Saturday, April 30, 2011

The Secret of Success

So working for things makes you value and appreciate them, and, consequently, stick with them. A club that takes a lot of money and/or effort to join, all things being equal, is a club you're more likely to remain in than one that's relatively easy to join. This also applies to things unlike clubs. If it's hard to get into a college, said college retains students more consistently than colleges with easy entry. Anyhow, there seems to be an overarching principle behind all this — effort tends to commit. And any business, church, or whatever that inspires commitment is more likely to be successful. This applies to things like eHarmony and hard-core fundamentalist churches. The higher the bar for entry, the more successful the organization is. This is gone into in more depth on the very nice blog of Satoshi Kanazawa HERE.

A case for monarchy

Friday, April 29, 2011

Put not your trust in princes, unless that's all you've got

MORE on the blankety-blank birth certificate..

The birth certificate that would not die!

Racism all over America

No, not that kind of racism. Most White Americans have been trained for a couple of generations now that racism is the ultimate evil, and that they must bend over backwards to accommodate any demands from nonWhites and suppress any resentment they might feel as a result. An enormous number of them flocked (an appropriate verb for sheep-like behavior) to vote for the mystery man Obama, to prove their sincere anti-racist sentiments. That's what they learned to do from school and the media. On the other hand, minority students aren't taught that sort of thing at all. The schools and the media teach them that all their problems are caused by Whitey, and that Whitey owes them. Most of this wisdom is imparted to them by White liberals, who, it would seem, hate themselves. Now, these minorities still have plenty of problems, so they hate Whitey for causing them and not fixing them. Why shouldn't they? That's what they've been taught to think. So if you're White, be advised that a lot of people automatically hate you. And, of course, the establishment three-legged stool — politicians, educators, and the media — suppresses all evidence of minority hatred for Whites, and carefully suppresses news of nonWhite-on-White crime, while spending gallons of ink on bogus stories about the opposite, like the phony Duke rape case. What is the motivation for all this self-destructive behavior on the part of the White elites? Fred, who knows a lot of stuff, explains HERE.

Teaching little girls to be sluts

Remember when everybody was worried about Barbie? She was going to corrupt little girls into emulating her somehow, and maybe some of the concerns were valid. Far better that they have baby dolls, which little girls have carried around for millenia. But Barbie is pretty thin stuff compared to some of our more enlightened and progressive toys. Remember — dolls are for little girls, not for high school girls. This commercial is for little girls to watch:

You'd think the feminists would be showing some concern about this sort of thing, but maybe they're too busy trying to get teenage girls into the combat infantry.

Another lost virtue: Hypocrisy

“Hypocrisie est un hommage que la vice rend à la vertu.” — La Rochefoucauld

It's been said that hypocrisy is the only sin left from the old days. You can do just about anything that used to be considered immoral or degenerate as long as you're up-front about it. Only hypocrisy about what you do can get you in trouble. Of course there are new sins, like racism and sexism and hate speech and free enterprise, but that's another issue. Or a set of other issues. So what it boils down to is that anyone who recommends proper behavior can be completely discredited if it's determined that he ever indulged in improper behavior. Which is every damn one of us, if you believe in Original Sin or Darwin. So, in effect, the suppression of hypocrisy makes all those other old sins okay. That has a strong effect on parenting, BTW. In this Brave New World, it's immoral to discourage your kids from doing anything that you ever did. How's that working out? Scott Locklin gives us his ideas on the subject HERE.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

A Libertarian View of the Royal Wedding

Cartoon reprinted by permission of

Everybody's talking about the wedding, but nobody's talking about the actual political powers and responsibilities of the British Monarchy — which they don't exercise very much. Could they do any worse than the likes of Cameron and Brown and Blair? Somebody recently offered to trade Obama even for the most screwed-up Windsor they might want to get rid of. What could it hurt? I'm sure Prince Chuck or weird old Uncle Duke Bertie Fink-Nottle can read a teleprompter with the best of them, now that Geoffrey Rush has, Higgins-like, taught them to stuff marbles in their mouths. And if they dis their grandmothers, it won't be because they're White. And they have enough cash that the University of Chicago won't have to give their wives phony jobs. But to the point: The Libertarian Alliance, our sister group in the UK, has made a statement about the wedding which tells us quite a bit about Britain and its history. Statement by the remarkable Sean Gabb HERE.

If H. L. Mencken were alive today....

"Birtherism" analyzed

Do you find the Republican candidates appalling?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Inept Forgery?

The achievement gap

That Pesky Birth Certificate

Yet more on "Atlas Shrugged"

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

What is Obama hiding

Stupid vs. Smart

This post is about HBD, or human biodiversity, which is the phenomenon that some people are smarter than others, and that some groups of related people average smarter than other groups. This is a fact obvious to anybody who's paid attention, but it remains a taboo to recognize it in public. It's like doubting the existence of God in Europe in 1200. It might not get you killed, but it'll definitely lose you your job down at the mud mine.

Anyway, over at the blog ISteve, q. v., there's a discussion going on that I linked you to a few posts ago, about science and the left, and how the left denies science by denying HBD. This post was touched off by somebody asking that if we did accept HBD, how would that make our public policy change, asked in such a way as to imply that no need for change would be evident at all. A regular commenter there, KYLIE, gave an answer that I think is about the best summary I've read of the whole significance of the fact of HBD, and the fact that yes, stupid people function differently from smart people. The original question is in italics, and Kylie's response is in regular type:

""Why are you so interested in whether there is a genetic basis for intelligence and whether intelligence differs among various groups?"

Are you kidding no question mark.

Allocation of public and private resources; determination, implementation and maintenance of the appropriate policies in education, immigration and employment--pretty much all of our dailly life is affected by how we view differences in intelligence found among the various races.

"Is it determinative of anything at all in terms of how we should be living our lives? Would or should any public policies differ?"

Right now, we are acting on the assumption that there is no appreciable genetic basis for intelligence. Vast resources are thus allocated to closing that pesky and persistent achievement gap, helping immigrants regardless of their legal status and ensuring that all minorities and women are represented in various employment fields, as well as providing a generous social safety net.

If that assumption is wrong, all that money, time and effort is being wasted in a misguided effort to correct something that is not the unnatural fault of a racist society but the natural aspect of some groups of people.

Then there's the question of culture. I doubt that matters much to you but I'll address it briefly anyway.

I'm no expert but observation would suggest that while unintelligent people can learn, say, to read at a grade school level, do basic arithmetic sums, etc., where an intelligence gap is really evident is in the realm of abstract thought. Less intelligent people concern themselves far less with delayed gratification, future time orientation and abstract notions such as duty, responsibility and integrity. It's not that they are bad. I've met a lot of dumb but very kind-hearted people. While they can behave goodheartedly in the moment, they aren't much good at planning for their future or their children's, acting based on what the consequences of their actions will be to themselves and others or doing something that doesn't have an apparent and immediate benefit to them.

Contracts, in particular, seem to befuddle them. They don't see why a landlord should insist on the rent when s/he knows they have sh!t going on their lives right now. If they have a checking account, that means the bank will give them money if they write a check--they overlook the necessity of their depositing money in that account. If they're hired for a job, that means they have a job and should get a paycheck, whether or not they go to work or do the work assigned them. As for the social contract, forget about it. They are who they are, the government is what it is and should take care of them because it has more money than they do. The notion that their hardworking neighbors are paying the taxes that provide the government services to which they think they are entitled is literally one they can't comprehend. The government has the money, the government should provide.

You think I'm exaggerating? I could take you to my old neighborhood and show you different.

Now contrast this with intelligent people who delay parenthood until they can afford to raise children, who save and invest money, who go to their jobs even when they don't feel like it or when sh!t is going on in their lives, who abide by the social contract, etc.

That's the pesky achievement gap we have to address, not by throwing even more money at it but by recognizing certain--let's call them "trends"--in certain groups of people.

All unintelligent people, regardless of race, behave in the way I've described. Like children, they can readily assimilate concrete facts and processes but have real trouble with abstractions. The trouble is that there are higher percentages of unintelligent people found in some races than in others. And that matters very much, to all of us.

Any clearer now?"

The whole discussion is HERE.

What's a liberal to do?

Advanced Placement — Yet another PC joke

Lincoln Worship

Cartoon reprinted by permission of
Except for totally flaked-out lefty types who really hate Whitey, Lincoln is an object of worship, really. All the way from Doris Kearns Plagiarist Goodwin to Obama to every damn one of the neocons, he's a glorious martyr who saved American and liberated everybody. Everybody he didn't get killed, anyway. And then there are those who consider him a monster. They're closer to the truth, of course, but I wouldn't go as far as that. He was just another damn politician, a rather skillful one, who just happened to be President at a time when we really needed a statesman who could have steered us around the secession crisis. Orthodox historians have always taken Lincoln's side, emphasizing that he was doing bad things for good reasons, but sometimes they go further than that, arguing that the stuff that looks bad to us was really good. Well, Paul Gottfried, who is always worth reading, tells us about an academic phony who not only worships Lincoln, but who commits the historiographer's sin of implying that people of the past looked at the world according to current paradigms, which they most certainly didn't. His essay HERE.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Puritans and Liberals

Very, very weird clip from alleged Israeli TV show.

This video is breathtaking. When I first saw it, I thought this must be some kind of hoax, so I looked around the net and found it several places, including HERE. And it certainly looks professional enough. Can anybody out there authenticate this?
Anyhow, I like that "There are some good Christians." I guess she's referring to the ones who vote in Congress to keep sending money.

Nerds and Geeks and Wikpedia

Teaching isn't what it used to be.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Monarchy isn't perfect

Early Career Choice

If only she'd decided to dress him up like a ghost. Or a cowboy. Or an astronaut. I found this HERE. But it's also the cover of today's NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE.

Science and the Left

The left has a peculiar relationship with science. On the one hand, it invokes science all the time because of a perception in their teeny little minds that it somehow disproves or discredits religion, which the left hates and fears (except for the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Reverend Al Sharpton, and the Reverend Jesse Jackson — get the drift?). Well, whether it does or not is an open debate, but the point is that that's what the left thinks, and so they make a fetish out of science while not having a clue about what science is or how it works. And that's the second point. The left doesn't understand a thing about science. Zip, zero, bupkuss. I blogged earlier about how the left doesn't understand Darwin or evolutionary theory at all HERE. Another thing I've said before is that if your political philosophy is incompatible with science, there's something wrong with it. Note: it doesn't have to be science-based, but it has to be compatible. It can't be based, for example, on bad math. Like, you can't be an environmentalist and support unrestricted immigration, because unrestricted immigration tends to increase human population. Another thing about science is that it uses data. And, therefore, if you hide data, like school test scores and crime statistics, in support of some cockamamie touchy-feely liberal agenda, you're being anti-scientific. Well, there's an interesting discussion of this over at Steve Sailer. The post is good, but the best part is the comment section, where smart people are saying smart things about the left and it's laughable understanding of science. Read it all HERE.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Of Chimps and Men

John McCain continues to be nuts.

I really didn't want to use that picture of McCain with his face screwed up like a psycho Bowery Boy, so I have a special Easter illustration instead. To business: McCain just loves our latest idiotic venture in Libya, and, as usual, is proclaiming his deep respect for Obama. It is well to remember that McCain is a traitor and the SON OF A TRAITOR.

Lawrence O’Donnell: “Bachmann’s Voters Are Ignorant Because They’re White”

Friday, April 22, 2011


What is a "Hominid"?

Absolute craziness and self-destructiveness

What is Western Civilization, anyway?

Another Problem with Gary Johnson


Most spies aren't this cute. Jonathan Pollard certainly isn't. You know about Pollard? He's an Israeli spy. He's HERE. Now, the Chief Rabbi of Israel insists that Obama pardon Pollard or American Jews will keep him from being reelected. He said it, I didn't. Read about this latest exercise in chutzpah HERE.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Whither Africa?

Gary Johnson Declares

Educational disparities

More about School Bullying

Uppity Trailer Trash Redneck Woman Annoys Elite.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The new educational paradigm — lying

"Taxes MUST go up" — Obamessiah

More on Atlas Shrugged

When I read Atlas Shrugged in high school, I wasn't impressed. I couldn't have put it into words then, but I detected a Marxist substrate of some kind in it. That sounds paradoxical, and in a way it is. I think the reason is that it seems to derive all things from economics, a Marxist idea. Now, I think an understanding of economics is fundamental to coming up with any kind of workable political philosophy. However, it's necessary, but not sufficient. You also have to have an understanding of human nature, which is the realm of Darwinism and Evolutionary Psychology. Rand didn't seem to take any of that into consideration, which is a big, gaping hole in the philosophy she developed, known as 'Objectivism.' This lack leads to social atomism, which is the beginning of cultural collapse. On the other hand, Rand's philosophy is useful as far as it goes, because it damn well does teach us about economics. So we can say that while Marx and Rand both had a sort of tunnel vision that missed everything but economics, Rand got economics right, while Marx got it wrong. And Marx's followers got it even more wrong.

In the linked article, Trevor Lynch detects a fascist underpinning in Atlas Shrugged, which, come to think of it, is much like the Marxist sensibility I detect. That is, it's economics-centered, and, despite a lot of blather on the subject, fascism was at its core an economic philosophy. Well, most reviews of the movie are by Rand-lovers or Rand-haters. This one is neither, and has some interesting insights. Read it HERE.

Those Perfidious Germans

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Hijacking Jesus

Bullying — the latest trendy issue