Thursday, September 6, 2012

A New Workout I Made Up

I put on my fifteen pound weight vest and my ten pound leg weights, put my feet up onto a cooler, and did thirty partially-inverted pushups.

Then I put on my wraps and boxing gloves and shadow-boxed for a good while.  I did fifty toe-raises.  Then I did twenty slightly-upright pushups using a staircase.  Then I switched to three-pound hand weights, shadow-boxed some more, and did some sprinter's curls.

Then I dry-fired my snubby Smith & Wesson with a laser trainer I made out of a checkout-line laser pointer, duct tape, meat skewer, and elastic band.  I did find that my aim was less steady, but I could keep the point on the green masks on the wall (which was probably five or six yards away).

Then I did twenty more pushups and did some elbow- and knee-strikes against my heavy bag.  (I don't punch the heavy bag because my right wrist is wonky.)

I haven't figured out what to call it yet.  Probably some clever like "My Workout" or "This Workout I Do".  That would be cool.

Psychology versus Sociology

The trouble with our study of depression is that it relies on psychology rather than sociology--not because psychology is better, but because it is individualistic.  Nothing wrong with individualism per se, but it can't rationally be applied to massive secular trends like anomie, bulimia, cutting, depression, egomania, and whatever starts with an F.

Finding out the individual reason why so-and-so won't come outside and hates talking to people is pointless because it only forces you (if you have enough honesty to continue questioning) to explain the enormous coincidence implied by "everyone found invidual/unique/psychological reasons to become unreasoningly despondent 36 hours after global leftist hypercapitalist nihilism destroyed culture, family, and our entire way of life".

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Brief Farewell

Well over a year ago, I made a pledge to the Republican Party that I would stay in their party for at least a year.  Ron Paul's candidacy was the reason I extended my pledge.  I decided that if he were treated fairly at the national convention, and if the eventual nominee said anything against immigration, even just illegal immigration, I'd stay in the party and give [Romney] a fair hearing against the Constitution Party candidate in November.

There's no reason for me to spend much time on this.  The national convention decided that the results of the Maine state convention were unfair in a pro-Paul, anti-Romney direction.  This is an intensely tendentious conclusion, because fairness never prevented Republicans from excluding Rep. Paul, and Paulist viewpoints, from GOP events over the campaign season.  I don't like being put in the position of defending a libertarian (and an ex-Libertarian) I barely agree with (Paul's stand on The Issue, immigration, is weak in a way that is completely consistent with his libertarianism).

The GOP establishment has made me do that, so I say: Farewell.  Your nomination process told me I could support someone who was against indefinite detention, affirmative action, health care centralization, and the rest of the establishmentarian attack on my people.  You told me my vote would be counted.  You lied, as I fully expected you too.

I'll be changing my registration to unaffiliated at my next opportunity.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Geoffrey Ingersoll Thinks Muslims are a Race

In a very strange piece of writing (I'm not sure if it is supposed to a news article or not), Ingersoll has decided that calling for the widespread torture and murder of Whites is comparable to declaring that 10% of Muslims (a group he apparently thinks are a racial subgroup of "brown people") support terrorism.

Of course, Sura 9:29-30 pretty much calls upon all Muslims to commit terrorism until non-Muslims have all been financially enslaved:
You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.
So it would be reasonable to say that all devout Muslims support terrorism.

Incidentally, King Samir Shabazz is a former member of the Nation of Islam, which, according to some of the whiterpeople I've known, isn't a "real Muslim organization" ... because Islam is really a religion of peace.  (One of these whiterpeople came from San Francisco, home of the Zebra killings, so of course she had to do some rhetorical gymnastics in order to separate the murder of her city's people from the Nation of Islam; failing to do so would have caused some discomfort given the nature of left-coast leftism.)

Ingersoll's hatchet job is instructive for several reasons:

A.  He lasted for a whole sentence discussing planned Black-on-White violence before shifting attention (and blame) to "right-wingers" (most of whom are probably not WN / race-realist / White Zionists in the first place).

B.  He revealed, probably unintentionally, that the reason leftists have a soft spot for gay-hating, woman-bashing, slavery-condoning Muslims is that leftists think Muslims are "brown", and leftists love anyone "brown".  (Hesperado has several good article on this; they are linked here.  Hesperado believes "Muslims are not a race!" is a pretty weak mantra for anti-Islam apologists; I agree with him in a way, but I'm still going to call J-school race Marxists on it when they try to racialize Islam.)

C.  He apparently thinks it is just fine for him, and Business Insider, to give attention to terrorists, but not for Rupert Murdoch to do so.

It's all the usual J-school racial Marxism: shift the blame, cover up the crimes of leftist shock troops, make everything into a racial issue unless it would reflect badly on Black or Marxists, etc.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

American Fifth Position

So, here is my current tally of Presidential endorsements by alt-right bloggers:

For Barack Obama, Democrat Party: 1 (by Borepatch)
For Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party: 1 (by Aretae)
For Mitt Romney, Republican Party: 1 (by nydwracu)

To that I will add 1 for Virgil Goode, Constitution Party.  I'll keep this post short.

Here are some ratings at one of the few ratings groups I care about.  (For some reason they haven't rated Goode, even though they linked to one of his op-eds.)

The comments on the other bloggers' pages are interesting.  Obviously I don't agree with those bloggers on this particular matter, and I have little philosophically in common with Aretae (though my position on this election is probably closer to his than the others).

Since there is no real way to predict the future, I figure I will vote for the person who I agree with the most.  I don't agree with Borepatch that a victory for Obama will increase support for the Tea Party, since a victory for Obama may result in a well-enforced ban on the Tea Party, and every political organization outside the DemocRINO mainstream.

Friday, June 1, 2012

The Wild Frontier: A Short Story of the Neolithic

This time you've had it.

You're done with your village.  Your prodigious weapon-making and hunting skills have netted you another kill, a young stag, that had eluded your cousins for weeks.  And yet here they are, leering at you arrogantly, telling you with mocking smiles that they'll be generous enough that they'll let you have a bite once they are done.  They have stung your pride and they delight in that.

You know what they'll do.  Bring the kill back to your father and grandfather, claiming it is theirs.  The old men will believe them, because you won't protest.  You gave that up when you were scarcely ten summers old.  You don't talk like the others.  You must choose your words carefully.  Words don't roll off the tongue like they do for the rest of your village.  Others have a way of persuading, a song to their words that you lack.  You are a fine observer and a poor speaker, and you've known this since the kicks and jeers of the boys became so rough, five summers ago.

It is no good appealing to the elders.  Your mother stopped protecting you, as all mothers must stop protecting their sons.  The wisest men in the village are too old to hunt so they never see your prowess.  It is their practice to listen to the eldest and most confident of the hunters, that is all.  Beyond recognizing that you are a hard worker, the elders take little notice of you.

Yet you're not completely alone in the village.  Another young man respects you.  He is no hunter, but he has watched you make a spearhead and set it into a shaft with grace and skill far exceeding men twice your age.  He has copied your technique, and--though you may hate to admit it--he has improved upon it.  Orphaned as a boy, he spends his spare time making sure his skinny little sister gets enough to eat.  No one else would deign to notice the shy girl.

A thought emerges through your shame and anger.  A few of the older men marveled at a view some of them had seen--a mountain pass was clear, just a few days' journey to the North.  The younger men took little note of it but you listened.  Tradition holds that the mountain pass has been closed by ice since the eldest villager's grandfather's grandfather was a baby.  Let the old men speculate on what spirits have melted the ice and opened the path; your mind is on more concrete matters.

As you turn and follow the meat thieves back home, shame drains out of you and is replaced by resolve.  At your first opportunity you relate your plan to your only friend.  There is pain in his eyes but he knows you are right--neither of you will ever be allowed to take a mate if you remain in the village.  You gather supplies while he talks quietly to his sister.

Just before daybreak the next morning, you are greeted by three misfits rather than two.  The skinny girl is hand in hand with the blue-eyed one who people say is too pretty for her own good.  Another orphan, her face is still bruised from the hand of a jealous young woman, a rival for the eyes of the men.

The four of you are dressed for travel, but your supplies are meager.  You are not worried about the villagers pursuing and catching you.  They will assume you are as good as dead.

You hoist the pack onto your back, pick up the best spear you've ever made, and nod silently to the other three.  The four of you set off northwards towards the pass.  Beyond it lie streams choked with fish, a multitude of herbs, and enough game to delight hundreds of hunters.  The villagers may be right--you may well die of starvation or exposure--but in you, pride has overcome fear.

You will build a home of your own, take a mate, and raise her sons in the certain knowledge they are your own, or you will die trying.  Pride will not protect you from death, but it will protect you from living in shame.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Political Parties Cannot be Defanged

... unless you adopt the following plan and get it on your state's ballot as an initiative:

I.  Eliminate government-conducted partisan primaries.  Require nomination by petition only for all elected positions.  Ballot-access petitions work for city governments, and independents generally have to use them.  Why not save the expense of one entire election every two years?

II.  Eliminate partisan labeling on ballots.  This will make it harder for semi-informed partisan voters to influence elections.  This is probably best combined with a free voters' pamphlet with a page or so of information provided by each balloted candidate; otherwise, you may end up with a lot of non-informed voters.

III.  Use approval voting.  Under this system, each voter is able to vote, once, for as many candidates as he or she likes.  One advantage of approval voting is that works equally well for both single-member and multi-member constituencies.  Furthermore, it allows philosophical allies to run in the same race without spoiling each other's chances, thus eliminating one of the main justifications of political parties.

IV.  Require legislators to arrange themselves regionally, rather than ideologically, on the floor of their chamber.  Ban the use of capitol rooms and facilities by partisan or ideological groups.  Rather than formalizing party blocs, legislatures could ensure that the minority is represented (on a committee, say, or among floor leaders) by using multiple-winner, one-member-one-vote systems.

This is not a ban on political parties per se.  I'm not in favor of banning parties or any sort of association.  This proposal simply aims to put parties cleanly on the civic side of the state-civic divide.  Parties could continue to endorse candidates, hold caucuses and fundraisers, and generally do as they please, as long as they don't breach that divide.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Political Posters

Need any right-wing posters?  Go to Political Posters.  These run the gamut from issue posters, like an anti-abortion one featuring Rosy the Riveter to general statements of principle of colonial thinkers.  There is a satirical one in bright red noting that Che Guevara was an anti-gay, anti-African warmonger.  Religious posters are broken out into Biblical posters and those featuring quotations from important Catholic leaders overlain on a photograph of a rosary.

You could base a detailed anti-socialist agenda around several of these quotations.  Socialism's basis in resentment is highlighted in several Churchill quotes, and its reliance on fiat money and debt is noted in quotes by Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, and others.

In several cases, the background information presented by clicking on the links is vital.  The quote, "The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion for equality made vain the hope for freedom" is elaborated at the Right Posters page on the subject.  (I've heard many a Lord Acton quote but not that particularly poignant one.)

My single favorite quote is probably, "Generosity is a reflection of what one does with his or her own resources and not what he or she advocates the government do with everyone's money," by Ronald Reagan.  It echoes the very thing that most unnerved me about the self-congratulatory rhetoric I heard so often when I lived among the smug leftists of the American Northwest.  They were always so proud of how much progress they could create with tax money.

The posters are available in two sizes, 8.5 x 11" and 22 x 17".

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Red-haired Orphans: A North American Dream

Reading HBD Chick's HBD Day contribution, it occurred to me that both big North American countries have a favorite orphan.  In both cases, she's a girl.  And she's a red-head.  And she's named Anne.

Anne of Green Gables and Little Orphan Annie were, as far as I know, dreamed up completely independently in Canada and the United States.  They are different in many ways but their similarities are equally fascinating: both are about imaginative, charming girls who melt the hearts of both the grownups in the story and, presumably, the audience.  Canada's Anne is a school-teacher and lover of literature; in recent incarnations, America's Annie has been a singer.  Anne's father-figure is a shy, soft-spoken farmer who never married; Annie's is a (perhaps stereotypically) rich, pompous, generous American.

But that is all old hat.  What intrigues me about the stories is that they underscore what appears to me to be a love of orphans that, while surely not unique to the US and Canada, seems to be stronger than average here, if not much stronger.  (The only comparable figure I can think of to these girls is Pippi Longstocking, who seems to clarify the rule: warmth toward orphans is Nordish and/or Celto-Germanic.  But I am not a literature expert so I admit I am out on a limb.)

It is possible for an orphan to have a happy, healthy life anywhere, but in all too many places, it is quite unlikely.  Of course, with many mammals, an orphan could never survive at all--toothless young can't survive on their own and it is quite labor-intensive to raise them.  An unrelated adult or distant cousin has little genetic incentive to raise an orphan.

So, in a sense, a successful adoption, foster family, or even orphanage represents humanity conquering nature.  The same could be said of ascents of Mt. Everest.  It's possible for a human to climb any peak in the Himalayas (and Everest isn't nearly the most dangerous one) ... it's just not likely.  So it makes for exciting drama to make a movie about climbing a mountain, or surviving as an orphan.

Familiarity breeds contempt, they say, and therein lies a danger.  Our love of happy, charming, and intelligent orphans (Anne's academic prowess is noted frequently) creates a market for the successful-orphan genre, but as it becomes an entrenched genre it threatens to wash away common sense.  Most orphan stories are much darker, ranging from brutal orphanages to human trafficking.   Anne Shirley thrives partly because her environment is rich in healthy two-parent families brimming with gentle, engaged, masculine fathers and stern, energetic, caring mothers--the sort of environment that is on the wane in much of the West.

Hubris can be blinding, and therein lies the greater danger.  When a climber slips, he thanks his lucky stars that the other men on his tether kept their footing.  If several of them lose their footing at once, they're all likely to die.  Our love of flame-haired, energetic orphan girls is laudable; it's part of our distinct North American charm.  Our ability to understand, nurture, and educate people we're not related to is limited; it's a simple fact.  A preening, self-congratulating hubris tempts us to deny this fact.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Small Business and the Working Man

I admit to a sort of sentimentality when it comes to small, unique business establishments, with their colorful proprietors, local flavor, and friendly signs reading "Closed for the Day".  

Usually I drive by those signs and stop when I get to Wal-Mart with its friendly, culture-free, character-free, local-color-free "Open" sign.  I'm not going there because I like Wal-Mart.

Why don't I shop at small proprietorships instead?  

Because they're generally only open when I am at work and on Saturday, the only day I have to spend with my family, not to mention the only day I can make the trip to the garbage dump.  Certainly I can get time off from my job, but I'm not going to do it to go shopping when I need to save days for doctor, dentist, registering the car, etc.

In my town, apparently small business can turn a profit largely serving welfare recipients, teenagers, and independently wealthy people.  Bully for small business.  On the other hand, I also notice a lot of signs reading "Out of Business".   

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Things You Can Say Without Getting Fired

Never mind all the anti-White racial epithets, apparently you can openly call for a race war, and for the burning of the state that you live in, if you're part of the New Black Panther Party.  You can put a contract on the head of a man who hasn't even been charged with any wrongdoing, without getting charged for it.  You can stockpile guns and ammunition without getting hassled by the Federal government.

I can't say I'm completely against them, though.
In the NBPP's "10 Point Platform," which is a takeoff on the 10-point platform of the original Black Panther Party, the NBPP demands that blacks be given a country or state of their own, within which they can make their own laws. They demand that all black prisoners in the United States be released to "the lawful authorities of the Black Nation."
Sounds like a decent idea to me.  (I don't usually cite the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the mentions of "10 Point Platform" on the NBPP-Boston site don't lead anywhere.  Probably the white man's fault.)

Looking at a more informative link at Free Republic, it looks like the NBPP are pretty vague on the subject of their future Black Nation.

1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and THE BLACK NATION.
It's not even clear if this is supposed to be a regular geographical nation, or just a bunch of tax-exempt, draft-exempt, "fully employed" Blacks living in the USA.  (Still, the idea an actual Black nation-state in the current territory of the USA, based on this 10 Point Platform, is pretty interesting to me as an enthusiast for fanciful political reform.  How much of a government can you run purely on lotteries, user fees, and seigniorage?  Good question.)

Monday, April 9, 2012

Severn Wins the Order of Rightist Merit

The d'Estienne Committee has chosen unanimously to award the Order of Rightist Merit to Severn for his performance in the comment thread of this post in The Atlantic.

Bravo, Severn!  

(I'd write to him if I knew his email address.)

Saturday, April 7, 2012

If a Black Man Shot a White Man and Claimed Self-Defense...

One of the most common claims the left has made in the wake of the shooting of Trayvon Martin is that, if a black person had shot a Caucasoid, Amerindian, or other non-Black individual and claimed self defense under a stand-your-ground law, the shooter would obviously have been arrested.

A recent case in Phoenix proves that assertion, like most of the claims of cultural Marxists, to be completely and utterly false.  As in the Martin-Zimmerman case, the shooter arrived at the scene in a car, while the deceased arrived on foot.  In neither case was the deceased found to have a weapon.  As in the Martin-Zimmerman case, the shooter claimed to be concerned for his safety because of the deceased's behavior at the time.  And in neither case was the shooter arrested.

Notable differences between the cases:

In the Phoenix case, the deceased, a man named Daniel Adkins, was considered mentally disabled.  Trayvon Martin may have been immature and he was probably below average in IQ, but he was in the general population of the public schools; Adkins could not even legally drive.

Adkins is not described as having struck any person, although he "swung his fists toward the window" of the car the shooter was driving and may have struck the vehicle itself.  Martin bloodied Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head before the shot was fired.

The basis of the Phoenix shooter's self-defense claim is that he thought Adkins was holding a lead pipe.  Adkins was holding a (possibly taut) dog leash that the occupants of the car may have thought was a blunt weapon.  (The entity at the other end of the leash, a dog named Lady, was brought home unharmed.)  The basis of Zimmerman's self-defense claims is that he was supine, and being beaten bloody, when he made the decision to fire.  

In the Phoenix case, the shooter had the ability but not the legal requirement to withdraw to safety, specifically, to roll up the window of his vehicle (and/or to back his vehicle up, if that was possible).  In the Martin-Zimmerman case, the shooter had neither the ability (being flat on his back) nor the legal requirement to flee.  

The identity of the Phoenix shooter has not been made public, and we know little about him other than that he is a 22-year-old black man.  George Zimmerman's name and possibly his address have been made public, as well as other details of his life like the ethnicity of his mother and father, his history of activism, etc.

A political group has called for the extra-legal "capture" of Zimmerman and hinted at killing him.  No group has called for any retaliation against the Phoenix shooter.

It is not known if NBC will cover the Phoenix slaying, or if they intend to doctor any evidence in this case.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

May 2nd is the day!

I am setting up an HBD Day domain.  It will mostly be a blog for myself and guest writers, reprints of and/or links to major HBD articles, and a place for MG's and HBD Chick's wonderful banners.

In any case, progress is slower than I was hoping since my family has gotten a cold.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Best SLAWB Comment on the Martin-Zimmerman Affair

I'm soliciting entries for best SLAWB comment, that stupidest, most leftist, most anti-white, most bigoted opinion to be precipitated by the homicide of Trayvon Martin.

My nominee:
Brain dead racist white pigs  - do you know that you are our albino children??? Do you know what an albino is?? An albino being lacks melanin which gives the pigmentation to your pink skin and hair. You got your pink color due to mistakes in your genetic makeup. Do you know that our forefathers drove your albino forefathers out of Africa because of their evil minds. Racism is the due to defect in your DNA - we can't help you. Travel to tanzania and Zambia and visit your albino brothers and sisters... 
Not bad, but maybe you can top it.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Allen Goin, not Allen Coon

The victim in the Kansas City face-burning attack may be named Allen Goin.  Previously people had assumed it was Allen Coon based on his mother's last name, but his father's last name is Goin.

I am writing this in contrition because I have written about him under the wrong name, but also so that people searching on the one name will be helped to find the other.  Also, I'd like to note that it's a pretty good media blackout when they can cause this much confusion.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Any Comments on This Graphic?

Here is a graphic I'm supposed to share.

Created by: Online IT Degree

Any comments?

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Simple Question about the Bond Market

Given the inevitability of hyper-inflation in the near future, is it a pretty simple piece of advice to almost everyone to stay away from lending at fixed rates?  Does this mean that everyone should be leaving bonds and bond-heavy mutual funds for stocks and stock-heavy mutual funds?

I know advice could and probably should be stated in a more sophisticated way, but is this simple advice valid as far as it goes?

Friday, March 16, 2012

From my employer's "diversity" newsletter

March is Women's History Month.
March is Deaf History Month.
March is Mental Retardation Awareness Month.

(The great thing about leftists is, you don't really have to mock them.  Just observe reality and the effect is the same.)

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Number of Concealed-Carry Permits by State

Clayton Cramer answered (at least partly) a question I've been wondering about recently:
My spreadsheet totals 5,477,213 licensees in the twenty-five states for which we have either an exact number, or a reasonable estimate based on annual issuance, number of years for which licenses are issued, and an assumption that 80% of licenses renew or remain a resident. 
Whoa.  I hadn't guessed it was that high.  Cramer's number is an estimate based on an assumption, and occasionally double-counts, but there are also 25 states we don't have information for, most of which issue CCWs at least in theory (New York among them).  So I'll guess that the 5.4 million number is a bare minimum for the whole country.

CCW licensees really don't brag much.  I know many, many more people who claim to be "good friends with a Navy SEAL" than who claim to have a CCW.  (The latter number is one; the former number is probably forty or fifty.)

Friday, February 24, 2012

Complaints About Spouses

My current set of coworkers is, on the whole, a quite nice group of ladies.  My sole major complaint about them is that they constantly say awful things about their husbands.  Their husbands are apparently incapable of personal hygiene, work, speech, and perhaps even thought.  It all seems somewhat inappropriate water-cooler talk, as well as quite exaggerated.

In a fit of pique I tried to recall any time I had heard a man gripe about his wife in a similar setting (actually, to anyone but a marriage counselor or a close friend, in private).  I couldn't recall a single time, and chalked up this as another case of big differences between men and women.

Fate of course decided to intervene to teach me a lesson.  Not two weeks after I came to the above conclusion, I went to the dentist to have a cleaning.  My dentist is a big old grouch, to be sure, but that day he was in fine form, going on at length about what a "lazy and stupid" woman (his words!) his wife is.  (He was mainly talking to the hygienist, a personal employee of his.)  At that point I recalled that he had actually complained about her on the previous visit, only then I didn't know (or suspect) that the woman he held in such contempt was his wife.

So of course I had to retract my observation.  The bitterness that my dentist displayed was not at all mixed with the sarcastic mirth displayed by my coworkers.  Furthermore, family-strife-venting in front of a patient is surely even more inappropriate than it is in front of peers.

Today it hit me--this really is a difference between men and women.  I noted that I've never heard a woman of whom I'm a customer (patient, client, etc.) complain about her husband.  And the fact remains that I've never heard a male coworker complain about his wife.

Has anyone else ever noticed this pattern?  Is the pattern that (a) men are happy to air their dirty laundry (and, let's face it, their history of poor decision-making) among subordinates and customers, while (b) women are comfortable doing so only among peers?

Can anyone explain this, or is it just a chance anomaly of the individuals I know?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Psychotherapy and Social Class

It's often been noted that many of the people in long-term psychotherapy don't seem to have any real problems, just general feelings of unease.  They may feel some hurt related to their employment, or their upbringing, or their place in the community, or even the universe in general.  (This is to say nothing of people with distinct, crippling mental diseases like schizophrenia, who are a different matter entirely.)

Ceteris paribus, people with the time and money for long-term talk therapy have fewer problems than those who lack the time and money.  If you can afford this sort of thing you are better off than most right there.  However, ceteris paribus is an unreasonably large condition.  Actually, it's laughable.  Who says other things should be equal?

People who get into the middle and upper classes through intelligence and hard work are a special breed, and other upper-middle-class people are descended from those who got there through intelligence and hard work.  Intelligence, conscientiousness, and hard work are related to psychological dimensions that, if magnified enough, can change from virtues into vices.  A lot of modern neuroses look like some sort of unfortunate exaggeration of a social/psychological virtue:

Perhaps the large number of people in psychotherapy is a result of the same kind of class sorting that Charles Murray is always talking about.  I have no real angle on helping people with these conditions, and I'm aware that a lot of alt-rightists deny their existence.

I do think that we'd all be helped in understanding the conditions that are distortions of virtues if we could keep straight what is virtue and what is vice.  It's no good recognizing that autism can be understood not as a disease but as an extremely male thought pattern, if male thought patterns have already been effectively demonized.  Leftism is as big a barrier to understanding psychology as it is to understanding sociology and economics.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

NYPD: Not So Bad After All?

This article implies that New York's finest may have actually been doing a pretty good job in monitoring foreigners involved in a religio-military organization which has declared endless war against Christians, atheists, Jews, and pagans.
But the latest documents mention no wrongdoing by any students.
-Chris Hawley
It appears that believing that Christians and Jews deserve to be forced, with threat of violence, to pay special protection money to mullahs, while atheists and pagans deserve to die ipso facto, and joining a religion which preaches and acts on these beliefs, does constitute any "wrongdoing" according to Chris Hawley.  Interesting.
Like New York City itself, American universities are admired across the globe as places that welcome a diversity of people and viewpoints.
- Robert Hornsby
No, American universities are laughed at across the globe for condoning the viewpoint that Christians and Jews deserve to be forced, with threat of violence, to pay special protection money to mullahs, while atheists and pagans deserve to die ipso facto, with this one-way tolerance of course constituting an attack on Christian, Jewish, and atheistic, and pagan viewpoints.  (As well as every other religion on Earth; I'm not going to list all of them.)

If Muslims were not fancied by the anti-white left to constitute some sort of an oppressed race, they would never be allowed to pretend that organizing to carry out Sura 9:29 was somehow protected by a broadly-construed freedom to organize religiously, binding all levels of government.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012


Due to the usual overburdened schedule problems, I won't be blogging or commenting much for a few weeks or months.  I thank all who have recently commented, especially Jim Bowery, who must have set some sort of a record.

See you later.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Bowery on the Bowery Tax

I would like Jim Bowery to adumbrate his tax idea here.  I do not understand it.  He offers it as an alternative to both the status quo and to the Moldbug's self-assessed formalist tax (which is itself an alternative to Henry George's land value tax).

I have invited him to this thread to summarize the proposal and hopefully answer questions.  I have no opinion on it other than that it is interesting and I couldn't digest it.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Correlation Data on Homicide and Race

Over at HBD Chick's place I posted some data on homicide rates by region.  These data are for murders per million residents, as per Wikipedia:

All the countries in Southern Africa – 373 (2004), 320 (2010)
All the countries in East Africa – 208 (2004), 230 (2010)
All the countries in Central America - 293 (2004), 250 (2010)
All the countries in West and Central Europe - 15 (2004), 12 (2010)

[Example of a particularly nice European country: France - 8 (2006)]

Data by US State came from an anti-death penalty site:

New Hampshire – 10 (2010), 8 (2009)
North Dakota – 15 (2010), 19 (2009)
West Virginia – 33 (2010), 46 (2009)
California – 49 (2010), 53 (2009)
Louisiana – 112 (2010), 118 (2009)
USA nationwide - 48 (2010)

So while the American totals are dramatically worse than West/Central Europe, it's impressive how much it varies from state to state.  Almost looks like it varies with IQ, doesn't it?

Of course psychometrics enthusiasts wouldn't find that too surprising, but neither would race realists find it too surprising if it was correlated with race.  The above data make it look like states that are racially equivalent to Europe are approximately as dangerous as Europe, with respect to murder/homicide.  Since there are no US states with as a high a percentage of blacks as most African countries, we shouldn't be surprised that there are no states topping 200 murders per million inhabitants (and indeed only Louisiana tops 100, but of course DC is at about 234).

More direct data, from victimization reports, indicates quite the same thing (though as Queen Latifah proved recently, noöne will call you out if you ignore victimization data and concentrated on arrest data, which are allegedly tainted by racism).

HBD Chick recommended I do a post on this, so I decided to do a little research and put 2010 data on homicides by state together with data from the census of the same year on race and ethnicity by state.  I used the state-by-state homicide data from the above site, while I found data on race and ethnicity at this US Census Bureau page.

Here are the data:

State Homicide White Black Hispanic
Alabama 62.5 68.5 26.2 3.9
Alaska 37.5 66.7 3.3 5.5
Arizona 61 73 4.1 29.6
Arkansas 54.5 77 15.4 6.4
California 51 57.6 6.2 37.6
Colorado 28 81.3 4 20.7
Connecticut 33 77.6 10.1 13.4
Delaware 49.5 68.9 21.4 8.2
Florida 53.5 75 16 22.5
Georgia 58 59.7 30.5 8.8
Hawaii 18 24.7 1.6 8.9
Idaho 14.5 89.1 0.6 11.2
Illinois 57.5 71.5 14.5 15.8
Indiana 47 84.3 9.1 6
Iowa 13 91.3 2.9 5
Kansas 39.5 83.8 5.9 10.5
Kentucky 43 87.8 7.8 3.1
Louisiana 115 62.6 32 4.2
Maine 19 95.2 1.2 1.3
Maryland 75.5 58.2 29.4 8.2
Massachusetts 29 80.4 6.6 9.6
Michigan 59.5 78.9 14.2 4.4
Minnesota 16 85.3 5.2 4.7
Mississippi 68 59.1 37 2.7
Missouri 67.5 82.8 11.6 3.5
Montana 29.5 89.4 0.4 2.9
Nebraska 26.5 86.1 9.2 7
Nevada 59 66.2 8.1 26.5
New Hampshire 9 93.9 1.1 2.8
New Jersey 39.5 68.6 13.7 17.7
New Mexico 84 68.4 2.1 46.3
New York 42.5 65.7 15.9 17.6
North Carolina 51 68.5 21.5 8.4
North Dakota 17 90 1.2 2
Ohio 43.5 82.7 12.2 3.1
Oklahoma 57.5 72.2 7.4 8.9
Oregon 23.5 83.6 1.8 11.7
Pennsylvania 52.5 81.9 10.8 5.7
Rhode Island 29 81.4 5.7 12.4
South Carolina 64 66.2 27.9 5.1
South Dakota 32.5 85.9 1.3 2.7
Tennessee 65 77.6 16.7 4.6
Texas 52 70.4 11.8 37.6
Utah 16.5 86.1 1.1 13
Vermont 12 95.3 1 1.5
Virginia 46.5 68.6 19.4 7.9
Washington 26 77.3 3.6 11.2
West Virginia 39.5 93.9 3.4 1.2
Wisconsin 26.5 86.2 6.3 5.9
Wyoming 17 90.7 0.8 8.9
DC 234 38.5 50.7 9.1

The first column of numbers is the 2009-2010 average homicides per million residents.  After that are statistics from the 2010 census for two racial groups (whites and black) and one ethnic group (Hispanics).

Here are some correlation coëfficients:
Between homicide rate and fraction of whites ... - 0.584
Between homicide rate and fraction of blacks ... 0.784
Between homicide rate and fraction of Hispanics ... 0.136
Between homicide rate and sum of blacks & Hispanics fractions ... 0.716
Between homicide rate and sum of blacks & adjusted Hispanics fractions ... 0.816.

I wasn't satisfied with just correlating homicide and number of blacks, but adding in Hispanics detracts from the correlation (basically because Hispanics aren't nearly as homicidal as blacks).  So I decided to try to sum blacks plus a fraction of Hispanics, with the fraction chosen to maximize the correlation.  The fraction I eventually chose was 0.3125.  (The latter is certainly not a formal multiple regression, but I've forgotten how to do that so for the time being it will have to suffice.)

In conclusion, the magnitudes of these correlations tend to support the thesis that blacks and Hispanics really are more prone to violent crime than whites, and that arrests of innocent blacks and Hispanics by racist police officers are not responsible for differing arrest rates.  

(Coming up: I found a different site with the interesting "White persons not Hispanic" statistic, which I add into the data mix for comments below.  I hypothesize that homicide and WNH will be even more strongly negatively correlated than homicide and whites.  Rates for Europe broken out by country are available here.)

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

What Ron Paul Taught Me About Myself

I went to a Ron Paul speech recently.  The speech was fine--dispassionate, brief, full of facts.  It was utterly devoid of the kind of character assassination that the public say it can't stand but secretly loves.  (Incidentally, it was also full of support for the individual liberty the public says it loves but never seems to vote for.  Also, it was full of painfully straight talk and devoid of feel-good rhetoric, but again the public doesn't really respond the way they said they would.  I think I see a pattern.)

Another I noticed about the speech: very little security.  Two or three police officers, unknown number of Secret Service people.  I suppose that's the deal in parts so far north--a big crowd of scary people (we used to be called "Caucasoids") all tromping around with our boots in the ice-melter, cheering for an elderly obstetrician when he decried the National Defense Authorization Act.  It was the least edgy political event I can even imagine.

I'm not just a Ron Paul supporter, I'm enough of a Ron Paul supporter that if Romney or Gingrich gets the nomination I'll drop my Republican registration (something I promised to do a while back anyway).  I'm not really a Republican anyway, but if Ron Paul didn't exist I'd quip that I'd join any party in which someone like him was a prominent member and potential leader.  So I suppose I'm being true to my alternate-reality self.

Seriously though, supporting Rep. Paul, with his bad immigration rating as a candidate (and a good one as a member of Congress), has shown that I was not quite honest with myself once in the past.  It was probably in 2008.  My wife asked me what issue was most important to me, repealing the PATRIOT Act or stopping immigration?  (Somehow she knew killing affirmative action wasn't in my top two.  It's in my top ten though.)

I told her stopping immigration was my highest priority, and if someone agreed with me on that issue and on no others, I would vote for that person in preference to a person who disagreed with me on immigration and agreed with me on all the others.  Yet I prefer Paul over Rick Santorum.

It's not that I agree with Paul on everything else, or disagree with Santorum on everything else.  But it's close enough that it gets the point across.  At the end of the day, character and the correct stand on a dozen political issues trumps a rating from a single pressure group.