Radix observes the panic on the left when Rachel Dolezal was revealed as transracial, wearing chocolate covered makeup over her naturally fair skin, dieing her blond straight hair black and curling it into tiny tight curls.
Melissa Harris-Perry, once called “America’s foremost public intellectual” by one of her fellow affirmative action scholars, had real terror in her eyes as she desperately tried to reconcile “transracial” people with “transgenders” without an inadvertent faux pas
…
… none of the brave independent thinkers rebelling against social norms have been told what the “right” side is yet, and so they remain paralyzed with fear and indecision.
Anti slavery people were always evil scum, and the modern left walks in their evil and hateful footsteps.
The Africa Association was founded to explore and economically develop africa. It came completely under the control of anti slavery people, and changed its purpose to opposing slavery and humanizing blacks, showing that the left were entryists back then as they are now.
So then as now, they engaged in perjury to accuse innocent people of grave crimes.
William Wilberforce, the founder of the anti slavery movement, purported to be an Anglican and to subscribe to the 39 articles, that being at the time a requirement to be allowed near the levers of power, but his claim was fraudulent, making him an apostate, for his church claimed that members of his church were saints, and regular Anglicans were not – and again, the left has not changed since then.
He should have been enslaved for apostasy in office, and sent to the West Indies, and if he had been England and the British Empire would still be going fine.
The libertarian position has always been to go with the left on everything except economic leftism.
As the left abandons economic leftism, and at the same time goes lefter and lefter, this leaves libertarians indistinguishable from leftists, and libertarians going lefter and lefter.
And as the left goes frothing at the mouth batshit insane, the libertarians froth with equal enthusiasm.
Police responded to a fight that had broken out between a girl and a mother. A video of the encounter establishes that the fight did indeed take place, but it only involved a couple people—not the large swath of teenagers who were later detained by officers. When the officers arrived, they treated all the minority teenagers as suspects and ignored the white kids.
The problem was not that a fight had broken out. The problem was that a fight had broken out because a bunch of black teenagers had invaded someone else’s pool without permission.
So Reason magazine no longer supports your property rights if you are white.
Dalrymple reviews the poor sexual choices of an underclass woman, Tina Nash, who lived a very nice lifestyle on aid to her neglected absolutely fatherless children. She was into horseback riding, possessed disc-jockey equipment costing $3,200 had a car, had a 42-inch plasma television in her living room while her children could watch a second TV in their bedroom.
Two conclusions are obvious from his review: Poverty is not caused by lack of money, you can be poor while having a host of luxuries at taxpayer expense, and that this woman should never have been allowed to make her own sexual choices. She should have been forced to sleep with one man, that man able and willing to support her and her children, forbidden to sleep with any other, and subject to corporal punishment if she failed to sleep with her owner, or slept with some other man.
I know some high IQ high income upperclass women whose emotional maturity is no better than that of Tina Nash, and who made a pile of choices equally bad, but somehow avoided similar consequences – such as pregnancy and violence resulting in lasting injury. Since they demonstrably had the ability to think about the future, I suppose they should have been given a limited choice of men willing and able to support them and their children, and having made their choice once and forever, thereafter forced to sleep with and only with their husbands. And some women, like Tina Nash and her mother, cannot be trusted with even that much choice.
There are a great many people who just are not capable of making the choices needed to navigate the modern world, most of them female or black. They should be under the control of someone else.
I know a high IQ high socioeconomic status woman who from age eleven to age thirty slept with a parade of low lifes, some them as or more dangerous as anyone Tina Nash slept with. Then getting older, when being a total slut starts to look disgusting rather than alluring, cleaned up her act, revirginated, started pursuing nice guys with good careers ahead of them, married a nice high IQ engineer with a good future ahead of him, and proceeded to pump out lots of lovely children. But what she was from preteen to the age when the clicking of her biological clock started to get ominous was disgusting and should not have been permitted. The marriage seems happy enough, but really, should he have to have a wife that has been reamed by a long parade of dicks bigger than his dick, wielded by men who are, as women measure manliness, much more manly than he is?
I see another high IQ high socioeconomic status woman who at age thirty failed to clean up her act, slowly transitioned from alluring slut to disgusting slut, and is now transitioning to cat lady.
I know lots of high IQ career women who, when they see their children growing up, when the years that were most important to spend with their children have passed, then lean back from their jobs to spend time with their children.
Women just do not make good choices, and need to have their choices restrained and controlled by fathers and husbands. Females grow up faster than males, but they stop growing up at age eighteen. Women are never adults and should never be treated like adults or allowed to make adult choices, though when the hormones drop in menopause, they stop acting so crazy.
Interestingly, in mattress girl’s porn video, the male playing the rapist or abusive lover has his face blurred out, but mattress girl’s face is fully visible. Yet the man playing the abusive lover is a well known professional porn actor, who is presumably drawing pay for this role. He is an actor. No one is likely to confuse him with his role, for he has played so many roles, usually undignified roles with fat chicks. He cannot be embarrassed being seen putting his dick into a slut’s asshole. Is he embarrassed to be seen putting his dick into crazy?
I, you, and a couple of friends discover that a railroad bridge has been crucially weakened, and if a train goes over it, the train will fall. A train with a thousand people in it, a thousand strangers none of us have ever met, is rattling down the line to bridge.
One among us has his dog with him. If he ties his dog to the tracks the dog will be killed, but the train will stop to investigate the incident, thus saving a thousand lives.
I know human nature. If he ties his dog to the tracks to save a thousand strangers whose deaths he will not see, he will tie his dog to the tracks to gain a dollar, and if he ties his dog to the tracks to gain a dollar, he will tie me to the tracks to gain a dime.
The fatal flaw of utilitarianism is not the difficulty in comparing interpersonal utility. It is that there are in fact no utilitarians. Only evil people with overly clever stories justifying evil acts. Thus utilitarians always wind up killing a million innocent people to make an omelet, and wind up with no omelet.
The politically correct account of the inner cities is that white people made them into shitholes in order to hurt black people.
But, if you look at the ruins, there are a bunch of really nice buildings which were obviously once inhabited by the better sort of people, middle class whites, upper class whites.
What happened of course, is that in the 1950s and 1960s, the Warren Court period, whites were dispossessed, ethnically cleansed out of the inner cities, by black racial violence, violence supported by the state, in that whites were denied the right of collective self defense. A few Jewish communities remained, because Jews, in an unprincipled exception, were allowed collective self defense.
The current state of Detroit, and what is happening to Johannesburg, tells us that were it not for whites, blacks would be living in the jungle, carrying pointy sticks, and eating each other. Blacks can be civilized, but only if subject to firm, and substantially white, authority. America lacks the hard hand necessary to keep black people from reverting to their natural condition.
With America close to a nonwhite majority, and single women, as always, voting for the victors, there is no natural stopping point for the latest round of ethnic cleansing short of complete removal of whites from everything they have built that is worth having.
Resistance to this process is fundamentally incompatible with democracy with universal franchise. If it does not happen in this coming round of movement ever leftwards, will happen in the next or the one after that. If you oppose this outcome, you have to reject democracy with universal franchise. If you reject democracy with universal franchise, have to deny that all men were created, and that women are equal to men. The eradication of white people was inherent in the enlightenment, and our continued existence has only been possible by one unprincipled exception to the enlightenment after another. In the end, unprincipled exceptions always yield to superior holiness.
You may have heard that there are over a million poor stateless victimized Rohingya that our do gooders want to move into first world countries to vote for more leftism.
And indeed it is true that they are poor stateless and victimized. But a big part of the reason that they are poor, stateless, and victimized, is that they believe that Muslims should live under Muslim rule, and to this end they tried to carve a Muslim state out of Burma. To my surprise, they do not want to go to a first world country, such as America. They want to go to a Muslim ruled state, such as Malaysia. A few days ago, America legally accepted its first batch of Rohingya from a refugee camp in Thailand. Thai military attempted to move them to the US, Rohingya refugees refused and rioted, seeking the opportunity to set sail to a Muslim country.
These guys take their religion seriously. And their religion says that Islam should rule, and they should be ruled by Islam. They are reasonably happy to be ruled by moderate Islam, you cannot get much more moderate than their favorite destination, Malaysia, but Islam it has to be.
If brought to America or Australia, they will be in America very much against their will, and therefore will likely attempt to create a Muslim ruled state inside America as they attempted to create a Muslim ruled state inside Burma.
The Bangladeshi refugees who are intermingled with the Rohingya refugees, who speak the same language as the Rohingya refugees, who look like the Rohingya refugees, are economic refugees, seeking a better life. They want to go to first world states such as America and Australia. Maybe many of the Rohingya refugees are economic refugees also. But they are primarily religious refugees, seeking, not freedom to practice their religion, but freedom to persecute anyone who does not practice their religion. They don’t want to go to the first world. They want to go to Dar al Islam.
If I had my way, we would ship them all to Islamic State.
The definition of psychopathy combines traits that are unlikely to be correlated, for example
1: the ability to endure stress and danger calmly, and the propensity to lie casually without regard to the long term consequences.
2: the propensity to act vigorously and competently in pursuit of goals and the lack of realistic, long-term goals
The concept of psychopathy defines manliness as bad, and men as irresponsible and childlike.
A psychopath is defined as someone who is not a reliable friend, yet I am pretty sure that calmness under stress and danger is a good indication of a reliable friend.
The word “psychopath”, like “racist” is a twentieth century invention. If there were such natural kinds as “racist” or “psychopath”, there would have been words for them in biblical times. Such twentieth century coinages do not cut reality at the joints, but are intended to manipulate and destroy.
For example Pinker complacently observes that the Victorians were shocked and horrified by a crime wave, but neglects to observe that this crime wave consisted of one mugging in London every few months – which crime wave never went away, but instead people got used to it, and then it got vastly worse, and people got used to it again, and then it got vastly worse still, and people attempted to abandon much of their cities to savages, and then the crime wave followed them, and there is now no safe area in London. The idea of the inner city as some kind of jungle is new, starting in the late nineteen forties, early fifties. Early in the twentieth century, the idea that the affluent and respectable might have to abandon vast expanses of wealth and property, of huge, beautiful and high status buildings where once the wealthy and fashionable lived, to the vandalism and depravity of savages would have been as unimaginable as wolves and bears prowling the streets of London to devour passers by.
My criticism of his argument on war is that war is a bursty phenomenon, sometimes there are a lot of mighty big wars, and sometimes, when one hegemon has the upper hand, or several hegemons remember the last big war too well, not many wars. This peace lasts until the dominant hegemon weakens, or people forget how bad the last big war was, forget how easy it is to start wars, and how hard it is to stop them, whereupon they go at it again. And the generation that remembers the last big war is now mostly dead.
Taleb, arguably the worlds leading expert on the statistics of bursty phenomena, makes the same argument in a more scientific fashion backed by statistics. War follows a power law with an exponent substantially less than one and substantially greater than zero, rather than a normal distribution, meaning that risk is dominated by large rare events – the risk of losing life and property in a big war is far greater than the risk of losing life and property in a small war, even though small wars are common and big wars are rare.
Pinker tells us.
wars between great powers and developed nations have fallen to historically unprecedented levels. This empirical fact has been repeatedly noted with astonishment by many military historians and international relations scholars…
Taleb tells us that because war follows a power law rather than a normal distribution, if one analyzes the level of warfare using statistics appropriate to a normal distribution, at any given time, chances are it has either fallen to historically unprecedented levels, or a great war has broken out and one is too busy trying to stay alive to do statistics.
With a power law phenomenon, recent experience almost always massively under estimates the risk of large rare events, recent experience is almost always nicer than experience over a longer period. Until it is not.
Twenty two out of twenty three Harvard grads could not explain why the earth gets hotter in summer and cooler in winter.
So I asked my cleaning lady, who has received no science education whatsoever, and very little education. She replied that the days were longer in summer and shorter in winter. I then prompted her “Why are they longer in summer and shorter in winter?”, to which she correctly replied that the earth is tilted with respect to its orbit around the sun.
To be strictly correct she should have said the earth’s axis is tilted with respect to the earth’s orbit, but since she already got “days” correct, unlike the Harvard grads, axis is implied.
The author of this video suggests we need improved science education, but I think that no amount of education can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse, that what we need is considerably less education, about as much education as my cleaning lady has.
Harvard does not, for the most part, teach anything that matters to anyone other than how to hate whitey. Universities have been dumbing down since 1870. They want to be more inclusive, and then adjust their course material to make those included feel more at home. Which makes them useless.
Ferguson looks at measured elite IQs, concludes that our ruling elite is around IQ 120, and that everyone above IQ 140 is pretty much toast. “inappropriately excluded”. It looks to me that the situation is worsening over time, that older members of our elite are generally substantially smarter than recent members of our elite, though all my evidence on this is anecdotal, and people dispute it.
Our elite is being stupidified by avoiding disparate impact. Anything that filters for smarts has disparate impact on women and blacks. Also, smart people tend to mansplain – give those affirmative actioned into jobs beyond their competence instructions and advice that they are incapable of following. Wasenlightened denies this. I accuse him of false consciousness. The level of fear at Google seems excessive if Wasenlightened perceptions are accurate. In an environment where one has a large number of female affirmative action employees, filtering for political correctness is going to filter for stupidity since smart people will be perceived as discriminating against the less smart.
Our universities have been dumbed down so that they no longer teach what high school used to teach.
Academic credentials are not indicators that one has learned anything useful, or indeed learned anything at all, rather they are filters for intelligence and diligence, and, due to degree inflation and the inclusion of women and blacks, very poor filters at the upper end.
Used to be that graduating high school proved you were pretty smart. Now, graduating Harvard does not show you are smart.
I propose degree deflation:
Smart kids can learn in high school maths to calculus and trig, science to special relativity, how to calculate pi from first principles, geography, history of western civilization, and can absorb the western culture and western civilization that university no longer teaches.
I propose that the lower two thirds, pretty much everyone below IQ 106, fails to get a school leaving certificate and leaves school at the start of puberty. The somewhat smarter and more diligent people, IQ 106 to IQ 120, about a quarter of the population, also leave school at the start of puberty, but with a school leaving certificate. The smart people, 120 and up, the top ten percent, graduate high school. Ten percent of that ten percent, the top one percent, people 135 and up, take a two year university course.
Attempting to use academic credentials to filter to smarter than the top one percent is unlikely to succeed, because of demand for lengthy recreational degrees. If we try to get an elite smarter than 135, going to need some new filtering mechanism. Also, using academic credentials as a filter means you are up against the bureaucratic imperative to expand. If one is supposedly in the business of educating people, one is naturally inclined to claim that the education is beneficial, and can benefit everyone, rather than acting as a filter. Thus academic institutions have an incentive to subvert their filter function, and thus an incentive to stupidify the elite.
We used to have a public service exam, a requirement for government employment in functions likely to exercise power, that was IQ heavy, though it also tested for diligence by requiring you to memorize a lot of useless nonsense. Unfortunately, this, of course, had disparate impact. Simply re-instituting the exam would dramatically improve elite function, and one could simply make it a substantially tougher exam for anyone in the system at a level likely to make policy. On the other hand, the Chinese mandarinate tried this and it worked extremely badly. The mandarins were not all that smart. It is hard to make a filter that works when everyone is trying to game the system. But it is not as hard as making a filter that works when you are trying to be inclusive.
