So, perhaps the first sign of progress at this slate article.
Anyway, I went to a gay club out of curiosity and was trying to observe the power distribution and how the game was different there compared to men and women. Very interesting.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Vegetarianism and Biology
If the left is able to pre-empt the release of this racial information by NO LONGER basing their liberal ideals on human intelligence equality, then could this herald a new era in animal rights?
Peter Singer would agree. He has always contended that it is the capacity to feel pain, not intelligence, that should justify liberal ideals. Because there is a chance that racial differences could be genetic. So, why shouldn't animals, if not given any legal rights, at least be given the right to life?
I am a hardcore racist-I believe that racial differences are genetic, and significant in origin. But I am also a serious vegetarian, believing that the unnecessary slaughter of animals for food is cruel and a blight on our civilization.
The HBD community always responds: well the difference between humans and animals is, well, that we're human! That makes us better than them by default!
Uh, not really, unless you resort back to religion. Everyone in the conservative groups LOVE to bash the vegetarians. But, you know, what happens if you follow the logic of your beliefs?
Or are you trying to act all macho by chowing down on meat?
Peter Singer would agree. He has always contended that it is the capacity to feel pain, not intelligence, that should justify liberal ideals. Because there is a chance that racial differences could be genetic. So, why shouldn't animals, if not given any legal rights, at least be given the right to life?
I am a hardcore racist-I believe that racial differences are genetic, and significant in origin. But I am also a serious vegetarian, believing that the unnecessary slaughter of animals for food is cruel and a blight on our civilization.
The HBD community always responds: well the difference between humans and animals is, well, that we're human! That makes us better than them by default!
Uh, not really, unless you resort back to religion. Everyone in the conservative groups LOVE to bash the vegetarians. But, you know, what happens if you follow the logic of your beliefs?
Or are you trying to act all macho by chowing down on meat?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Update
The DNA article is now the 2nd most emailed article on the nytimes website, and the 7th most blogged about.
half sigma has some more comments on the issue in response to his new readership.
Steve Sailer is less optimistic. Understandably so, since he's been around for most of the HBD movement and has seen little penetration into modern discourse.
We shall see. Maybe I was a little hyperoptimistic. But again, this understanding will gradually penetrate society. We won't be able to proclaim victory at a certain point in time.
However, this is a step in the right direction and the speed is even accelerating. I suppose I have to keep blogging for now!
Update:
Yeah, the reaction was a little overblown and premature. It's sometimes easy to underestimate the power of entrenched beliefs.
Don't despair, though. It's just a question of time when this information gets out. Hopefully we don't have to wait the 15 years for gene sequencing to finish.
half sigma has some more comments on the issue in response to his new readership.
Steve Sailer is less optimistic. Understandably so, since he's been around for most of the HBD movement and has seen little penetration into modern discourse.
We shall see. Maybe I was a little hyperoptimistic. But again, this understanding will gradually penetrate society. We won't be able to proclaim victory at a certain point in time.
However, this is a step in the right direction and the speed is even accelerating. I suppose I have to keep blogging for now!
Update:
Yeah, the reaction was a little overblown and premature. It's sometimes easy to underestimate the power of entrenched beliefs.
Don't despair, though. It's just a question of time when this information gets out. Hopefully we don't have to wait the 15 years for gene sequencing to finish.
The end times are coming
I think the New York Times just crossed a pretty serious line. Honestly, it will be very hard to go back from here to the old days of denying the validity of race and intelligence, and IQ.
Check it out here
----
Some notable quotes from the article:
"There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,”
"Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans."
"But the incident (referring to Watson) has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits."
"Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically."
"“Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist."
(Again, we return to the motif of RELIGION being NECESSARY to guarantee equality of humanity, but I digress)
"Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead."
-----
The most mind boggling thing about the article? The online version links to GNXP here which then links to Malloy's defense of Watson here
Also, the article links to Half Sigma
who then links to his well articulated response to the article .
Honestly, I am sitting on the edge of my seat here. A critical mass of people are going to be reading these blogs, potentially. This means that potentially millions of people are going to read Malloy's defense of Watson and confirmation of the race differences in intelligence.
Who knows, maybe we can even emerge from pseudonymity!
The next few years could potentially define us as a species by how we handle this devastating truth.
Stop watching reality TV, people. There are interesting things happening in the world.
Random thought, but what if this big revelation follows the same path as what happened when the seduction community became public? That these ideas would permeate into average minds but not stick? I doubt it. Too much riding on old ideas.
Check it out here
----
Some notable quotes from the article:
"There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,”
"Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans."
"But the incident (referring to Watson) has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits."
"Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically."
"“Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist."
(Again, we return to the motif of RELIGION being NECESSARY to guarantee equality of humanity, but I digress)
"Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead."
-----
The most mind boggling thing about the article? The online version links to GNXP here which then links to Malloy's defense of Watson here
Also, the article links to Half Sigma
who then links to his well articulated response to the article .
Honestly, I am sitting on the edge of my seat here. A critical mass of people are going to be reading these blogs, potentially. This means that potentially millions of people are going to read Malloy's defense of Watson and confirmation of the race differences in intelligence.
Who knows, maybe we can even emerge from pseudonymity!
The next few years could potentially define us as a species by how we handle this devastating truth.
Stop watching reality TV, people. There are interesting things happening in the world.
Random thought, but what if this big revelation follows the same path as what happened when the seduction community became public? That these ideas would permeate into average minds but not stick? I doubt it. Too much riding on old ideas.
How to create artificial scarcity
Girls are master social manipulators. While us guys were playing sports as kids, they were gossiping. Because, from an evolutionary perspective, the main value the women bring to the table is eggs, they are experts at making guys clingy and extracting resources from them. I got an email from badboy lifestyle with some examples:
-------
Make Her Clingy
There's a great quote that people use in show business "Always leave them wanting more." Think about all of the best movies you've seen, the best rides at the amusement park, the best clubs you've ever been to. Was it easy to get in? Did you get in right away? Was the wait sometimes longer than the event? This leads to my next topic. Make her clingy.
Girls are Masters of doing this. They are able to make any guy desperate and needy for more. Actually not any, but most of them.
They simply have skills to make guys wait.
Did ever happened to you that for some reason, you feel needy during date with her?
That’s how they create feeling of value and control. They make you clingy, needy, desperate, then they realize how needy you are, and then they dump you. Go figure.
You as a player, you must take control over this, and make her needy.
You must turn the tables on her.
Yes, that is big secret of all players around world. Did you notice how some guys are able to make woman chase them? I will reveal you secret that Is going to make them chase you.
It’s a time for you as a man, to start making them crazy about you.
I am not going to give you the secret so easily. You will need to think about it for a second.
Tell me,
-When you are with a girl on a date, who is the one who says “I must go home now” (first one who end date? You or she?
-When you are kissing her during first few dates, who stops kissing? Let me guess she?
-When you are Text-messaging back and forth, who is the one who ends?
She?
I hope you can see what I want to say here. They are smart, they are sneaky. Its very powerful weapon.
---------
It's just as simple as artificial scarcity.
DHV-neg-time constraint - the holy grail of the initial pickup, according to Mystery Method.
It even works for guys with little social value, but for those with it, it's devastating.
----------
So your 3 new rules you going to use on first date are >
1)When you kiss her for very first time, be the one who pulls back first (stops kissing)
You can kiss her again later, but try to be the one who is putting on the brakes first. Remember, give a little, and then pull away. Almost like a game of tag--once you've tagged them, retreat.
Basically, you kiss her for first time, kiss her very good for few minutes, and then slowly stop kissing her, pull away, and keep smile on your face while still looking in her eyes. Ask her, so what kind of music you listen? Continue conversation. Keep her hungry for more kissing.
2) Don’t be too available. So even you are enjoying date with her, but you see its almost not possible you going to get her home that night, end a date, and make her clingy for more. But make sure she was enjoying date a lot. Then end it.
This kind of behaviour drives them crazy. Basically, you are sending message to her brain, you need me, more then I need you!
Friend of mine had this problem that he was milking dates. He would stay with girl forever and chat for 3 hours with her, and did nothing. Eventually, date became boring, and she decided to go home. He never got chance to see them again. In almost a year, he wasn’t able to get the second date. I told him to try this: When date is on Peak (peak of fun & energy) end it. Just tell her something urgently came up, and you must go.
If you look at core of this method, its push-pull. You give her something (fun) and then you take it away.
People go crazy when you do this kind of stuff to them.
----------------
The theory is really quite simple. Sometimes it can get a little depressing that all these social phenomena are easily explained with selfish gene theory. But hey, what can you do?
-------
Make Her Clingy
There's a great quote that people use in show business "Always leave them wanting more." Think about all of the best movies you've seen, the best rides at the amusement park, the best clubs you've ever been to. Was it easy to get in? Did you get in right away? Was the wait sometimes longer than the event? This leads to my next topic. Make her clingy.
Girls are Masters of doing this. They are able to make any guy desperate and needy for more. Actually not any, but most of them.
They simply have skills to make guys wait.
Did ever happened to you that for some reason, you feel needy during date with her?
That’s how they create feeling of value and control. They make you clingy, needy, desperate, then they realize how needy you are, and then they dump you. Go figure.
You as a player, you must take control over this, and make her needy.
You must turn the tables on her.
Yes, that is big secret of all players around world. Did you notice how some guys are able to make woman chase them? I will reveal you secret that Is going to make them chase you.
It’s a time for you as a man, to start making them crazy about you.
I am not going to give you the secret so easily. You will need to think about it for a second.
Tell me,
-When you are with a girl on a date, who is the one who says “I must go home now” (first one who end date? You or she?
-When you are kissing her during first few dates, who stops kissing? Let me guess she?
-When you are Text-messaging back and forth, who is the one who ends?
She?
I hope you can see what I want to say here. They are smart, they are sneaky. Its very powerful weapon.
---------
It's just as simple as artificial scarcity.
DHV-neg-time constraint - the holy grail of the initial pickup, according to Mystery Method.
It even works for guys with little social value, but for those with it, it's devastating.
----------
So your 3 new rules you going to use on first date are >
1)When you kiss her for very first time, be the one who pulls back first (stops kissing)
You can kiss her again later, but try to be the one who is putting on the brakes first. Remember, give a little, and then pull away. Almost like a game of tag--once you've tagged them, retreat.
Basically, you kiss her for first time, kiss her very good for few minutes, and then slowly stop kissing her, pull away, and keep smile on your face while still looking in her eyes. Ask her, so what kind of music you listen? Continue conversation. Keep her hungry for more kissing.
2) Don’t be too available. So even you are enjoying date with her, but you see its almost not possible you going to get her home that night, end a date, and make her clingy for more. But make sure she was enjoying date a lot. Then end it.
This kind of behaviour drives them crazy. Basically, you are sending message to her brain, you need me, more then I need you!
Friend of mine had this problem that he was milking dates. He would stay with girl forever and chat for 3 hours with her, and did nothing. Eventually, date became boring, and she decided to go home. He never got chance to see them again. In almost a year, he wasn’t able to get the second date. I told him to try this: When date is on Peak (peak of fun & energy) end it. Just tell her something urgently came up, and you must go.
If you look at core of this method, its push-pull. You give her something (fun) and then you take it away.
People go crazy when you do this kind of stuff to them.
----------------
The theory is really quite simple. Sometimes it can get a little depressing that all these social phenomena are easily explained with selfish gene theory. But hey, what can you do?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Iraq's Potential
Can anyone really be surprised that Iraq is a mess after watching this video?
What a terrible combination: neocons + political correctness.
What a terrible combination: neocons + political correctness.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Denial of Watson deeply disturbing
From today's NYT editorial in the times:
----
"Africa is still dirt poor — with an average annual income per capita of merely $600 and 300 million people living in poverty. Every year, nearly a million children die of malaria and more than two million die before they are a month old.
Nobody can know for certain whether Africa south of the Sahara might be on the cusp of shaking its endemic destitution and starting up the ladder of development. But it has its best chance in decades, and it would be a crime not to try to grasp this opportunity."
----
Can you comprehend that statistic? By the time you finish reading this blog, 10 more children will be dead because of malaria. And guess what? High commodity prices aren't going to do it. Increasing our aid budget won't do it. The peace corps won't do it. Africa will not grasp this opportunity. And it is a crime, just not in the way the NYT sees it.
Well, Watson was the one who said it best (taken from the interview ):
-------
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
-------
Yeah, that's the truth, and it's a sad, politically incorrect, taboo truth.
But it must be said, and children are dying now from very preventable diseases because Africa does not have the intellectual power to cure them. Infants, who have no knowledge of political correctness or Gould's straw men - are the ones who suffer because Jeffrey Sachs and the ivory tower can't bring themselves to realize that IQ matters.
To anyone who reads this and becomes upset, like many haters in the past: do yourself a service and read the full defense of Watson's statements here.
Then, I'm willing to take all criticisms. Only after you have read the science behind race.
To anyone who doesn't agree with me but thinks their time is too precious to waste on "racist" propoganda:
Villify and hate me all you want (which is the reason us HBD have been driven to pseudonymity).
But realize, that kid is going to DIE. And all your conferences and hate mail is not going to do a god damn thing about that.
Do you really give a shit about those dead children? I really don't think so. I really think that you're more concerned with creating the APPEARANCE of caring about them than actually giving a shit about them by shouting down Watson and preaching hope and social engineering at conferences and in development class. You preach hatred towards those who ask the difficult questions.
In fact, your hatred actually CONDEMNS the child to death because you are not willing to ask the hard questions about africa. Therefore, we get stuck with the status quo. China moves in and africa probably will soon be worse off (if you have any doubts, ask the Darfur victims, who constantly get attacked by military hardware financed by China).
The children die, you can go home and go christmas shopping guilt free because you've done you're daily dose of spouting PC rhetoric and shouting down those who think otherwise.
Shame on you.
----
"Africa is still dirt poor — with an average annual income per capita of merely $600 and 300 million people living in poverty. Every year, nearly a million children die of malaria and more than two million die before they are a month old.
Nobody can know for certain whether Africa south of the Sahara might be on the cusp of shaking its endemic destitution and starting up the ladder of development. But it has its best chance in decades, and it would be a crime not to try to grasp this opportunity."
----
Can you comprehend that statistic? By the time you finish reading this blog, 10 more children will be dead because of malaria. And guess what? High commodity prices aren't going to do it. Increasing our aid budget won't do it. The peace corps won't do it. Africa will not grasp this opportunity. And it is a crime, just not in the way the NYT sees it.
Well, Watson was the one who said it best (taken from the interview ):
-------
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
-------
Yeah, that's the truth, and it's a sad, politically incorrect, taboo truth.
But it must be said, and children are dying now from very preventable diseases because Africa does not have the intellectual power to cure them. Infants, who have no knowledge of political correctness or Gould's straw men - are the ones who suffer because Jeffrey Sachs and the ivory tower can't bring themselves to realize that IQ matters.
To anyone who reads this and becomes upset, like many haters in the past: do yourself a service and read the full defense of Watson's statements here.
Then, I'm willing to take all criticisms. Only after you have read the science behind race.
To anyone who doesn't agree with me but thinks their time is too precious to waste on "racist" propoganda:
Villify and hate me all you want (which is the reason us HBD have been driven to pseudonymity).
But realize, that kid is going to DIE. And all your conferences and hate mail is not going to do a god damn thing about that.
Do you really give a shit about those dead children? I really don't think so. I really think that you're more concerned with creating the APPEARANCE of caring about them than actually giving a shit about them by shouting down Watson and preaching hope and social engineering at conferences and in development class. You preach hatred towards those who ask the difficult questions.
In fact, your hatred actually CONDEMNS the child to death because you are not willing to ask the hard questions about africa. Therefore, we get stuck with the status quo. China moves in and africa probably will soon be worse off (if you have any doubts, ask the Darfur victims, who constantly get attacked by military hardware financed by China).
The children die, you can go home and go christmas shopping guilt free because you've done you're daily dose of spouting PC rhetoric and shouting down those who think otherwise.
Shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)