy genetic research - I have eyes. For 10,000 years (until the late 20th century), that was considered good enough.
***This was my response to Ruined Chapel.
I have enjoyed following this discussion, and am grateful for your serious response.
I think you err in seeing biology as something to be "escape."
For most of Western history, Man was understood as a "rational animal." We are animals in our substance, and we have to deal with animal issues: finding food, defending territory, and reproducing. However we are distinct from all other animals in that we have "rational souls" created in the image of God. Reason enables us to guide our animal passions in accordance with the moral law as well as to our natural good.
For example, we share sexual desire with the lower animals, and that is to our good, but the *exercise* of our sexual desire must be guided by our rationality in accordance with natural and divinely revealed morality.
The spiritual sanctifies the material; it does not obliterate it. The assumption that the moral and the material can be separated is a product of the Enlightenment, and I think it is a source of confusion to liberals in understanding conservatives who operate at least implicitly within a natural law worldview.
So the "Catholic" response to your dilemma is that human beings have a physical nature that exists independently of our will, and has to be dealt with realistically. You cannot change it. You can, however, freely decide how you deal with it. Denying it, however, which is what "transcending one's biology" usually means, simply guarantees that one's responses to reality will be irrational: based on a fantasy of how the material and moral world "ought to be" rather than what it really is.
Aren't you meant to follow your own feelings/instincts/self in the liberal universe? Isn't that the whole schtick?
who? whom? is the question when it comes down to who gets to legitimize their feelings, and who is laughed off as ego-maniacs getting their comeuppance.
"I was raised in the leftist American education system; my current beliefs relative to that of the liberal establishment provide enough evidence of open-mindedness."
The liberal missionaries have been absolutely worse than the christian missionaries. Because as they know, they're obviously right.
the one question never answered is why should I give a rats ass what some liberal says/ thinks?
Seriously. What are their accomplishments? How do they stack up to the way I measure a man?
Are they strong, tough, smart? Does he have a long tab, short tab, scroll, trident? Do they know the Word of God? Do they do useful work in math and science? Have they created business, wealth and employed men? Have they sired children and raised them to be men of strength and righteous or women of dignity and quality?
if not, there opinions mean very little to me
I think some liberals - hell, a lot, probably - are starting to come around to reality. The blatant anti-white agenda of Hollywood and the media, the hypocrisy when it comes to racial assaults and "hate crimes" and the sheer vileness and uselessness of blacks - you can't just ignore those things forever. Trust me, lefties think about these things, too.
Now if we could just come up with an acceptable way to TALK about these things .....
"Regarding both the individual and racial genetic component of intelligence:
I don't need twin studies or fancy genetic research - I have eyes. For 10,000 years (until the late 20th century), that was considered good enough."
-One
It's a good point. However, for most of human history it's probably been rare for different ethnic groups to associate closely. It's very easy to tell yourself, as America did, that our differences are only skin deep when you have a strong mainstream culture that everyone adheres to in public behavior (circa mid 20th century).
It's cliche to point this out, but American media will purposefully avoid drawing attention to race if at all possible. Until the internet and YouTube became mainstream, if you got all of your news from the TV you would likely never question the propaganda because you would never have reason to. The same goes for other "Liberal" sacred cows such as sex, sexuality, and the malleability of human nature.
My own path towards giving ignorant liberals a heart attack is much like yours One. I realized that, over the course of human history and pre-history, every viable human society type had been tried. The social structures and mores we had were there for a reason, not just because they were arbitrary biases.
The conceit of liberals is that they can understand all of society, itself an impossibly complex self-perpetuating feedback loop. No human mind can understand it in all of it's intricacy, but at least before we had a good set of rules that worked. Liberals think they know better, and that simple-minded logic is better than hundreds of thousands of years of received wisdom and inherent socio-biological processes.
When liberals went about trying to use the government to dismantle social mores, it ended up destroying delicate feedback mechanisms that encourage a positive social system.
That's a little abstract, so here's a concrete example: Feminists didn't like that women who had children outside of wedlock would be shamed and destitute. "We may not approve of single mothers, but this social shaming and fiscal punitiveness only hurts women and children." you might hear a Liberal argue.
So eventually, due to Liberal policies, we got Big Daddy govt stepping in to pay for bastard children, and propaganda promoting divorce and single-motherhood. And what has the end result been? Has the plight of single mothers and children been improved? Nope. But we sure do have a lot more of them now.
The smash blockbuster RED TAILS is out today
I cant wait to see it!
how do you know it's a smash and blockbuster if the movie just came out today?
You deleted my comment for criticizing atheism??? LOL
You really should post a list of your banned topics, you sneaky little devil you. but then, I guess that might blow your cover? haha
"We shouldn't let liberalism get to us. On the bright side, it is easy to stand out as excellent in this kind of world. Liberals are laying down and begging to be surpassed."
Great post, Dan. Liberalism (of the Mr. Mysterious kind) is a mental illness.
Liberals sometimes go so far as to wish the extinction of the human race race so that 'the biosphere has can recover.'
What liberals don't get is that the human race in its astounding variety and richness and intellectual culture is the finest thing that Earth has produced, by a factor of about a zillion.
Indeed I would say that whether you are a believer or not, it ought to be apparent that things on our dear planet derive their value in relation to us, for we have the special ability to appreciate and relate to them. What value does the Redwood Forest have if there is nobody to appreciate it? None, I say!!
This fact used to be obvious to a lot of people.
"This fact used to be obvious to a lot of people."
That was back when people still had an ounce of common sense. Not any more.
That was back when people still had an ounce of common sense. Not any more.
But I think most people still do. It's just the elites don't have any commonsense - or act as if they don't.
Ken S.—
It's because the newest study doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know from twin studies about the heritability of intelligence (except that the twin studies' methods are sound).
Yeah, but the left convince themselves that there are things wrong with the twin studies. And there haven’t been that many of them since after their first big one came out differently than the liberal researchers who did the Minnesota Twins Study expected and hoped.
Leftists will have a much harder time critiquing this method.
"open-minded" does not really even mean anything; it's a specious liberal phrase meaning, "believe what we believe or we'll call you an idiot." I'd argue that liberals have a worldview as well and while we disagree, I wouldn't necessarily call them close-minded in all aspects of their perspective. More like naive, idealistic, evil, and just plain wrong."
Well put.
Red Tails = Black Asses
Boycott!!
What's really telling about this guy is his page quote:
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents."
Translated: PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME THINK UNPLEASANT THOUGHTS GUYS!
***The idea that the differences in racial groups have genetic causes seems at the very least plausible if you also consider that a handful of individual genes related to behavior have already been identified and found to differ in frequency between races. ***
Yes, as I posted over at the other guys site, Robert Weingberg points out the likelihood of group differences in this MIT biology lecture.
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbidden-thoughts.html
I Google myself quite often. (You do too, admit it.)
I don't. The only times I've ever put my pseudonym into a search engine was to find a specific post, usually at Sailer's.
Svigor
Post a Comment