Monday, November 30, 2015

Libertarian Tiers

I came across this basic meme on Facebook and cleaned it up a little, to fix the usage and to remove the pictures of people that I thought were a little inaccurate. (Lew Rockwell is, as far as I can tell, not a flat-out open borders guy.)

Below is the original. Now I can't find it on Facebook, and I'll add credit for its origin if somebody can tell me where it came from.

Friday, November 20, 2015

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Muslims are Peaceful and Tolerant....

If I hadn't heard her say this with my own ears, I'd have thought this was a hoax or at least an exaggerated misquote, because even Hillary couldn't be this ditzy, could she? She could. And is. This isn't some nuanced analysis of the situation, pointing out that Muslims aren't a monolithic group and therefore include people who actually are peaceful and tolerant, which I or anybody might agree with. No, this is a blanket statement that Muslims are peaceful and tolerant. My first reaction is the same that I have with a lot of such leftist pronouncements, which is to ask "Compared with who?" The trick would be to come up with a religion less peaceful and tolerant than Islam, at least one, so that the statement, however wrong, can be said to have some slight grain of truth in it. But, outside of maybe some hellish things lost in history, like the religion of the Aztecs, I frankly can't think of any. Can you?

Vox Day thinks this statement will put the skids under her. I hope so. This is from his blog at

Peaceful and tolerant people

So much for the idea that Donald Trump can't beat Hillary Clinton:
An acid-tongued Hillary Clinton ripped into conservatives on Thursday for what she said was an 'obsession in some quarters' with the notion that the global spread of terrorism is a byproduct of the Muslim faith, denying that the two are connected in any way.

'Islam itself is not our adversary,' the former secretary of state said during a campaign speech outlining her foreign policy objectives.

'Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.'
If Trump wins the Republican nomination, I would expect we're going to be seeing those words frequently over the next 12 months.

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.'
- Hillary Clinton

It's rather astonishing. Hillary Clinton may actually be a worse presidential candidate than Bob Dole and John McCain. It must be the Democrats' turn to throw the election.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, ten or so peaceful and tolerant people who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism have attacked a Radisson hotel in Mali and hold 170 hostages there.

UPDATE: Le Monde reports that the Malian security ministry has confirmed three deaths so far in the siege.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Close your mind and open your borders

There are two things that Obama says it's offensive to worry about — Muslim terrorists and Israeli spies. The first he's welcoming to cross our border, and the second he's planning to turn loose so he can cross our border the other way [link]. So it would be bigoted and offensive to oppose either one of these two great ideas. Or so say an incredible number of flaky liberals all over the media, including the internet, using all sorts of twisted logic and irrelevant emotional outbursts. The best part is countless shots of harmless-looking Syrian women toting babies sucking on pacifiers around. Footage of violent young male thugs are somehow less popular with the media, despite the fact that they represent a pretty large percentage of these vibrant refugees.

Over at,
Seventh Son elaborates on this strange tendency of nonWhite refugees to want to live in a country full of White bigots like this one:

Open Borders as an Admission of White Supremacy

Steve Jobs looked pretty White to me. I'm not embarrassed to admit my ignorance of his lineage, as it has only just become (ironically) relevant at this point in the current year. As far as I was concerned up until this week, the graying entrepreneur from Silicon Valley in the goofy black turtleneck & skinny jeans was a White dude. A captain of industry and a life lived that most likely is worthy of a melodramatic biopic starring Young Magneto (who did nothing wrong, PBUH). Meanwhile the best Steve Wozniak can muster up is a cameo on The Big Bang Theory and a Cadillac commercial showing off his sweet turntable and vinyl collection.
But let us not digress into Apple counter-signalling (my Samsung Galaxy buzzes in my pocket as I type this); let us look at What Liberals Actually Believe, and what they want us to believe. For the sake of argument here, we'll have to put aside our objections to the laughably faulty premise that the Syrian migrants are refugees from civil war rather than incoming healthy male combatants carrying out a clandestine invasion of the West. We can take them at their word that the infamous bowl of M&M's is only 1% poisoned, rather than an actual bowl of poison, and still blow them out.
Outspoken Facebook liber(al)tarian Jeffrey Tucker thinks that by refusing the poisoned bowl of M&M's, we as a country (as a civilization if we allow Europe into the conversation) would be passing up potential future Steve Jobses. This no doubt would be a great loss, had Jobs' father been refused entry into the US. Nothing other than weak speculation could inform us on what would have happened to the world of computing and mobile devices should that have occurred. We could comfort ourselves with the notion that space-time cannot be disrupted and the iPhone 6 was an inevitable Force of Nature that could not be stopped with or without Jobs. Checkmate, open borders cucks! Or we could sit here and pretend that technology would have stood still in the mid-80s, and we'd all still be using those clunky modems Matthew Broderick used to dial up the WOPR and start a nuclear war in War Games. (The only winning move is to pretend there is no conflict and not engage!)
Dilemma: Without migrants, we'd have no suicide bombings, but we'd have to do all our dank meming with this device.
Falling back to the idea that the migration of low-class, unskilled, illiterate victims of regional violence is actually a mob of superstar business visionaries trying to gain entry to the West for the purpose of using her economic climate to carry out their no doubt profitable and innovative plans is what the open borders lib does when challenged on the notion that a nation's borders are imaginary lines that anyone should be allowed to cross just because. If they're so damned imaginary, what is so important on the other side of them that people take such great risks to cross them? What is it here that is so taken for granted, yet deemed so indispensable to existence by these liberals that they see no risk in sharing it with these unfortunates? Here, were we dealing with honest humans and not the sheep followers of reptilian volcano worshippers, the lib would have to force himself to admit that the people on the other side of these regrettable lines have erected institutions, infrastructures, and avenues to success that the migrants wish to take advantage of.
Why haven't the interlopers built their own back home? The Crusades? Racism? Capitalism? (Wait, that can't be it...they're coming to the West to become bourgeois middle class liberals...which narrative are we doing again?)
The real dirty trick here is that liberals do recognize what we have on this side of our precious lines on the map. They acknowledge it as "White Privilege" because referring to it as "White Supremacy" or "White Authority" is problematic, exclusionary and something something intersectional stereotype threat ablist whatever. But they do understand White Supremacy; they just for (((whatever reason))) only understand it in the context of something to be fought.
But not always. They trip themselves up and in the fight against White Supremacy, they actually spread it and in the process annihilate the cultural identities of those they are trying to protect from it. Think about it. What do liberals want out of "diversity?" A population consisting of people with different levels of melanin who all share the same opinions as they do, and all can do a passing impersonation of mid- to upper-middle-class White liberals when visible. To the liberal, race is a social construct, ethnicity is meaningless and all culture is learned. Therefore, the foreigners can be molded into a facsimile of what the White West has painted onto our Civilizational canvas over the centuries; the nuclear family, light consumerism, suburban homes, sports and schools, television, and I guess transgenderism, ubiquitous pornography and cheeseburgers. We're all human, therefore we can all be SWPLs. (Except toothless Appalachian White Christians. They're not human at all!)
What else does the liberal want out of diversity? Food. Tacos. Kebab. Kimchi. Shawarma. They want to see an international cast of characters accompanying them on their sidewalks. Scenery. Window Dressing. A hijab on a woman's head is a quaint oddity, rather than a chilling symbol of submission to the animalistic, uncontrollable sexual urges of the men in her culture. They see the human race as a petting zoo created for their amusement. They can just give these strange creatures some funky feed pellets in exchange for being entertained by their walk-on role in their progressive life story before going back home to the White enclave from which they judge everyone who doesn't get it.
What else? Economics. These people "will do jobs Americans don't want." Which can only be read as "will do work for low pay for which Americans won't settle." The warriors against White Supremacy want the migrant hordes here for slave labor. Note that if you press a liberal on cheap immigrant labor that doesn't contribute to the Treasury, he is quick to inform you that these people tend to pay more in taxes because they can't legally file for their refunds.
The warriors against White Supremacy want the foreigners not only for Slave Labor, but as an illicit source of tax revenue. Doubly slaves.
In the end, what do we end up with? A bunch of actual violent death at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in Paris. Sweden overrun with brown rapists. Jihadi Imams telling us to our faces what their plan is, only to have the targets blame themselves for the violence instead. And here, stateside, the first reports of a migrant family landing in Cincinnati. How quaint. Middle class sensibilities and casual dress, and oh, what's that? Seven children?
Jeffrey Tucker has told us that humanity is more important than politics. I wonder if he ever figured demographics into that equation. When the Standard Care/Harm Party is over, what will we have? The SWPLs annihilating their brown pets' identity, or the death of the West? How many turtleneck-clad tech-gurus are worth the cost?
 Quibcag: The grenade girl is, I believe, from Puella Magi Madoka Magica (魔法少女まどか☆マギカMahō Shōjo Madoka Magika, "Magical Girl Madoka Magica")

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Leftist Logic Exhibit #9723828

And the bleat goes on.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Fred on Mizzou

Elsewhere on the net a leftie friend of mine was just caterwauling about how the poor Blacks at the University of Missouri are treated. You know, everybody keeps calling them the N-word and burning crosses in their laps. They're so intimidated that they're afraid to do anything, except that they just basically overthrew the University administration. He's a decent guy, that friend, so he disagrees with me courteously. Other lefties on the board, however, started screeching 'racist,' which is their way.

My point was much the same as Fred's below — the Black football players, of course are almost certainly coddled, violent morons. And the Black students, we can be confident, are mostly in way over their heads academically. Do the math. Let's say that you need an IQ of 100 or more to function in a college. Whites average 100, so about half of Whites can usefully go to college. But Blacks average 85. So look at what percentage fall over 100 on this diagram. So how many Blacks at college are out of their depth and looks to blame Whitey for it? Again, think about the math. Colleges have quota systems, official or otherwise, that required them to admit a percentage of Blacks, usually proportional to the percentage of Blacks in the country.

Therefore the most prestigious universities are going to grab all the Blacks that qualify, and a bunch more who don't, but who might make it in second-tier schools. That group is therefor not available to the second-tier schools, who grab the next-lowest Black scorers. And so on, therefor guaranteeing that Blacks in college are virtually all out of their depth. Tom Sowell pointed all this out years ago. Such young Blacks are frustrated at not fitting in, and of course blame Whitey for their situation.

This is from Taki Mag [link]

Missouri: Taking the National Temperature
It warms the heart of a curmudgeon: As I suppose we all have heard by now, black semi-pro football players at the University (sic) of Missouri have forced white officials to resign because of “White Privilege.” This Privilege is a great upsettance to them.
White Privilege is real, of course. It is a combination of high genetic intelligence, studiousness, a tendency toward intellectual exploration, the capacity to organize, sustained hard work, and conscientiousness. There is a reason why whites design Mars landers and black athletes do not.
To make this point clearly (See? It is my tendency toward intellectual exploration), let us consider the following questions:
How many of the black athletes, or black radicals at Missouri, or anywhere, have any business being at a university? How many have IQs below ninety? How many are way below? How many are studying real subjects, such as chemistry, languages, philosophy, literature, or history—as distinct from subjects for the enfeebled, Black Studies, Sociology, Education, and Breathing for Credit?
How many of the jocks can read? In many universities the black athletes are kept in special dorms and get high grades for courses they never attend and can’t spell. Is that happening in Missouri? Can we see their SATs? No one, I promise, will want to check.
Stray thought: If universities accepted only those with intelligence and interest, the noise level would drop appreciably. I am for it.
But the antics at Missouri are only one instance of a far larger disease. Daily the country ties itself in knots to keep blacks happy, which is impossible—to placate them, to soothe their disturbances, give them everything they want but can’t or won’t earn. Nothing satisfies them. They shut down political meetings, loot shoe stores, burn cities. We back away. Always we back away.
We give and give and give—Head Start, Section Eight housing, AFDC, Obamaphones, medical care, free rides at university. If they can’t pass a test, we abolish the test and apologize, apologize, apologize. Do they want to burn Baltimore? We back away, give them space, for they are troubled youth. And we apologize. It never stops.
Nobody ever, ever, tells them “No.” Might this be called Black Privilege?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Technically, Rika Shiguma isn't White, being Japanese and all, but she is a scientist and definitely is not a Black athlete. 

A View of Paris from Old Blighty

The UK, that is. This may be slightly behind the curve, newswise, because new news items are showing up constantly this morning, but the reasoning is robust and long-lasting. Do keep in mind that this is written by a Brit. I'll have an afterword. It was first printed here [link[.

Paris: A Few Political Points to Make

I disagree that it is crude to make a political point out of atrocities such as that in Paris yesterday. Bad politics causes these attacks and better politics can prevent them. Here are a few political points I’d like to make.
In the first place, most of us have imperfect information about the events of last night. I was flicking back and forth from Sky to BBC, who, in turn, were getting their most reliable information from BFM. Even as I write, the death toll is disputed as is the question of whether the terrorists definitely were Muslims.
Terrorism scares people in this country. It scares them to the point that they will lie back and think of the State as the anti-terror legislation is rammed through Parliament.
I imagine attitudes are similar in France. I don’t know the specifics of the anti-terror legislation in France, but I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that powers of the state have increased since January, though I understand they may presently have rather more rights to privacy and so forth than we have. Last night, I predicted that President Hollande would respond one of two ways: either he would argue that without the existing surveillance and police powers there would have been more deaths, and leave it at that; or he would demand more such powers. From his statement today, it seems he has opted for the latter.
The “international community” has responded. Obama says this is an attack on “humanity”. Cameron has pledged his support. In France, 15000 military men are in Paris. The French border is closed. There is a “state of emergency.” With such a response, I think, rather like after 9/11, we can kiss goodbye to any open debates on the collection of metadata. All the usual “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” legislation will be passed. Furthermore, Britain’s intervention in Syria will once again be on the cards. If the Commons rejects it again, Cameron will use the royal prerogative powers this time. All-in-all, this is not good for freedom.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am, as many of you will know, vehemently opposed to mass-immigration. It is tantamount to subsidised trespass. As for the latest wave of immigration, it is appalling and must be stopped, and indeed reversed. Closing the borders temporarily, followed by voluntary but encouraged repatriation of recent immigrants would also help to abate racial and religious tensions.
But it strikes me as absurd to blame “the immigrants” or even “immigration” for this. For one thing, if the reports that ISIS committed last night’s atrocities are correct, then these are the very same US-backed lunatics that have helped to wreck Syria and Iraq in the first place. In other words, if you blame the recent wave of immigrants in their entirety for last night’s attacks, you are barking up the wrong tree. These terrorists are the people that many of the immigrants have come to Europe to avoid. I am not arguing that the immigrants had a right to come here. I am merely pointing out that many did not want to.
So we should have a think about how to help them go home. One thing we need to do is to stop bombing their countries. At the moment, there is a five-way civil war in Syria. It seems to me that of all the bombing, only Russia is seriously bombing ISIS. As for the intention of the British State, it seems to be simple regime change, since the plan is for “no fly zones” which would impact Assad and not ISIS. The situation in Syria alone is mind-bogglingly complex. Step one in resolving it is for the western states at the very least to let well alone where bombing is concerned.
The US is supporting the “moderate rebels” in Syria who will no doubt become the ISIS of 2016. ISIS is already kitted out with $1bn worth of US armoured vehicles, and more besides. I heard from someone recently that the ISIS fighters are being supplied with drugs by the Americans that make them think they are invincible – this may or may not be true. Step two in helping the immigrants go home, then, has to be to stop funding the men on the ground who are destroying their countries.
These two steps would not only help sort out Syria and the rest of the Middle East, but they would also make us a damn sight safer. Formerly US mercenaries, ISIS has now got out of control to the point that the western powers are trying, but failing to contain them. ISIS has allegedly claimed responsibility for last night’s attacks. Their reason was clear: France is meddling in Syria and meddling with ISIS. If we get out of the Middle East, neither funding nor bombing, I think we’ll find that the terrorists are less interested in bombing our countries.
I shall recommend one further measure to make us safer. No, not ID cards. Not internet censorship. Not arming the police. What we need to do is remove all gun control legislation. Guns are excellent equalisers. The saying goes that God made man, but Sam Colt made him equal. If you are an honest person in this country, or any of the western countries except to some extent America, and you want to get a gun for self-defence, you can’t. If you are a criminal and you want to get a gun, that’s easy. So what we have is a situation where the criminals are armed and the victims are not. What we have is a situation where, if a terrorist lunatic with an automatic rifle decides that he wants to kill a few innocent civilians, he can do so with no effectual resistance against him. Arm the people instead and then see how many effective the terrorists are.
What I am saying is this: while it may be true that the recent, unprecedented wave of immigrants is undesirable, it was caused by our own states. This is not a time for moaning about immigration. This is instead a time to caution against hawkish foreign policy abroad and Big Brother police state measures at home. As Dr Gabb said last month at his talk to the Traditional Britain Conference, these people are not attacking us because they hate our freedom; if they hated our freedom, they would just sit at home and wait for it to disappear. Instead, they hate us because we are bombing their countries, funding and arming almost every side in the civil war, and asking them to be grateful for it. The solution to both the problems of the Middle East and the West is simple: more libertarianism, not less. No more interventionism and no police state, thank you very much.
I have no disagreements with Keir, not even quibbles. So, just a clarification or two and maybe an amplification: Again, you have to remember that this is written by a British libertarian, which is a somewhat different animal than the American variety. For example, the preponderance of Britlibertarian opinion is against open borders, and the dogma of open borders seems to be fundamental to orthodox libertarian thinking in the US, at least among the more loudmouthed American libertarians. But there are plenty, like me, who are very much against open borders. We consider the Founding Fathers a far better guide to libertarian principles than a bunch of neckbeards typing in their mothers' basements. So when he calls for "more libertarianism," I'm pretty sure he's not talking about the left-libertarianism of the US, which differs only slightly from liberalism. To put it another way, he's calling for more liberty for the British people, not more political correctness and mass immigration.

And I don't really disagree with Keir when he says that this is not a time for moaning about immigration, because, again, he's writing about the UK. In the US, it very much is a time for moaning about immigration, because, with the sole exception of Trump, all our leading politicians are determined to swamp us with millions of third world immigrants.

And, of course, he's right that we don't need a police state. What we need is a state with police who do what they're supposed to be doing. Deterring and catching criminals., including illegal aliens. If the police are relieved of their duties to harass law-abiding people about things that are none of the government's business, they'll have plenty of time to do their real jobs.
Quibcag: Don't know who did the illustration, but it's from here:

Friday, November 13, 2015

The Scoop on Missouri

I was talking to a casual acquaintance yesterday about the mess in Missouri, and she said something to the effect that the Black students might have a point. Now, she's clearly an intelligent person, and if she had the facts, she'd of course not think they have a point, so the only reason she could think that is the fact that the media have done their usual horrible job of reporting on anything at all that involves Blacks.

The truth of the matter is summed up in the quibcag here by Chateau Heariste [link[. I know, not really a quibcag because I couldn't find an anime illustration that fit as well as a burning American flag. We do forget that the vast majority of Black students at any college really aren't qualified to be there, but have been forced in by the courts, Affirmative Action, quota systems, etc., so of course they're going to be frustrated to be there, and will blame Whitey for their feelings.

So, if you've been relying on the media to keep you informed about Missouri, here's a helpful summary from Gavin McInnes: [link]

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Google PC (Prioritizes Correctly) Veterans' Day

From Ari Khazar:

I want to thank Google for the Veterans Day doodle, which shows White men in the background. With as little as we White men have done militarily for this country, I'm grateful they included us in it at all.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

The Feminist Fantasy World

As Bob Wallace has taught us, liberals live in a groovy little fantasy world [link], and as liberals go, the most liberal-ish are the feminists, so their little fantasy world is the grooviest of them all. In their little world, women are immensely powerful, but at the same time horribly vulnerable to mini-microaggressions and are constantly being raped. You might say that's illogical, but you'd be forgetting that logic is a weapon of the patriarchy, ore whatever the grooviest phrase is this week.

One feminist delusion is that feminists like Hillary Clinton or that ditz who drags the mattress around are more capable and powerful than non-feminist women, like Elizabeth I or Savitri Devi. Some, evidently, think that instead of making Hillary's ludicrous political career possible, Bill has somehow inhibited it.  From over at Just Not Said [link], John Craig knocks another one out of the park:

What would Hillary have been without Bill?

A Gail Collins article in the Sunday Review section of today's NY Times was titled Hillary in History. About halfway through the article is the following line:

When the question of whether Hillary would have risen to presidential status if she hadn’t been married to Bill comes up, her fans tend to argue that if she hadn’t gotten married at all, she’d probably have gotten to the same place quicker on her own.

If you ever doubt how delusionary Hillary fans are, just remember that. First of all, the odds of anyone -- no matter how politically talented -- will rise to the point where they are considered a viable Presidential candidate are minuscule. The path to the Presidency is a long, meandering, serpentine one that requires ambition, fortuitous circumstance, the right connections, willing accomplices, a friendly media, and usually, a ton of subterfuge.

There are lots of people with political ambition and talent who never make it. The formula for success is a tricky one far, far beyond any one person's control.

So the idea that any individual was somehow predestined from the start to end up with a major party nomination necessitates a leap of faith so large that it precludes any sense of how people actually ascend to that position.

Family connections can certainly help. Even the elder President Bush had a father who was a US Senator, Al Gore had a father who was a US Senator, and President Kennedy had a father who basically pushed him into the Presidency.

But the Rodhams were neither a political nor financial dynasty.

If you don't have those family connections, you have to be able to ingratiate yourself with those who can help your career. To do that, you must employ charm, humor, salesmanship, and a certain moral flexibility.

Hillary has only that last attribute.

So the idea that Hillary would "probably have gotten to the same place quicker on her own" is as ludicrous as saying that George W. Bush would have risen to the Presidency even if his father hadn't been President. Or that Donald Trump would be the Republican frontrunner if he was a blue collar worker with a net worth of $50,000. Or that a less-than-one-full-term Senator from Illinois with no legislative accomplishments would have been elected President if he hadn't been black.

The difference is, you don't hear any of those statements from Bush, Trump, or Obama supporters. Only Hillary's supporters are that insane.

if Hillary hadn't been married to Bill, it's not hard to imagine where she would have ended up. She might have been a small time lawyer in Chicago. Or, with a little luck, a partner at a larger law firm. She might have been a college professor, maybe in law, or maybe in a subject closer to her heart, like Women's Studies. Or, she might have ended up as an organizer for NOW.

She probably would have been fairly successful at any of those occupations. She's smart enough, and probably would have been fairly successful at currying favor within the Women's Studies Department, or among the other functionaries at NOW.

But the idea that the political powerbrokers in Illinois, Arkansas, or anywhere else would have taken a look at this woman --

-- and thought to themselves, "Yep, there's the charisma we're going to ride all the way to the White House" is just not credible.

Bill was known to have the ability to make every person he spoke to feel special. He was quick on his feet, charming, and humorous. He could appear patriotic when that was called for, contrite when that was called for, angry when that was called for, and compassionate when that was called for. He may have been none of those things, but he knew how to project those emotions because he was a great salesman, and a consummate seducer. (He was, after all, a sociopath.)

And even with all that going for him, he needed a tremendous amount of luck.

Hillary is by nature stiff, brittle, and (genuinely) angry. During the '08 primary campaign, Obama was criticized for having said, lukewarmly, that Hillary was "likable enough." He was actually being generous.

If Hillary hadn't married Bill, you'd never have heard of her.
Quibcag: Not really a quibcag, of course, because that's Julianna Margulies, not some Anime cutie-pie.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Odin sees you when you're waking....

It's not too early for a Christmas post, is it?
Guest post by Matt Bailey

"Merry Christmas", "Good Yule", "Keep the Saturn in Saturnalia", and even "Merry f*cking Xmas you Heathen!" etc are all acceptable to me. Such phraseology acknowledges the unassailable fact that this season is the supreme Midwinter Festival of the Eurofolk. Snowflakes, Baby Jesus popping out of Mary at the wrong time of year, Evergreen Trees, Mistletoe, Charlie Brown, and most important of all, our watchful All-Father, Santa-Odin. "Happy Holidays" is, by the same logic, a thrown gauntlet, because it is a lame attempt to put a Jewish oil festival (that for most of Judaic history was relatively unimportant) and a fictional "African" festival invented by a goddamned commie in the same league. It's a WESTERN CIVILIZATION thing, you degenerates! By Thor's beard, this season I'd rather walk by ten thousand baby Jesuses (Jesus'? Jesusii?) positioned rather ironically in mangers beside bespangled pagan Trees than deal with watered-down, let's-include-everyone-including-people-who-want-to-Jihad-our-asses multicultural crap.
A previous post on Odin-as-Santa here:

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Bizarre Moment quibcag

Found this gem over at:  Had Enough Therapy?

HBD Chick and the Spectator

Let me blather about this a bit before you read it. I read HBD Chick all the time, and you should, too. She has a way of locating fascinating material here and there, and has lots of original insights of her own into the subject of Human BioDiversity.

That said, I want to say that I agree almost entirely with the quibcag here, and I'be been thinking that way ever since Darwin was first explained to me by Robert Ardrey [link]. People who don't think that way seem to be completely rudderless on a sea of data about humanity. Since they don't understand what causes human problems, of course they have no idea what the solutions might be, but they certainly think they know, and come up with 'solutions' that almost aways make the problems worse. Indeed, you might define liberalism as the deliberate unscientific approach to human affairs.

But there's at least one partial exception, and it is partial. Over the centuries, Christian theologians and philosophers have analyzed the human condition, and have also come up with some good rule-of-thumb ways of coping with our deficiencies and problems. Of course, Christians whose philosophies have been tainted by liberalism do not come up with good solutions or anything good at all, and sometimes are even worse than their secular liberal counterparts.

But those Christian thinkers whose minds have not been addled by liberalism — C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesteron spring to mind — quite frequently come to pretty much the same conclusions, for different reasons (sometimes) as Darwinists like me do.

Of course, from an evolutionary biology perspective, such Christian responses have themselves evolved into being the way other behavior does.

And now, from HBD Chicks blog [link] (Oh, lest it throw you off, note here that she tends to use the Archy Cockroach lower case devise in most of what she writes.  So the below isn't a typo.)

spectacular stuff in the spectator!

must be something in the water at the spectator. too much fluoride maybe. first this week i caught this by toby young (via somebody, i can’t remember who…prolly ed west, another crimethinker. my emphasis):
“We all try to improve our children’s life chances but how they turn out is mostly in their genes
“I’ve been doing some thinking recently about the findings of behavioural geneticists and their implications for education policy. For instance, a study of more than 10,000 twins found that GCSE results are nearly 60 per cent heritable. (This research, by Robert Plomin, was first revealed in The Spectator.) So genetic differences between children account for almost 60 per cent of the variation in their GCSE results, with the environment, such as the schools they go to, accounting for less than 40 per cent. One very obvious implication of this research is that we may need to lower our expectations when it comes to the impact schools can make on the underlying rate of social mobility.
“But behavioural geneticists are upending our assumptions in other areas, too. Parenting, for example. Most middle-class parents, me included, believe that how you bring up your children has a major impact on their life chances. That’s why we spend so much energy on getting them to put down their screens, do their homework, practise the piano, etc. But, as The Spectator also pointed out back in 2013, if you look at some of the biggest determinants of success — IQ, conscientiousness, grit — they are far more heritable than we like to imagine. Our children’s destinies aren’t set in stone from the moment of conception, but the difference that a good parent makes is fairly negligible. The one crumb of comfort I’ve been able to dig up is that the ability to give and receive love isn’t very heritable. Perhaps that’s something we can teach our children?
What about art? One disturbing consequence of discovering that many of our personality differences have a basis in genetics is that plenty of western art — particularly popular arts, like Hollywood movies and genre fiction — turns out to be a lie. I’m thinking of stories that involve a hero going on a transformative journey and, in the process, changing from a passive, half-alive individual to being master of his own destiny.
“But behavioural genetics teaches us that people rarely switch personality type after a pivotal experience. On the contrary, people seek out those environments that accentuate their genetic predispositions. In real life, those remarkable individuals that seem to cheat fate in some way are in virtually every case genetically exceptional. If they are more wilful than their peers, more imaginative, more energetic, it’s because, to a great extent, that’s the way God made them. They may feel like the authors of their own lives, but that’s just a vainglorious self-deception. Wittgenstein came up with a good metaphor for this particular illusion. He said human beings are like autumn leaves being blown about in the wind, saying: ‘Now I’m going to go this way, now I’m going to go that way….’”
brilliant! (i really liked the literature/art insight.) read the whole thing at the spectaor, ’cause there’s more…and it’s good.
but that wasn’t all the thoughtcrime at the spectator this week. then there was this! by rory sutherland (h/t joe brewer! – my emphasis):
“He observed that human groups that have developed favourable moral habits are the ones that succeed
“Hayek: ‘Our basic problem is that we have three levels of moral beliefs. We have, in the first instance, our intuitive moral feelings, which are adapted to the small person-to-person society, where we act toward people that we know. Then we have a society run by moral traditions, which — unlike what modern rationalists believe — are not intellectual discoveries of men who designed them. They are an example of a process that I now prefer to describe by the biological term of group selection.
“‘Those groups that quite accidentally developed favourable habits, such as a tradition of private property and the family, succeed but they never understood this.
“‘So we owe our present extended order of human co-operation very largely to a moral tradition, of which the intellectual does not approve because it had never been intellectually designed. It has to compete with a third level of moral beliefs; the morals that intellectuals design in the hope that they can better satisfy man’s instincts than the traditional rules.
“‘And we live in a world where the three moral traditions are in constant conflict: the innate ones, the traditional ones, and the intellectually designed ones…. You can explain the whole of social conflicts of the last 200 years by the conflict of the three…’.
“If this is the kind of thing which interests you, allow me a small plug for — a new website which features views from people on the left and right who are agreed about one thing: that for economic and political thought to make useful progress, it needs to be informed by evolutionary biology. This seems a very necessary exercise, since any attempt to understand morality, politics, economics or business without reference to evolutionary biology is ridiculous. As I explain to my children, ants are Marxist, dogs are Burkean-conservatives and cats are libertarians.”
what the h*ll, spectator?! keep this up and i may have to become a subscriber!

Quibcag: Since Sutherland fails to mention rabbits in the quote (I'm sure they're basically Democrats), I've used Mikuru, of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu), in her bunny suit as the illustration. I should also mention that there are cats who are libertarians, and then there are well-fed housecats, totally dependent on the kindness of their owners. They, too, think that they're libertarians, and are, if anything, more insistent on it than actual cats/libertarians :)

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Ideology Versus Science

Yesterday's blog post was about Ideas Versus Facts [link] and that's just another way of saying Ideology Versus Science. Now, an ideology is supposed to be a theory/prescription of human behavior based on observed facts and tested by later observed facts. That's what it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, ideologies, whatever their origin, can become very reality-resistant, and when facts show up that invalidate the ideologies, the adherents tend to either ignore the facts or distort them to the extent of lying about them.

But another way ideologies defend themselves, so to speak, is by making up facts, and since actual concrete facts are observable for the most part, such made-up facts tend to be very vague and not falsifiable. So much so, that John Derbyshire refers to such facts as 'magic.' This is from the Unz Review [link].

Why Race Realism Makes More Sense Than “Magic Dirt” Theory

I’m a race realist. What does that mean?
It means I don’t doubt that race is a real and important thing; more than that, it’s fundamental to biology.
TitleP-Darwin-OnTheOriginOfSpecies-WhitmanFirstEdition1859[1] The foundational text of modern biology is Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, subtitle: “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life.” By “races” Darwin meant local varieties of a species.
Any widely distributed species exhibits local varieties—races. If local varieties are left alone for long enough, breeding mainly within their local groups, they diverge. If left alone for way long enough, they diverge so far that members of local group A over here can no longer interbreed with members of local group B over there. The different races have then become different species.
That’s the origin of species. That’s what Darwin’s book is about.
How long is long enough? That depends how intense is the pressure of selection driving the divergence. Animal breeders, practicing artificial selection, can get noticeable divergence in a few tens of generations. The Russian zoologist Dmitry Belyaev bred tame Siberian foxes from very wild ones in just forty generations. He got significant tameness in just five generations.
Natural selection doesn’t work that fast; but if selection pressures are strong enough, tens of generations are enough for observable divergence. And it depends on what you mean by “natural.” Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending have argued that the high mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews developed across a thousand years—say forty generations—as a result of rigidly-enforced social practices and norms. [Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence, Journal of Biosocial Science, September 2006]
The major continental-scale human races have been more or less separated, often in very different environments with different selection pressures, for hundreds of generations. The really big split, between the group that left Africa and the group that stayed there, happened from fifty to seventy thousand years ago—two or three thousand generations. Expect lots of divergence between the human races.
Darwin didn’t know how heritability worked. He knew that some traits are heritable—everybody knows that—but he didn’t know the mechanism. Now we know it: The mechanism is genetics.
Read the rest here:
Quibcag:  Again we have scientist Rika Shiguma, of Haganai (はがない)

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Ideas Versus Facts

Ideas are great. In the history of mankind, ideas have led to remarkable things. All inventions, from the wheel to the space station, are ideas. Most all discoveries, from fire to the New World, at least started with ideas.  But all such ideas were tested by facts before they bore any fruit. You had to actually make the wheel and see if it worked before it amounted to anything. And so on to the space station. For every idea that worked, a lot of them never worked, or didn't work as well at other ideas, so they were discarded.

The scariest ideas are ideas about mankind — ideas about how mankind can or should live. This has produced systems all the way from Pharaoh-worship to communism to capitalism. And, unlike wheels, testing such ideas can get really expensive in terms of blood and treasure.

And even when bad ideas — and in politics they are usually called 'ideologies' — are tested, sometimes they endure anyway, because while they don't work for humanity in general, they lead to big advantages for those who administer the ideologies. Communism didn't work for Russia, but it worked very well for communist leaders who gained enormous wealth and power from the idea.

Liberalism is an idea that's been tested and found wanting over and over again, but which is still such a neat idea to a lot of people that it keeps on thrashing around, like the Monster Who Would Not Die.

So when your ideology starts veering away from facts, there's something wrong with your ideology, and it needs to be discarded or at least modified to fit the facts. Unfortunately, some ideologies are so precious to their adherents that facts are modified to fit the ideology, rather than vice-versa.

Indeed, that's the basic difference between flaky libertarianism and what I call libertarian nationalism. The former has become an ideology that ignores any facts that don't fit it, while the latter modifies itself to correspond with the facts, aka reality.

The most obvious manifestation of this is the ZNAP (the Zero/Non Aggression Principle) which states that it's immoral to initiate force in any way at any time. If that's your ideology, of course you can't forcibly prevent illegal aliens from entering your country, and therefore you doom your ideology to self-destruction, because millions of third-worlders can be counted on to vote against everything that libertarians believe in.

And that's just within the libertarian movement. Stuart Schneiderman deals with the ideology/realism schism in a more general way at Had Enough Therapy?

When Big Ideas Produce Pseudo-Religions

Why do certain big ideas produce manias? Why do intelligent people allow themselves to be consumed by one big idea? Why do true believers become fanatical to the point where they believe that they hold a complete purchase on the truth? And, why do they want to impose their political program on everyone, regardless of what everyone else, the unenlightened masses, wants?

Because, in the end, ideological zealots feel most threatened by your freedom, your freedom to choose how to live your life.

Why is it, in other words, that zealots are so easily drawn to calls for tyranny? This morning Bret Stephens asked this question. Coming fast upon Bill Gates’s pronouncement that only socialism can save the world from climate change, it comes not a moment too soon. See my recent post about the Climate Change Mania.

And ask yourself this: what made Bill Gates think that he is an authority on climate science? What made him think that he could see the future and that his vision was scientific truth? What made him think that he should impose himself on the world? Was it because he’s richer than anyone else?  Or was it because his foundation’s financial support for Common Core had produced such a rousing success?

Intellectual manias persist, regardless of the facts, because they offer membership in cults that are based on belief and conviction.

Nate Silver once remarked that some theories are idea-driven and that some are fact-driven. An idea driven theory begins with a narrative fiction. It's not about trying to discover the truth but to convince you that this narrative is true. 

Believers will try to persuade you of the absolute truth of the narrative by cherry-picking "facts" that appear to make it look true. If you begin with an idea, Plato argued, facts will be reduced to appearances. They only have value if they make it appear that the narrative is true.

Those who promulgate idea-driven narratives will assert that there is no such thing as a fact that can disprove the idea. When a fact seems to disprove an idea its proponents will explain that this is only apparent, because their idea represents a higher truth. Generally, this truth amounts to the truth of desire. Being as you cannot be said to desire something that you really have, your desire is always detached from reality. 

Zealots are attracted to such narratives because they no longer have to deal with uncertain outcomes. It's like a game of heads I win/tails you lose. They find great solace in playing with loaded dice.

If your thinking is fact-based or empirical, you do not begin with an idea or a narrative. You begin by collecting data. Then you formulate a hypothesis and run an experiment to test it. If the results prove the hypothesis, well and good. If they do not, you can dispose of the idea.

For this process to work, philosopher Karl Popper famously said, you must admit beforehand that some experimental results can disprove the hypothesis or falsify the theory. 

And you must, physicist Richard Feynman added, report all of the results. You cannot do science if you cherry-pick the data you want to report.  

When Popper developed his theory of falsifiability nearly seven decades ago, he was considering, among other things, whether Freudian psychoanalysis was a science. He concluded that it was not. He saw that the theory, as constructed by Freud did not admit to the possibility that any fact could disprove it. In a strange way Freud was inviting you to take it on faith.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summarizes Popper:

… nothing could, even in principle, falsify psychoanalytic theories. These latter, Popper came to feel, have more in common with primitive myths than with genuine science. That is to say, he saw that what is apparently the chief source of strength of psychoanalysis, and the principal basis on which its claim to scientific status is grounded, viz. its capability to accommodate, and explain, every possible form of human behaviour, is in fact a critical weakness, for it entails that it is not, and could not be, genuinely predictive. Psychoanalytic theories by their nature are insufficiently precise to have negative implications, and so are immunised from experiential falsification.

All psychoanalysts know what Popper said. For decades now they have lived in a state of denial. They believe that when the facts seem to contradict their ideas, it’s a test of their faith. In Freudian psychoanalysis does not teach you to repress inconvenient truths, what good is it?

As you know, I wrote a book The Last Psychoanalyst to demonstrate the point. There I argued that psychoanalysis began as a pseudo-science and became a pseudo-religion.

For his part Stephens begins with the idea of the population explosion. It was concocted by noted entomologist Paul Ehrlich. In 1968 Ehrlich predicted that the earth’s population would soon overwhelm its resources. Given the imminent danger, women would have to be prevented from having too many children… by whatever means necessary.

This could easily give rise to a tyranny like China’s recently discarded one-child policy, but it might also lead people to glorify sexual behaviors that are contraceptively foolproof.

As for the facts of the case, Stephens refutes Ehrlich easily:

The idea of a population bomb was always preposterous: The world’s 7.3 billion people could fit into an area the size of Texas, with each person getting 1,000 square feet of personal space. Food has never been more abundant. As for resource scarcity, the fracking revolution reminds us that scarcity is not so much a threat to mankind as it is an opportunity for innovation.

Stephens explains that today's liberalism involves "would-be believers in search of a true faith." I would add that it involves people whose anomie has so completely detached them from their social moorings in their nations that they are desperately seeking a cult to belong to.

In Stephens' words:

Modern liberalism is best understood as a movement of would-be believers in search of true faith. For much of the 20th century it was faith in History, especially in its Marxist interpretation. Now it’s faith in the environment. Each is a comprehensive belief system, an instruction sheet on how to live, eat and reproduce, a story of how man fell and how he might be redeemed, a tale of impending crisis that’s also a moral crucible.

In short, a religion without God. I sometimes wonder whether the journalists now writing about the failure of the one-child policy ever note the similarities with today’s climate “crisis.” That the fears are largely the same. And the political prescriptions are almost identical. And the leaders of the movement are cut from the same cloth. And the confidence with which the alarmists prescribe radical cures, their intolerance for dissenting views, their insistence on “global solutions,” their disdain for democratic input or technological adaptations—that everything is just as it was when bell-bottoms were in vogue.

Apparently, everyone needs something to believe in. Having dispensed with the God of the Bible, today’s liberals are not merely looking for big ideas to worship, but they are looking for cult leaders, for great geniuses who can become the figureheads of new, inviting cults.

Quibcag:  Illustrated by the science girl, Rika Shiguma, of Haganai (はがない)