But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority."I guess smart liberals believe that a mother working outside the home full-time couldn't possibly have any downside for family life, and that their indoctrination of schoolkids in things like environmentalism, global warming, and the essential evilness of America's past don't constitute teaching children to obey their authority.
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Looks like they don't allow any comments on the article. What a shock.
ReplyDeleteHere's a "smart" liberal and her vision of a "truly liberal society":
ReplyDeleteIs pregnancy unethical? Yes, says UK bioethicist
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9897
"Here is contrarian bioethics at its best. Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women for then neither women nor men would then be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.
This is the radical suggestion made by a leading British bioethicist, Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia.
Artificial gestation, or ectogenesis, is currently science fiction, but it may be possible. Dr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated:
'Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.'
Pregnancy is barbaric, Dr Smajdor contends – an illness so serious that it is comparable to measles, which is also occasionally fatal, but does not last nine months.
'suggest that there is a strong case for prioritizing research into ectogenesis as an alternative to pregnancy. I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis has been perfected.'"
Peter Singer is also an "ethicist". Isn't it funny how the term "ethicist" has come to mean "amoral misanthrope".
DeleteIf we can build it, then why not? Pregnancy is a lot to go through, and we might get a higher industrial country birthrate. And the human experience would still mostly survive without it.
DeleteOn the other hand, I don't like the dismissal of pregnant women's experiences (they feel close to the child, enjoy nurturing life within themselves, &c.) and it seems like it would be fraught with unintended consequences (how well do we understand the epigenetic effects of being in the womb to know we would be able to replicate them in an equal or superior fashion?, would parents still bond with the child in the same way? (adoption suggests yes), would pressure be placed on women who wish to choose natural childbirth?, how much of a cost would be imposed on the health system).
"Ethicist" kind of does seem like it means "Utilitarian with no concern for the human experience other than reducing suffering and maximizing autonomy" though. And that's *not* clearly (or clearly *not*!) the sum total of ethics.
Disconnecting the human race from its' naturally evolved capacity to reproduce, to continue on into the future. Making our continued existence dependent on technology, and the required never-changing state of economic abundance which logically would be a requirement. Deliberately choosing, in other words, to put the fate of Mankind in the hands of accountants, bureaucrats, (the foulest of epithets, for this purpose), and, of course, whoever they hire, or have to hire, to work the brood tanks.
DeleteThink of the real menace of doing this for even one century. Some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could propose them.
Mike James
Most "smart liberals" are those smart enough to jump through academic hoops and maneuver themselves into various public and private rent-seeking niches in society while assimilating the dominant ideologies and their relatively sophisticated arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnd they tend to judge how "smart" someone is according to how well they conform to this template.
"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence.
ReplyDeleteStructure and order are only attractive to those with low intelligence? God knows I don't expect much from left-wing agit-prop, but this seems even stupider than usual.
Yeah, it does seem like these people periodically forgot that the sciences and indeed basically all of academia is an attempt to find structure and order in the world and that this is in fact what they actually are doing when they are attempting to find explanations.
DeleteWhat they mean, of course, is that they believe social conservatism is linked to a belief in a specific kind of order. A pleasing, coddling, unchallenging order.
But is this the case? A lot of the flag and country and optimism of mainline conservatism may be a comforting order, relative to conspiratorial leftist class conspiracy paranoia and their black armband history, but much of what conservatism is, as evinced by this blog, can be a harsh and disturbing order and structure.
"I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis has been perfected.'"
ReplyDeleteWell, ectogenesis, if it were ever developed, would certainly benefit the so-called Men's Rights Movement. Just as welfare enabled women to reproduce and raise kids to adulthood unburdened by an annoying husband, artificial wombs would allow men to become parents without the burden of listening to the ol' bat's screeching.
Win-win, right?
No.
What rarely gets mentioned in all this talk of rights of men and women, is the rights of babies.
Feminism has stolen from every infant his most beloved thing, the constant company of his own mother, who abandons him in daycare while she works, and his second-most-beloved thing, his daddy, through divorce or because he never married mom.
Artificial wombs further the rupture of infants from their bio parents.
Only "intelligent" people like our Ph.D.-holding bioethicist could seriously think that a society where no infants get to be raised by their two bioparents, married to each other and working earnestly to love and raise him, could possibly carry on for more than one generation.
"Rights of babies" are implicit in interventions by centralized authorities. They don't get to kill live babies in exchange for giving women welfare, jobs, etc.
ReplyDeleteConjuring up imaginary "rights of babies" is a bad idea. What exactly those "rights" are and how they will be achieved will always be in dispute, and centralized authorities by definition will always have the upper hand in deciding the dispute.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReading Steve Sailer's blog a while back, I came across a commenter’s suggestion that an IQ “sweet spot” exists that leaves some people especially vulnerable to PC indoctrination.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, perhaps the very smart already have a degree of immunity to multicultural reprogramming. Either they never accept Cultural Marxism in the first place or else the brainwashing wears off once they start reading books that most definitely are not on some professor’s syllabus. I find it likely that this resistance also derives in part from the social estrangement that comes with being extremely bright, a condition that makes one more open to concepts such as HBD. People who are quite happy and well-adjusted would not want to pay the social price that comes with embracing intellectual heresy, but these misfits have less to lose.
Those of average intelligence often never go to college, thereby avoiding exposure to the most intense sorts of multicultural propaganda. Instead they find themselves living blue collar lives that bring them into regular contact with blacks and Hispanics. The Archie Bunkers of this world have never heard of Charles Murray or Richard Lynn; but they get their noses rubbed in reality every day, and their sense of smell works just fine, thank you. (These are the people I grew up among.)
A little higher up the IQ ladder we find the Meatheads, not exactly towering intellects, but at least smart enough to get degrees in communications or education at Warm Body State University. Being dutiful note-takers and possessing a normal desire to fit in, they leave college with a belief in universal human equality as well as a diploma that enables them to work and live as far as possible from minorities. Thus insulated, they spend their comfortable lives believing all the shit that they hear on NPR during the morning commute from suburb to office.
Given the changes that are overtaking this country (economic decay, the popping of the education bubble, demographic shifts, and so on), this latter group at last will awaken with a start, like a drunken motorist who comes to because an angry cop is rapping on his windshield with a nightstick. Events will happen very quickly after that. Hangovers never leave people in the best of moods.
perhaps the very smart already have a degree of immunity to multicultural reprogramming.
ReplyDeleteIf this were true then I'd expect the "very smart" to be less PC than the average smart person. But I've never seen any evidence that this is the case. The graduates of Stanford and Yale and Harvard seem to be a good deal more PC than those from Warm Body State University. At least that's my subjective impression, I've never seen any studies on the subject.
Perhaps a study of the Harvard admissions process that Steve Sailer cites is relevant. Here is the money quote:
DeleteBut what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call "career-oriented activities" was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student's chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. "Being an officer or winning awards" for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, "has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions." Excelling in these activities "is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission."
While Stalin and Mao sent these people to the camps, we keep them out of Harvard, and thus away from the levers of real power. The final outcome is much the same, however.
Pardon me. That was a study of the admissions process of highly competitive colleges, not just of Harvard.
DeleteI've seen the Espenshade study, and it's an interesting one. But it does not say anything pro or con about the notion that the "very smart" are less PC than the merely "smart".
DeleteNo, it doesn't. But I rather suspect that a very smart Kentucky boy who is active in 4-H is far less likely to be PC than is some New England kid who spends a summer digging wells in Africa (for people who ought to do it themselves) simply to impress a Harvard admissions officer. Being an ass-kisser has its advantages, alas.
DeleteWe KNOW that there are more highly intelligent men than highly intelligent women (either because of men having higher average IQ, or because men have a larger standard deviation of IQ, or both) - YET US elite colleges and universities almost-all admit roughly equal numbers of the sexes.
Deletehttp://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/05/do-elite-us-colleges-choose-personality.html
Therefore we KNOW that elite US higher education institutions are NOT selecting mainly by IQ.
The commenters were even funnier than the "research". Oh how I love to watch smug dim-witted lefties fall over themselves lauding the deep meaningfulness of intelligence testing...
ReplyDeleteFrom the article: "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."
Wow. Imagine the stones it takes to undertake and publish, to a hostile academy and public, "psychological research" on the relation among intelligence, political ideology, and race. Whatever ones views, one cannot fail to be impressed by this totally badass courting of controversy. Surely, careers and livelihoods, nay, whole social existences, are on the line for these cojones grandes. Oh wait, I misread...
From the article: People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.
That leapt out at me. I wonder how they measured this, or if they actually measured, rather than assuming. I'd like to see what contortions they went through to demonstrate that the lower orders had less exposure to "diversity" than their betters. Lemme guess - Eastern European au pair, Guatemalan cleaning lady, annual vacations abroad in nice tourist spots or on SWPL eco-tours, professional level Chinese or PhD Brahmins among one's colleagues, live in leafy (aka lily-white) nabes? 1000 points for "contact with other races". Can't afford to join the white flight out of one's now overwhelmingly "minority" part of the city, kids get beat up by NAMs at school in lieu of being taught reading and math, have been mugged, burglarized, raped, or beaten up one or more times by vibrants, nobody on the public transport you take speaks a common language, but you do happen to enjoy some "implicitly white" social activity? Insulated rube, 0 contact points.
smart people are smart enough to lie about socially verbotten topics.
ReplyDelete"Conjuring up imaginary "rights of babies" is a bad idea. What exactly those "rights" are and how they will be achieved will always be in dispute, and centralized authorities by definition will always have the upper hand in deciding the dispute."
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah, centralized authority always has an upper hand in deciding disputes about rights. That *is* the very purpose of government. Otherwise you have chaos, anarchy, total war of all against all, and collapse and extinction.
And rights can't be "conjured." Rights exist. Whether government does an adequate job securing those rights is another question.
Do infants have a right to life? Do adults? If infants have a right to life, then, because they are helpless and vulnerable, they have a right to what they need to grow, they have a right to make demands upon their parents for what they need, and gov't has the responsibility to see to it that they get it.
Anyone who wishes for society to continue beyond their own lifespan must take an interest in seeing to it the infants of that society get their needs met in order to grow, become productive adults and, in turn, raise infants themselves. Fail to raise the infants properly and that's the end. If you're a nihilist, you may not care, but *I*, for one, do.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
smart people are smart enough to lie about socially verbotten topics
ReplyDeleteSmart people are the ones who make "socially verbotten topics" socially verboten.
Some smart people, yes.
DeleteYou mean rednecks have 'prejudices' (however that was defined)?! Who would ever have imagined such a thing.
ReplyDeleteOT
"Your party or your people?"
Another Look at the State of the Union Address: 27% Turned Away After First 5 Minutes
Too many commercials I guess.
(Links via Drudge)
There is no unified "Men's Rights Movement" with a specific agenda.
ReplyDeleteMost men sympathetic to it are men who are dissatisfied with the current situation relative to the pre-sexual revolution era patriarchal monogamy.
Monogamy, or more accurately, the suppression of polygyny, is an artifact of technology which allowed people to expand into other climates where female dependence on male technology for reproduction was necessary. Patriarchal monogamy is a cultural adaptation to maintain monogamy in an environment which no longer requires female dependence on individual men for reproduction.
Ectogenesis does not reconstitute this. First, it would require resource acquisition and control, and the decline of patriarchal monogamy is associated with a relative decline in average resources for men.
And if you don't have heterosexuality, you don't really have men. Individual persons reproducing themselves via ectogenesis or cloning are not really male and female anymore.
And/or conversely, people who aren't really male or female are more likely to think ectogenesis is a wonderful idea.
Delete"And if you don't have heterosexuality, you don't really have men. Individual persons reproducing themselves via ectogenesis or cloning are not really male and female anymore."
DeleteHuh? The person doing the reproducing would still have an XX or an XY chromosome pair. Being an adult, the parent's identity would not be affected.
How the artif-womb occupant would fare, though, is a very good question, one the Ph.D. "bioethicist" in all her wisdom, gives not a thought to.
***
As it currently stands, women can conceive and raise children as single parents, either by a one-night-stand or artificial insemination, and provide for the kid either through paid employment and daycare or gov't funded welfare.
An artificial womb would mean that men, too, could now be single parents. If a man could purchase an ovum from a donor, have it invitro fertilized and gestated in a machine, that man could have a child without the bother of having to persuade any of these contrary, recalcitrant, opinionated women to have sex with him and bear his child.
Since one of, if not the, major point the MRMs make is that it is virtually impossible to find good wife-and-mother candidates among young feminista women today, I should think that an artificial-womb technology, enabling, as it does, men to bypass the whole messy business of marriage, would be screamingly popular among the MRMs, who will tell you, you are a fool to marry a modern American woman.
I say, I hope artif womb technology is never developed, because I pity the poor kid that results.
"I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis has been perfected.'"
ReplyDeleteThe assumption here is that there exists some unsexed "you" which can be "born into" either a male or a female body. Looks to me like the lefty feminist is constructing her own religion complete with souls. In fact every "you" is inextricably bound to the genes they were born with, and has no reality apart from them.
Not only that, but the behavioral suite that you are born with, and will express all your life, is slightly different (in average) for different racial groups. And, most likely, most people simply cannot understand or comprehend that the other party has little or no choice in the matter.
DeleteThe assumption here is that there exists some unsexed "you"...
DeleteYes. Also that all women are repulsed by the physical requirements of maternity and wish to be relieved of this burden tout court, rather than just have some control over the "when and how many". There are some women like that, but I doubt they constitute more than a small percentage. The good doctor is projecting ferociously.
In fact every "you" is inextricably bound to the genes they were born with, and has no reality apart from them.
DeleteYou could make that argument. I've had some sympathy for it in the past.
But I'd say that me with an increase in intelligence would still be me.
And if that's the case, if that increase in intelligence were from me magically (for the purposes of my argument) having some of my genes swapped for those with greater intelligence potential, but otherwise equal, that would be no less true.
Would you really claim that, if this happened to you, you were not really you any more, despite continuity of experience and the fact that literally ever other characteristic defining you as a self was identical?
Following from this, I'd say a self cannot be defined as the sum of a person's genetic information but can be alienated from it.
I'd say that me with an increase in intelligence would still be me
DeleteI'd say you are wrong. You with an IQ of 90 and you with an IQ of 180 are qualitatively different things. Your mind would work very differently. You would be, for all practical purposes, a different person. You say that you would have "continuity of experience", meaning the same memories. But if we used that same magic to transfer your memories to a big and complex magical computer, effectively getting rid of all your genes for something with greater potential, you wouldn't be you. You are more than just your memories.
And even your memories are not really separable from your intelligence. Events in your past which the current you remembers in a certain light would be perceived differently by the new 180 IQ you. Things which the current you remembers as being hugely important to who you are might well seem silly and inconsequential to the altered you.
If you're a nihilist, you may not care, but *I*, for one, do.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that ultimately you are no different from the "Ph.D.-holding bioethicist" and any other liberal, as you make clear in your comment at 1:50 pm. People like you must not be allowed to irresponsibly toy with the wheels of the gods.
Severn, you're a deft one - correcting somebody's German spelling without making a show of it!
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think you and the guy you're correcting are both right:
He: Smart people are smart enough to lie about socially forbidden topics.
You: Smart people are the ones who make "socially forbidden topics" socially forbidden.
Me: true, and true. Conclusion: place no faith in smart people.
So in whom should we place our faith? In stupid people?
Vinteuil
Ilkka has a book out.
ReplyDelete"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence.
ReplyDeleteHow does this jibe with the Ron Paul types, Classical Liberals and all others who wish to return to the Constitution? It seems most are right of center to say the least, and this ideology is based upon individualism and rejects hierarchy, which is probably a major reason why people with our views have a hard time organizing and gaining more support.
Contrast this to the left which always seems to be able organize a protest at the drop of a dime complete with thousands of professionally made signs and choreographed songs and chants. Their committees and organizing units seem to do a heck of a job bringing out their low IQ element.
John Waters once quipped that he used Patty Hearst in one of his movies because she takes direction really well. The same can be said of the Politically Correct.
DeleteMangan—
ReplyDeleteThe essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Some minorities score lower. Some score higher. NAM’s score lower. East Asians and the Indians we let into this country score higher. I doubt that Pakistanis do though. Not sure how they get in either. We have quite a few of them driving yellow cabs in NY. My guess is they tourist visa jump.
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
ReplyDeleteI guess this explains all those black-on-white flash mob attacks we've been witnessing. Low IQ blacks are simply giving into racism and prejudice.
I know I shouldn't be so surprised and perplexed anymore by such inconsistency, but I still can't get over liberal craziness. It just is absolutely unbelievable.
ReplyDelete[Word verification (seriously): Monster]
Actually, OneSTDV, the funniest word verification I ever came across was on your blog: Groid.
DeleteThe essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican
ReplyDeleteThe GSS data conforms this.
Link.
Republicans have a higher IQ than Democrats, based on the Wordsum test. White Democrats, who are a minority of Democrats overall, are in a statistical tie with white Republicans.
Of course this stupid "study" was based on a sample of people in England, so it cannot be shown to be false by citing American data.
You've done it again, Mangan. Brilliant post. That's why I keep reading you, even though in many ways I'm ... erm, cough, cough ... a liberal. I'm beginning to wonder whether I even know what "liberal" and "conservative" mean anymore.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I wouldn't post as Anonymous if I could figure out this d**mned posting system. Okay, and maybe partly because I fear what could come my way if I publicly admitted the affinities I have for some of your points of view. You're a more courageous man than I.
"Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority.""
ReplyDeleteAnd how many liberals who disagreed with such statements actually are non-working moms (or would like to be so) and send their kids to private schools with more rigid standards of discipline. My guess is: quite a few. And in their case, their actions speak louder than their words.
'My point was that ultimately you are no different from the "Ph.D.-holding bioethicist" and any other liberal, as you make clear in your comment at 1:50 pm. People like you must not be allowed to irresponsibly toy with the wheels of the gods."
ReplyDeleteHeadscratch.
Do you disagree that infants have a right to life? Do you disagree that without care, infants die? Do you disagree that, therefore, infants have a right to demand care? Do you disagree that Natural Law dictates that it is the parents who owe their infants that duty of care?
Do you disagree that infants love and wish to be with their mothers? Do you disagree that infants are unhappy when their mothers are absent for long periods?
Is there anything that could reasonably be construed as liberal / leftist in the above? How am I a liberal "conjuring up" "imaginary" infant rights?
My views are as traditionalist as it is possible to be, I'd say.
How am I toying with the wheels of the gods by arguing that artificial wombs are going to be bad for babies?
If anything, it would be the artificial-womb-users toying with the wheels of the gods.
DeleteIs there anything that could reasonably be construed as liberal / leftist in the above? How am I a liberal "conjuring up" "imaginary" infant rights?
In coming up with these rights "you" are seeking to enforce a burden on those who do not want that burden. In some sense, it is equivalent to the burden that affirmative action places on the rest of us.
Personally, I think I would rather see less people in the community who do not want to look after their children, and selection through abortion is an effective way of achieving that. At least, that is how the founders of Planned Parenthood probably thought of it :-)
Arguing with a libertarian is as futile an exercise as arguing with a liberal. They have their (often contradictory) axioms and cannot be reasoned out of them.
DeleteOT
ReplyDeleteAlan Simpson: On immigration, Simpson said all four Republican presidential candidates seem anti-immigrant,..."If you have 11 million or 12 million or 13 million people in the United States that are here illegally, you going to go hunt for them?" Simpson asked. "I don’t want to be part of a country” that does that.
Apparently, Simpson wants to be part of a country that is unrecognizable from the one he was born into.
Simpson would say that. He was co-author of the first amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.
DeleteAnti-immigrant: A condition in which a person is smart enough to remember the 1986 IRCA amnesty, which promised a 1-time-only amnesty for about 1.2 million illegal aliens in return for strict enforcement that would prevent the country's ever having that many illegal aliens again, but which delivered amnesty - often fraudulently - for nearly 3 million illegal aliens, added even more often low-skilled & uneducated family members, and failed so thoroughly in enforcing the laws that there are now likely 12-20+ million illegal aliens in the US plus an untold number of their anchor babies. That pretty much describes me and I'm no Republican.
DeleteIt comes down to this:
ReplyDeleteKID A: Puts down a 1400 on his SAT and writes "Dear Harvard: I am inspired by the revolutionary freedom fighter Che Guevara and I want to get an education at Harvard so that I can stop the genocide in Sudan."
KID B: Puts down a 1600 on his SAT and writes, "Dear Harvard: I am inspired by the revolutionary freedom fighter Anders Brevik and I want to get an education at Harvard so that I can stop the genocide in Europe."
Hmmm, in the spirit of searching out discrimination by mailing out the same letters with different names to employers, one could imagine searching out discrimination in college entrance selection the same way :-)
DeleteI think that by the Right to Life, the Founders meant the right not to be killed, not the right to be supported by someone else. If you equate the Right to Life to the right to be supported by the other, you would violate the rights of the other. So I prefer to interpret the right to life parsimoniously, in such a way so as not to infringe on right to liberty and pursuit of happiness of the said other.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I wouldn't post as Anonymous if I could figure out this d**mned posting system.
ReplyDeleteWhere it says, "Select profile", scroll down to Name/URL, type in a pseudonym, and press "continue".
"I think that by the Right to Life, the Founders meant the right not to be killed, not the right to be supported by someone else"
ReplyDeleteWhich is the argument pro-abortionists make.
But since *everyone* was parasitic for a portion of their lives (as a developing fetus in the womb / helpless infant / dependant child) the Right to Life means nothing unless included in it is the right to be supported by someone else (parent) before adulthood.
Because *every* pregnant woman and *every* parent has, at some moment, thought, Geez, I'm sick of this. I'd like to abort / abandon the little brat.
If gov't didn't use its threat of force and insist the parents continue to provide the support until viability and then adult independence, there would be no adults (no people at all, actually) to be arguing about whose liberties and happinesses the gov't should be securing.
If artif gestation technology were invented, you'd STILL have the issue of forcing somebody to look after the helpless infant / dependant child out of the incubator, as well as forcing somebody to look after the zygote / embryo in the incubator. (Keep a secure power and nutrient supply / check dials / respond in an emergency breakdown of equipment, etc.) And since gestation is so complex, for the first infants used experimentally to perfect the technology, you'd then, in addition, be adding the issue that you have violated the infant's right to optimal conditions for development -- same as pregnant women can be, rightfully, prosecuted for taking street drugs.
"If gov't didn't use its threat of force and insist the parents continue to provide the support until viability and then adult independence, there would be no adults (no people at all, actually) to be arguing about whose liberties and happinesses the gov't should be securing."
DeleteI don't think so. Even people bereft (!) of all government, such as the Kalahari Bushmen, still manage to birth and raise children. The parental instinct is - among some people, at least - a powerful thing. It can even manifest itself in people who have no children of their own. It is only anti-human progressives like Anna Smajdor who would have us believe that there is something perverse and unnatural in having and raising one's own children.
I have noticed that the left-liberal position on IQ is: "We don't believe in IQ, and incidentally, ours is higher than yours".
ReplyDeleteIt's even more ridiculous than that (and I'm stealing this from Sailer). You're a mouth-breathing sub-human if you believe in racial differences in IQ. So the left-liberal position is "The proof that we have a higher IQ than you is that we don't believe in IQ".
DeleteIn general the poor have lower IQ's and suffer accordingly from the various consequences of this limitation. Thus, they easily pick up many biases which remain quite simple and emotional. Most of them are now liberals because they receive more goodies from liberal politicians. Sixty years ago it was easier to be conservative and poor because religion was powerful and no liberal welfare machine was dominant. Indeed, the war bween liberals and conservatives was much milder perhaps because the society was in general far more conservative and strict.The Protestant ethic still prevailed.
ReplyDeleteThe ensuing victory of liberalism opened the gates to "freedoms" that created a vulgar, violent culture that forced the criminal justice apparatus to now supervise some 6m adults and juveniles. The culture wars are entirely due to the demoralizing of society via efforts to "free" blacks and Hispanics, along with the drive for greater "self-expression" manifested by things like odious tatoos and dysfunctional marriages.
The questionable findings of this study fit perfectly with the meme of liberalism that urges massive brain-washing in schools and colleges to assure a utopian society of clonish equals. This experiment is well underway and Obama, if he serves another term, will provide a triumphant ending. That HBD is scientifically correct and critical thinking usually frees intelligent people from the jaws of egalitarian madness stand against this Stalinist mania. As Charles Murray observes: the lower classes of whites are in turmoil to a far greater degree today from the destruction of tradition, but bias for perfect equality may be a darker phenomenon than the biases attendant to being poor. Bias that is removed by massive brain-washing violates the Constitution and substitutes the more dangerous fallacy of perfect equality.In psychology the bias of liberal researchers must be scrutanized carefully because their investigations reach conclusions in line with their fundamental assumptions very frequently.
Excellent post, Mr. Troost! I only have a small quibble with this:
DeleteThis experiment is well underway and Obama, if he serves another term, will provide a triumphant ending.
I think there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties and so I don't think it matters which lying clown gets elected. For instance, Romney and Gingrich are both pro-immigration.
There absolutely is a difference. Romney and Gingrich may be spineless corrupt weasels but they are not Frankfurt School devotees.
DeleteYou are forgetting that "elite" at universities and such that dismiss differences in IQ are largely Jewish, and thus have a vested interest in attacking whites and keeping the lid on those facts or dispelling them--even though they themselves do not personally believe the lies they are peddling through the media and academia. If the truth about IQ were to become mainstream..their whole house of cards and agenda would no longer work on the masses..ie third world immigration, affirmative action, crime ect.
ReplyDeleteMy only doubts about IQ, is simply how naive and doltish white folk can be in swallowing this BS hook, line and sinker that is fed to them. I mean, what is the excuse for these Scandinavians from Minneapolis/St. Paul who thought it would be such a great idea to import Somalians into their city? Can you even picture or imagine Koreans or Mexicans even considering such a thing?
At some point the fantastic web of lies becomes so complex that even they will trip themselves up.
DeleteDr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteAhh, indeed. To the artificial womb, then! Let's follow the thought process.
1. Pregnancy is outlawed.
2. All children must be born via artificial wombs.
3. Artificial wombs are provided solely by the government.
4. Those who get to reproduce via artificial wombs are selected by the government.
5. The number of artificial wombs is limited, and only a select segment of the population gets to reproduce. Based on rules of fairness and equality, of course.
Game. Set. Match. And thus the slow white genocide becomes a complete white genocide in one generation. Other than, of course, for the elite white ruling class that gets first crack at the artificial wombs.
King of Hollywood:
ReplyDeleteThe truth about IQ was established long ago when thousands of servicemen were tested before both world wars. These results shocked many and added to the psychometric data upon which race and IQ are related. Every American university had a psych department doing research in this domain until the revolutionary 1960's in which civil rights became a national obsession and liberal ideas gained substantial power. Even by the end of the 1950's Ashley Montague was leading a crusade against any who dared stand on real psychometric facts. Anthropology was generally hostile to the scientific realities of IQ testing. By 1969 Arthur Jensen of Cal Berkely published his classic article in the Harvard Educational Review and a violent response ensued. He was invited to UCLA, where I was, to give a major defence, but the LAPD advised against such a dangerous visit. Liberals went crazy in attempting to smear Jensen, but over 40 years later Jensen still stands tall as perhaps the greatest psychometrician of our time.The two fields, psychology and anthropology, most germane to race and IQ, are plagued by decades of infighting in order to protect liberal mythology. Aggressive fanatics like Gladwell, Diamond, and Nisbett routinely try to invalidate IQ studies, but Stephen Pinker tries to remain aloof even as he basically supports Jensen. Politics has really torn these social sciences apart!Of course Charles Murray and Chris Brand, as well as the anthropologist Henry Harpending and Ralph Holloway strongly defend the HBD position.
Although retired, I taught college psychology for 5 years and saw firsthand its schizoid nature.My text was an excellent one with a good discussion of IQ but I was forced to change it to a text with a totally misleading, superficial treatment. Texts these days are often adulterated and deliberately designed for political objectives. The culture wars are real and have stupendous consequences.
Dennis, I've posted the inconvenient racial implication of this research in the comments to the article.
ReplyDelete"Schools should teach children to obey authority."
ReplyDeleteWell, that is pretty fucking dumb. I wonder how many conservatives with two brain cells to rub together are actually instilling that value in their kids (at least insofar as "authority" means "gov't and mainstream authority" here).
Authority must be smashed utterly. Ground into dust, and used to fertilize our crops. That is conservatism, if it's worth a farthing.
The average Democrat is not as smart as the average Republican?
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that?
I have proof of the cognitive superiority of the average Dem :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
Sincerely,
- crimesofthetimes.com
BTW here's the simple, definitive answer the to race and IQ debate : one needs only to look at the profile of a negro skull. It has a slope of 72 degrees (whites 80; chimpanzees 60).
ReplyDeleteAs the result of different evolutionary progress over the course of up to one hundred thousand years, blacks have a different skull shape than other races - one can see this by simple observation any day of the week in line at WalMart.
Different skull shape = different brain structure, obviously = different brain function.
Moreover, it just came out that Samuel Morton was right about negro skulls having less cranial capacity.
Whenever the race and IQ debate pops up please point this out.
There is nothing hateful or racist in pointing out this simple fact. Blacks do in fact need to be pitied and uplifted; the problem is the poisonous effect of the Great Late Twentieth Century Delusion, wherein the noble white notion of equality has been counterfeited to ridiculous proportions.
As a result blacks don't know their place any more in society, and behave with intolerable arrogance and failure to display deference.
It's a sick state of affairs really. I so wish I could spend my time reading blogs that talk about something else instead.
Alas, this problem needs to be solved. Sites like this one (and mine) help in that endeavour. So do all of your comments.
Keep thinking !
Sincerely,
- crimesofthetimes.com
There is some truth to 'low IQ' and 'conservative views' being related. A white person of lower IQ is gonna make less money. That means he's not gonna have the chance to move to a good/safe neighborhood. He's gonna be more likely to live in closer proximity to low-income blacks, who are physically tougher, meaner, and more aggressive. Thus, a poor low IQ white person is gonna be less liberal since he fears blacks.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, a white or Jewish person with high IQ goes to good schools, makes good money, and lives in a nice community; he can afford to be liberal.
Also, sexuality is a big part of how people think. A low IQ poor white person living close to blacks is gonna feel sexually threatened. White women prefer tougher men(especially in poor communities), and so many white women, as in porn, are gonna go with black studs. This is gonna lead to jealousy and resentment among poor low IQ white males. So, it's gonna make them more 'conservative' and more 'racist'.
It's been said conservatism is defined more by fear of 'the other' while liberalism is defined by being open to new things. To some extent, this is psycho-biological, i.e. some people are born with more conservative personalities while others have more liberal personalities.
But it is also situational and contextual, i.e. a person's social situation partly determines his 'political' outlook. When most white people were threatened by Indian savages, they were 'racist' and conservative. But now that American-Indians are harmless, white people can afford to be generous toward the native American community. Israel was founded as a leftist-socialist state, but as the problems with Arabs got worse, more Israelis turned 'conservative' and 'rightist'(or 'racist'). Likud has run Israel for quite some time now.
When 9/11 happened, most Americans turned 'conservative' out of fear of Islamic terrorism. But with reduced threat of terrorism since then, we've turned less 'conservative'. When Japan attacked the US, Americans became more 'racist' toward Japanese. When the war ended, most Americans had no ill will toward Japanese.
Given that many white liberals are affluent, they can AFFORD to be liberal since they live in nice places and the 'new things' they are open to are nice things like traveling around the world, fancy jewelry, sushi, etc. But if white liberals' IQs dropped and they had to live close to dangerous Negro thugs, they too might turn 'conservative' and 'racist'.
You are correct.
DeleteAnon.
Where is John Doerr's credibility when he told a generation of MBA students he did the right thing by firing Steve Jobs? John Doerr should ask Kit Wong why Chinese engineers only sought venture capital when they were out of work and Wong told them to start restaurants to learn entrepreneurship as they rejected Wong when they had safe jobs. Foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral grant guzzling behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors' anti-Americanism than American students. Meanwhile perfectly good American engineers have to get jobs at Home Depot. And Google cancels my account for saying these things but dares to complain about censorship. Why should the liberal media get SOPA protection?
ReplyDelete