Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Barrel Strength - Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Elephants in the room

A friend once said of me that I was the person always pointing out the elephant in the room, the moose under the table, the large obvious fact that everyone was pretending not to notice. Rather like that story of Beatrice Webb talking to the wife of Bernard Shaw, who both pointedly ignored the fact that a dog had shitted on the carpet quite deliberately in front of them. Too genteel to notice, I suppose.

I have often asked myself why  people put themselves in a social bind of this nature? What gain do they make in not noticing the elephant? Do they believe they will lose status as a result of ignoring the fact which everyone knows but no one mentions? What is the gain by drawing attention to the obvious? Very little. But the loss of social stature occasioned by drawing attention to large obvious facts can be huge.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Gregory Hood, who wrote the following linked article on race in America. Is he a “racist” in a morally depraved sense for noticing the facts he writes about? Is he a “race realist”? Should we jail him or have him for dinner? One thing we know for sure, however, is that it takes uncommon clarity and courage to dare to notice in a public way the things he is talking about.

Americans live by lies. Or they are ignorant. Or they deliberately refuse to think. There may even be conscious deception, borne out of a sense of noblesse oblige or misplaced morality. Whatever the reason, race has been removed from any serious policy discussion.

The result is a society dependent on ignoring reality. Sure, we pretend to debate issues. We pay billions to support a huge bureaucracy supposedly designed to solve our problems. Our leaders attend prestigious schools for years and commission dozens of studies. All the while, we explicitly ignore the one thing that would make it possible to understand our problems. The result is policy by comedy. White advocates know our political leaders are either lying or stupid when they announce “solutions” to policy dilemmas.

Take education. Just as race realists would predict, white American students perform at levels roughly equivalent to other First-World nations. Just as race realists would predict, the achievement gap between racial groups persists across all geographic regions and economic levels. And yet, with tiresome predictability, television will give us a parade of supposed experts, liberal and conservative, all with new ways to help us ignore what is right in front of our eyes. Be it Head Start, small class sizes or “school choice,” we’ll do anything rather than acknowledge the reality of race….

Race is at the center of all of this. Race is not just a social construct. It is a biological fact that exists no matter how much people pretend otherwise. There is no issue in American life, be it crime, health care, the environment, education, defense, or even public transportation that can be addressed intelligently without confronting the central role of race.

Read the whole article. Do you disagree with him? Discuss.

A propos the housing bubble

Steve Sailer again delivers some discomforting data.

Screen Shot 2013-04-04 at 1.40.48 AM

After treating the data to a careful analysis and a careful discussion of the causal links between the mortgage blow-up and the recent depression, Sailer says:

The more I look at the recent studies, the more I keep coming back to my initial reaction: Diversity, in the multiple meanings we assign that term, played a major role in the Recent Economic Unpleasantness. You might think that knowing this would be relevant to immigration policy, but that just shows you are a bad person.

 

Original Sin

If perceiving differences and acting against the different is the primary sin of man, then babies are all profound sinners.

In an article entitled ”Babies show inherent dislike for those who are different”, it was revealed that babies as young as nine months show preference for those who bring harm to people different from themselves – in this case, the difference concerned a taste for graham crackers over green beans, and vice versa.

Psychology professor and lead author Kiley Hamlin found infants who were as  young as nine months old favoured those who brought harm to people who were  different than themselves.

She said adults, similarly, tend to like people who harm individuals who are  different.

“We wanted to see if we could tell whether infants had that same kind of  judgement,” said Hamlin in an interview.

“It was shocking how robust the results were.”

Nothing surprises me about this. Tolerance is a virtue not because it is natural, but because it is an acquired habit of civilization. By contrast, those people who call themselevs “liberals” tend to believe that the natural state of man is acceptance, and only perverse educations make us racist, sexist, nationalist, tribalist, other-ist.

The study, published in the journal Psychological Science, looked at two  groups of infants aged nine months and 14 months and the food they preferred — green beans or graham crackers.

The infants watched a puppet show, with two puppets demonstrating a like for  green beans or graham crackers.

More puppets then joined the production, demonstrating nice, neutral or mean  behaviour towards the original two puppets.

The study showed that the babies later preferred the puppets who harmed the  puppet with the opposite food preferences.

One baby even gave a kiss to the harmful puppet.

The study said the desire to treat badly those with differences was more  widespread in the age group of 14-month-old infants, suggesting an increase in  bias with age.

Hamlin said almost all of the babies tested acted the same, which was an  unexpected result.

“(Babies) like nice puppets really strongly. That’s in line with our  intuition. Other studies have shown they like punishers if somebody was bad  before, but that’s also in line with our intuitions.

“If someone’s bad they might deserve punishment. This one is not in line with  our intuitions.”

Lady, it is not in line with your “intuitions” because you think people are naturally good, tolerant, accepting. They are not. They are naturally racist, tribalist, differentist, nationalist. They think people from the next valley are feckless swine, unless they have cousins over there, in which case they may know that some people in the next valley are okay, or not, on the basis of real knoweldge.

Man’s innate “differentism” is not something that is going to be fixed by talking about the problem differently, or by different social arrangements, though improvements are possible. Discriminations are at the core of existence. Every cell of my body is locked in a life and death struggle to determine what belongs in that cell and what does not. They all discriminate. I can only hope they discriminate in a way suitable to my survival. Likewise, every person discriminates, and has to for the organism to survive. One can only hope that discrimination takes place on bases suitable for the survival of civilization. That is the best we can do.

 

Paleontology news

Researchers have examined the DNA of a man who lived 40,000 years ago in China.

The genetic profile reveals that this early modern human was related to the ancestors of many present-day Asians and Native Americans but had already diverged genetically from the ancestors of present-day Europeans. In addition, the Tianyuan individual did not carry a larger proportion of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA than present-day people in the region. “More analyses of additional early modern humans across Eurasia will further refine our understanding of when and how modern humans spread across Europe and Asia”, says Svante Pääbo

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-ancient-dna-reveals-humans-years.html#jCp

Intelligence is measured by IQ, just as your bathroom scales measure your weight

Satoshi Kanazawa to the rescue.
Common Misconceptions About Intelligence II: Nobody Knows What Intelligence Is, Because Intelligence and IQ Are Not the Same Thing

Satoshi Kanazawa on December 14, 2012, 6:18 PM

>Intelligence is precisely and exactly what IQ tests measure.

A related misconception that people have is the claim that IQ is not a measure of general intelligence.  Some people believe in the concept of intelligence; they know that some people are more intelligent than others.  But they do not believe that IQ tests accurately measure individuals’ intelligence, once again, because IQ test scores typically show average differences between different groups and they believe that individuals from different groups on average must be equally intelligent.

Contrary to this view, intelligence researchers unanimously agree that intelligence is exactly what IQ tests measure, in the same way that your weight is exactly what your bathroom scale measures.  To maintain that intelligence is real and some people are more intelligent than others, yet IQ tests do not accurately measure intelligence is akin to claiming that weight is real and some people are heavier than others, but the bathroom scale does not accurately measure weight.  It simply does not make any sense.

Contrary to nonsense published in the Toronto Star.

Nordic Countries defund gender ideology – Watch “Brainwash”, the shows that caused it to happen

This is from Turtle Bay and Beyond

A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK, Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.

The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcasted a television documentary in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed.”

Read it all and watch the videos, which are hyperlinked at the end of the article:
If asked for a password, write “hjernevask“, which is Norwegian for “brainwashing”. Curiously, the only video that required a password was on – guess which – race.

I will immediately bookmark Turtle Bay and Beyond.

 

Part 1 – The Gender Equality Paradox
Part 2 – ”The Parental Effect”
Part 3 – ”Gay/straight”
Part 4 – ”Violence”
Part 5 – ”Sex”
Part 6 – ”Race”
Part 7 – ”Nature or Nurture”

I want an apology

I was lunching with Count Wallenstein this past week in some excessively expensive restaurant in Toronto. We were talking about human genomics and what DNA studies have turned up of late, and how much of all previous thinking they have obviated. . I shall refer it as the Genomic Revolution. It is as important as the Enlightenment, and it will resound through the ages.

Count Wallenstein was insisting on an apology.

“From whom?” I asked.

“All those Marxists. All those feminists. Do you know that when I went to college, I was immersed in Marxism, and feminism? York University: four years of leftist indoctrination”

“Me too. If my political convictions depended on what I had to read in university, I would be some brand of Marxist”

“All totally wrong, totally and absolutely wrong. Not just wrong in theory, wrong in fact. And I was told I was a fascist reactionary because I thought Marxism was rubbish and feminism just another flavour of it.”

“Feminist thought is a branch of leftism without the Marxist economics, Count, but Leftism is eternal.. It predates Marxism. The urge to declare the constitution of reality invalid because some baby is crying goes back to Rousseau, but the impulse is eternal. If only we got rid of the priests, kings and lords, we would all be rich and happy.”

We reminisced about our late teenage indoctrination in university. Marx, Freud, Franz Fanon, Herbert Marcuse, the Frankfort School. Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, Andrea Dworkin.

All rubbish. All gone. All repudiated by the Genomic Revolution. There is a human nature and we are part of it. We are competitive, cooperative, hierarchical, and egalitarian. We have a broad range of behaviours but we are not infinitely plastic. We cannot be remade in the form required by intellectual fanatics.

I would argue that the Genomic Revolution has destroyed Leftism as a serious political movement. The moment one accepts that man has a range of behaviours arising from evolution, the less it is possible that he can be remade by political doctrines. No amount of political correctness or religious doctrines can wipe out differences in intelligence, adaptations to climates, competitiveness, sexual attractions and urges, or our ability for friendship and cooperation. The Genomic Revolution does not argue one way only. It argues against any attempts to declare its findings void, be they leftist or rightist, religious or atheistical. By establishing that our propensities are thousands or millions of years old, it confines the discussion to the real.

For example, in a university course which I took a few years ago, I heard a young man argue for something as if Darwin had not written and evolution had not occurred. It was a standard piece of political correctness- not Christian fundamentalism. I said to the class: “You speak as if Darwin had not written. Come on! Evolution is real.” He told me I was “suppressing the discourse”. Yeah, I was suppressing the constant stream of leftist drivel.

You can take your pick of books expressing the findings of the Genomic Revolution.

You have available a wide array of political views being expressed in the following books. The work of Brian Sykes , one of Count Wallenstein’s favourites, is directly relevant, but many others are available, each expressing (mostly implicitly) different contemporary political views, yet each is grounded in a discussion of facts, and the ensemble is overwhelming in its repudiation of a view of man that sees him as the expression of arbitrary political, social and sexual arrangements. Inform yourselves in any of: Nicholas Wade, Spencer Wells, Vincent Sarich, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, Ian Tattersall, the late Phillippe Rushton, Terrence Deacon, Geoffrey Miller, my taste for whom Count Wallenstein is not responsible.

 

The Count and I are still waiting for our apologies from the Maoists, Marxists, feminists, and fellow travellers who tried to educate us.

 

You hear me, Sam Noumoff?

Philippe Rushton has died

Jared Taylor marks Rushton’s death a few days ago with this eulogy, of which an excerpt below:

 

Phil’s crucial insight was to realize that different races show consistent patterns that reflect different reproductive strategies. At one extreme are East Asians, who are the most intelligent, have the largest brains, show the most sexual restraint, develop most slowly, live the longest, and are most law-abiding. This is consistent with having few children but taking very good care of them. At the other extreme are black Africans, whose behavior is consistent with less investment in larger numbers of children. On virtually every scale of r-K behavior (that is, on a scale of high-investment versus low-investment child-rearing), whites fall somewhere between Asians and blacks. Phil meticulously documented and argued this theory in his brilliant 1995 book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior.

 

I have read that book, and I can simply attest to the power, reasonableness and depth of its evidence and argument. Ruston is unacceptable to modern thought, but I do not see how we can ultimately be a tolerant liberal society on the basis of untruth. Race matters. If we have evolved, then humans have engaged in  various survival strategies, and races (subsets of the human species) are the result of those differing evolutionary strategies. I am always shocked by the militant defence by lefties of Darwinism in the abstract but the denial of the effectiveness of those same forces acting upon us as a species for the past 20,000 years.

 

If we are to be tolerant and liberal, we need to be so on the basis of fact, not myth. We have to deal with our species as it is, and not as we would like it to be, in order to try to move it towards political solutions that are tolerant and liberal. If we were not different from each other in vital ways, there would be no need for the tolerance which is so much praised and so little practiced.

Rushton

 

Phillippe Rushton 1943-2012