« Hellenic-Judeo-Christian | Main | Death panels »

July 14, 2011

Comments

The Half Sigma Manifesto !!

I'll volunteer to be your Southern campaign manager. We'll employ the Sailer Strategy and win bigtime.

"These same people also, no doubt, lack the intelligence to make wise investment decisions, so giving people any choice in directing their social security payments means that a lot of proles will be ripped off, and a lot of financial-Wall-Street types will be unjustly enriched."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I say let those who didn't plan ahead die off. It'll be good for the overall herd.

I'd guess most Republicans have figured out that NAMs are genetically "different," but they are afraid to proclaim this realization in public. Speaking of which, "Half Sigma" isn't your birth name, now is it?

Some creationists recognize HBD truths without believing in evolution but over 90% of anti-creationists and "skeptics" are hardcore HBD-deniers. I think creationism is a wash as far as HBD is concerned because there are too few Gregory Cochrans and too many Stephen J. Goulds.

There is a great belief among Republicans that NAMs can be "sivilized" as Huck Finn would say by making them high school graduates and home owners. Being lower-middle class, they will vote Republican like lower middle class whites. Lee Atwater even thought that blacks elevated to the middle class by affirmative action were candidates to become Republican voters.

Many white people, north and south, of different ethnicities and religions, followed this path, but only partly out of economic self-interest. Mainly it was because the Democrats turned so blatantly against whites.

Alrighty then, all we need are some candidates willing to run on the "let's face it, blacks are stupid" platform!

Most of all - abortions. You wrote about in the past. Allowing abortions is maybe the only policy used today that improves the genetic quality of the society.

"Some creationists recognize HBD truths without believing in evolution but over 90% of anti-creationists and "skeptics" are hardcore HBD-deniers. I think creationism is a wash as far as HBD is concerned because there are too few Gregory Cochrans and too many Stephen J. "

One of my pet peeves is you have all these white male liberal skeptic bloggers who pride themselves in being able to debunk all the pseudo-science spread by media and magical thinking in the world, and then you bring up HBD and these same skeptics call you a racist. They're every bit as credulous and gullible as the masses they look down, plus they're hypocrites to boot.

"skeptic bloggers who pride themselves in being able to debunk all the pseudo-science spread by media and magical thinking in the world,"

...whose religion is evolution, yet they deny its obvious results.

"Jack Kemp was the father of the idea that we could improve the lot of poor people by getting them into housing that they own. No doubt you can find plenty of correlations between owning a home and all other good things. "

I think you are mistaken in assuming there is no causation.

Clearly the government policy was to remove *all* obstacles. Was there anyway someone in California who wasnt in jail could have been turned down for a $300K loan in 2005?

The point of a "stretch goal" is that it has to be a stretch. The democrats removed all the stretch so essentially the people were unchanged.

Jack Kemp was an NBA player prior to entering politics. This is a back ground that would make him somewhat more sympathetic towards the plight of African-Americans than your typical country-club republican of the time.

Yes, many of his ideas have not worked. However, I do think they were worth an honest try.

Umm, Jack Kemp was a pro football player, not basketball.

"Most of all - abortions. You wrote about in the past. Allowing abortions is maybe the only policy used today that improves the genetic quality of the society."


Sailer seems to think abortion hits the middle. It reduces the 90-110 folks. Contraception disproportionally impacts the smartest, making them the least fertile. Alas, the <90 crowd still outpace us all. Immigration and welfare compound the effect.

It's not just No Child Left Behind it's the voucher drivel as well. The idea behind them stinks if you understand HBD. In theory getting into a better environment at a good school can improve a prole or NAM's character. Yet real world observations make me doubt that. My own high school allows many inter district transfers from poor areas and from what I've been told the NAMs bring the ghetto with them wherever they go. The proles in particular the female ones introduce promiscuity and drug habits to upper middle class girls too.

"SPREADING DEMOCRACY"

Americans have been trying to spread democracy to low intelligence minorities even before WWII when everybody was racist?

Wasn't it Woodrow Wilson, who was a fan of both the KKK and D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, who said "I will teach the Mexicans to elect good men"?

Woodrow Wilson was also the one who gave US citizenship (and oneday, perhaps statehood) to majority non-white Puerto Rico.

I must say that Woodrow Wilson's decision to give citizenship to the Puerto Ricans is even more baffling than the Republican parties modern HBD denialism because at least the few modern Republican politicians who have heard of The Bell Curve and privately agree blacks are as dumb as bricks can't admit to this in public.

But Woodrow Wilson was living in a time when when the Klan was a mainstream organization and he himself thought Birth of a Nation was as good and true as the Bible, yet he somehow thought granting citizenship to violent, Africanized, Puerto Ricans would somehow work great.

What the fuck was he thinking?

But, at least we kicked Spain's ass in the Spanish-American war and showed them who's boss of this hemisphere!

"SO WHY VOTE REPUBLICAN? Because they are not as bad as liberals who control the Democratic Party."

Kemp was worse than your average Democrat. He supported affirmative action and even requested to speak at the Million Man March. EVERY problem of blacks was the fault of white racism to Kemp.

I saw him debate Ed Koch once in the early 1990s and Koch was speaking honestly about black racism (in the context of black anti-Semitism). Kemp laid into Koch with a typical load of mau-mauing such as "you've never been denied a loan because of the color of your skin. You've never been pulled over for having black skin ...etc."

The last time I heard this guy debate was prior to the 2008 election. Kemp was debating Sean Hannity who - to his credit - really pressed Kemp on Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama's comments about how "racist" America was.

Kemp tried his usual mau-mauing with Hannity who just slapped him back down and asked him point blank if he agreed with various statements of Rev. Wright that he read out. Kemp was flustered and tried to change the subjects with little jokes and declarations about tax cuts. But Hannity stuck on him and made Kemp back down.

For some reason, Kemp got a free ride on his stupid racial views until the end of his life.

By the way, why doesn't nobody point out that Kemp's signature idea - enterprise zones - were a total failure.

"Kemp was worse than your average Democrat."

And Bush was worse than Obama on illegal immigration.

About the only thing I can say in praise of Obama is that he didn't push amnesty a tenth as hard as Bush did or else amnesty would have passed when Pelosi was still Speaker.

Should read "why does nobody."

"Kemp's signature idea - enterprise zones - were a total failure."

What were enterprise zones?

The problem with a "Lesser of Two Evils" strategy is that it allows the Republicans to repeatedly betray their base, which is exactly what they do.

Why should the Republicans care about affirmative action; third world immigration; and so forth if they know that the people who oppose these things will vote for them regardless?


"This attitude led to the housing crisis and near economic collapse, because the government encouraged giving mortgage-loans to people who had no business owning a house in the first place. "

Great post overall, but I think recognizing HBD and encouraging home ownership for the non-conscientious could still argued for... it involves the same issue you pointed out with privatizing social security. What business do private landlords have in extracting profits from those who are probably the least well off? If this is acceptable then why not privatize social security too?

The failure to recognize HBD in the current programs probably resulted in giving people too much choice over what sort of homes they tried to acquire, and a better government program would encourage enough affordable housing to be available and would limit options for people benefiting from government intervention.

Creationism/Evolution: This is key. It is not sane, there is no coherence of ideas, in being both:

- Atheist, AND
- Darwinist, AND
- Egalitarian.

The fundamental source of the equality of mankind, against an evolutionary history of tribal warfare and carnal genetics, is and can only be God, a higher order outside the natural World.

This religious idea has been replaced by a Babel of magic dust, whether humanism, relativism, etc., ideas believed zealously, by people who purport to be atheists and skeptics.

"These same people also, no doubt, lack the intelligence to make wise investment decisions,"

Even high IQ people don't know how to invest. That is why the smarter ones have index funds.
If investing in the stock market is so good, we could just have social security invested in target index funds that would go more towards bonds as people got older. The govt would only chip in to those few people who just didn't make the 6-7% investment gains through the timing of the market. 7% is usually the % they give as gains. There would be almost no fees because of the indexing, so traders wouldn't get rich of it. You could have Vanguard run it. I don't see how people could object to that if they think the market is such a great investment. It won't be based on the number of people paying into it, so we wouldn't have to worry about getting more immigrants. You would still force people to save, but would get the benefits of the market if there are any.

.

PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY - This would only be done if there are rules on the range of allowed options for investments so people don't make stupid decisions. This is what other countries have done (Australia, Chile, etc.). And since returns are higher than with Social Security, all IQ groups would benefit.

SPREADING DEMOCRACY - For countries without major ethnic conflicts, and without too many Islamic extremists running around, democracy provides the best government no matter how inept or corrupt it is.

Off topic:

You shouldn’t say that black families were stronger during slavery (marriage vow pledge), but it turns out that black men are better off in prison.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/us-prison-blacks-idUSTRE76D71920110714

I see that the “better to rule in hell” hypothesis was not considered.

"My own high school allows many inter district transfers from poor areas and from what I've been told the NAMs bring the ghetto with them wherever they go. The proles in particular the female ones introduce promiscuity and drug habits to upper middle class girls too."

I went to a good private high school and it didn't have a voucher program (not American). Drug use was fairly widespread and believe me there were no proles and the only blacks there were sons and daughters of elite Africans. It's hard to gauge how promiscuous the girls were but if a girl got pregnant then she must have had an abortion because if she was showing, she would have been kicked out of school. Prole girls are more promiscuous but upper middle class girls are not virgins either. You'll just have to take my word on that one.

Why vote Republican? Because more than anything, the GOP is the party of pissed off white people. And you my friend are pissed off.

"It is not sane, there is no coherence of ideas, in being both:

- Atheist, AND
- Darwinist, AND
- Egalitarian."

What are you talking about?

"PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY - This would only be done if there are rules on the range of allowed options for investments so people don't make stupid decisions. This is what other countries have done (Australia, Chile, etc.)." - Dan Morgan


I'm only familiar with the Chilean system and I kinda like it. The majority of pensioner money (like 80-90 percent) is required to be directly reinvested in the Chilean economy. It can't all go offshore to New York, London, Hong Kong, etc. Such nationalistic policies would never be enacted in the USA. The WSJ crowd would scream Smoot–Hawley ad nauseum.

"SPREADING DEMOCRACY"

The difference between a society with a mean IQ of 85 vs. 100 is that the first has a tendency to self destruct in 25 years and must rebuild itself while the latter can last for a 100 years before repeating the implosion / rebuild cycle. Take for example a 3rd world hell hole like Zimbabwe. Thanks to the government running the printing press 3 eggs costs 100 billion Zimbabwe dollars
http://harveysmuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/zimbabwe-100-billion-dollars.jpg

The last I heard Zimbabwe has disbanded it's old currency and issued new reserve bank notes. I don't know what denominations these new dollar bills will be in but I'm certain they will have less zero's behind them *grin*, but just wait 25 yeas those new zero's will be added in guaranteed and the cycle will repeat itself. A democracy cannot operate in such an environment.

"This was a policy pushed by Republicans during the last decade, and it’s based on the same wrongful thinking as housing. I am sure that there are a lot of positive correlations between investing money and various indicators of good citizenship."

"Social Security, like it or hate it, is based on the very correct proposition that a lot of people simply lack the intelligence and future-time orientation to save enough money for their own retirement. These same people also, no doubt, lack the intelligence to make wise investment decisions, so giving people any choice in directing their social security payments means that a lot of proles will be ripped off, and a lot of financial-Wall-Street types will be unjustly enriched."

There are several things driving this. One is the small government types that just want to end SS, Medicare, ect. The problem is the programs are way to popular to just eliminate. So the alternative is to "privatize" them and get the government out of the program. Of course privatize SS would allow Wall Street types to collect all kinds of fees, so they are all for it. None of this has anything to do with what is best for the ordinary people.

SS was created during the great depression, after most people had lost their life savings. SS was never intended to be your only retirement plan. It was the backup plan that would still be there even after a financial collapse. We still need that kind of government backed program, because there is going to be another, probably bigger financial collapse in the next 10 to 20 years. After the great depression some real regulations were put in place that kept financial markets safer. The regulations put in place after the 2008 crash were a joke. We clearly need a much bigger crash before people realize we need better regulations.

You should worry about casting this net too wide. You can't take all the virtues you find in yourself, ascribe them to some trait you have (IQ in your case, other traits in other theories which I won't mention), then denigrate everyone who doesn't share that trait.

Some of your followers believe in the physical destruction of those who fail to measure up. We know where that road leads.

If the rich get richer and poor get poorer, how many years will pass until the rich own everything? Graph your result.

If the stupid outbreed the smart, how many years until the percentage of 'brights' in a society reaches a tipping point where they aren't enough 'brights' to make the society viable? Write a short story about such a society.

Kemp is either one of the most ignominious, or one of the stupidest, figures in modern American politics. Before he died, he relentlessly argued by way of op-eds for amnesty and amping up of immigration. My favorite one was a bathos-soaked open letter to his grandchildren in which he went on about more immigration being good for their future.

To the extent Kemp was a champion of Section 8 housing, he is responsible for giving a possibly fatal sting to a very valuable demographic, white "proles" with middle-glass values.

No wonder the GOP is known as the stupid party.

" [Wilson] somehow thought granting citizenship to violent, Africanized, Puerto Ricans would somehow work great."

I assume Wilson met very few Puerto Ricans in his life, and those he did meet were probably from the old Spanish ruling class. This is 1917 we are talking about - no radio, no television, no mass immigration. Unless he actually went to Puerto Rico how would Wilson have had a clue?

The anti-evolution drive in the GOP was started and is now funded by the neocons, as noted by Reason back in 1997:

http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious

Paul Gottfried has written that even back when they were Trotskyites the neocons still opposed evolution because they thought it "lead to fascism."

If you have doubts, read some of the nut-job pieces by David Klinghoffer:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/discovery_institute_the_all-pu038541.html


The entire Intelligent Design movement is but a facade for Cultural Marxism.

As a footnote to the above comment, even leftists like Noam Chomsky maintain a certain antipathy toward evolution, as noted by both Steven Pinker and Nicholas Wade.

Half Sigma,

Regarding my two comments above ,of course, the irony of the entire (neocon funded) Intelligent Design crowd is that they say that they oppose only macro-evolution and not micro-evolution, although all their fears (e.g. "Darwinism leads to genocide," "Darwinism leads to racism," etc.) hinge on micro-evolution.

Seriously, spend an hour or two looking at the archives at the Discovery Institute Evolution News and other related Discovery Institute websites. There are hundreds of articles that repeat the same meme: "Darwinism is racist."

The Discovery Institute might as well be a wing of the ADL/SPLC used to co-opt the religious right.

Fortunately, some on the religious right are not fooled:

http://generation5.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/defending-christian-hbd/

http://www.kinism.net/index.php/weblog/beliefs/

Politically, the best strategy for HBDers is to argue that there is no contradiction between Darwinism and faith, so as to alienate neither atheists nor the religious.

Also, the above is not to imply that religion and Darwinism are not compatible. They aren't, as evidenced by multiple recent books. I just meant that it's counterproductive for an HBDer to take a Dawkins-like line on religion because it will only alienate the more religious HBDers.

"The entire Intelligent Design movement is but a facade for Cultural Marxism."

I'd be more than willing to believe that if most of the evolutionists and skeptics weren't actual cultural Marxists themselves. I see the ID'ers as effective trolls when they play the racism card. You can tell it gets on the evolutionists' nerves whenever someone brings up the fact that Darwin was a racist. ID is relatively harmless because they are mostly preaching to the choir. Very few people take the Discovery Institute seriously. What is harmful is when respected scientists promote HBD-denial and other nonsense like Gaianism. I know lots of people are offended by the stupidity of creationism in this thread but you guys need to seriously chill. Compared to the rest of the HS's bullet points in the post, ID/creationism doesn't even register. You cannot stop the masses from believing stupid things no matter how much you try to educate them. I mean look at the popularity of Alex Jones...

The comments to this entry are closed.