IQ, Executions And Voting

GLP links to a La Griffe du Lion piece that confirms what I stated about retardation — namely, that the correlation between clinical, biological retardation and IQ varies by race. The subject came up over a discussion about Texas’ execution of a man with an IQ of 61 from a test taken later in his life. (His first IQ test put him at 73.)

In the comments over there, PA astutely notes:

IQ-alone limits on execution do carry implications with regards to other aspects of citizenship.

Liberals who trumpet IQ-based restrictions on the death penalty should be wary of where their invented morality logically leads. (As well as wary of their hypocrisy being exposed over the IQ issue, a metric which liberals claim not to believe in unless and until belief in it suits their agenda.) To wit: if low IQ is sufficient to exempt a murderer from the death penalty because of presumed cognitive impairment of his moral judgment, then low IQ is sufficient to exempt dumb citizens from the voting rolls because of cognitive impairment of their political judgment, which is just a proxy for moral judgment.

I really don’t see a legitimate (i.e., sensible, rational, non-shrieking) argument against this simple logic. If liberals and the various hodge-podge of flaming equalists are going to go down this road, they have to accept the logical conclusions that their beliefs take them in regards to issues they congenitally find personally distasteful. If they don’t, they discredit themselves.





Comments


  1. I’d take it a step further and require a voter IQ test for everyone. The average voter is dismally ignorant in his understanding of political science, economics, statistics, current events, history. In my perfect world, you’d need to prove your proficiency in all these areas to be granted suffrage. The ancient Greeks had it right. Let a select few wise men make decisions for those who can’t. When EVERYONE votes, you get what you see today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk62VObQEtI

    Like


    • Plenty of high IQ libtards.
      The founding fathers were right: only men who are land or property owners should be able to vote.

      Like


      • Cutting people off the voter rolls due to low IQ would indeed automatically cut out a huge chunk of the Obama vote.

        Undoing female suffrage is a must. Bitches allow their emotions to override their brains all the time.

        If IQ gets high enough, it combined with arrogance shuts off common sense.

        Like


      • The first president to be elected after women were given the right to vote was Warren G. Harding. One of the main reasons he won was because women voters thought he was “hot”. Today they consider him one of our worst presidents. I’d imagine the same thing happened with JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama.

        Yet over 100 years ago before mass photography, television, and radio we had uncharismatic ugly presidents, some who ended up being our best. They even said Thomas Jefferson had autism.

        While the majority of male voters aren’t exactly intelligent, at least they are not voting with their genitals.

        Like


      • Well, so we set a lower AND an upper threshold for being allowed to vote?
        And a personality test?

        I agree with most of the posters that it”d be great to forbid stupid people to vote, but following your suggestions, we end up in pure arbitrariness who is allowed to vote and who not…

        Like


      • Lots of discussion on voting, race, and politicians, but let’s consider executions and RETARDS:

        It’s a documented FACT that corrupt cops and/or prosecutors have a LONG HISTORY of getting false confessions from retards.

        It’s also a documented FACT that jurors (or judges, depending on the jurisdiction) say that a bit of doubt is a heavy determining factor on whether a life sentence or death sentence is imposed.

        I’m not saying there should be an IQ cutoff for executions. But retard IQ should be a consideration for juries as to whether confessions have been obtained legally, whether the accused retard had due process, etc.

        But if it’s pretty clear that the retard is guilty (witnesses, physical evidence, DNA), then IQ should not be a factor.

        Like


      • Property owners = People who own a house?

        Like


      • The purpose of restriction to land owning is a primitive form of vesting responsibility with those most affected by the political decisions they are making. Who cares the most about the long term prosperity of a region? Those who are invested heavily in that region.

        Joint stock models are another method.

        Like


      • If property owners includes people that own deeded timeshare interests, then the biggest morons of all – people who got sucked into buying a timeshare – will still be allowed to vote.

        Timeshare is such a lousy investment that some companies will not even give the free tickets and other inducements to tour the resorts to single guys, just marrieds or single women.

        Like


      • The typical idea is that there is a line drawn by the amount of property owned. For example, it has to be at least a certain amount of property or politicians will simply start selling off property by the 1/4 inch to keep the number of people eligible to vote up. Or, in this case, selling time shares by the minute.

        Like


      • Ironically,it was this idea that homeowners are more invested in their community and are more responsible etc.,that led to the gubmint pushing the banks to give out mortgages to huge throngs of niggers and mexies who couldnt get,as Todd Akin might say,”legitimate” mortgages. The rest,you know…

        Like


      • on September 9, 2012 at 3:28 am gunslingergregi

        who actually is a property owner though gonna be very few voters if you exclude the chumps paying mortgages i’d be able to vote though

        Like


      • That’s the point.

        Like


      • Use of “conservative” and “liberal” are reification errors representing sloppy, lazy, jingoistic thinking.

        If you want to have credibility with people who can think clearly; define concrete issues, as in “things one can see”.

        For instance, the issue of executing the retarded as defined by a certain score on a particular IQ test is defensibly linked to the real world.

        Arguing voters should have some IQ score test, or land ownership, would be similarly real-world based.

        Linking them together in an attempt to discredit mythical “Libtards” is just average junior high level thinking, trusting your impressions and emotions without thinking about them.

        Reification as I have previously pointyfaced out, is acting and thinking as if an abstract, non-objective word or idea– Like LIberal or Conservative, is something real. In fact, they mean something different to everyone, so glib discussion of them as if they are real shows second rate thinking.

        Once you slip into reification, you might as well base everything on the Bible, because you don’t need to refer to physical, objective reality any more.

        Like


      • Most of us here quibble with Cultural Marxism, if you care to define the term exactly. What are commonly known as “Libtards”, are adherents of cultural Marxism. I agree these terms are indeed abused. What are commonly known as Liberals, are actually Marxists and what are commonly known as Conservatives are actually Classical Liberals.

        Like


      • Tyrone–Well, that leads us in a wonderful circle of one undefined abstraction defining another. . Unless you’re interested in explaining what “cultural marxism” is in observable terms. Like physical reality, like men use; not emotional doggerel like women wallow in.

        “You should just KNOW” they say.

        You’re not like that, right?

        What is real=what you can see, hear, or measure with a widget or something.

        Speculation is other stuff.

        Like


      • And why does my desire to look at the material substance of an issue, not the jongoistic crap bandied about around it, make me a “Marxist”? A bizarre leap if I ever saw one.

        Like


      • Read the works of the Frankfurt School, specifically Herbert Mancuse. Read Gramsci. As far as Cultural Marxism, you already practice a good deal of it. Most of our social policy is predicated on it and everything taught in any social sciences or liberal arts course will be meant to implement it. Many if not most of your views are Cultural Marxist in nature. So defining it is not difficult at all. Its the over arching theory of social management being implemented by virtually every government in the West and is such common coin most of you don’t even realize it or see it.

        Like


      • But you’re fine with your own jingoism. That’s our point. As far as Marxist thinking is concerned, haven’t you ever heard of Positivism?

        You’re arguing that scientific method determines what you believe and which world views you hold. We’re arguing that you don’t have all the facts.

        Like


      • Check out this… Bill Whittle explains Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt school (start at 4:00… Marxist deconstructionism expanded to everything else beside econmics):

        Like


      • This was a good summary. My Pointyface should listen to this but it’s a world he doesn’t want to know about. Serfs gonna serf~

        Like


    • Good idea, but…. As the flaws in the Flynn effect have shown, people over time haven’t gotten “smarter,” they just, as a culture, got “better” at answering questions on IQ tests.

      A more wholisic test would need to be used to disbar voters.

      Although I agree, there are many intellectually defunct individuals placing votes.

      Like


    • Hell we’d be better off if we just got rid of the democratic puppet show and put a real leader in charge of our country, instead of corrupt politicians. The mass media has made the democratic process obsolete, and even before that it was a stupid system of government. The lemmings have no business sticking their nose into politics as they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

      Our ancestors had it figured out. Find your best man and make him your king.

      Like


      • Monarchy is the best.

        If the guy in charge is fucking up, then off with his head. Real change.

        Western democracy’s purpose is to trick citizens into believing they can vote their way to change, when in fact they are just perpetuating the same bullshit system. Western democracy is the worst thing to happen to regular citizens and the best thing to happen to the elites, who can keep on ruling without fear of losing their heads.

        Like


      • That sounds good on paper, but power corrupts and most dictators and absolute monarchs turn out to be rapacious greedy tyrannical pricks. Same with aristocracy, oligarchy and similar forms of government.
        Enlightened despotism is a myth. Nothing beats a republic where valuable productive citizens are sovereign, but with enough safeguards against the democratic madness.

        Like


      • Exactly! When are you guys gonna get that there is nothing wrong with y o u r system of governent?? In fact, it’s great.

        You don’t need to import our (European) foolishness. (Look at the EU mess for chrissake!) You only need to get rid of your marxists and mystics.

        Like


      • We are perhaps better off than european nanny states, but it’s far from great. The initial constitution, although not flawless, has been slowly perverted by lefties throughout the years.
        And we’re suffering from the feminist cancer (which is nothing more than a marxism leftover) just as much as the EU, if not a little bit more.

        Like


      • Power doesn’t corrupt, that stupid shit needs to die a horrible death. The people who are corrupt when they have power were corrupt before they had power. The corrupt have merely convinced the righteous that wanting power is bad so that they have it all for themselves.

        Like


      • Perhaps you could find one or two dictators or kings who lived frugally (or at least made money in a fair and free market without placing themselves above the law) and ruled for a long time without drifting into tyranny. But they’re few and far between, if there are any.
        I said “most” rulers become tyrannical. And assuming you’re onto something, which is far-fetched because I still believe that unlimited power is a dangerous drug, and given the high number of crazy dictators, it would be safer to say that most people who have what it takes to be powerful are either corrupt to the core or predisposed to be corrupted.

        Like


      • I think it would be a mistake to overlook the countless kings who could with reason be called enlightened, they are virtually too numerous to list here. Individual abilities aside, monarchs do have the advantage of being eminently accountable: in a monarchy it’s clear who’s responsible whereas in a republic everyone and thus no one is at fault for problems. Monarchs also rarely seek the position as they are often born or adopted into the role, so ambition is a trait more frequently observed in elected officials (and dictators, paradoxically). That said your arguments have merit, I think either system can work well given the right circumstances.

        Like


      • Lord Acton’s dictum is just enlightenment claptrap from the 19th century. Europe has a long history of monarchs who served for the common good of their people. It is the Money Power that has a true history of tyranny, and modern democracy is their preferred system, because it allows them to exercise power from behind the scenes, and at the same time allows them to evade responsibility for how they use it; monarchs don’t have that luxury.

        Like


      • The political environment in which one must rule is in and of itself conduscive to tyranny. A lot of people want you dead, so they can replace you.

        Like


      • Most people are already evil and corrupt. It naturally follows that most rulers would be evil and corrupt too. It does not mean power corrupts. I’ve lived among the lower class all my life, and I thank God every day these people are too stupid to ever get any kind of real power.

        Like


      • When power is morally outlawed, only moral outlaws will have power.

        Like


      • Very few kings ever died asleep at peace in their beds after a long life. I’d guess the average guy reigned about 4-5 years before he was killed by someone, unless he was good and had talent or could be used that way. Most royal courts were a dog eat dog world of intrigue and revenge. We live in open societies now and can’t easily imagine it correctly today. We remember the great ones, but they were few and far between.

        Like


      • Wy don’t you complete the expression?

        Like


      • “That sounds good on paper, but power corrupts and most dictators and absolute monarchs turn out to be rapacious greedy tyrannical pricks. Same with aristocracy, oligarchy and similar forms of government.”

        Actually it worked quite well during the first thousand years of European Civilization. The western aristocracies didn’t become truly corrupt until the marital aristocracies were replaced by financial oligarchs. Aristocracies actually have a much better track record of protecting the people from usury and other forms of parasitic exploitation than the common people have for themselves.

        All systems of government have the potential to become corrupt once they quit serving the common interest and start serving themselves. A monarch can become a tyrant, an aristocracy can degenerate into an oligarchy, popular government can degenerate into the democratic circus we have today. As for the most easily corruptible form of government, democracy certainly seems to take the cake.

        “Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people.” Pentti Linkola

        Like


      • “That sounds good on paper, but power corrupts and most dictators and absolute monarchs turn out to be rapacious greedy tyrannical pricks. Same with aristocracy, oligarchy and similar forms of government.”

        Actually it worked quite well for the first thousand years of European history. The western aristocracy didn’t become truly corrupt until the martial aristocracies were replaced by financial oligarchs. Aristocracy actually has a much better track record of protecting the people from usury and other forms of parasitic exploitation than the common people have themselves.

        All forms of government are susceptible to corruption once they stop serving the common interest and start serving themselves. A monarch can become a tyrant, an aristocracy can degenerate into an oligarchy, popular government can degenerate into the democratic circus we have today. As for the form of government most susceptible to corruption, democracy certainly seems to take the cake.

        “Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people.” Pentti Linkola

        Like


      • But they were beset by limited thinking in social terms. Few had the foresight and imagination needed to try and build their realms economically and were also constrained by Medieval Catholic dogma.

        Like


      • That’s the beauty of monarchy, they were freed from thinking in economic terms. Economism debases everyone involved.

        Like


      • The ones called the Great, usually paid attention to economics.

        Like


      • Are you arguing the modern politicians are somehow more enlightened?

        Like


      • on September 9, 2012 at 9:02 am Robert in Arabia

        Like


      • It is one of the great ironies of our age that the greatest man it has yet to produce is slandered and vilified to the point where he has become the very symbol of evil. The average lemming doesn’t have a clue what was truly at stake in that World War II. It could very well end up being the extinction event for the European peoples.

        Like


      • Read von Manstein’s assessment of him. He made a lot of blunders and cost the Germans the war. He was also queer as a three dollar bill. He seldom if ever touched Eva Braun.

        Like


      • Hitler was a dumbass. But at least he was not a traitor.

        Like


      • Wrong!! you are just regurgitating a lifetime of lies and slander the Jewish media has taught you. The Jews most certainly respected and feared the man, hence the reason he is more vilified today than he was during the war period. The Jews know that if a man of his caliber ever succeeds at waking the Aryan people up and making them racial conscious, they will quickly crush them.

        Read David Irving’s “Hitlers War” for an unbiased account of what happened during World War II.

        Like


      • Like


      • I’m not a leftie at all, but I am absolutely shocked by your (and other’s) ignorance of historic facts. Stupid americans should learn some history instead of relying on dubious Youtube videos.

        Even when you do not attach to the egalitarian hypothesis at all, once and for all: HITLER WAS AN INCREDIBLE ASSHOLE AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GLORIFY ABOUT HIM! You got me, idiot?
        There is a lot going wrong in this world, but surely there is no jewish world conspiracy. Why do so many americans believe this BS?

        It’s sad to see how many posters here adhere to simple black-white thinking…the world is a bit more complex than you may ever be able to imagine…

        Like


      • Most jewish world order conspiracy theorists I meet are usually European. Which makes sense given that it was your piece of shit continent who killed 5 million of them.

        Like


      • Even when you do not attach to the egalitarian hypothesis at all, once and for all: HITLER WAS AN INCREDIBLE ASSHOLE AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GLORIFY ABOUT HIM! You got me, idiot?

        Well, he was Time magazine’s Man of the Year, 1938.

        /the more you know…

        Like


      • Kronos,

        I am not ignorant of history, I just don’t conform to the Kosher version.

        Like


      • “Our ancestors had it figured out. Find your best man and make him your king.”

        How do you determine who’s best and by what standard? Elitism is a simple fallacy. Anyone who commits it should be stripped of the right to vote…

        Like


      • Elitism is a simple fact.

        Like


      • Marxism is the fallacy; or rather it is an ideological tool used by our parasites to morally paralyze westerners so they can more easily suck our blood.

        Like


      • I think the way our ancestors determined who the best was a simple process.

        Every viking that wanted to lead threw their hat in the ring, and then whoever had their head attached to their body after the process was the new cheiftain. Such simple times.

        Like


      • Rock, paper, scissors.

        Like


      • I can’t reply on your other post, since there are already 5 levels of comments, so I do it here…

        What does it tell us that Hitler was Times magazine Man of the year?
        And do you really think your knowledge of this makes you a clever man?
        Stalin was even twice Times Man of the year, Ayatollah Khomenei was it in1979…it means nothing…!
        You should rather blame Times magazine for bad foresight

        Like


      • It was merely a parry to the “nothing to glorify about him” comment, in that

        a) many others did indeed find something to glorify, at least before the war years… in the case of Time, one could even say it wasn’t merely ‘rubes’.

        b) back then, I believe what led to Time was that he was highly praised for managing Germany’s nearly miraculous economic recovery and return to world glory (e.g. hosting Olympics) in so short a period of time, after the skinning they took from Versailles, the depression that made ours look like a picnic, and restoring order when there were literal machine gun battles in the streets between multifarious political factions during the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. Never read the Time article, but I’d be surprised if that sort of begrudging praise didn’t appear in it.

        Satisfied? Or do you still think that your false “it means nothing” somehow made YOU a clever man?

        Like


    • on September 8, 2012 at 7:26 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Hell, I get called a vicious racist just asking that voters have valid photo ID.. At this point (and for a long time now) voting is for suckers, best to just retrench and prepare as best you can for the fall. When the EBT stops working, “urban” residents will eat each other.

      Like


      • Yessir. Paranoids: Predicting the Apocalypse since the first solar eclipse. (And sometimes making a great living off it too!)

        Like


      • They laughed at Noah, too.

        You’re probably one of those so-above-it-all dweebs who sat, mouth agape, and couldn’t believe that the Iron Curtain fell nearly overnight, without a shot being fired.

        Like


      • The end has come eventually for every single civilization that preceded the current one. Why is ours special? Are you going to live forever, unlike every man who ever lived before you?

        Societies die too. Some go quietly, some go out like supernovas. Ours will go out. Just matter of when and how much noise accompanies it.

        Like


      • Its mandatory in Europe in most countries.

        Like


    • And what purpose what that serve?

      Institutionalizing yet another succumbtion to self congratulatory credentialism?

      Voting never had lick to do with “electing the best ‘leaders'”, or any such progressive nonsense. It was, and is, simply about attempting to legitimize rule by whatever scumbag happens to be in charge.

      In earlier times, claims to the throne based on Divine lineage sufficed. But once the dunce brigade put the two and two that since some of us now know how to conduct some basic experiments and draw conclusions from them, and are able to build some crude machines to help, or hinder, our day to day lives; to get the five that nothing meaningfully divine can possibly exist; the dunces needed an updated mechanism with which to legitimize whomever they fancied brown nosing and sucking up to.

      After all, in any organization; whether advancement is based on “elections”, “bribes”, “violence” or whatever, having less scruples in using any means possible to climb the ladder, trumps having more. Hence, in democracies, as in any other organization, the one with the least scruples, aka the biggest asshole, or scumbag, climbs to the top. There are no internal checks on this. It happens in every organization, simply because the second biggest scumbag, by refusing to skin his own mother alive for less than $10, WILL lose out to the guy willing to do it for $5.

      Now, there can be external checks, as in, other competing organizations. Which is what economists call market discipline, and is also why people who really care about the future of humanity are to a remarkable degree gelling around the realization that competitive government, as in “A Thousand Nations”, where easy and low cost exit from under any ruler is the norm, is the only meaningful way to check the inevitability that every nation, absent external checks, will be ruled not just by a scumbag, but literally by the single biggest scumbag available.

      Anarchists have always been onto this, but have traditionally not bothered to explain that the lack of centralized law, does not mean lack of any norms. But, after all, if nothing is banned, neither is cooperation between individuals and, for that matter, groups. It is just that when, not if, some scumbag within one group gets a bit too scummy, people can leave for another, set up a new group altogether, or simply shoot the guy in the head and move on. The only thing stopping these healthy checks on scumminess today, is that the size of “societies” are so large, and their asymmetric advantage in military means vis-a-vis citizens so large, that neither exit nor shooting them in the head are particularly cheap nor easy. But change that, and heck, maybe we won’t all have to proclaim allegiance to Mohammad quite so soon.

      Like


    • I would suggest, as a matter of not wasting time and resources on paths unlikely to lead to success, we focus on strengthening the Constitution instead, iow making it idiot-proof.

      First step is already part of the 2012 Republican party platform – the Balanced Budget Amendment.

      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2012-gop-platform-endorses-balanced-budget-amendment

      This is probably the most fruitful short to medium term measure available to us.

      Like


      • I view this as a cynical idea they themselves wouldn’t back: Since heroic places like Alabama and Mississippi are on the dole to the Nth degree from Blue-state taxes, they would really regress to eating alligators after catching them with live kittens.

        Like


      • Never known it to fail… the loudest asshole that cries about other narrow minds is the first to indulge in stereotypes himself.

        It would give me great satisfaction to horse whip you, boy.

        Like


      • I’m fond of cracking a whip too, but can you refute him?

        Like


      • Greg Eliot doesn’t argue with facts. The word ‘syllogism’ is unknown to him. He’s a sniper, nothing more, nothing less.

        Like


      • What’s to refute? Even if there were a chance that he (and those that think like him) would have a change of heart?

        Like


      • Better a sniper than a limp-dicked stalker.

        It’s laughable that you dweebs would even ask for a refutation of high minority percentage states as illiterate and, for lack of a better word, dole-full.

        Like


      • Since heroic places like Alabama and Mississippi are on the dole to the Nth degree from Blue-state taxes, they would really regress to eating alligators after catching them with live kittens.

        Are these the so-called facts for which you pseudos are snarking about refutation?

        Just wondering, since that was the initial post in this subthread to which I was replying.

        Like


      • Yes, this man– who thinks of violence when he cannot outshout his opponents’ mocking derision of his seventh-grade thinking– this man quickly thinks fondly of violence– for no material slight– just that he dislikes someone.

        And we preset you this most unChristian and uncharitable of men: Mr. Elliot.

        Don’t worry Big Boss Elliot– you’re out-reproducing us in droves!!!

        Like


      • Idiot again… didn’t even recognize the allusion to In The Heat Of The Night, a propos for your snark remark about Mississippi.

        How embarrassing… but only for you.

        Like


      • And I guess Jesus Himself was “unChristian” when he bodily threw the moneychangers out of the temple, headforemost.

        Give it up, fool… you keep trying to bluff with a weak hand.

        Like


      • When an argument so blatantly refuses to engage facts and statistics, it has the very helpful consequence of exposing that argument as unjustifiable. Surely, no whip cracks so sharply as the whip of rational argument on the back of ignorance.

        Like


      • To pay for Federal programs they neither needed nor wanted nor ever asked for in the first place.

        Like


      • Yes, I see them protesting and refusing the gubmint help, and returning their food stamp cards in droves on TV. At gunpoint.

        Like


      • No one was ever asked. Those who profit from big government did it all by fiat.

        Like


      • Alabama and Mississippi both have sizeable black populations who comprise a disproportionately large number of those “on the dole”. These same people also vote exclusively Democratic. Better luck next time.

        Like


      • So would you the South secede? What would happen to NRA membership?!

        Like


      • Gladly. But this time, ya’ll stay on your side of the Mason Dixon line and die a slow economic death all by yourselves.

        Like


      • They are on the dole because of Democrat demographics in those states.

        Like


      • Don’t confuse Pinhead with facts… he loves wallowing in his stereotypes about people from the South using food stamps to pay for their NRA membership.

        Like


      • It’s not a stereotype that the South is poor — it’s a fact.

        http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_lev-economy-percent-below-poverty-level

        Every Southern state except for Virginia (read: DC suburbs) and Florida has a higher poverty rate than the national average.

        Like


      • DUH! That was never denied… pay attention to the actual issues at hand if you would talk amongst men.

        Like


      • As Niall points out, THAT’S the issue… though fools aforementioned tried to paint the issue around rednecks.

        Like


      • I’d like to see how they measured poverty level but I can’t because the primary source is a broken link. The purchase power of a dollar varies wildly (with big liberal cities being a lot more expensive than Nowhere Alabama). If they just use one metric for the entire country (or even state by state) then the statistics are useless.

        Like


      • Actually, Alabama’s unemployment rate is about 6.5%, far lower than the national average. It’s you yankees who are in decay and want to crowd in on our prosperity. We’re getting lots of foreign investment. Thyssen-Krupp is building a new steel plant- the world’s largest and a new Airbus aircraft plant and already have several major auto plants here.

        That’s fine though. Please stay where you are. We don’t need anymore shit head yankees or their Alpha squared lapdogs coming here to tell us how we can live better and be just like them.

        Like


      • The constitution is just a piece of paper, what is truly important is having benevolent leaders who are willing to uphold its principles.

        Like


    • That’s too complicated.An easier way is just to use net worth and residency.A person should have to prove that his family resided in the US for at least 3 generations and that he had a net worth of at least $100k. You have to figure that someone who comes from a background where he really knows the country and has at least a minimal net worth of $100k can’t be too stupid. Incidently, I believe that 20% of the US has a 0 or negative net worth (they owe more than they own). You can eliminate at least 1/2 the voters by using this method. The founders of the US republic never envisioned a democracy where everyone would vote. It was a limited democracy where perhaps 10% of the men voted.

      Like


    • You must earn your right to vote in the house of Hanson.

      Like


    • Do you think that Illya Somin dude is alpha?

      Like


  2. I always thought voting should be a points system. Your vote is 1 point if you never finished high school, 2 points if you did, 3 points if you went to college. I don’t want illiterate fucking idiots picking my leaders.

    Like


    • “1 point if you never finished high school, 2 points if you did, 3 points if you went to college”

      I understand the sentiment, but finishing high school/college doesn’t mean someone has 2 nerve cells to rub together to make even a halfway decent decision on anything. I mean, have you seen high school/college these days? They do nothing but pump out those “illiterate fucking idiots”.

      Like


      • People that are not working and get welfare should not be allowed to vote. There are a bunch of highly “educated” people that are very lazy.

        Like


    • on September 8, 2012 at 7:30 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

      Do you really want some brainwashed Gramscian fucktards to determine how much of your money they steal to feed their moocher clients?

      I say nobody should get a federal vote if they pay less than 5% of their income to the fedgov, this goes for both the poor as well as the loophole-happy rich.

      Like


    • You want college educated Marxists instead?

      Like


  3. on September 8, 2012 at 12:37 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    The long term political implications of IQ research are either an acceptance of paternalism or of leaving people to die in a ditch.

    Like


    • on September 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      I acknowledge the standard arguments against paternalism:

      1. People usually have more and better information about their own needs than outsiders.
      2. Those who have control over others will often act in their own interests not the interests of the people over whom they have control.

      What anti-paternalists don’t realize is that those things are defeasible. A lot of people are just so screwed up that they need someone else to run their lives, even noting the above considerations.

      Like


      • That’s why you restrict paternalism to issues involving the common good. Otherwise, you leave people alone to screw up their own lives.

        Like


      • on September 8, 2012 at 5:47 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        The common good in intimately bound up with issues of sexuality, reproduction, and family life, so any paternalism worth its salt is going to have to be quite intrusive.

        Like


      • on September 8, 2012 at 5:47 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        Unless you’re willing to let children die in the street, as our host has noted before.

        Like


      • Bingo! +1

        Like


      • Not really. Shame and ostracism used to go a long way without the rule of law behind it.

        Like


      • Yeah, like the Germans in the early thirties…

        Like


      • That is precisely what we need.

        Like


      • It would become ugly quickly. The Nazi’s racial policies lost them the war.

        Like


      • The Germans lost because they got sucked into fighting a war against the entire civilized world. Considering how severely the odds were stacked against them, it is incredible that they were able to accomplish what they did, and their performance in that war serves as a testament to the soundness of there political and racial policies.

        I suppose you could say their racial policies were responsible for starting the war, in that they committed the great sin of not letting the Jews and their Money Power control there country, so they were quickly destroyed before their movement had a chance to grow to powerful.

        Like


      • They completely squandered their decisive advantage of surprise and confusion in late July 1941 and had a break of some 70 days, on Hitler’s orders. This gave the Soviets a chance to regroup and counter what they had seen. The Germans were on the verge of taking both Leningrad and Moscow and completely encircling the remaining Soviet forces. Stalin would have been forced to sue for peace. On resumption of the offensive, in early September, when the rains came, he ordered the thrust of the offensive to focus on Kiev instead of the critical economical, industrial, and transportation infrastructure in Leningrad and Moscow, that would have dealt a crippling blow to the Soviets. Bad decision #1. Germany’s racial policies created deep resentment in the conquered territories when these same people, comprising 40% of the Soviet population were in fact natural allies. The Germans were forced to devote huge amounts of resources to fighting a partisan war in their rear areas, when they could have been cultivating them as useful resources. Because of their racial policies, they would have never been able to hold or develop the conquered territories either. Germans have some tragic flaws as a people and one of them is cutting their noses off to spite their faces if they think they are right.

        Like


      • Racial policies had nothing to do with it. Jews were simply the enemy Hitler needed to succeed. He even said as much in Mein Kampf- “If the Jews hadn’t existed, it would have been necessary to invent them.”

        Read Leon DeGrelle’s book Hitler: Born at Versailles. It was frustration with crony capitalism and the lack of economic opportunity that created a basic insecurity in the working class and lower middle class. Fascism was a pan-European movement in response to what was a corrupt and self serving political and industrial establishment. Hitler failed to exploit that common cause as well.

        Like


      • “If the Jews hadn’t existed, it would have been necessary to invent them.”
        I dont recall any such quote from Mein Kampf. I am familiar with Leon DeGrelle’s writing, i would also recommend “Epic: the Story of the Waffen SS”

        You are half correct, the economic recovery of Germany was achieved by dismantling the parasitic, debt-based Jewish money system designed to enrich usurers; and implementing a nationalized currency free of interest.

        Not only did Hitler remove the Jews from all positions of influence in Germany, he dismantled the money system they use to take control of a country through economic extortion, and revealed to the world what a fraud it was; hence the reason National Socialism was destroyed before it had a chance to grow to powerful.

        This video gives a good breakdown of how our debt-based money system works, which is really just a giant ponzi-scheme practiced at a global level.

        Like


      • He even said as much in Mein Kampf- “If the Jews hadn’t existed, it would have been necessary to invent them.”

        Nope.

        That alleged quote by Hitler was claimed by a Jew, Yosef Govrin, who wrote a book about ‘the Jewish Factor’ in re German-Russian relations during the Nazi years, but otherwise unsubstantiated.

        Voltaire wrote “If God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

        Sartre played upon it by saying “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him”.

        As part of a propaganda scheme, I’m not surprised a Jew would make that claim, since their story is that any anti-Semitism is ipso facto a scape-goating device, rather than a natural reaction of a people who have experienced their predatory presence firsthand.

        If you really study the situation in Germany, neither Hitler nor anyone else needed to invent a bogeyman.

        Note that the alleged “Big Lie” quotation often attributed to Hitler is likewise a distortion by the modern media… he mentioned Jews (in their control of the press) as practitioners of telling lies so big that regular folk (used to lying in small matters, but too ashamed to lie about matters of severe importance) would believe said Big Lie(s)… especially if it’s repeated often enough. However, when that quote is mentioned nowadays, we’re led to believe that Hitler himself advocated the practice of The Big Lie.

        Like


      • My biggest quibble with the Nazis is that they called Slavs subhuman when they’re obviously very Aryan looking. On top of it, they became corrupt, effete, and seriously out of touch with the daily situation. To the point of being disgusting and alienating men like Sepp Dietrich and Paul Hauser and even Leon Degrelle. William Shirer hit it on the head with the comment that they were “a big frat party that got out of hand.” They may have been trying to stop what has come to pass, but in the end, they hastened its arrival.

        Like


      • ” Most men do not desire freedom but seek instead a just master.” – King Mithradates II

        Like


      • +1

        Like


      • on September 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        I fail to see the link between demonizing a particular race and killing 7 million people and acting paternalistically towards the poor.

        Like


      • There is no such link.As I said above, Nazism could have never succeeded in practice, even if they had won the war. All other Europeans would have been vassal states by definition. I think what many here unknowingly advocate is a form of Enlightened Absolutism. We’re just arguing over the definition of enlightened. Life wasn’t bad under the Kaisers, King, and Czar. History would have seen far less suffering and upheaval if Czar Nicholas II could have transitioned to a consitutional monarchy, as he wanted to do.

        I believe in democracy, but the franchise must somehow become a privilege that one aspires to and must earn the right towards. We are too vulnerable to demagogues and our republic is being torn asunder by them. One must have a stake in the future and the demonstrated capacity for prudence and reason. I personally like Heinlein’s idea of serving in the military. I think it should perhaps even be several qualifications that demonstrate a commitment to serve the state and to see matters beyond mere self interest.

        Like


  4. IOW, niggers should be sent back to the jungle they came from.
    I love this blog.

    Like


    • That’s a difficult proposition seeing as a great many African peoples don’t come from jungle environments at all, and besides it isn’t as though being from a coniferous forest is much more distinguished; clearly, the detail is most irrelevant. On top of that, Africans in the Americas were generally brought against their will, so the crux of the matter was more Europeans forcing them to immigrate in chains than anything else. History and geography are important things to be acquainted with, you see.

      Like


    • What rotten language. I think you mean “Niggers should be sent back to the jungle from whence they came.”

      Much better.

      Like


      • “Whence” means “from where”. Saying “from whence” is a redundancy redundancy.

        Like


      • Übernerdly peeve. I share it.

        Don’t ride it too hard, though. For now it remains a good way to separate out the pretenders. There’s no spell check for usage.

        Joe Biden’s “literally” and “could care less” are becoming too widely known as errors to reliably expose the try-hards whose education is not quite what they think it is. The president uses “between him and I,” so that may remain a good indicator for some time. The misuse of apostrophe-s has gone pandemic, and I’m seeing a mass confusion of hyphens and dashes and quotation-within-quotation marks in our cut-and-paste era. Mishandling which/that, who’s/whose, wherefore/where: these are a step up from your/you’re, it’s/its, and there/their/they’re, the confusion over which now inspires ridicule by even marginally educated, holier-than-thou fussbudgets.

        Are we being nigglers? No. We are discriminating against fraudulence and exposing phonies whose very attempt to bite off more than they can intellectually chew begs for humiliation. Typos and honest errors are one thing. But to be completely unaware of certain rules of expression proves an inattention to detail, and online there are few genuine indicators of a person’s true qualities.

        http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/i_wont_hire_people_who_use_poo.html

        Matt

        P.S. Place your periods and commas within the quotation marks, American-style. Or are you one of them?

        Like


      • Much of the time one falls into “doing as the Romans do”, especially on internet forums, in re misuse of proper grammar and spelling. Especially when one’s typing outpaces one’s thoughts.

        Why I… yes, even I… make an occasional error myself.

        Like


  5. If you made requirements for black people voting, such as passing a test white people had to pass, black people would actually study hard and pass the test (time niggers now waste in church hooting and hollering… would be spent studying the test…)

    In the process, they would also become smart enough to counter the system of racism white supremacy.

    This has always been a paradox for white people; how to make niggers smart enough to work and make money for you, but not so smart they “overthrow” you?

    Like


    • “If you made requirements for black people voting, such as passing a test white people had to pass, black people would actually study hard and pass the test (time niggers now waste in church hooting and hollering… would be spent studying the test…)”

      Lol, yea they can’t do well on any other test in life, but will do well on the one test that doesn’t bring any individual advantage (one vote never makes a difference).

      Like


    • This has always been a paradox for white people; how to make niggers smart enough to work and make money for you, but not so smart they “overthrow” you?

      We’ve got our teams of specialists working overtime… alas, that first part is proving knotty, indeed..

      Like


    • Ha ha ha thanks for the amusing humor. “…black people would actually study and pass the test…” LOL!

      Like


    • Whites outnumbering blacks and other gimme-gimme nonwhites is absolutely essential for things to work properly. South Africa is an absolute dump now. Southern states like Mississippi and South Carolina are indeed poor, but they’d be no better than Jamaica if they hadn’t let a third of their blacks move away in the Great Migration. Hence I can’t understand the SWPL obsession with flooding majority-white countries with nonwhites.

      Like


      • Self loathing at being effeminate and weak because of their ideology and refusing to acknowledge its results in their lives being incongruent with what they truly value about human nature. This self loathing is projected onto society as a whole.

        We could have a better society if we decided to expect more of the bottom 50%. But to be effective, we would have to acknowledge that another psychology degree is not the answer and importing a new peasant class because they are more agreeable and work harder for less drives down wages for all. Programs can be useful, but most of them are simply patronage machines. We need to acknowledge the true roots of the problem and start expecting more and provide simple to understand guidelines to that end, instead of subsidizing sloth and stupidity. Religion used to play that role very effectivelyy until it was destroyed by Cultural Marxism.

        These problem’s transcend race and so do the solutions. But we need to stop spending money to buy votes and start spending money wisely and with an intent to solve the root cause of the problem as much as possible.

        I resent having my freedom curtailed because the bottom 20% of the population can’t behave and we have to pretend that the problems are representative of all society when they are focused rather narrowly in reality. The root of White on Black resentment is that the slowest paced man is the mark by which we measure social policy.

        Like


    • Make it happen. You don’t need us to do anything. It’s all up to you.

      Like


  6. Limit voting to males who can show (i) ownership of real property valued at more than $100,000 or other property with a value of more than $250,000 and (ii) ancestors in the USA prior to 1965.

    Like


  7. on September 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm Thinkingaboutit

    An IQ test system for voting would result in a permanent liberal majority. Satoshi Kanazawa has published solid work showing that intelligence and education correlate well with liberalism. A sizable chunk of this may be due to the fact that academia, the internet and media are dominated by liberals, but then we have a chicken-and-egg problem.
    I myself am a far-right conservative, and the fact is that the dumb are our friends politically. Conservative intellectuals like George Gilder and Harvey Mansfield are basically reaffirming the natural human ways of life (which comes to dumb people automatically). Liberals on the other hand revolt against nature because they think they are smarter than the masses and therefore invent new systems of morality to set themselves apart from the hoi-polloi.

    Like


    • “An IQ test system for voting would result in a permanent liberal majority. Satoshi Kanazawa has published solid work showing that intelligence and education correlate well with liberalism. A sizable chunk of this may be due to the fact that academia, the internet and media are dominated by liberals, but then we have a chicken-and-egg problem.”

      Depends on where you put the cut-off. If the cut-off is college, then Republicans win. If it’s only PhDs can vote, then Democrats have it.

      Like


    • on September 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      Well, if you just let the Harvard faculty vote, then yeah the left would win. But the left depends on the dumb (and hence poor) for the great mass of its votes. Academics, journalists, some professionals, and some of the superrich tend left, but businessmen and most of the middle class tend right.

      Like


    • George Gilder is one of those psycho Kristian Jew lovers who thinks we should all worship–and ahpily die for–the state of Izrael. he is a traior to America and a nut. If thast a “conservative”,(Jew-loving lap dog) than include me out.

      Like


    • No, I disagree. It is a provable fact that, at least in Australia, of the electorates with the highest demographic percentage of “bogans” (the Australian equivalent of “trailer trash”) 80% are safe Labor seats (I.e. union-leftist). Yes, the majority of ivory tower academics are leftists, but they rely on the intellectually sub-par lower classes to consolidate their power base. The majority of reasonably intelligent, free-market, middle class voters are centre-rightish.

      Like


    • Never been to Detroit, have ya?

      Like


  8. Liberals can’t discredit themselves- they luv double and non think too much. They’re already innately inconsistent…like children, or like women, or like schizophrenics.

    Like


  9. on September 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm Chic Ironic Bitterness

    Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore once said in an interview that married men with children should have two votes, since they are the only cohort that’s likely to engage in long-term thinking.

    Like


  10. I think the host already knows the answers, to liberals, there is no counter point, the ratchet of “progress” only goes in one direction. The inconsistencies will mount until their system collapses.

    Like


  11. You are right, a low-IQ exemption from the death penalty is dumb.

    The only way I can respect this argument is if the person is against the death penalty in general. Then I can see the pragmatic aspect. Better to save a few lives than none at all.

    Like


  12. It’s like George Carlin said, our politicians are dumbasses because they’re elected by dumbasses. I never thought about the liberal IQ hypocrisy, but you make a great point.

    In addition, in my perfect world I’d also have mandated IQ tests and licenses for paternity. You need a license to drive a car, but any idiot can have a kid and raise it. And this is a massive strain on our society when it comes to things like welfare and single mothers.

    Like


    • You must be one of those evil fascists. How can you even consider doing something that rational.

      Like


    • “any idiot can have a kid and raise it. And this is a massive strain on our society when it comes to things like welfare and single mothers.”

      Don’t need an IQ test. Just revert to the old days: no child support, no welfare for kids; only 2 options — the orphanage or supported by their own families.

      Most women will sort it out pretty quickly and make rational decisions rather than decisions solely based on their ‘gina tingles.

      Like


  13. on September 8, 2012 at 1:49 pm Gregory Greenie

    I’m not a liberal ( at least not in the sense “conservatives” use as a smear), but I oppose the Death Penalty. On limited-government grounds, for one thing. That said, I agree with the logic of this post.

    Like


  14. Lefties cannot suffer cognitive dissonance, their political beliefs are a religion, no logic needed. Whatever is best for the cause is what they believe and when they have to believe two impossible to reconcile things at once they just do. It’s not about logic. The purpose of the Progressive religion is to have good emotions and view yourself as morally superior.

    The Left is smarter because only the Left bothers to figure such things out. I assume that if Bob Jones U were to run the same survey they’d find that devout Evangelical Christians were the smartest.

    The problem with IQ tests for voting is they take a few hours to administer and the expense would be massive to administer them on a large scale.

    Another fun game would be to ask Lefties if they want to apply the same requirements for a concealed carry permit to voting. If voting is our most sacred right, should we allow people we don’t trust with a loaded gun to vote for the guy who has his finger on the nuclear trigger?

    I like the old rule of only allowing property owners to vote. I would consider expanding the franchise to include those who paid income tax above some minimal amount or those who owned stocks in American companies with some minimal value to prevent the Left from using some bogus scheme to allow people to buy into a mutual fund for a dollar. This puts the stake holders in charge. Right now those riding in the wagon are the majority, which means we are steering a course to Greece.

    Like


  15. on September 8, 2012 at 2:24 pm stevie tellatruth

    I’m going to say this once them, I’m finished:

    Political judgments are primarily based upon one’s WORLDVIEW and PERSONAL INCENTIVE. That’s why sometimes I’m liberal, sometimes I’m conservative.

    Done. Next post, please…

    Like


    • Bingo. I believe in intelligent voting issue by issue according to what one believes is in one’s own rational self-interest and the greater needs of the country at that particular time. By definition this means sometimes voting for liberal policies and sometimes for conservative policies.

      Party-line ideologues on both sides sound stupid with their emotion-driven doomsday prophecying. Bottom line, democracy is working just fine. Nobody is starving in the streets, so let’s cut the histrionics.

      Like


      • There are those who don’t see the peeling of the thin veneer of paint which holds together the infrastructure of what we like to call Western Civilization.

        They don’t smell the smoke…

        They hear the seemingly grandiose strains of the orchestra, but don’t recognize it for the strained imperial fiddle-playing that it actually is.

        For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

        Like


  16. Would you pick your D-Day invasion squad or platoon based on IQ without ever seeing them?

    You’d be better off picking an all redneck squad/platoon with some malaria resistant niggers to walk point, be scouts… due to their visual acuity, hearing…

    Teddy Roosevelt did not want a squad full of high IQ pussies.

    Like


  17. on September 8, 2012 at 3:24 pm Just An Observer

    One could argue that exemption from the death penalty due to mental retardation (but not from life imprisonment) warrants a diminished voting right, say a vote of 0.80 instead of 1 allocated to normal citizens. If one is, however, exempt from criminal liability completely due to low IQ, that would definitely warrant the abolition of this person’s voting rights. This is of course just a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. I acknowledge the above-mentioned couldn’t be sensibly implemented.

    Like


  18. You can not argue with a liberal using fact and logic. You have as much chance winning an arguement with them as you do a woman.

    Like


    • It’s really a religion with them.

      Like


    • Explaining anything to a liberal with logic, reason and facts takes you no where. Arguing with a liberal is like showing some one different colors and pointing out that white is white, black is black, and blue is blue, then listening to that person get hysterical and resort to name-calling and accusations of hate: “How dare you point out that blue is blue! You must be full of hate.”

      Like


    • And despite all the back-patting in this thread about how “factual” you are, not a single one of you actually used any facts.

      Priceless.

      Here’s a fact. Republican-voting red states (read: conservative) have higher rates of teen pregnancy, poverty, federal aid, suicides, firearm death, and religiosity.

      Democrat-voting blue states (read: liberal) have higher rates of education, income, health, taxes, and … binge drinking (?).

      They come out equal, however, in unemployment.

      http://godlesspaladin.com/2010/08/10/liberal-states-vs-conservative-states-which-are-better/

      Unless you enjoy suicide, teen pregnancy, poverty, and federal handouts, the liberal America is a better place to live. In fact, given those statistics, civilization is more likely to survive in blue states (in the long term), whereas red states are more likely to revert to savagery (in the long term).

      The facts speak for themselves. Still, let’s all watch the “snarksnarksnark that’s not true you godless Marxist” comments start to appear in … 3 … 2… 1…

      Bring em on. This alpha loves to fight.

      [heartiste: i notice you’re not bothering to control for race.]

      Like


      • Nothing in this thread or your original post mentioned race, H. It was population only.

        Like


      • I’ve got some news for you. The reason all those “Republican” states suck so much is BLACK PEOPLE. They’re the ones receiving most of the handouts, getting pregnant at 14, committing crimes, living in poverty, obesity, and they have very low IQ’s which bring down the average of the state, etc. Remove Black people from the country and the US improves dramatically in each and every way.

        It’s too bad Lincoln got assassinated before he could implement his plan of removing all the blacks from the US and sending them to another land.

        Like


      • Jason is using half-truth. A half-truth is a form of deception where the information is true but other essential parts of the information are deliberately left out in order to deceive others.

        The reason why a Republican state like Texas has higher teen pregnancy, crime, poverty, gun-related violence, lower achievement in education, etc. than a Democratic state like Maine is obvious. Texas has a high amount of blacks and Hispanics, whereas Maine has a mostly white population. The Department of Justice reports that blacks are 7 times more likely to commit murder than people of other races and 8 times more likely to commit robbery. You can read more of these statistics on various sites.

        Jason tried to imply that conservatives are stupid, impoverished and irresposible people. When Heartiste pointed out the obvious, Jason’s coping mechanism to deflect reality was just pathetic.

        Like I said, when you show a liberal that blue is blue, their reaction is always hysteria.

        Like


      • Thanks for the informed comment. More like yours are needed.

        “Jason tried to imply that conservatives are stupid, impoverished and irresposible people.”

        True conservatives are rare. A true conservative doesn’t act until everyone else has already acted.

        I was referring to people who vote Republican. They’re a larger group, and they’re not necessarily conservative any more.

        You’re right: It’s a half truth. But considering where racial threads have headed before on this website — into a maze of hatred and vicious brutishness — I thought it wiser to avoid that part. And considering the astonishing number of half-truths or no-truths spouted daily in these comments, it’s high time the other side had a spin anyways.

        OKay, let’s dive into race. Here’s another fact to round out the racial side of things.

        Black people, by and large, did not vote for George W. Bush (only 11% in 2004). And his administration did more to restrict civil liberties, start an unnecessary war, expand the national debt, show an alarming ineptitude in disaster response, and destroy our global credibility than any other. He’s already been ranked in the lowest tier of presidents by a bipartisan panel of historians.

        Yes, it was WHITE people voting for Bush. Black people saw through that Republican shit. Black people also saw wise to avoid McCain/Palin, which would’ve been an unmitigated disaster, especially if McCain had died in his first term, which actuaries put at a likelihood of 1 in 4.

        True, blacks have horribly high rates of violence and poverty, but for the last twenty years at least, they’ve been much wiser at the polls.

        Waiting for ignorant lizard-brain responses in 3…2…1…

        Like


      • I don’t know whether Jason is a skilled troll, or if he is a genuine “ignorant lizard-brain,” to use his really lame insult. Either way, it’s obvious that he is projecting his stupidity onto others.

        What is quite revealing of his lack of intellect is his inconsitency. First, he says that Republican voting states (he makes sure to put “read: conservative” in parentheses to let the readers know he is talking about conservatives) are poor, backwards, stupid and prone to crime. After his ignorant attack on conservatives is refuted, he attempts to redefine the meaning of “conservative,” a sort of no true Scotsman fallacy, and then goes on to say that he was merely talking about Republican voters. This is inconsistent because in his original post he was very sure to write “read: conservative” in parentheses after he wrote “Republican-voting red states.”

        Jason then admits that he failed to mention race and insincerely states that he did so to avoid racial hatred. As if he weren’t already inconsistent enough, he then proceeds to write hatefully about the white race. He descends into a tirade where he basically says that white people are stupid because a slight majority voted for George W. Bush, and black people are enlightened and morally superior for mostly not voting for George W. Bush.

        As for whose posts are ignorant, I’m sure the readers won’t have a hard time figuring it out. 😉

        Like


      • Jason, you’re not an alpha if you must claim you’re one, especially if you’re married and do all the housework.

        Like


      • The obvious needn’t be stated repeatedly… you, I, and many others have mocked him about it for over a month, but the little twerp just doesn’t get it… and keeps talking about “loving to fight” to boot… which many here have found inspirational… it inspires both mirth and pity.

        Like


      • I know Greg, but I can’t help but feel a little paternalistic.

        Like


      • Spare change? Can ya help out an old altar boy, fahder?

        Good synopsis on the frat party that got out of control, btw.

        Like


      • Rural areas will remain civilized, urban ones won’t, if and when civilization collapses. Race will be irrelevant. Survival skills, will, common sense and strong work ethic will be everything. We can skin a buck, we can run a troutline…

        Like


  19. This is one of the ideas the Founding Fathers struggled with. On the one hand, how does one make sure power is not concentrated in too few hands like it was in Europe at the time, leading to tyranny. On the other hand, make sure power is not too diluted as to be ineffectual at getting things done. Their compromise was an executive branch with one strong leader, balanced with a senate with 100 diffuse bodies.

    Like


  20. As someone who is generally ‘liberal’ I have no problem whatsoever with disenfranchising those beneath a certain IQ threshold. US democracy lies in ruins due to politicians on both sides pandering to the most ignorant of their constituents.

    I happen to be against the death penalty. However if you are going to make use of it, it should apply based on the level of danger to society the criminal represents. Not on their ability to discern right from wrong or whatever other moral impairment that low IQ implies.

    Like


    • I think it needs to be reserved for symbolic value. Most of these shoot em clowns we catch alive should get the death penalty.

      Like


  21. It’s relatively easy to get a ‘passing’ grade on an IQ test. Those test are based on language independent abilities such as spatial reason, pattern recongination, etc.

    I think what the IQ test would do is make an extra step that people that weren’t really that keen on taking the time to vote to begin with not vote due to not want to take the test.

    I think this would be good measure as it would be an ‘interest shit test’ where as the actual IQ test would irrevelant. So people that have a geninue desire would be voting.

    Like


    • on September 8, 2012 at 6:18 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      Not if you put the cut off at an IQ of 100, where, by definition, only half the people are above.

      Like


    • I’m not sure that’s the case. At least I’ve never read any research literature which suggests that subjects with a below average verbal IQ score significantly higher on the perceptual reasoning, iow nonverbal portion of the test. There are exceptions to this, obviously, but there are also exceptions in reverse as well. It doesn’t appear to be true en masse, however.

      Actually I would suggest that if your argument were valid, we wouldn’t nearly be in the mess that we’re in, as pattern recognition is likely more important to basic life judgment abilities than verbal IQ.

      Like


    • No they are not, guess you only ever did “IQ tests” on the internet.

      A “real” IQ test is around four hours long, and you don’t need to know words for it.

      Like


  22. Realize when I write this that I agree with you Heartsy.

    There is a flaw in your logic. Low IQ does not mean that one will lack moral judgement. You cannot connect the two. (You can connect the two when you add race as a component, plus the low IQ….I say this from real world experience.)

    All I’m saying is that liberals can argue successfully with your logic.

    Like


    • I feel like any type of democracy could be used against us. We’re just living in the scenario in which Low IQ types are being used against us. I’m sure in an alternate universe we’re getting fucked even if voting was still limited to those with property rights.

      There’s only one argument to make. Keep ’em out of your society to begin with, and if they are there limit their power. You know who I mean.

      Like


      • Agreed, the self-chosen lie at the root of the problem.

        Like


      • Democracy is the ultimate form of Satanism… where the Self is made to be God, and the imaginary superiority of one’s own reason. Noble-sounding shibboleths that are, at best, unrealistic… at worst, masks for decline and degradation of a society towards the lowest common denominator.

        Like


    • You’re not reading Heartiste properly. All he’s saying is that either IQ impairs moral judgement, in which case you can’t execute low IQ individuals but you can also strip them of their right to vote, or it doesn’t in which case both voting and executing them are OK. What’s not OK is to say a low IQ exempts you from being executed but you can still vote.

      Like


  23. Anonymous: That would be an UNELECTED Senate (we did not have direct election of U.S. Senators until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913). This means that, for the first 125 years of the Republic, a bunch of elites, i.e., the members of the respective state legislatures, choose who would be in the U.S. Senate. The Founding Fathers distrusted democracy and this was one of the ways that lack of trust his exhibited in the U.S. Constitution.

    Like


  24. “…trust his exhibited…” should read “…trust is exhibited…”

    Like


  25. I have an idea I’ve been kicking around for years. The first part is fairly easy, effective, certainly leagal, and not even controversial. Politicians would never go for it, though. The second part would be a lot harder. But think of how many problems this plan would solve.

    Make tax returns due on election day. Everyone who owes money has to pay in person, and they trade their check for their ballot. No other ballots would be given out. Provisions could be made for early voting in certain circumstances, or for active duty military. But in all cases, you only get the ballot if you hand over a check. Freeloaders should have no say in how their patrons’ money is spent.

    Like


  26. Look. Basing enfranchisement on IQ is just picking at nits. It will get this country nowhere. It will change nothing. So, to argue about it is fun and shit, but it’s ultimately meaningless. You jerk-offs need to stop jerking off.

    My modest proposal? It is time to repeal the 19th Amendment. THAT is the only way we can regain freedom in this country. This amendment opened Pandora’s Box, and started us on our long national and moral decline.

    Just look at O’Bama’s poll numbers. Women — especially unmarried women — love the jug eared mother fucker. It’s insanity.

    WHAT were men thinking in 1920?

    Like


  27. Man, the Dems got rid of the IQ tests decades ago after Headstart failed to close the gap. I am glad to see IQ tests getting some respect after years of being told they are biased against black people. I hope they race norm the results, to be fair.

    Like


  28. on September 8, 2012 at 7:52 pm Sensible Rational

    I really don’t see a legitimate (i.e., sensible, rational, non-shrieking) argument against this simple logic.

    Exempting a murderer from the death penalty is something the State does to a man. A dumb citizen on the voting rolls is something a man does to the State. That’s the difference. It’s in the realm of all dogs are animals and not all animals are dogs.

    Like


  29. Liberals won’t have to confront anything because due to this countries treatment of the blacks up until the Civil Rights Acts, the government will never implement any kind of restrictions or requirements for voting because the NAACP and others would have a massive shit fit. So you can all waste your time masturbating over how smart you all are and what kind of fantasies you have to keep people you perceive to be less smarter than you from voting, it will never happen.

    Like


  30. How about this for a legitimate argument:

    Killing someone isn’t the same as not allowing them to vote.

    Like


  31. Can we just agree to stop referring to public servants as “leaders”?

    Like


  32. Normally I agree with everything said here. However, this post is the very definition of the appeal to extremes logical fallacy.

    Like


  33. on September 8, 2012 at 10:36 pm Eastside Schoold

    The average adult African in America has the mental ability of the average white 12 year old. We don’t allow 12 years olds to vote, how is it that we allow Africans to vote?

    Like


  34. As a compromise, how about a black Adolph Hitler?

    Like


    • Will this one really get rid of the Jews this time?

      Like


    • You mean like Papa Doc, Idi Amin, Joshua Nkomo, et. al.?

      Naw… the black ones never seem to be able to achieve a society which evinces that charming gemütlichkeit we’ve all come to know and love.

      Like


  35. Ugh.

    I thought I’d found an entertaining blog, generating hilarious, albeit disgusting, comments. But this and a few of your older articles incite so much stupid racism I can’t stomach it.

    I feel like I’ve stepped through some awful twilight zone portal and landed in Nazi Germany.

    Just wanted to say I won’t be reading anymore.

    Like


    • I like the game stuff here, but I agree with Michelle– yes, I agree with a woman!!– the racism here is just appalling, and unfortunately CH thinks allowing it makes him edgy and rebellious– I think he’s a twenty something– but instead it marks the place as masturbatorium fo third rate losers, wound up in their paranoia and inferiority feelings.

      Denying blacks the vote? Isn’t it a waste of time to discuss these kind of things which will never, ever happen– as even rabid strict constructionists won’t agree and also will be allied with pro-civil right people?

      it’s really a sort of political masturbation, venting your anger without looking at yourself.

      Like


    • Promises, promises.

      Like


    • Racism is normal. It’s a useful form of protection. Zebras are racist against Tigers.

      Like


    • Indignation is indeed chick crack.

      Like


    • Theres nothing wrong with racism, its a natural healthy instinct.

      Can you please point me in the direction of this portal you’ve found? and don’t worry, you wont be missed.

      Like


    • Poor thing! Of course RACISM is the cause of all our problems! Please stop reading and warn others to avoid this blog, because people can’t be exposed to RACISM, especially the CHILDREN!

      Like


    • You’ll get used to it, eventually.
      This blog is not only about game, it’s about human nature. A realistic assessment of human nature cannot only rely on sex differences and ignore racial ones.
      People here are in the business of reality, not preserving feelings.

      Like


    • It’s oh-so-telling that the indignation only seems to appear over the white variety of (so-called) racism.

      I’m beginning to think a majority of posters here are black or various degrees thereof.

      Tell ya what! From now on, identify your race in any post in which you’re decrying racism, so we’ll know whether it’s a legitimate concern or you’re merely whining about YOUR ox being gored.

      Like


      • Why do you care about race more than the individual?

        Would you rather have a 80IQ White man vote over a 120IQ Black man?

        The problem with marxist ideology isn’t that white people get hurt by it, it’s that worthy people get hurt by it, while worthless people benefit from it.

        Like


      • I don’t necessarily care about race over the individual, per se.

        My point about “identify your race” in these posts is that it will save a lot of reply time… meaning, why bother replying to a black decrying white racism when it’s obvious that a) they’re giving their own kind a pass on racism more virulent and b) they’re only crying about their own tender back being skinned, rather than standing on any moral high ground.

        And for the record, I care about voting and the democratic system not at all.

        Like


    • Thanks for the warning.

      Like


    • Background: Liberals at Huffington Post are calling for IQ tests to … disqualify those “dumb hicks” and give them a voting edge. Not realizing that IQ tests for voting (the preferred “comedy” of the Daily Show and Colbert) will exclude half of all Blacks and about 40% of all Mexicans. At any rate, Blacks often vote 2-3-4 times illegally, see the “missing voters” in Milwaukee in Black neighborhoods the fool SWPL Obama volunteers were looking for — they were missing because they didn’t exist. Illegal aliens vote early and often too.

      As for “racism” — White guys figuring they have no interests, and grouping, as straight White guys is a sucker’s game. We are increasingly not playing it. If you **ALLOW** National Council of La Raza, the Urban League, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson, Eric “My People” Holder, Barack (“I dream of killing a White guy to purge my White blood”) Obama, then you can hardly complain when White guys act the same.

      Lets be clear — you can only get White guys to abjure racial identity if you GIVE THEM SOMETHING. In return for what they give up: racial lobbying groups, the media, and government at their back when they run into any trouble. [White women who are hot can always navigate non-White majorities, because the top non-White thugs want into their pants. That doesn’t work for Straight White guys.]

      I’d start with you. Putting out. If you’re really hot. If not, then you should persuade a suitably hot group of your friends to put out to Joe Average White guy beta in exchange for giving up racial identity and group orientation. The cost for Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and La Raza is you and/or every hot girl putting out. All else is BS.

      You want something from us. Put up or shut up.

      Like


  36. The difference in treatment towards an IQ-cutoff for voting and for the death penalty may be that:

    In the case of the death penalty, whether there is a cutoff or not is not of great national significance, so there is less political motivation to manipulate IQ tests.

    Voting on the other hand is key to power over the nation, so if there is a test set to exclude a certain subset of the population, tempation for the powers-that-be to set up this IQ test to favor those like themselves will be high.

    E.g. if a Christian-leaning government came in, the IQ test might involve many Biblical questions. This is of course a rather absurd example, but you get my point.

    Like


  37. I figure if even if we restricted voting to only those who don’t receive TANF, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 or EBT then a lot of beneficial results would come to fruition. By choosing to receive these forms of welfare, you are voluntarily giving up your voting privileges. If voting is that important to you, then you won’t get the welfare. But if you are truly in need of the welfare, then of course you would trade in your vote. This would eliminate a large chunk of the black vote, who vote unanimously and racially in their best interest with the Democratic party. This chunk would be enough to level the playing field and eliminate a lot of liberal Democrat anti-white racist and feminist policies.

    Like


  38. on September 9, 2012 at 3:41 am gunslingergregi

    i’m racist i only date black chicks now and fuck white ho’s

    Like


  39. on September 9, 2012 at 3:42 am gunslingergregi

    and marry asian chicks

    Like


  40. on September 9, 2012 at 3:48 am gunslingergregi

    obviously need to outsource michelles job she can’t hack it

    Like


  41. on September 9, 2012 at 3:55 am gunslingergregi

    but yea again you voting based on property i think very very few people actually own their own house
    what with all the advertising for all the second mortgages even to “take a vacation or pay off those high interest credit cards”
    What is so bad about current conditions anyway just be glad you ain’t making 44 bucks a month minimum wage in another country.
    Save your loot in us then gtfo to cheaper place
    Live on one paycheck save another should be easy you the one fucking it up

    Like


  42. Michelle
    Ugh.

    I thought I’d found an entertaining blog, generating hilarious, albeit disgusting, comments. But this and a few of your older articles incite so much stupid racism I can’t stomach it.
    ————————————————-

    Calm down Michelle. Don’t confuse racism with hate. I don’t hate white people anymore than I hate rattlesnakes.

    God made everything, including white people; who am I to pass judgement on his work?

    The race problem cannot be solved all people are free to express themselves; this is what occurs on this site.

    It is good.

    The truth will set you free.

    Have you tried converting to Islam?

    Like


    • This blog entry has nothing to do with game.
      I agree with Michelle, every now and then, there’s is a race baiting post on this blog. Black and brown good, bad white….. Then a whole bunch of nonsense follows in the comments. Just keep the site focused on game and game related topics. We have enough sites on the net exclusively devoted to the race stuff.

      Like


      • Heartiste isn’t “racist”, he’s race realist, it’s a different thing, a lot of his readers are racists though.
        These guys show up from time to time when Heariste posts something that shows that white people are better than black people (on average), but they’re nowhere to be seen when he posts stuff that show asians and jews as more intelligent.

        Like


      • “they’re nowhere to be seen when he posts stuff that show asians and jews as more intelligent”

        I was waiting for someone to point this out. Asians are unmentioned on this site, despite the fact that their populations, economies, and (yes) intelligence are nearly unmatched.

        Any Asian readers want to swoop in and point this out to the John Birchers here?

        Like


      • God, you guys really strain for a neener-neener, don’t you?

        The reason the results of Asian and Jew IQ levels don’t merit the same sort of responses is:

        1) There aren’t a lot of Asians or Jews posting race-baiting in-yer-face nonsense like the “muh-dik” blacks do.

        2) Nobody really cares if Asians or Jews have a few IQ points higher than the smart-whites-lumped-in-with-lumpenproletariat whites, because all these groups seem to be able to sustain a society of reasonable security.

        3) When at the ATM at night, nobody glances over their shoulder on the lookout for Hymie or Park.

        Like


    • “Don’t confuse racism with hate.”

      Thanks, Thwack, I’ve been saying this for a while. But some of these boys here are hellbent on HATE.

      Like


  43. I’d be surprised if retards voted in significant numbers, but if the did, and did so carelessly — that is, almost at random — then their votes would cancel out. So government enforced IQ testing, along with banning people from the polls, would be intrusive, costly, and pointless.

    Like


  44. From today’s Realclear Politics

    “All of that reflected the Democratic priority of maximizing support among white-collar whites (especially women), the most socially-liberal component of the white electorate—even at the price of further antagonizing culturally conservative voters already moving in large numbers toward the GOP.”

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/a-tenuous-advantage-for-obama-20120906?page=2

    Like


  45. If someone who cannot grasp the wrongness of murder is a retard (or insane), then what is someone who cannot grasp the wrongness or a policy or law? Politically retarded or insane? The only problem with this logic is that it would mean the vast majority of voters are insane and retarded.

    Like


  46. “Obama’s formula for reelection remains a simple equation: 80/40. If he can match his 80 percent showing from 2008 among minority voters, and those voters represent at least the 26 percent of the electorate they constituted last time, he can win a national majority with support from only about 40 percent of whites. At a Bloomberg News breakfast this week, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina dismissed Romney camp projections that the minority share of voters might slightly decline this year. “It’s not going to drop, and I think it’s going to increase,” he said. ”

    If the minority share of the vote rises even a point and Obama matches or exceeds his 80 percent showing among them, the white vote he’d need would dip below 40 percent. That could be critical, because many polls place him right at that tipping point among white voters. In an election that could be decided by small shifts in the preference or turnout of almost any group, no single variable could be more important than whether minorities cast the same share, slightly less, or slightly more of the vote that they did when Obama won his historic victory four years ago.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/a-tenuous-advantage-for-obama-20120906?page=2

    Like


  47. Dumb people often vote in a smart way, i.e. for the politician who’ll give them the most handouts at the expense of the productive part of the population.

    On average, “smart” White people are stupider than anyone else in the way they vote. They’re more likely than any other race to vote against their own interests.

    Like


  48. this kind of belief is just a way to make white people feel better about themselves for oppressing us. if you can say it’s our fault we ended up poor and with the worst schools in the country (when you keep all the good things for yourself of course my people are going to end up in the streets!) you can feel better about your hand in the situation.

    the solution is to start sharing resources equally among all races, but you’re afraid if you do that you’re going to end up very slightly poorer when you don’t realize that we are only 10% of the population… if you gave us nothing, you’d still only lose 10% of your stuff and we’d have parity in services, schools, transporation, housing, grocery stores with reasonable prices and good food, and you could begin, slightly, to pay off the debts you’ve incurred to history

    but you have that nordic warrior steal-everything culture so that will never happen until you stand to lose more than a few points of income by denying us our rights

    sorry for the capitalization im typing on a phone.

    Like


    • No, the problem is you’re incapable as a group of inventing or maintaining an advanced civilization. If we give you the keys to the car, you’ll just wreck it and demand another one. Invent your own shit for once and be an asset instead of a net drain.

      Like


    • Typing from a phone hey?

      Sammy L Jackson puts it best:

      Like


    • We’ve been doing that. Anyone with drive and determination could make it and still can, although its tougher with current policies. You’re arguing for it becoming forced. That sounds like your own rationalization for failure.

      Like


  49. You expect consistency of belief from Liberals??? Oh, you are funny… Remember this is the group that believe a woman has the right to do what she wants when it comes to abortion, but want to mandate that you cannot have a 20oz soda, or fatty foods…

    They will see nothing wrong with chanting that everyone is equal, but wanted special rights for people with low IQ’s – even though they vilify the very concept of an IQ… Remember this is the group that chants equality, but has implement program after program destroying American competitiveness to try to legislate outcome when it comes to women in certain career fields…

    You cannot expect a moron to see that they are moronic… So expecting a Liberal to see your point, is like hiring a blind man to paint the Cistine Chapel and produce something other than a mess… It cannot be done…

    Like


    • Many liberals know how to spell “Sistine Chapel” correctly, and therefore probably aren’t morons. Many of us have even visited it.

      Like


      • The lectorate doesn’t care about ad hominems and snarky snark snark snark pathetic retorts.
        Address the issues at hand or shut the fuck up.

        Like


      • I’ve been there four times and know how to spell it too. But Michelangelo and the Pope would agree with me more than with you.

        Like


    • As opposed to “conservatives” who think that “welfare queens” cannot be trusted and will abuse the system, but businessmen should be unregulated because they are all trustworthy and loyal. Or how about how we need to close down our borders because immigrants will suck up all our safety net resources (tragedy of the commons), but there should be no regulation on business because they would never use up all our clean air and water.

      When it comes to consistency, conservatives are just as bad as conservatives, Bucko.

      Like


      • Businessmen create surplus wealth. Welfare queens consume it and Marxists destroy it. That is reason alone to be biased in favor of businessmen at the societal level.

        Like


      • “Businessmen create surplus wealth.”

        Really? Your arguments smell like they haven’t been fact-checked since 1955.

        Were you alive in 2008? Did you see how businessmen drove this country off a cliff?

        Tell you what. Read about how Wall Street private equity firms buy up teetering businesses, strap them with the very loans that are required to save them, slap them with millions in “management” fees, fire thousands of workers to stop the bleeding, and then let them go bankrupt anyways. Then, because of loopholes in the law, the private equity firms walks away with millions. The workers are unemployed, with no severance.

        That’s not creating surplus wealth, Tyrone. It’s predation. Mob bosses did this all the time at a smaller level, by taking over failing businesses, running up lines of credit, and then walking away due to loopholes in the law. It was called a “bust out”.

        That’s the story of Bain Capital. Founded by Willard Mitt Romney. Sadly, companies like this are the true movers of our current economy.

        It’s not capitalism any more, Tyrone. It’s legalized thievery. Get your head out of the sand. When you vote for Romney, you aren’t voting for a conservative — you’re voting for a predator.

        Like


      • They all donate heavily to your party because of the opportunities for patronage that crony capitalism provides them. Socialism entrenches this kind of behavior and eliminates the competition from ever getting off the ground by raising barriers to entry. The second thing that irritates me most about Marxists is their complete idiocy on matters economic. They advocate the economic equivalent of pouring raw oil into the local swimming hole. You too assume that government employees/elected politicians are immune from temptation and being bought. How do you think your party even operates? Its nothing but a huge patronage machine. Your the credulous led by the cynical. Don’t you read anything besides the Huff Po?

        Like


      • BOTH parties are fighting the sickening influence of patronage/money into the political system. It’s terrible.

        The difference: The Democrats still profess to want to stop it. And they’ve tried, however feeble and toothless the resulting legislation may be.

        The Republicans, meanwhile, are utterly onboard with the predation. (Remember Bush’s quote? “Some call you the elite. I call you my base.”) In fact, their nominee this year is the predator himself, an exploitative rich bastard if there ever was one.

        I agree with some of your analysis. However, you cannot reject the fact that, economically, Democrats are the definite lesser of two evils.

        Tyrone, if, like me, you earn less than two million dollars per year, you need to be voting Democrat. Case closed. No way to argue that.

        Like


      • So all those credit default swaps and predatory lending practices that led to the housing bubble was creating wealth? I suppose that Enron gaming the energy grid was creating surplus wealth as well?

        But no, they can totally be trusted. Greed never made anybody fuck over somebody else…

        Like


      • One thing that always bothered me about Lefties is their basic mendacity and capacity for twisting facts to suit ideology and a pre-conceived world view.

        1) No one said there should be no regulation. Regulation should be smart, simple, and effective, not a means for government patronage. We have a special interest state because of excess regulation. ou assume that noble socialist politicians are also immune from greed. Quite the opposite. Most of them seem to profit from their time in office. That money didn’t grow on trees in their backyards. Ken Lay was sentenced to 27 years in prison. The other scandals that broke out at that time all ended in long sentences for the perpetrators. Why hasn’t John Corzine been prosecuted?

        2) Your CDOs and predatory lending BS is truly rich, and another example of Lefties passing off their failures to Conservatives. The Community Reinvesment Act, passed under Jimmy Carter, and expanded under Clinton and then forced onto the banks who resisted it by taking them to court for not lending to minorities created the housing bubble. The Dems, who controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ensured that the weakened mortgage backed bonds were sold off to the general market. Mortgage backed bonds used to be a safe investment until CRA. Bush tried at least twice to address the problem, but Barnie Frank, Christopher Dodd and other key Dems loudly denounced Bush for this, because they were profiting from it and the issue died until it blew up in 2008. If your party is for the little guy, how come they get most of the donations from Wall Street?

        Like


      • My party gets donations from Wall Street? I didn’t realize the Alaska Independence Party was that big of a player. The Dems and Reps are both at fault for the current crisis, yet you still stick by one side as saints and vilify the other. Try thinking for yourself sometime, k?

        “No one said there should be no regulation. Regulation should be smart, simple, and effective…”

        Yes. Exactly. My original point was the inconsistency of “conservatives” who advocate for little to no government regulation, but then want full ban on all immigration, not a smart, simple and effective way to get/keep productive people here (not to mention “conservative’s” hypocritical stance on social issues).

        Democrats want to be your mommy. Republicans want to be your daddy.

        Like


  50. to dumb to vote but not to dumb to live here

    Like


  51. RE: executing “retarded killers”
    Even if someone has a very low IQ they should still be executed if found guilty.
    why? B/c the opposite is an even worse situation.
    If as a Society we do not execute convicted killers b/c they are retarded, developemntally disabled, then we as a Soicety are saying we can not protect ourselves from such people.
    We give them a a bye, a way of avoiding the consequence of their actions.
    When people are executed we can take a moment to note their passing but we must understand Society is better off w/ their removal from the living.

    I actually watched the film, “Dead Man Walking” expecting to see a bleeding heart rendition arguing against capital punishment. It was an intelligent film that nenetheless spoke the obvious.
    The guilty party was indeed guilty, he did it. He knew he did it and there was not justification for his actions. Following out of the sentence was merely the rendering of the judgment; and Society is better for it.

    Those who disagree do so b/c of a soft heart, a soft head and ulterior motives: to weaken our Society.

    P.S. is everyone registerd to vote this November?

    Like


  52. on September 9, 2012 at 7:12 pm freedomloverboy

    Allowing retards to vote is retarded.

    Like


  53. on September 9, 2012 at 7:19 pm freedomloverboy

    It is absurd that the people you see on Jerry Springer or Maury have an equal vote/say as intelligent, productive and responsible citizens.

    Like


  54. Dumb people often vote smart, i.e. for the politician who gives them the most handouts at the expense of the productive part of the population.

    “Smart” White liberals are probably the dumbest voters, more likely than any other group to vote against their own interests.

    Like


  55. I am a tested low 140 IQ. I make six figures in a essentially a blue collar profession. I went to our ranch to spotlight what was scaring the deer and hogs away. Best guess its a big cat. Drank a lot of 90 proof while out there. Wife of 23 years came to check on me at 1100. I’m suffering the mother of hangovers. But her main concern was getting me home to bed. Never saw the cat, but a good wife takes care of her husband. She earns her spot in heaven.

    Like


  56. Like most people, I was also taught that Hitler was a crazy madman… but later, through my own reading, I found out he was only attempting to prevent the German people from being turned into niggers.

    All the tactics the Jew was using on the German, White supremacists were using on black people.

    Adolph Hitler was the white Malcom X

    “Who taught you to hate yourself?”

    “you been flim flammed, you been hoodwinked, you been bamboozled!”

    Hitler and the Nazis are the best proof that niggers are MADE not BORN.

    Like


    • Some fair points, but let’s be reasonable… comparing Hitler to Malcolm X is like comparing the Fort Knox (in its gold-storage heydey) to some housewife’s mad-money cookie jar.

      Like


    • There is truth to this, but we are busy advocating social policies that create poverty and dependency through our social policies. When you create incentives for a matriarchy, you will have one and the most vulnerable bits go first. Socialism reduces men to the status of serfdom.

      Like


  57. I’d not consider myself leftist or liberal at all, but you guys in the US have to take good care what you wish for !
    We Europeans are (due to our history…Third reich etc.) much more sensitive when it comes to cutting down democratic rights and the like.
    Although I find it problematic that people without any clue are allowed to participate in votes, doing it differently means entering a very, very dangerous area.

    It would mean that a committee or an institution decides who is clever enough to vote (or even to survive, if one would follow suggestions from some posters here who suggest to eliminate the stupid people) –> this is an unacceptable situation for every democratic person, doesnt matter whether you are left or right !

    If you don’t like the fact that many people vote for democrats (esp. the working class and other lower educated people), make sure that they have a good life too. As long as the Republicans mostly protect the rich and super-rich at the expense of the working-poor blue-collars, you should not wonder they vote for the Democrats.

    Of course, coming back to my former point, you could say “Well, that’s okay, we have the elites, they are allowed to vote…and we have the slaves, they do the dirty work but are not allowed to vote”.
    Is that REALLY what you guys wish for ?
    And if so, what makes you sure, you’d belong to the elite and not to the masses of exploited, rightless working-poor?
    Is everyone here in this forum educated enough to surely belong to the upper-class?

    Like


    • The Dems abandoned the working man two elections ago. Where have you been? White working class men is their weakest demographic. Maybe it has to do with their war on white men and them being the most vulnerable to Democrat policies.

      Like


  58. Did anyone see the articles about the man who killed the woman who had just told him she had HIV after having unprotected sex with him?

    The commenters are declaring the woman innocent and him the monster.

    Readers of this blog are just not out there creating fake facebook accounts enough so they can chime in and tell the truth in comments on msm sites.

    Like


  59. I’d restrict the franchise to those who pay net taxes. If you draw welfare or a government paycheck greater than the taxes you pay, no vote for you parasite.

    Like


  60. Although I see the logic in this post and find it sad that stupid people are allowed to vote, Americans should be very careful what they wish for!
    Every person one vote is the core-concept of democracy that you guys always pretend to bring into the world!
    We in Europe (due to our long and oftentimes sad history – think 3rd Reich etc.) are very sensitive, when it comes to cutting right of certain people.
    It might be temting to deny dumb people the right to vote, but this means stepping into very dangerous are. Who decides who will be a judge of people’s worthiness to vote?
    Once some people can judge who is allowed and who not, it’s not far to some people deciding who is worth to live and who should be eliminated.
    This situation is unacceptable for every democratic person, no matter if you are left or right – as such a situation would surely lead to arbitrariness and pure cruelty.
    Some might say now that one should not be soft-hearted and cruelty is in human nature. As a biologist, I even partly agree, but a civilized nation protects the weaker, otherwise we go back to stone-age, where probably some of the haters here would be the first ones to be killed…
    Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t say a state should protect the unable and the ones not contributing to society out of personal faults (like lazyness…) – but the “just stupid, because non-educated” people, who work off their asses for a lousy salary to keep the economy alive, they surely deserve their right to vote, too, because they, more than everyone else need someone to protect their interests…otherwise we end up in a 5% elite, 95% slave society, and many here would probably belong to the latter group due to the lack of education!

    P.S.: I personally favor a system where every net-tax payer gets a vote and people living on welfare do not. This would not require any institution to “judge” if you are worth to vote, since it’s a very simple yes/no criteria

    Like


  61. Read the works of the Frankfurt School, specifically Herbert Mancuse. Read Gramsci

    I had an uber-nerd phase in my first couple years in college and I can attest that those books are unreadable. I mean, the way they write and argue is not normal. This is why I believe that the left find anything she wants in those books, because they can be read anyway you like. They were not written for normal (sane) people

    but power corrupts and most dictators and absolute monarchs turn out to be rapacious greedy tyrannical pricks

    BS from some utopian from the 19th century. It was meant as an indictment of the Papacy.

    Very few kings ever died asleep at peace in their beds after a long life

    Actually, most of them did. In Europe, that is. Google the list of kings of any European country in wikipedia. In the East it was another story, but hey, there must be a reason they were called barbarian…

    Read von Manstein’s assessment of him. He made a lot of blunders and cost the Germans the war. He was also queer as a three dollar bill

    Best analysis ever of Germany in the war.

    Have you tried converting to Islam?

    LOL

    Like


    • Gig, good response but you lost me on the life times of kings and queens. I have read European history extensively and life expectancies were short once in office. This changed somewhat around the 18th century and once enlightened absolutism became the rule, they lasted a long time- at least the major powers. But your assessment of history before then is mistaken.

      Like


  62. Mr. Pointyface. Are you a joooooo? Because you sure sound like one.

    Like


    • If he’s not (or perhaps she?), then he’s just another shabbaz goy useful idiot… of the ilk that invariably pollute ‘net forums, causing cognitive dissonance either by innate idiocy or by instruction from his employer.

      Like


  63. Well I assume he’s a jew. Jews after all have those pointy faces. Being “racist” is just common sense. Non-whites are plenty racist and jews most of all, but they’ll tell white people to bend over for non-whites because it is “racist” not to.

    Like


    • Until all the evidence is in, let’s try to be fair to Jews… I wouldn’t want to unjustly leave Pointyphiz on their doorstep.

      Like


    • Except not only are jews not “non-white” they’re some of the biggest lily white beta herbs I’ve ever met.

      Like


      • Technically, you’re correct… but for the purpose of these debates, they’re considered enemies of all gentile white interests… and invariably seem to walk point as the alleged friends of non-whites and white nation disruption (e.g., NAACP, world-wide Marxism, etc., etc) … so they get lumped in as “non-white”.

        Of course, when it comes to their own ethnocentrism, anti-Semitism in the form of anti-Arabism, and their desire for a segregated homeland, they make today’s rednecks still fighting the Civil War look like yesteryear’s Harriet Beecher Stowe.

        Like


      • Tartarus, walk yourself into the middle of the Israeli Army and take a good look around. Them boys are masculine.

        There’s a reason the best security experts in the world are Israeli. It’s not just their command of technology either. They can grow big, and they are very, shall we say, *direct*.

        Like


      • Funny how, when the police on this side of the pond act the very same way, it’s invariably the ACLU-types who decry this “direct masculinity”.

        Don’t ever call anyone a hypocrite on this forum again… and stop denying your own Jewishness.

        Like


      • False analogy. No ordinary cop in the US is surrounded by how many — seven, eight, nine? — countries of a different religion, a few of whose leaders get into power by threatening to wipe said cop off the face of the earth.

        Again, learn how to argue.

        BTW, I was raised Catholic. Your uninformed keyboard jockey insult speaks volumes about your own paranoia and prejudice, Greg Eliot.

        Like


      • Actually, it speaks more to your truly behemoth-leveled shabbaz goy-itude.

        And the analogy rings true… an urban policeman is equally surrounded each day by those who would put his head on a stake.

        But the Palestine equivalents of Rodney King don’t get splashed across the media to the same extend, do they?

        Once again, your finger points out the alleged prejudice of others, but your own other three fingers pointing back at you are conveniently dismissed.

        Like


      • I didn’t even bring up the ACLU, Greg Eliot. You did.

        But since we’re arguing … you surely cannot be ignorant of the fear that the urban dwellers have of injuring a police officer. Even the lowliest, most ignorant hood rat knows that you. don’t. fuck. with. the. police. At least not physically. (They definitely shout and scream at cops, though — I’ve seen it — but that’s not the same.)

        A cop’s uniform isn’t a total bullet shield, but it carries hefty weight in almost all urban eyes.

        Point: Nobody’s express purpose in urban America is to wake up every morning and kill a whole police squad. On the other hand, in parts of Middle East, there are people whose express purpose is to wake up every morning and kill (or at least drive away) a whole nation.

        Again, you made a false analogy. I’m correcting you. Learn how to argue.

        Also, I know of which I speak, having spent a good amount of time (as have many members of my family) either living or working in urban American ghettoes.

        But thanks for the comment. This alpha loves to fight.

        Like


      • Don’t make me laugh… as if looking cross-eyed at Israeli ‘security’ forces doesn’t carry weightier consequences for the proverbial ‘Arab dancing through Zion’… without the same benefit of advocacy as the MSM and/or ACLU.

        The ACLU was brought up because it’s pretty much a kosher house party full of those ‘nerdy white betas’ that Tartarus brought up, which started this whole inane bloviating on your part.

        And far more American policemen are wounded and killed each year in America than those poor, put-upon Israelis… against whom the hate is much of their own doing.

        You know how neither to argue nor to fight, so stop your ridiculous posturing already… enough here have mocked you over it.

        Like


      • “And far more American policemen are wounded and killed each year in America than those poor, put-upon Israelis…”

        1. Sampling error. The total populations are different.

        U.S.: 311,591,917
        Israel: 7,765,700

        2. Lack of data.

        Number of U.S. police officers killed in 2011: 166

        (Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-12/us/us_law-enforcement-deaths-2011_1_death-toll-police-officer-craig-floyd?_s=PM:US)

        Number of Israelis killed by Palestinians since 2000: 1096.

        (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html)

        It’s been twelve years since then. Divide 1096 by 12. Average: 91.33 Israelis killed per year by Palestinians.

        3. Summary: Almost twice as many US police officers are killed every year as Israeli citizens are killed by Palestinians. But consider your sampling error above: the U.S. has 40 times greater population.

        Conclusion: Israeli citizens are twenty times more likely to be killed by Palestinians than a U.S. police officer is likely to be killed.

        Got it?

        Again, Greg Eliot, you don’t know how to argue properly. You really want to be a punching bag? You really want to embarrass yourself on a public forum? By all means, keep commenting. But you’re bantamweight. A storehouse of mysterious German idioms, archaic diction, and pilfered jokes doesn’t make one an effective debater.

        But thanks for the comment. This alpha loves to fight.

        Like


      • Dweeb… all I said was more American cops are killed, and I was correct.

        No surprise that you would scurry for some factoids that don’t really mean a hill of beans, because percentages were never mentioned nor disputed.

        Congrats on your ‘net nerdery. Some fighter you are.

        Like


      • Meant to say previously “wounded and killed”… of course, you run off on your little factoid search and ignore the gist of the message, then pat yourself on the back as if you’d been fighting.

        God, you’re a dishrag… speaking of which, don’t you have some household chores to do?

        Like


      • Again, Greg Eliot, you don’t know how to argue properly. You really want to be a punching bag? You really want to embarrass yourself on a public forum?

        I’ll let others make the judgment about who’s been the punching bag these past few weeks. You’d better take care of that shoulder, though… you’ve been patting yourself on the back more than throwing telling blows.

        A storehouse of mysterious German idioms, archaic diction, and pilfered jokes doesn’t make one an effective debater.

        Perhaps not, but far more entertaining than your drivel. Again, I’ll let others decide.

        And you’ve really got to stop stalking my comments… people will say we’re in love.

        Like


      • “This alpha loves to fight.”

        LOL what a tool. That’s possibly the lamest thing I’ve read on this forum. What kind of “alpha” says something like that? HAHA

        Like


      • It’s also helpful to have Israeli security when these false flag attacks happen.

        Like


      • Some are, some aren’t. If you see the Egyptian Army, it becomes obvious quickly why the Israelis beat their asses on a regular basis.

        Like


      • That’s bullshit.

        Like


      • “them boys are masculine” PAUSE. u know what’s a false analogy? u being straight.

        Like


    • Does Bar Rafaeli have a pointy face?

      Like


  64. This thread has been brushed with the Godwin Seal Of Approval.

    /two coats

    Like


  65. How many people have an IQ below 75? This can’t be a number that has any statistical weight on election results (we live in a republic, not a democracy). Not saying that this population should shoulder the same type of responsibilities that average IQ holders have, but it seems like a non issue; something more serious — like owning weapons or having children — seems more dire.

    [heartiste: jim goad ran the numbers and concluded that mccain would have beaten obama had the left side of the iq bell curve been banned from voting.
    http://takimag.com/article/no_brain_no_vote_jim_goad/print#axzz2659a5BMY%5D

    Like


    • About 7% are below 75.

      Like


    • By IQ McCain would have won and that’s even after making a big error in choosing the clueless dingbat, Palin. And if you really analyse those figures you’ll see that the margin is in fact a lot greater than the Goad numbers suggest.

      Like


  66. Question. What is the proper response if you’re out with a girl and another guy hits on her?

    [heartiste: throw your skirt over your head and poop your pantaloons.]

    Like


  67. Greg Eliot
    Some fair points, but let’s be reasonable… comparing Hitler to Malcolm X is like comparing the Fort Knox (in its gold-storage heydey) to some housewife’s mad-money cookie jar.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    Greg, who taught you to hate yourself?

    Like


    • Hate myself?

      Why, I’m Black and Proud! (say it loud)

      The man who loves himself is sure to enjoy an enduring relationship.

      Like


  68. To answer for Greg, jews and their white shabbas goys.

    Like


  69. Question. What is the proper response if you’re out with a girl and another guy hits on her?

    that’s reason enough for a fight..

    Like


    • Yeah, with her… if she doesn’t rebuff his advances in no uncertain terms.

      Extra points for her, if he slinks away with his tail between his legs because she got the whole room laughing at him.

      If he persists, or says something snarky to her after the rebuff, that’s the time to step in and knock his dick in the dirt.

      Like


    • What if they guy is significantly bigger than you or you don’t wish to have a criminal record?

      Like


      • Problematic.

        a) Don’t frequent establishments where the guys are bigger than you and/or ill-mannered enough to hit on strange women already accompanied.

        b) Date really ugly women.

        Like


  70. Okay, better question, what would YOU do?

    Like


  71. What if they guy is significantly bigger than you or you don’t wish to have a criminal record?

    Most guys won’t be much bigger or smaller than you. Also, in clubs fights won’t last any longer than a minute before the bouncers kick in. You two will roll in the floor for a few seconds and that’s over. The first hit is usually the only real hit in the fight

    And whatthehell is that of criminal record? Just one fight in a bar can land you a record in the US?

    Like


    • on September 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm gunslingergregi

      naa no record as long as you leave the bar quick after the sucker punch or do it in the parking lot.
      I bought this punching dummy named bob i’m getting pretty good at the one hit slam

      Like


  72. Greg Eliot
    3) When at the ATM at night, nobody glances over their shoulder on the lookout for Hymie or Park.
    ——————————————————————————-

    Just wait till you try to use your pension.

    Like


  73. What if you’re not in a club?

    Like


  74. then you have only the skirt strategy CH outlined above left…

    Like


  75. Stupid people are precious. We should continue breeding them.

    Like


  76. An interesting reading:
    “The 5 Women Who Will Ruin Your Game”
    http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/the-5-women-who-will-ruin-your-game

    1. The Attention Vampire
    2. The Engaged Woman in Transition
    3. The Female Liar-Cheater
    4. The “Manhater”
    5. The “Dingbat”

    Like


  77. Liberals should be more than happy to exempt dumb people from voting. More votes for the Dems. The dumbest people in the country live in places that overwhelmingly vote Republican. People in the south and rural midwest are freaking morons.

    [heartiste: incorrect. dummies disproportionately vote democrat. you should acquaint yourself with the sociological research. or you can continue nursing your anti-white bigotry. your choice.]

    Like


    • Too bad the good sense of the typical conservative is used against them with counterintuitive political shell games. How to destroy conservatives? Turn debt into money and rename the landed gentry capitalists. That neutralizes anyone under 120.

      Like


  78. Stupid people are precious. We should continue breeding them

    But are they able to produce beautiful daughters? Say whatever you want about the intellectual achievements of West Virginians, but they are able to make cute chicks

    Like


  79. on September 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm gunslingergregi

    blonde chick cutting herself after i wouldn’t asnswer phone cause i was with another chick white chicks be crazy
    told her to get i’m sorry greg tattooed on her ass to get back in my graces lolzzz

    Like


    • Ba-zing-ga!

      And I’m going to return the favor by killing that dog down the street who only barks at negroes.

      Like


  80. on September 10, 2012 at 6:07 pm gunslingergregi

    tough maintaining hand when the sex that good but maintaining
    “puts on the feeling forcefield”

    Like


  81. […] Shit Tests Are Dominant TestsNix Shit Test!Don’t test private methodsIQ, Executions And Voting […]

    Like


  82. on September 10, 2012 at 10:43 pm Robert in Arabia

    Like


  83. AP Exclusive: Memos show US hushed up Soviet crime

    WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The American POWs sent secret coded messages to Washington with news of a Soviet atrocity: In 1943 they saw rows of corpses in an advanced state of decay in the Katyn forest, on the western edge of Russia, proof that the killers could not have been the Nazis who had only recently occupied the area.

    The testimony about the infamous massacre of Polish officers might have lessened the tragic fate that befell Poland under the Soviets, some scholars believe. Instead, it mysteriously vanished into the heart of American power. The long-held suspicion is that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t want to anger Josef Stalin, an ally whom the Americans were counting on to defeat Germany and Japan during World War II.

    Documents released Monday and seen in advance by The Associated Press lend weight to the belief that suppression within the highest levels of the U.S. government helped cover up Soviet guilt in the killing of some 22,000 Polish officers and other prisoners in the Katyn forest and other locations in 1940.

    The evidence is among about 1,000 pages of newly declassified documents that the United States National Archives released and is putting online. Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who helped lead a recent push for the release of the documents, called the effort’s success Monday a “momentous occasion” in an attempt to “make history whole.”

    Like


    • Back in grade school (the decade of the sixties), I had to do a report on the Katyn Forest Massacre. All the sources were still blaming it on the Nazis, and if memory serves, they had the number at 15K.

      I think sometime in the decade of the nineties was when I first heard it was actually the Soviets.

      Makes one wonder about what future lights might shine on further “attempts to make history whole” in re Germany and the numbers laid at their doorstep.

      Like


  84. I’m here for the Greg Tyrone Eliot comments. I love it when it gets racial and Nazified.

    Unfortunately, I think Greg lost a groupie in the process. Michelle was positively tingly just opening the website, you know she was scanning the comboxes with one hand.

    But a girl has to have her principles! After all, what is a woman if she can’t stand up for something? (Answer: still just a woman.)

    Matt

    Like


    • What’s your take on nazism?
      Just curious.

      Like


      • My take on Nazism? My take is Tyrone’s take.

        Here is a hint, kids. First humble yourself enough to realize you can’t be competent, much less expert, in every field. Then find someone who knows his shit, defer to him, and listen up.

        So many stupid hotheads who don’t know what they don’t know. So many overgrown brats who think they can bluff their way through the world. Is this an American thing? They’re not fooling anyone beyond themselves (and that’s not hard to do).

        Alpha is contextual. The attitude transfers from ambit to ambit, but the competency does not. If you do not know how to easily defer to your superior when you are out of your depth, you are a useless tit. The beginning of wisdom is knowing what you don’t know. And that’s lots.

        Matt

        Like


      • Agreed. I know nothing about Nazism and have found Tyrone’s comments interesting.

        [heartiste: “i find your nazism refreshing!”

        plz someone make the above a meme.]

        Like


    • Tyrone?

      Like


    • I’m a classical liberal with a fascination for totalitarian regimes. Studying totalitarian regimes has taught me that democracy with a limited electorate of stakeholders is the best system of government. I think the Nazi had some interesting ideas and were willing to stand up for the common working man. This I respect about them. They knew who was the backbone of society. However, they were evil and led by self serving careerists. I don’t believe in genocide or using terror as a means of gaining obedience. I am half German and had a lot of relatives who lived in Nazi Germany. I lived much of my life in Germany- about half of it. I have also translated a couple of first hand military works and have been published as a translator. Both books are still in print. I have a huge collection of Waffen SS division histories and photobooks as well. I have immense respect for the German soldier and Army of WWII.

      My grandfather served in the 118th Infantry Regiment, 113th Infantry Division of the Wehrmacht for six full years as a heavy machinegun section sergeant.He was in the invasion of France, Russia, and at Normandy.

      Like


      • I had a relative die in a concentration camp…

        He got drunk one night and fell out of the guard tower.

        Like


      • The neighbor from downstairs when I was a little boy, Herr Grossmann, spent 5 1/2 years in a concentration camp. He was a good man and was 15 when he went into the camp for being half Jewish. People on work details usually had the My Great Aunt gave me a watch from one of her employees, a Jewish girl who was deported and died in the camps in the
        late 30s.

        It has more gravity when you meet people who really suffered there. I’ve been to Dachau, which was never a death camp, just a regular prison, but its a spooky place. They say Auschwitz is worse.and that the birds don’t land there. Holocaust denial is pretty lame revisionsim.

        Like


      • People on work details usually had the highest and longest survival rates.

        Sorry about the typos above. My browser doesn’t work correctly on this site and there is no edit capability.

        Like


      • My grandfather’s German cousins were members of the Young Nazi Party (might have that name wrong, maybe HItler Youth?). Anyways, they turned in their own mother to the government — to certain death — just for a promotion. Horrible. They later left for the US and found, surprise surprise, that none of our clan would speak to them here.

        All my Polish relatives died in the camps.

        See why I don’t like hatred on this website?

        Like


      • I understand and know how out of hand it can get. I don’t hate anyone. I don’t want to see anyone deliberately disadvantaged by the state, but that also includes me. I’m just tired of bending over for others and being the only one doing the bending. I’m also aware of the concept of Leitkultur or lead culture and believe it needs to be maintained. the Guenther Grass notion of all people being interchangeable is fundamentally flawed IMHO.

        Like


    • We’re two separate people in case you were wondering.

      Like


  85. Friedman puts a young Michael Moore in his place. Did that guy become a fat fuck or what?

    Like


  86. jefferson believed education should be a prerequisite for voting, which in his days would probably disqualify all lower end of the iq bell curve and many on the right as well. nevertheless, i like its principles even though it is not so clean cut.

    if one has to pass two tests in order to drive on the road, it may be only fair to ask everyone to pass a basic reasoning test before casting his or her vote. certainly, it may take millions if not billions of research dollars to work out the practicalities, such as deciding how basic should basic be. still, the general premise is a sound one…prerequisites can be and should be required when one’s participation may affect others’ wellbeing. no?

    Like


  87. Greg Eliot
    I had a relative die in a concentration camp…

    He got drunk one night and fell out of the guard tower.
    —————————————————–

    Finally, a new joojoke.

    I think everyone has a secret envy of the Nazis. Think about it? Who among us has experienced or witnessed some aspect of nonsense, stupidity or ignorance in people and NOT wished somebody like Hitler and his boys would come along and clean house?

    You just get tired of the bullshit. Corruption, fraud, lies, theft, filth…

    This is what you get when people don’t/can’t value themselves.

    Nazi = Deniggarization

    Like