8.29.2013

Questions for Obama

Now that America is allied with Al-Qaeda, do you think it was a mistake to kill Bin Laden?

Does the alliance with Al-Qaeda mean that Benghazi is forgiven?

8.24.2013

How The Cathedral Lies

Is This What Ryan Julison Intended All Along?
All of the people involved in the murders, and most of their accomplices, have a self-identified position of advocacy for Trayvon Martin via their own social media accounts. Yet the legacy media, the national press, appear to completely disconnect themselves from this IN_YOUR_FACE similarity. However, the sheer open advocacy of this Justice For Trayvon™ motive is enough to make you look deeper to see if there really is a Trayvon Martin related violent pattern here. If you do a little research, and I do mean ‘just a little’, into news articles - what you find is STAGGERING. These are just a few which are dated from AFTER the trial completed.
It's a long article, but it is well worth it. This is a straight out of Hollywood script: a big lie is concocted to earn the liars money, while dozens of innocent people are killed by people who believed the lie.

8.23.2013

UK Government Has Traitors

Edward Snowden is not a traitor for revealing secrets about NSA spying on Americans. What is treason, however, is revealing the spying on foreign nations.

Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself
Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies.
Note the Snowden quote in the headline: UK government officers are outing their own spies. How insane is that? Or maybe they were diversity hires.......it wouldn't shock me to learn that the UK has Islamic radicals running it's Middle East intelligence operations. Then again, they probably wouldn't be so dumb as to reveal this information.

Based on the comments to the Independent article, most people think the Independent story is a fake so that they can get Snowden.

Want to Really Understand the Oberlin Race Hoax?

Read The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans

8.22.2013

One Meme To Rule Them All! The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans

A while back, Anonymous Conservative offered free Kindle copies of:
The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans

The stipulation was that you read it and spread the message. I'm reading on my commute each day, but it's taking a while to get through, so I'm going to review the first part (about 1/3 of the way through).

First some nuts and bolts: My main criticism (thus far), is that I found the first few opening chapters repetitive in the discussion of r/K theory and its implications. It is critical for the reader to grok r/K theory, so some repetition is warranted, but I felt like the first few chapters could be reduced by a good editor by cutting out some of the political discussion. He does a good job of setting up ideas that will be fleshed out later, but spends too much time on previewing what comes later. That said, the author writes clearly and moves the narrative forward, even with some of the aforementioned repetition. Chapter Seven is all about cuttlefish, which has both K-selected and r-selected descendants. It might sound boring as a topic, but that is when the book really picks up speed.

Here is the Amazon synopsis:
This book offers a scientific analysis of how our two main political ideologies evolved within our species. It explains how the competitive, aggressive, sexually selective and monogamous, two-parenting psychology underlying conservatism is a perfect reproductive strategy for use in a K-selected environment of limited resources, while a more competition-averse, pacifistic, sexually promiscuous, single parenting strategy is ideally adaptive to an r-selective environment of free resource availability.
It explains how these two psychologies arose through evolution, how they convey advantage in their respective environments, and how they arise today in response to a society's level of resource availability. It even shows how the emergence of one psychology or the other, in response to changes in resource availability, has altered history. 
Without understanding the materials contained within this book, ideologies are merely illogical accumulations of idiosyncratic personal preferences. That they randomly assort a myriad of issues into two distinct camps of issue platforms is an inexplicable puzzle. With this book however, one can see how ideological psychologies emerged in our species as specific adaptations to environmental conditions we faced, and even how they emerge today in response to those same environmental conditions.
Meticulously substantiated with all the latest peer reviewed research, this is the most complete analysis to date of how and why human beings became a political animal.

I'm not too familiar with the merits of r/K theory and I generally reject a lot of evolutionary psychology because of the "just so" stories. Humans are incredibly gifted at rationalizing their decisions and actions after the fact and concocting stories to explain why things are the way they are. Some Native Americans believed a spider birthed the world and frankly, a lot of evolutionary psychology strikes me as exactly the same, just gussied up for modern audiences.

From the authors about page, describing his blog, but it's applicable to the book as well:
Have no doubt, this is all correct. In fifty, or one hundred years, this would undoubtedly have been described by many others, had I not seen it. The similarities between politics and r/K Theory are just too obvious. However due to the whim of circumstances, you are seeing this all here first.
I don’t know why it hasn’t been written about before, but it is my pleasure and my honor to be among the first to scientifically demonstrate the inferiority and danger that Liberalism poses to our species and our societies. I hope you enjoy being a part of this nascent intellectual movement, and enjoy your stay here.
I'm not in a position to evaluate the science, but make no mistake, the author's theory is ambitious as he claims it to be.

The main thesis of the book is that liberals/liberalism is r-selected and conservatism is K-selected. When resources are plentiful and predators few, the best strategy is to have as many children as possible with as many mates as possible. Those who reproduce the fastest to fill the environmental carrying capacity will pass on their genes. When resources are few and predators many, the K-selected organism that delays reproduction in order to find a superior mate, while investing time and resources into only a few children who will be able to outcompete for resources and mates, will win. It applies to groups as well, and it's the case that K-dominant groups will have r-dominant members as well.

If you've read your Moldbug then you know we are living in a left-wing dominated world, but that makes sense based on the author's theory. If you consider the the industrial revolution created an abundance of resources, it makes sense that r-selected peoples and ideologies have gained the upper hand.

Even though I'm skeptical of evolutionary psychology, the author's thesis is quite powerful. I wouldn't dub it a "theory of everything," but a lot of ink has been spilled in trying to explain why liberals and conservatives are the way they are, with plenty of psychology books about conservatives and political books on liberals. From the more recent Liberal Fascism by Goldberg to the earlier Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Mises, there have been plenty of books aiming at the psychology and history of socialists/statists, but none strikes to the root. The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans  goes much deeper, to a non-political level, much as liberals aim to do with studies on the "authoritarian personality." This is quite an ambitious argument by the author and even though I am one-third of the way through, I can see the power of his case. Whereas the "authoritarian personality" studies aim to paint all conservatives as proto-Nazis one step away from fascism.

Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford theorized about a personality type that involved the “potentially fascistic individual”.[1] They labeled it the "authoritarian personality" based on earlier writings by Erich Fromm that used this term.[2] Because the historical influences for their theory included the rise of fascism in the 1930s, World War II, and the Holocaust, a main component of the "authoritarian personality" is being susceptible to anti-Semitic ideology and anti-democratic political beliefs. 
...Soon after the publication of The Authoritarian Personality, the theory became the subject of many criticisms. Theoretical problems involved the psychoanalytic interpretation of personality, and methodological problems focused on the inadequacies of the F-scale. Another criticism is that the theory of the Berkeley group insinuates that authoritarianism exists only on the right of the political spectrum. As a result, some have claimed that the theory is corrupted by political bias.
Even though there is this criticism, the left still brings the authoritarian personality up to tar conservatives (there's a new study every few years). Conservatives then spend time trying to refute the study, but the meme goes into the mainstream. Thus even if the r/K selection theory is only as sound as the authoritarian personality, it is at the very least the conservative antidote to it, and yet goes far beyond it, making it a more powerful idea. People are not fully r or K as well, but exist on a continuum, so it's much more forgiving than the authoritarian personality in that regard.

What I find most compelling thus far is how it systematizes the left/right divide. It simplifies and clarifies a lot of seeming complex political issues by cutting to some of the core differences. This brings to what I see as the book's great strength. Above I was critical of evolutionary psychology, equating it with creation stories and myths. All societies need these stories though, and Anonymous Conservative has put forth an extremely powerful one. Conservatives/reactionaries who read this book will gain a fresh perspective on the left/right divide, and if they carry this argument into the mainstream, it could be a damaging arrow against liberalism because it comes from ground that liberals have claimed: evolution.

If you've read Roissy at Chateau Heartiste, then you've seen how evolutionary psychology can be wielded to conservatives advantage. Though I am skeptical of evolutionary psychology, many people are not, thus the author's thesis opens an entirely new field of attack for conservatives. It takes the debate onto the "turf" of liberals, who often claim science for their own.

8.20.2013

Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian

Must watch to see a story, discussed for years online, in outlets ranging from far right to mainstream conservative/libertarian outlets such as Instapundit, finally get some media attention. The left understands that to change society, one must push and push and push, despite seeing no gains for years, because it takes a long time for ideas to filter through. Oprah doubles down on the Emmett Till comparison

8.07.2013

Design the Open Borders Logo

The Open Borders crowd needs a logo. Help them out!

Open Borders Logo Contest

The Open Borders movement seeks a symbol that embodies the spirit of free migration. To achieve that goal, we are sponsoring a logo contest. The winner of this contest will get $200 and their design will become the official logo of the Open Borders web site.
  • The goal: Create a simple logo, like the peace sign, that represents free migration.
  • How to enter: Go to the Open Borders Logo Contest Facebook page and post your image. Join the group and send me a message so I can add you. Then, you can post.
  • The criteria for selection: We seek something that is simple and powerful. Think of an image that a person with little artistic skill could paint on a sign or banner.
  • Who will choose the winner: The Open Borders website editors and the contest sponsors (Bryan Caplan and myself).
  • The winner will be announced on October 1, 2013 or later.

Here is my entry:














Can't see any borders, can you?

Synthesis

Political

Potpourri