What A Religious Cult Looks Like

Before this gets taken down:

Check out the glowing “O”-face of the SWPL whiter person at 1:19. Really, you can’t make this shit up.

In other news, scientists discover evangelicals aren’t the only species of fundamentalist wackos.





Comments


  1. I don’t see myself voting so much for Obama as I do not voting for the same people who’ve fucked us up this much to keep on doing it.

    If it’s more intelligent and alpha to keep the current administration going, I just lost all respect for intelligence and the state of alpha.

    Next time, just tell your team not to suck when given a chance and maybe, just maybe, mere charisma won’t come off as the better choice.

    I’m just saying.

    Like


  2. Brainwashing kids is absolutely beneath contempt, and using them as political “props” is almost as bad.

    Its disgusting to me to see adults use children like this, although Im sure the GOP wouldn’t hesitate to do it either. Both political parties have been proufoundly dissapointing to me since the early nineties.

    Like


  3. Both political parties have been utterly useless or worse since the late 1980s when Ronald Reagan, the Last American President, left office.

    Like


  4. the sound of singing children is fucking awful.

    Like


  5. Brainwashing kids is the central means for societies to reproduce themselves.

    American politics boils down to the idiocy in that video or the idiocy in this one . (I’m sure Roissy prefers the latter as it’s testosterone stupidity vs. estrogen stupidity). I think the Democratic brain trust is somewhat less likely to swallow their own kool-aid though. Somewhere along the line the Republicans let a few of the inmates into the control room.

    Like


  6. The rapture!!!

    Like


  7. That is creepy, and it’s amazing that the people behind this didn’t realize it. I’m already waiting for parody versions of this, the possibilities are endless, although I feel sorry for those kids.

    Like


  8. Nobody worships McCain as a god. In fact, most of the party has serious problems with him. As President, he’ll be constrained.

    Dems worship Obama as their god. A Smith College student wrote in the paper that Obama is her personal Jesus, and that she worships him.

    Typical.

    Like


  9. Somewhere along the line the Republicans let a few of the inmates into the control room.

    Still better than the Democrat party, where the sane people are the locked up inmates and the lunatics are the law.

    Like


  10. whiskey 8 —

    Keen observation Whiskey, and broadly true.

    Like


  11. This shit makes me sick. SICK. You can’t pray to God in public schools, but you can pray to a weasel prick like Obama. “Obama’s gonna change the world”???? Aside from the audacity and sheer naivety of that statement, it’s worth pointing out that good leaders provide sufficient tools and motivation so that CITIZENS can change the world. Nothing more. A Brother or a spineless liberal white guy who wishes he was black must have wrote that song, seeing that it’s positively dripping with the usual Woe-Is-Me-I-Is-Just-A-Po-Black-Man-Wit-No-Power-Please-Someone-Solve-All-My-Problems-So-I-Don’t-Have-To-Work-With-Whitey, BULLSHIT.

    Z – Republicans have NEVER heaped this kind of hero-worship on a presidental candidate. Reagan wasn’t even given this kind of over the top ooze.

    Like


  12. Leftie White Man: someone who is either (a) immature, (b) feels a homoerotic attraction to Black men, or (c) loathes/fears/envies masculine White men.

    Leftie White Woman: someone who is either (a) immature, (b) has daddie issues, or (c) had a string of disappointments with Liberal White Men.

    Like


  13. The Dems need a fresher approach. This is so 2005.

    Like


  14. Republicans have NEVER heaped this kind of hero-worship on a presidental candidate.

    Ah, well – there was Reagan…I remember making signs for him in school….that was a Catholic school. I have to imagine this video is from a private school somewhere in Northern Cal. The piccolo playing gave them away…

    Like


  15. The Dems need a fresher approach. This is so 2005.

    so you agree that fundamentalist democrats are just as bad as fundamentalist republicans.

    got it.

    Like


  16. Of course I agree, roissy. I’m glad you posted the video. Shining a harsh light on this craziness is the best way to make it vanish, I say.

    Like


  17. MQ, no one LIKED Bush. Just were relieved that neither Gore nor Kerry was handling the Jihadis. Since we kept DC non-nuked. A good accomplishment.

    Women LOVE Obama, he’s leading by 17 points in a Time poll. He’s fashionable, and all the celebs worship him making him the Alpha Male since celebs bow down to him.

    Like


  18. Perfect theme for the recruits into Obama’s “Civilian National Defense Force”.

    http://tinyurl.com/3hvem2

    And they got a great recruitment poster too!

    Like


  19. Personal Jesus?

    Like


  20. A little off topic, but how many white women do you think that Barack Obama could pull (and by pull, I mean f**K) if he wasn’t constrainted by the negative media attention it would receive? I am sure there are at least hundreds of young, liberal, college-aged white chicks who would go down on him in a microsecond if he approached them about it.

    I remember talking to this great looking white chick about a week ago who was absolutely in love with Barack. She kept going on about how “Handsome” and “Intelligent” he appeared and sounded. It was a bit creepy, and made me wonder how much of his appeal with women is his looks and demeanor.

    I guess is my point is, is Obama an alpha?

    Like


  21. He is Nathan, but only because all these celebs worship him. Without their worship, he’s Urkel with a side order of Rev. God Damn America.

    No one knew about him much less swooned over him, when he was a State Senator, and not even as a Senator.

    Flipside, all that women-love by Obama will piss off every Joe Average.

    Like


  22. Obama is not an Alpha. His wife rules him. He won’t cheat, cause Michel already has his nuts in a lock box.

    I still don’t really understand why Obama wants to be president.
    Clition: Pussy + Power
    Bush: Ultimate position for an Alpha male.
    Obama? Could it be he believes the hero worship crap and wants to be a living god?

    What does he really care about? I understood what the Clinton’s cared about, but O is a blank slate for me.

    Maybe Michel pushing him to the top. I have seen a few controlling women do that to turn Husbands.

    Like


  23. don’t be a sidekick, eat like an alpha:

    this is the most hilarious thing ever. it addresses all of the topics roissy’s talked about lately. girls trying to get guys to ‘be’ like them in the workplace, guys’ need to be themselves, etc.

    personally, obama’s on the fence re alpha/beta. although the presence of banshee wife is bad evidence towards beta side of the fence despite height, good looks, intelligence, good body, good fashion, strong character, arrogance, vanity and kindness [side note: who says you can’t have all those traits in one human being?]… oh, I got sidetracked somewhere….

    he has sexual magnetism, charisma (a la jfk, but the black version of camelot), and intelligence (all IMHO). both candidates’ policies suck; it’s just a matter of who the rest of the world will hate less. and in that case, i go with obama.

    Like


  24. This only shows what desperation can do to people, after 8 years of living under the most reactionary and fucked-up regime in history.

    BTW, the Republicans have their own corny cult of personality surrounding Ronald Reagan, no? Or did that one slip by you?

    And free market fundamentalism which is often touted on this website bears EVERY hallmark of a religion… think about it. Irrationally clinging to a set of rigid ideas which cannot be borne out by the real-world facts. Short-circuiting one’s thought processes with knee-jerk platitudes and pseudo-scientific cant.

    Market fundamentalism has existed as a religious cult in the US since the ideas of Milton Friedman took hold in the GOP… Call in the deprogrammers!!

    Like


  25. joe t –

    personally, i [heart] milton friedman. the man’s a legend.

    interestingly, this quote of his is quite apropos:

    “The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 … Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government.

    —Milton Friedman, Two Lucky People, 233”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

    Like


  26. dirty blonde – friedman was a dirty little worm, and is irrationately worshipped by a lot more people than are supposedly worshipping obama.

    i hope friedman is in hell right now, getting assraped by the ayatollah khomeini.

    Like


  27. dirty blonde – friedman was a dirty little worm, and is irrationately worshipped by a lot more people than are supposedly worshipping obama.

    i hope friedman is in hell right now, getting assraped by the ayatollah khomeini.

    Like


  28. Alternate links:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM (godwin warning)

    Like


  29. Hmm. Yes, I too have seen this video, and find it a bit disturbing. Also, I do think there is something to be said for Obama’s seeming “messiah effect”. I think it was Chesterson who said that once you stop believing in God, you simply don’t stop believing period; you believe anything.

    The Dems are the Party of the Secular, at best. Now, whether that’s right or wrong is another matter. But that is the truth.

    They are also the Party of Single Women, in the main. And it has been documented since at least 2000 how White Males are leaving the Dems in droves. Simple Google search should bear this out.

    As for the supposed power of Evangelicals, think about the following:

    Roe v Wade is still the law of the land.

    Gays have won the right to marry in several states, and quite possibly CA.

    Prayer has not been restored in Public Schools.

    Those are the facts. And those were the key areas of interest for the Christian Right. If anything, the Bush Years will be mark by the Rise and influence of the NeoCons.

    Dick Cheney is a NeoCon, for example, and favors Gay Marriage; of course, his own daughter is a lesbian. And many if not most NeoCons are either pro or neutral on the matter of Gay Marriage and Abortion.

    Far from this notion that America is slowly becoming a Theocracy, I think the evidence, especially as presented above, speaks to something else.

    As for whether Obama is considered an Alpha male, that’s an interesting question. W/o a doubt, there will always be womn attracted to him simply because he has influence and power, so to that extent I suppose he would be considered such. That said, the real or perceived view of Michelle Obama as being “too aggressive”-a key perception of Black women generally-does raise doubts. So it is an interesting question.

    I don’t support Obama because of his policy positions, such as his staunch support for Planned Parenthood, his view of Healthcare, and his positions on the Iraq War and the wider problem of radical Islamic terrorism. On top of all this, I also don’t like his attempting to his use heritage as a kind of “solution” to America’s racial divides. The average African American has at least some White ancestry, so that’s never been at issue.

    As for the Markets, I am full-square against the Bailout. Not only will it do no good in the longrun, ideologically I’m against it-there are winners and losers in life, and people simply should be saved from themselves. While I do think its a bit much to put the blame solely on Black and Brown subprime mortage holders, at the same time its well known that Black folk in particular, for whatever reason, tend to have worse credit scores than do Whites. The way to solve this is to work harder to clean it up and meet the standard. Not change the rules to the point that they no longer have any meaning.

    Black people, and keep this in mind I am Black, simply must accept the fact that we will have to work harder than others if we want to make it. Its not fair, but then so much in life is that way. The benefit though, is that it will build character, something that is in seriously short supply in both Black and White America these days.

    And while its not as sexy, headline grabbing or yes, not as female attractive, Character, in the longrun, counts.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  30. Ha! take a look at this little gem from Wikipedia. Not only does Milton Friedman share the same original views on the Iraq war as Obama, he actually slightly modifies his feelings at the behest of his wife. Wonder how that flies at this blog.

    In Friedman’s last email interview in 2006, he said that the greatest threat to the world’s economy is “Islamofascism, with terrorism as its weapon”.[21] In an in-person interview with both his wife and him in that same month, he said that he opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq: “What’s really killed the Republican Party isn’t spending, it’s Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.” His wife disagreed that it was aggression. However, after a short argument with his wife, he added “But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.”[22] Milton Friedman died at the age of 94 in San Francisco on November 16, 2006.[23][24] Friedman’s son is the philosopher and economist David D. Friedman.

    Like


  31. Thanks for sharing Joe.

    Like


  32. Dave, it’s funny Friedman changed his position on Iraq just becuase of his wife’s importunings. What an immense fuckin’ copout by the little turdhead.

    Friedman is the favorite economist of the Neocon clique that got us into this Medusa-headed set of quagmires. Whether his initial position on Iraq was the same as theirs, or differed by a hairsbreadth, matters nary a whit.He was one of the most odiously pig-headed weasels ever to claim the titlen, “Policy Wonk”. A cretin extraordinaire.

    Like


  33. The link’s been taken down. Anyone have an alternate?

    Like


  34. My guess the video was a piece of GOP false-flag propaganda. The adults in the video were probably paid. They most likely had to take it down because someone outed their stunt.

    Like


  35. on October 2, 2008 at 12:40 pm Usually Lurking

    Black people, and keep this in mind I am Black, simply must accept the fact that we will have to work harder than others if we want to make it.

    Blacks needed to work harder than immigrant Hispanics?

    Like


  36. on October 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm monohechomierda

    Joe T.

    Friedman was one of the greatest and most innovative economists of the last 100 years. Anybody who finds a problem with works like “Free to Choose” is most likely a moron.

    Like


  37. Several points.

    UL: I have no qualms with the spirit of your statement, there’s something to be said for the exemplary work ethic of many illegal Hispanic immigrants, and the lax work ethic of quite a few African Americans. Having said that however, I do think its important to note that his issue is being used as a way to justify further discrimination against African American males in particular, paying little attention to individual track records of performance or the lack thereof. I believe the U of Chicago released a study in this regard, about the hiring practices on the part of companies and businesses on the basis of “White” versus “Black” names.

    Wrt Friedman, and his flip-flop in the face of his wife on the Iraq War, let me play Devil’s Advocate for a minute:

    In today’s climate, simply taking a position and sticking to it can very well mean that you will be alone; your wife can divorce you, take at least half your money and assets, etc. While in the past the wife had little recourse to go along to get along, women today don’t have to do that.

    So, my question is, taking the Friedman issue a step further, what was he or for that matter, just about any married man in America these days to do? I don’t ask this question flippantly either. Where once the husband’s place in the home was unchallenged, I think anyone reading this today would agree that this has been significantly diminished, whether one sees that as god or bad.

    Comments?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  38. monohechomierda (nice name) – Friedman may have been innovative all right, but his theories were ain’t about shit.

    At the end of the day, he propounded nothing but a simplistic ideological mantra to reduce government involvement in the economy to a bare minimum. And in every case around the world where this prescription has actually been implemented for more than a few years, it has led to disaster, chaos, riots, coups, despotism, war, exploitation, human suffering, loss of national sovereignty, sweatshops, and destruction of traditional cultures and societies.

    None of his ideas were EVER borne out empirically when he propounded them. And NOW, in 2008, when we actually have empiric evidence of what his theories lead to, the final judgment is “a rapid downward spiral into the economic toilet”.

    The greatest economist of our time, or arguably any other, was John Maynard Keynes, followed by John Kenneth Galbraith.

    Like


  39. on October 2, 2008 at 2:07 pm Usually Lurking

    Mu, my point is, when comparing what some African American had available to him in the last 20 years and what some legal, or illegal, Hispanic, non-English speaking, immigrant had available, well, it must have been much harder for that Hispanic immigrant.

    I believe the U of Chicago released a study in this regard, about the hiring practices on the part of companies and businesses on the basis of “White” versus “Black” names.

    I remember that study, and it turns out that all people (not just White) were less likely to interview Jamal versus Michael.

    Like


  40. What is so hilarious is how Google keeps trying to take the video down. What a waste of time from supposedly intelligent people.

    Like


  41. What is so hilarious is how Google keeps trying to take the video down.

    google is a totalitarian monopoly run by ideologues and should be broken up into separate entities, and divested of its youtube acquisition.

    unfortunately, i want to buy their new G1 phone as it uses my carrier t-mobile.

    Like


  42. The bigots are coming out of the woodwork…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/conservatives-seek-to-shi_n_131020.html

    Trying to blame the Wall Street implosion on a program to help minorities buy homes…

    Pathetic. The people who are blaming this program should have their balls cut off and be sent to work in Chinese mines in Mozambique for the rest of their lives.

    Like


  43. @43 – What ideology is that? Advertisingism? Searchism? Isn’t their primary product priced by auction?

    Like


  44. @44 – Minorities did take out a disproportionate level of subprime loans… Not that I would blame them per se. Lending to poor people is a terrible business model, but that’s the lenders problem, not the borrowers.

    Like


  45. Yet, UL, the entire point of an interview is to assess INDIVIDUAL abilities, performance, etc, is it not?

    I don’t know if you’re familiar with thr name Tamar Jacoby. She’s with the Manhattan Institute, and I recall an appearance she made on Peter Robinson’s program “Uncommon Knowledge”. She basically made the point that, when one really stops and thinks about it, African Americans have only been “free” since the passage of the Voting and Civil Rights Acts of the 60s-less than half a century.

    I can tell you from personal experience UL, that becaue of my name and face, I’ve experienved firsthand the kind of discrimination we’re discussing, and that’s not to pour water on what’s been said previously. Yet I work at least as hard if not harder than both my Hispanic and White countrymen.

    A hallmark of our form of gov’t and social contract is that the Individual must be weighed by his/her deeds, character and track record; if we decide to deviate from this and instead judge individuals based on the actions of the group to whch they belong, we will be no better than the very places many illegals come from.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  46. @ 40 – Keynes lead to the economic environment of the 70s (hyperinflation and stagnant economic growth). Friedman lead to the economic environment of the 90s (low inflation and strong growth). Sounds like you’re the one with no facts.

    Also, the man was an economist. Who cares what his views are about Iraq? I don’t particularly care what he thought of Mac vs. PC either.

    Like


  47. I wouldn’t put too much stock in anything Tamar Jacoby says. She is a neocon open-borders fanatic. Unfortunately, that’s what passes for conservative today.

    Like


  48. on October 2, 2008 at 3:06 pm monohechomierda

    Joe T,
    Sorry, but you are wrong. Modern economics is built on two foundations, Keynes AND Friedman. Don’t really want to argue something that is about as much common knowledge as what color the sky is with you.

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006/11/29/story_29-11-2006_pg3_5

    Of course, both Keynes and Friedman are denigrated by party hacks of both sides, but IMO if you are denigrating either one you are just a party hack for one side or the other.

    Like


  49. @49 – PA, you’re right about Jacoby. And I wonder who’s paying her, and who’s funding the Manhattan Institute she works for? The same slithering Neocons and market fundamentalist vermin who worship at the altar of Friedmanism, and who made billions peddling worthless securities.

    Jacoby is shrewd. Her beat at the thinktank is immigration, and she’s being paid well to push economic wedge issues designed to peel off more conservative-thinking minorities with radical laissez-faire twaddle.

    Like


  50. monohecho @50 – Didn’t say that Friedman’s ideas aren’t important, or that they’re taken serious by many, many people. I’m only saying their wrongheaded.

    And let’s face it, you can’t believe in BOTH Friedman’s ideas and Keynes’ at the same time, because they’re generally mutually exclusive.

    Maybe in some ivory tower graduate level macroeconomics class you can pretend not to favor one over the other, but you can’t do this in real life.

    And I don’t pretend not to be a party hack. I’ve never voted for a Republican.

    Like


  51. Here’s a great companion video:

    Like


  52. Another good companion piece:

    Obama’s in good company.

    Like


  53. Joe, One thing that fascinates me is how the Neoconservatives have influenced the conservative movement under GWB.

    The Left loathes them, mainly for unregulated market capitalism and the iraq war, and the traditional Right loathes them for betrayal on immigration and on the cultural front. And for Iraq, to a lesser extent.

    In many ways, the traditional Right is represented by old warrior Pat Buchanan. His “a Republic, not an Empire” ideas for America have been excomunicated from the Republican party since Ronald Raegan, the Last American President, left office in 1989.

    The United States is culturally divided, between liberals and conservatives, broadly speaking. We’re in a vicious war against one another. And it doesn’t ned to be that way. Thius is a big country.

    I say, let there be a thousand Jesus Camps from Alabama to Montana. These camps and similar grassroots movements teach American kids the virtues of faith, honor, service, and patriotism.

    Let there be a thousand SWPL colonies, in NYC, Austin, San Fran, and big and small cities everywhere. For all the goofing we do on them, they can teach us a thing or two about enjoying the finer things in life.

    We can coexist. We don’t need to call each other moronic names like “bigot” or “leftie.”

    But for some reason, we are in this culture war, the side that has the upper hand is doing all it can to smother out the other, and our elites are selling us out, left and right, through their stupid wars, debts, and open borders invitations to anyone who wants to underbid an American family in a race to the bottom.

    Like


  54. Keynes lead to the economic environment of the 70s (hyperinflation and stagnant economic growth). Friedman lead to the economic environment of the 90s (low inflation and strong growth). Sounds like you’re the one with no facts.

    Keynes led to the economic environment of the 50s and 60s (low inflation and strong growth), and Friedman led to the economic environment of the 00s (asset inflation, no income growth, collapse of unregulated financial markets). HAHAHA KEYNES WINS!

    Serious answer is that both economic theories were taken too far in one direction — too much faith in government macroeconomic management in one case, too much faith in laissez-faire in the other. Although I don’t think Keynes would have at all approved of the government crap that led to the situation in the 70s — paying for Vietnam with borrowing, Nixon’s awful wage and price controls, controls on oil prices.

    Like


  55. on October 2, 2008 at 3:36 pm Usually Lurking

    She basically made the point that, when one really stops and thinks about it, African Americans have only been “free” since the passage of the Voting and Civil Rights Acts of the 60s-less than half a century.

    Fine, but non-English speaking, desert crossing, family leaving Hispanics have it easier?

    if we decide to deviate from this and instead judge individuals based on the actions of the group to whch they belong

    Every single human being on Earth uses groups. This does not make any of them inherently evil. It would be impossible to assume that every person is truly, and wholly, unique and then attempt to understand them and judge them from the ground up upon meeting them.

    We know this. The grand majority of Chinese people I work with changed created a “Western” name for themselves when they emigrated to America/Canada to make things easier for the Westerners. This does not make the Chinese person a victim, nor does it make the Westerner the intolerant/bigoted/etc.

    We all know that the grand majority of people out there are unlikely to assume that Shaniqua and Michelle are of equal intelligence (or work ethic, or lack of drama, or whatever it is you are looking for in an employee). This does not make the employer some Jim Crow segregationist. It simply means that they are making an assumption, and a popular one at that.

    What we then do with that information is up to us. Screaming “I’m a Victim! I’m a Victim!” has not solved anything.

    Also, there is something to be said about these “Black” names started appearing in the 1970’s and 80’s and everything going to shit in that Black urban core.

    Like


  56. on October 2, 2008 at 3:42 pm Usually Lurking

    We can coexist.

    PA, I am not so sure that we can. I never heard of a Lefty advocating Local Control (i.e. States Rights) until after bush started doing all his shit. Now, it is much more common to hear. But, with things like Roe v Wade, they have absolutely no interest in letting Calif. being a pro-choice state and Alabama being pro-life (or whatever).

    Lefties were not advocating Gun Control for NYC and LA, but also for places like North Dakota which had, basically, zero gun crimes (but a shit-load of guns).

    Leftist/Marxist/PC ideology is a religion. And that religion can not let others show a different, and possibly better, way.

    Like


  57. 25 dirty blond,

    Thank you for the video! Without it, Pupu would have been permanently injured by the singing video.

    Like


  58. @55

    PA – The problem is that a lot of traditional conservatives around the country are lulling themselves into the notion that their part of the conservative movement is still relevant or has any muscle left to flex.

    Let’s face it — the only people that “traditional” conservatism can mobilize is a bunch of grandpas sitting on front porches in small towns.

    “Traditional” conservatism is utterly insignificant in the face of the domination of the Republican party by globalist market fundamentalists and social Darwinists. These people give not a whit about traditional values of any kind, and actually hold them in contempt.

    And when I say that the traditional kind of conservatism that you describe is insignificant, I mean *both* in terms of political muscle, *and* in terms of actual numbers of “boots on the ground”.

    Fact is that people who consciously subscribe to this kind of conservatism, and will actually withhold their votes from Neocons and globalist free-traders and their ilk, are a tiny minority, and are dying out. People are so brainwashed by Fox and the right wing noise machine these days, and Americans are a poorly-educated, low-information society, so that if what you call “traditional” conservatism really exists as a movement, it’s a pathetically tiny and irrelevant one.

    Maybe a few hundred to a few thousand people, tops, in each state, and utterly disorganized. NOT a coherent movement in any sense of the word.

    And they have nothing, really, to blame but themselves and their own ignorance and innate gullibility.

    Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas” is the seminal book on this topic.

    Like


  59. Joe T, Are you saying that all of Friedman’s ideas on economics can be amassed and wholly proven as wrong? Please be specific.

    Maybe in some ivory tower graduate level macroeconomics class you can pretend not to favor one over the other, but you can’t do this in real life.

    Sounds like you have contempt for economics in general.

    Like


  60. UL, but one can wish. That’s what I meant about one side doing all it can to smother out the other. Federalism was all about allowing different regions and cultures to have their space.

    But with the continuous expansion of the federal government, of which the Left seized reins under FDR, there has been a systematic Kulturkampf going on, like you say.

    But it doesn’t have to be that way.

    Like


  61. 44 Joe T

    The bigots are coming out of the woodwork…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/conservatives-seek-to-shi_n_131020.html

    Trying to blame the Wall Street implosion on a program to help minorities buy homes…

    Pathetic. The people who are blaming this program should have their balls cut off and be sent to work in Chinese mines in Mozambique for the rest of their lives.

    Security prices are largely a dollar-weighted aggregation of worldviews. When something horrible happens to them, it’s often because most of those worldviews were wrong in a fundamental way.

    This time around, the biggest single collective error was excessive optimism regarding the ability and/or interest of marginal borrowers to repay their mortgages. And this error was largely induced by government pressure on lenders to extend more mortgages to minorities. In this, Ann Coulter was actually right.

    That said, her partisan slant is silly — GWB deserves at least as much blame as any Democrat, since it was under his watch that the situation spiralled out of control. Also, it was really dumb for Wall Street to build a house of cards that would topple in the face of any major shock. If this subprime crisis didn’t happen, there would have been a very good chance some other shock would have brought the investment banks down within the next 10-20 years anyway. So, when it comes to the Wall Street implosion, I assign ~75% of the blame to short-sighted financial architecture, and only ~25% to the particular hurricane which brought it crashing down.

    There are few things I hate more than people who poison important facts with an absurdly biased presentation. With an “ally” like Ann Coulter, I don’t need enemies.

    Stepping back. A charitable view is that extending more mortgages to the poor is an experiment that had to be tried. Now we know that Grameen Bank-style microlending, not jumbo loans, is the right way to help them. But are we going to actually use the result of our ~trillion dollar experiment? Or are we just going to forget it because it’s politically inconvenient?

    Like


  62. @56 – Your point on Keynes is fair.

    More broadly, it’s impossible to assign credit or blame to any one ideology during any time period since no period was 100% Keynes or 100% Friedman.

    My personal belief is that Keynes, if executed well, can lead to slow but steady growth, while Keynes, executed poorly, can lead to trouble. Friedman, in its pure form, leads to faster growth than Keynes but with more volatile cycles.

    The benefit of Friedman is that it can’t be “executed well” or “executed poorly” because in its pure form there is no one decision maker setting policy, whereas in an economic theory that requires government intervention, that intervention is often handled not by technocrat economists but by partisan politicians(of both sides).

    Where my argument breaks down is if you disagree with my assumption that Friedman economics leads to “strong but volatile growth” and you think it leads to “weak and volatile growth”.

    Like


  63. @61

    DF – Yes, I am saying that.

    In fact they *have* been proven wrong by the current crisis, and crises and economic implosions in other countries too numerous to mention.

    I’m not talking about an academic exercise here, where we prove Milton Friedman wrong on a blackboard. I’m talking about the real world.

    Milton Friedman is a moron. Q.E.D.

    Like


  64. @65 – All economic theories include the expectation of the occasional crisis. The fact that there is a crisis is not proof that Friedman is wrong. Your logic is incorrect.

    As for other countries, almost no other country is as free market as the United States. The fact that there are crisises in other countries is also not, by default, proof that Friedman doesn’t work.

    Furthermore, the countries that are growing fast today are those that made Friedman-like policy changes (like the laissez-faire capitalism of China’s SEZs). None of these countries are completely Friedman because they don’t want the accompanying instability.

    No one with actual knowledge of Friedman’s beliefs would claim that they lead to perfection. The people who understand the issue talk about it in nuanced terms. Your dogmatic rejection of everything he believes without any evidence proves your lack of knowledge of the subject.

    Like


  65. @66

    Michael – ok, suit yourself. I see it’s impossible to engage in a rational argument with you because you’re a market fundamentalist ideologue.

    Like


  66. 65 Joe T

    Milton Friedman is a moron. Q.E.D.

    There is a big difference between being wrong and being a moron. When you are compelled to resort to obviously inaccurate personal insults, rather than having confidence in the force of your arguments, there isn’t much reason to carefully consider your arguments since they’re so likely to be garbage. (This is not to say that your arguments have to be wrong. A stopped clock is, of course, still right twice a day. But until you can improve your presentation, the quality of your arguments is irrelevant.)

    Like


  67. BTW, Michael, the stuff you said about China’s SEZ’s is a load of crap, because they are only small bubbles of deregulation, and still subject in many ways to the guiding hand of the Chinese government, including Chinese macroeconomic policies and Chinese industrial policy.

    Like


  68. @67 – Doesn’t it seem like the opposite? I’m discussing both the benefits and the problems with Friedman. I’m discussing when his theories are appropriate and when they aren’t. I talked with MQ about the relative benefits and problems of Keynes. You are the one who refuses to offer any but a black and white picture.

    As for the SEZs, here’s

    Like


  69. @67 – Doesn’t it seem like the opposite? I’m discussing both the benefits and the problems with Friedman. I’m discussing when his theories are appropriate and when they aren’t. I talked with MQ about the relative benefits and problems of Keynes. You are the one who refuses to offer any but a black and white picture.

    As for the SEZs, here’s a question. Is growth faster outside the SEZs or inside of them?

    Like


  70. @68

    DoJ – Sorry, but I don’t owe anyone on this blog a coherent argument.

    If I display the occasional glimmer of lucidity, so be it. But fiery rhetoric and scorched-earth name calling is what I specialize in here, since this isn’t the real world and I have the luxury of being thoroughly obnoxious here!

    Like


  71. @71

    Michael – I’ll agree that growth is much faster in the SEZs, if that’s all that matters. Obviously it isn’t, and the SEZs were set up as part of China’s long-term strategic plan of diversifying its economy and experimenting with different economic models.

    The SEZs may have higher rates of growth, but also much worse pollution, poisons being leached into the water supply, sweatshops, and other things economists call “externalities”.

    Just like a market fundamentalist to elevate “economic growth” to the number one priority, and fuck everything else.

    Economic growth is important, but not if externalities run out of control and social costs are not met.

    Like


  72. PA, UL,
    First, I would caution all of us not to be seduced into using Ad Homs to dismiss the larger point being made. Jacoby’s work and nature of it does not in any way diminish her major point, that until very recently in American history, African Americans were prevented, by power of law and threat to life and limb, of participating in the American Enterprise, at virtually all levels of gov’t and civilian life. Less than a half century go. There are no accounts of Hispanic illegals being dragged from the back of trucks or hanging from trees.

    Moreover, I do not now nor have I ever taken to the idea of considering myself a victim, if anything I seek to work harder to prove others wrong. That said, I refuse to let others off the hook for their soft reasoning and lax standards, all the while attempting to shove a party line of American Apple Pie down my throat.

    To say that there are deepseated problems in America’s Urban Core is to state the obvious. I know it. I see it everyday. But to suggest that it is OK not to give a man a chance, not out of some misguided do-gooder sense, but based on the full measure of THAT man, is an ideology that I fully resent and reject w/all of my being.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  73. on October 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm Tired of Smoke Rings

    “I say, let there be a thousand Jesus Camps from Alabama to Montana. These camps and similar grassroots movements teach American kids the virtues of faith, honor, service, and patriotism.

    Let there be a thousand SWPL colonies, in NYC, Austin, San Fran, and big and small cities everywhere. For all the goofing we do on them, they can teach us a thing or two about enjoying the finer things in life.”

    PA hits the mark as usual. The rise of modern communications and a desire to homogenize, homogenize and homogenize to capitalize on a unified market put paid to all, save minor, local and regional variation in the States. Now instead of living more or less as you wish, and largely ignoring the distant other, we fight like cornered rats. The same process is at work in the EU at the time of this writing with similar consequences wrt erosion of liberty and civility.

    Like


  74. @73 – And American industry and British industry were once the same way. And then people complained. And then it got much better. It’s no different in China. There has already been a popular backlash against pollution and contrary to your uninformed likely response of ‘but it isn’t a democracy so the Beijing will ignore them’ the central government has in fact begun to make real changes.

    But then you already agreed with DoJ that you have no interest in a real discussion, so what’s the point, right?

    Like


  75. Mu’Min,

    I don’t agree that blacks have to work harder in order to get the same result. Not at all. In fact, for blacks and whites of equal ability, the reverse seems to be true.

    Blacks are, in this society, quite literally begged to go to college. If a black is willing to go on to higher education, he will be able to get into a better college than his scores and credentials would merit (a better college than a white kid with similar qualifications). He is also more likely to get a free ride, or at least significant reductions in tuition. I know plenty of whites who graduate with mountains of debt. The blacks I know (and I know quite a few pretty well, at least well enough to know something about their personal financial situation) do not have this problem, or at least not to such an extent as the whites.

    After college, blacks are the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. Blacks are vastly overrepresented in stable government employment with good benefits. I graduated from a top college. There were a fair number of blacks at the college who were clearly unqualified to be there, and would not have been there at all had they been white. Many of those didn’t graduate. But of those that were qualified to be there (and graduated), they have done at least as well after graduation as the whites. Some of them have obtained truly awesome jobs, jobs that there is no way that a white with similar qualifications could have landed.

    Blacks as a group perform worse than whites as a group because of the IQ differential. Sorry, but the gap exists and it is real. But individual blacks seem to do as well or better than whites with similar IQs. They get into better colleges and have at least as many opportunities afterwards, if not more.

    Like


  76. Joe T:

    And let’s face it, you can’t believe in BOTH Friedman’s ideas and Keynes’ at the same time, because they’re generally mutually exclusive.

    I’m sorry, but you are wrong and monohechomierda 50 is right:

    Modern economics is built on two foundations, Keynes AND Friedman. Don’t really want to argue something that is about as much common knowledge as what color the sky is with you.

    Virtually all left-wing economists, while criticizing him on other matters, will acknowledge that Friedman made important contributions to the science that required revisions to the old Keynesian theories. For example, the Phillips Curve was replaced with Friedman’s NAIRU; and the basic premise of monetarism, that inflation results from an expansion in the money supply (“too much money chasing too few goods”), is universally accepted.

    There are specific things that Friedman was wrong about — one of them was his ill-fated attempt to use monetarist theory to provide specific policy guidance to central banks, which runs into any number of practical implementation problems (e.g. how to measure the money supply) — but these things are minor compared to his overall contributions. No one is right 100% of the time.

    You need to inform yourself better on this topic before throwing out blanket criticisms of one of the 20th Century’s great economic minds.

    For starters, you might want to read Paul Krugman’s obit of Friedman. A critical piece, yes, but even a fairly partisan (these days) left-wing economist like Krugman had to acknowledge Friedman’s greatness. Look around and you will find that other widely respected left-wingers like DeLong, Furman, Goolsbee, etc. are of the same opinion.

    Like


  77. There is a clear difference between the 2 parties – The Republican Party is “the Party that Ruined America”.

    The Democratic Party is the one that gets elections stolen from them through voter fraud and then America doesn’t even protest it.

    Then we have had to endure the biggest ultra gay bullshit that has ever happened in the USA because they are psychos who can build – they have to destroy everything and use that to distract while they steal all of the taxes.

    It was the Republicans who invested millions to make sure every school kid in America knows about Clinton’s penis. I find their behavior to be bizzare.

    *thank you so much! for trying to “balance” the trillions of dollars in damage the Republicans have cost us and all of the loss of privacy and constitutional safeguards they have erased – against some video of a small group somewhere acting “funny”-

    that is some balance

    Like


  78. Joe T,

    You really are an idiot. Some of the positions that Friedman took include:

    * Opposition to the criminalization of drugs and prostitution
    * Opposition to the Iraq War
    * Opposition to compulsory military service
    * Support for a negative income tax to help the poor that was eventually adopted in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

    I would be shocked if you didn’t support at least one of those positions.

    More broadly Friedman’s policies were adopted in Chile, which has arguably the best economy in South America, and Estonia, which is probably the most successful economy among the states of the former USSR.

    Friedman was a man of outstanding intellect who helped make the world a better place.

    QED.

    Like


  79. Children should not be involved in politics. Period. It’s morally corrupt.

    Like


  80. Colin, I actually agree with Friedman on all those social issues, although I don’t believe he was much of an opponent of the Iraq war, apart from making a few comments about it.

    But let’s not let his positions on social issues deflect attention from his social Darwinistic economic theories, which caused havoc and suffering in many countries, including Chile, and Venezuela (before Chavez, when the IMF had imposed Friedmanism on that country).

    And now we can see how this ideology has thoroughly failed in the US… The world is laughing at us as we crash and burn…

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,581502,00.html

    The reign of US pig-headed arrogance is finally coming to an end and I for one am happy about it.

    Q to the E to the D.

    Like


  81. on October 2, 2008 at 7:23 pm Peregrine John

    wouldn’t hesitate to
    What? What was that? Did I hear someone slurping their Kool-Aid?

    The one and only clue I’ll give as to what “projection” looks like: If someone “wouldn’t hesitate to,” then they either had done it before or will do so shortly in response. Perpend.

    In case you want to see the video (which was replaced by another by its maker), you can find it here. Joe suggests that the video was made by Obama’s opponents. It’s true that they could hardly have done something more damning; but no, alas, it was neither subterfuge nor parody. It’s for real, and as awful as it seems.

    This all seems so familiar, somehow. What does that song remind me of…? Oh yes:
    The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
    The stag in the forest runs free.
    But gather together to greet the storm.
    Tomorrow belongs to me…

    Die Obama Fahne hoch, Bierficker!

    Hey, check that out: While hunting down the Cabaret lyrics, I found this, which shows that I’m not the only one who thought of the similarity.

    In any case, Madame Meow is totally right in her assessment, though I’d take it a step farther: involving children in politics shows moral bankruptcy.

    Like


  82. I didn’t watch the whole thing. Just the first minute was enough. It’s my opinion that Obama is a creep. The fact that I’m not voting for him (or the other creep(s) for that matter) has my uber-liberal family and liberal friends in a tizzy. I’m getting the emails about how women struggled to get the vote, so “we” should use it! How ungrateful if I don’t vote. How can I vote for a politician? Impossible. In ancient Greece they used to gather all the people in the town and someone would run through with a can of red paint and mark those who would serve on a jury. i think the same method could be used for choosing the leaders of our country. Those who want the job, are immediately suspect.

    Like


  83. Obama, McCain… it doesn’t matter to me which side these kids are singing for, or who decided to put this together (official campaign, grassroots whatever…) What matters is that we’re keeping kids from just being kids and turning them into singing billboards.

    Like


  84. I thought the song was awful! The harmonies and different chants toward the end were completely out of place and the children’s choir sucked …even for children. The least they could of done was rehearse. The little girl at the beginning and end was cute enough – and sounded the best by far. They seemed to be having fun though …and I thought the shirts were funny – ‘Imagine. Hope’ …more like, imagine what a better song would sound like 😉

    Oh yeah, the message…

    Whatever.
    Why would you expect anything different in American politics …er, promotions – uhmm, advertising? Mass marketing? Lol, it’s all the same.

    Like


  85. Joe T

    You’re at root an ideologue.

    You need your religion to live by, and not just some spiritual principals or yearnings either. You need your rules, your dogma.

    You are a beta follower through and through. You need to be ruled.

    Like


  86. Joe T and Democrats in congress couldn’t deal with the fact that credit scores are color blind, so let’s invent a racist theory to make sure people who have no business qualifying for a mortgage get one.

    Joe apparently the leftist rag the LA Times thought it was a great idea for Clinton and Congress to hold the lawsuit gun to banks heads to write more sub-prime mortgages.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

    Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

    The fucking leftist rag NY Times even saw this policy as a futute meltdown.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
    ”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

    Like


  87. Michael 64–

    My personal belief is that Keynes, if executed well, can lead to slow but steady growth, while Keynes, executed poorly, can lead to trouble. Friedman, in its pure form, leads to faster growth than Keynes but with more volatile cycles.

    I haven’t seen it put just like that before, but that seems about right.

    My impression is that Keynesian economics has been increasingly edged away from in favor of heavy leaning in Friedman’s direction, with more transfer payments for more left inclined, though that’s not admitted by such traditional redoubts of Keynsianism as Harvard.

    In any event, I like the way you think.

    It’s valuable. Unlike how Joe T thinks. Which is dreck.

    Like


  88. #12 PA,

    Right wing White Man: someone who is either (a) retarded, (b) feels a homoerotic attraction to redneck men, or (c) is anti-gay but leads a gay secret life (The Republican Way).

    Right wing White Woman: someone who is either (a) Fat, (b) has self issues, or (c) had a string of disappointments with life in the trailer park or shitty suburban hell.

    Like


  89. dougjnn –

    Arguably right wingers are really the ones who need to be led.

    So-called “conservatives” want a strong authoritarian “father figure” to tell them (and especially other people) what to do, and to protect them. They need to feel protected by a paranoid “national security state”, because they fear the world as it is, and see enemies under every bed.

    Conservatives are really driven by fear, so they, not liberals, are the followers and the wimps of the world. Conservatives love to engage in collective chest-thumping and patriotic, jingoistic rhetoric because it serves as an emotional crutch for their inherent feelings of weakness and fear. They need to feel part of a team, with slogans like “America First”, “Country First”, etc., because they are scared to face the world themselves, and need to be propped up by a strong group and group-mentality.

    This psychological condition is called “counterphobia”…

    http://www.enneagramcentral.com/Enneagram/CounterphobicSix.htm

    Counterphobia the condition where a phobic person projects his inner fears outward, aggressively attacking the perceived object of his fears. This is very evident in US foreign policy under emotionally weak, psychologically disturbed counterphobes like George W. Bush, Rumsfeld, and their ilk. Most of the Neocons are counterphobes.

    The problem with counterphobes is that inside, they are still emotionally weak, vulnerable, fearful phobic people, no matter how much bluster they project.

    John Dean described this phenomenon in the conservative community very well in his recent book, “Conservatives Without Conscience”.

    Also, neurolinguist George Lakoff, at Berkeley, has described it well in many books and papers.

    There is also hard research in neuropsychology from several places, including Berkeley, that shows that political conservatives tend to be driven by “fear of the unknown”, while liberals are much more comfortable with the unknown and novel conditions.

    If you want I will show you some of these links.

    Like


  90. Here’s a better link on counterphobes:

    http://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/type6.php

    And, here’s a link to the NYU and UCLA study that shows the fundamental neurological wiring difference between conservatives and liberals:

    http://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/type6.php

    This is deep, man…

    “Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.”

    There is a lot more research and analysis I could also point to that corroborates this and builds on it.

    And this study wasn’t done by just querying the subjects. Participants were wired to electroencephalographs and asked to do tasks that directly revealed the hardwired neurological styles of their brains.

    Like


  91. i see no evidence of either religion or cult in that example.

    it does seem questionable to involve children so directly in political campaigning. however, this is widespread and widely accepted (consider palin’s kids).

    another aspect is the political indoctrination of children. honestly, i don’t think parents best intentions not to indoctrinate their children can prevent this from happening. his parents’ views are natural law to a child — no matter how much the parents are aware of this danger or trying to prevent it.

    here’s a video questioning palin’s religious background:
    http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2459&updaterx=2008-10-02+12%3A30%3A40

    it would be good to know should she believe we are in the endtimes…

    Like


  92. Steve 90,

    What today is called “Right Wing” has, up until a generation ago, been always referred to simply as “Normal.”

    Thus, you just called all of your forefathers retarded closet homos, and all of the women in your lineage fat trailer trash.

    Like


  93. Wow….It reminds me of Hitler youth camps….I feel Obama is being promoted into god like status that could only be associated with the antichrist. God help us. Change? into what and at what cost.

    Like


  94. I guess all the little right wing nerds in DC who read this blog are shivering on the edges of their seats at work today, fearful of losing their jobs because we’re standing on the edge of an economic abyss today, so they’re afraid to surf the internet and post anything here today…

    Like


  95. 94 PA,

    “What today is called “Right Wing” has, up until a generation ago, been always referred to simply as “Normal.”

    Only in your trailer park, fat gay boy.

    Not like there is anything wrong with being gay.

    Or fat.

    Like


  96. dougjnn:

    My impression is that Keynesian economics has been increasingly edged away from in favor of heavy leaning in Friedman’s direction, with more transfer payments for more left inclined, though that’s not admitted by such traditional redoubts of Keynsianism as Harvard.

    No one is really an old-school Keynesian any more. The Phillips Curve is dead. Honest (i.e. not self-interested pork-barrelers) advocates of “fiscal stimulus” or fine-tuned “fiscal policy” are hard to find, and when you do find them, they insist that fiscal stimulus has to be done “right”, not just by blindly spending money on whatever to increase the deficit.

    As far as monetarism goes, Friedman lost the battle but won the war. Monetarism itself, taken literally, is discredited — no one thinks you can just tell the central bank to grow the money supply by X% a year, as Friedman originally recommended. Yet, aside from that, all other aspects of monetarism are almost dogmatically accepted now. Everyone thinks monetary policy is far more important than fiscal policy. Everyone thinks printing too much money causes inflation. And while no one thinks we should grow the money supply by 2% every year, there are plenty who think that the central bank should be obligated by law to target 2% inflation. Bernanke himself was well-known for being an advocate of a fairly explicit “1-2%” inflation target, and his famous money-from-helicopters quote is monetarist through and through.

    But Keynes is not gone, even among the right (except for a few Austrian crazies). Price and wage rigidity is real and therefore deflation is in fact really dangerous. Friedman’s famous lifecycle hypothesis, while appealing on paper, was only partially validated by real experiments, and therefore Ricardian equivalence most likely does not hold. The government really can induce some consumption by sending people rebate checks. It is definitely possible for the economy to run “under capacity”, and Real Business Cycle theory does not seem to adequately explain events.

    But this is all old news, and I think there is a middle ground between Keynes and Friedman that most folks have settled on.

    These days, the main threat to this revised Friedman/Keynes synthesis is behavioral economics, which attacks the basic micro assumptions that *all* modern economic theory, micro and macro, is based on.

    In broad strokes, Keynes’s theories are based on certain specific assumptions of human irrationality about certain topics, whereas Friedman’s theories are based on human rationality. For example, Friedman’s lifecycle hypothesis assumes that humans behave rationally about spending and saving decisions over their lifetime. Friedman’s NAIRU assumes that people make rational decisions about the future based on their expectations of inflation, rather than assuming that past inflation was a one-time event. (For instance, if inflation was 5% last year, unless you had specific reason to believe things would be different this time around, you would plan to raise your prices 5% this year and demand 5% higher wages this year.)

    Like


  97. zorgon 98 —

    Thank you for that cogent capsule summary. It was excellent.

    Like


  98. I’m sorry for not having gotten back into this discussion sooner. Work and all that.

    Ryder 77:
    Let me first say that I believe that good people can disagree. Clearly, w/your views being what they are, and mine being what they are, this will be the case. Having said that however, I think its important to clarify somethings.

    W/all due respect your comments are a non-sequitur, because we were never discussing the merits or the lack thereof, of affirmative action. My point was, in relation to the subprime mortage crisis, that for whatever reason Black folks, on average, have lower credit scores, and will have to work harder to improve them. In fact, if anything, my comments in this respect foreshadows my thinking on AA policy, which from your post I don’t think yore aware of, even while I’ve made it quite clear in this venue. But for your benefit I will briefly recap:

    I do not supprt Affirmative Action, because neither side, Black or White, wants to have a brutaly honest discussion about it. The bottomline is that Human Beings crave Power, and in an ultra-competitive place like the USA, there will always be only so many spots that offer status and influence to go around. Which means there will be winners and losers.

    African Americans, for centuries, were deliberately kept from competing for those choice spots. AA obstensibly serves as a remedy for this abuses, but the Devil, as always, was in the details.

    Whatever its intentions, AA in our time has become a significant lightening rod, and especially wrt White Males, who feel put upon by nearly every quarter. For what it’s worth, I take their concerns seriously.

    But what I don’t cotton to is their cowardice, because if they were truly for getting rid of AA, they’d start at the top, and that means removing the vast majority of White Females from positions in the business and political worlds, to say nothing of the university setting. Seriously, what has any Women’s Studies Dept delivered, in real, tangible, net benefits to our society? I would say, nothing. And I think you would, too.

    Yet, they proliferate in every academic corner, w/virtual impunity. That in no way excuses AA wrt Black folk, but it does illustrate the scapgoating nature of White Males who know where the water’s edge is. At the end of the day, its their momma, daughter, wife, that we’re talking about here. And Ideology gets kinda hard to pull off when it comes to family, or that hottie who’s pants you’re trying to get into.

    As for the Black IQ question, please see T’s very insightful thoughts on this at his site, The Rawness. And, I should like to add to that, that again, if the rationale for getting rid of Black folks wrt AA is due to their overall lack of intelligence, I’m willing to do that, so long as its accross the board-meaning, that most White Females won’t be where they are, and for that matter neither will most non-Jewish White Males either. It has been proven that when it comes to sheer brainpower in terms of groups, Asians and Jews consistently win the race. And if pure academic, standardized tests were applied for real, that’s who will likely occupy the top tier slots in the university, corporate and even political world to some degree. As we all know, Jews are and have long been over-represented in these areas anyway, w/Asians quickly catching up. And I’m completely cool with that, being the Merit Man that I am. And I trust, so are you.

    In the meantime, assuming again that the average IQ of African Americans is indeed about 85, we also must then accept that there are an estimated 6 million African Americans w/IQs higher than the national White American average, which to what I’ve read is hovering around the three digit mark, 99 or something like that. This suggests that they can and most likely do well no matter where they start out or end up in life, and again I’m completely cool with things playing themselves out on that score. Besides, being something of a Fan of the Underdog, it thrills me to see the man w/virtually nothing, take on the guy with everything, and win.

    In summation, my point earlier in this thread is that African Americans should seek the Hard Road, for it builds Character. Do the hard work, and labor long; burn the midnight oil, work is better than sleep. Embrace setback, welcome failure, they are friends to you, to show you the way. Don’t be jealous of others, stay focused. Always seek to improve, and learn to get the fundamentals down pat. Add lots of persistance, and you will win. It is inevitable.

    This is what I say to my Brothers all the time, Ryder. And to my White Male competitors, I say:

    I’ll flip ya for it?

    😉

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  99. 91 joe t: Also, neurolinguist George Lakoff, at Berkeley, has described it well in many books and papers.

    No, he hasn’t. Lakoff is discredited and his name is poison in Dem circles. None of his “insights” have done anything but harm to the Dem party for taking them seriously.

    Like


  100. Patrickh – I don’t know where you’re getting your information about Lakoff being discredited in Dem circles.

    True, a couple of well-known, but second-string Democratic media consultants have publicly criticized his views to the point of publishing articles attacking Lakoff, but that’s the extent of it.

    Show me where and how there’s a consensus in Dem circles that Lakoff’s ideas are wrong. I think you may have read one or two articles by his small handful of vocal critocs and you’re inflating that into being “discredited”. (And I think this small contingent of Lakoff critics is defending their private financial and career interests as media consultants.)

    Lakoff is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, a haven for progressive thought leaders, and his books are devoured by many Democrats I know, so I don’t see how he’s considered “poison”.

    Like


  101. PatrickH – sorry for being rude in my last post. On re-reading your post, you look like you might be a Dem, so I’ll explain my position a little bit better.

    The outspoken Lakoff critics I’ve seen, who are also eithe r Democratic media/political consultants, or activist/organizers, usually criticize Lakoff on the following grounds:

    They say that Lakoff claims to have a “panacea” or silver bullet of sorts, that addresses all the flaws and failings in Democratic messaging, and corrects them with a simple, too-clever set of solutions that’s based only on words, syntax and semantics, and ignores much more important things like organizing, GOTV, and coalition building.

    Not coincidentally, the peopleq
    who harsh on Lakoff for this (especially for not emphasizing things like community organizing and GOTV) are most often heavily personally invested in just those activities… Community organizing or GOTV.

    And there’s nothing wrong with that at all. Those activities are also critical. The point is that Lakoff never prescribed his ideas as a substitute for actual boots-on-the-ground organizing, but instead as a substitute and a new way of looking at messaging.

    And he’s also prescribing things (like franung, etc.) that it’s broadly acknowledged the Republicans have been doing for decades, successufully.

    Like


  102. Sorry, that was supposed to be Lframing” in the above message – typing on my BB.

    Like


  103. Mu’Min,

    I was responding to this:

    “Black people, and keep this in mind I am Black, simply must accept the fact that we will have to work harder than others if we want to make it. ”

    So we’ll just have to disagree as to what consitutes a non-sequitur. If you had said that some blacks have to work harder than they have been in order to get better results, then fine. That’s a no-brainer. But it’s the “than others” part that I took issue with. If that’s a misunderstanding, then cool.

    I was simply taking issue with this meme that I hear in general (putting your posts aside) that blacks have to work twice as hard to get half as much. It’s just not true, at least not when comparing whites and blacks of equal intelligence. Blacks of equal intelligence do as well or better than whites of equal intelligence, at least from what I can tell. If I’m wrong, I’d like to see hard evidence. Differences between group performance can be readily explained by differences between group intelligence. (In that sense, it would be true that blacks as a group would have to “work harder,” but not because of white racism)

    As to the rest of your post, I respect the attitude behind it. I disagree with some of the particulars, however. I’ll mention two:

    One, the average difference between asian and white intelligence is fairly small, far smaller than the difference between blacks and whites. In other words, I think you are overstating the asian advantage by a long shot. Further, the asian distribution curve is a bit different from the white distribution curve. Whites produce more at the extremes than Asians, from what I can recall (it’s been awhile since I looked at the data). In short, whites produce more idiots at the bottom end, but also more high end geniuses at the top. The asians have a slightly higher average score, but your assumption that they would be at the top is probably incorrect. Jews are more of a mixed bag. Jewish IQ in Israel is actually lower than the average white IQ. The Jewish IQ in America, on the other hand, is higher than the white average.

    Bottom line: your assumption that jews and asians would trump whites is, I think, premature. The statistical data isn’t clear, and the historical data (proof in the pudding) sure isn’t clear. If anything, the “proof in the pudding” data, historically, favors whites. If I had to choose an intelligence distribution for a people, I’d probably go with the white one. I’d have to suffer a few more low end idiots, but the reward on the high end would dwarf the costs. Besides, we need people who like to fix cars.

    But here is the bottom, bottom line (and the core disagreement between us): I disagree with you that we should just let the chips fall where they may. Even if jews and asians were superior, a claim that I reject, I don’t think that gives them a right to rule over all others. Nor do whites have a right to rule over others (if I’m right and the white intelligence curve is preferable.)

    I believe that every people, including blacks and whites, have the right to self-determination. If I were black, I would not want to be dominated by whites. As a white, I don’t wish to be dominated by anyone – including jews or asians. Different peoples can benefit from each other by trade and commerce, as well as the exchange of ideas. However, they should have their own nations (preferably), or at least local autonomy. But that is way beyond the scope of this post, so I’ll leave it at that.

    Like


  104. Ryder,
    Thanks for taking the time out to holla back.

    I can see where you’re coming from, but again some of it misses the point. For example, the Jewish IQ in Israel is irrelevant because we’re not dealing with Israelis, we’re dealing w/American citizens who happen to be Jews, living, being educated and making their careers here. And per that rubric, they tend to come out, on average, at the top of the IQ heap.

    Similarly, all you need do is tell the White parents of college aged kids out in CA not to worry, Whites are actually smarter than Asians, as the latter continue to get the choice slots at places like Stanford and UCLA, etc-and unlike Black and Brown folks, one can’t blame AA on that one. Raw merit is to blame, something those middl of the roader Asians have, and for whatever reason, more and more Whites don’t.

    But the real crux of MY point, is that I submit that my White brothers are intellectually dishonest when they crow on and on about getting rid of affirmative action, because if they were really serious about it they’d start at the top, meaning, that a whole lotta White Women gotta go. And I for one have absolutely no problem in saying so.

    But then I’m not the one who bitches about affirmative action. Right?

    Remember Ryder, some of us Darkies are smart enough to get the joke. If you’re really serious about ending Affirmative Action, we all know where you can start.

    Thanks for your input and feedback! Always great to make a new friend.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  105. Mu’Min,

    As for whites in California – there are fewer and fewer of them. They are close to 40 percent and falling fast. So, yeah, there are going to be fewer and fewer whites in the top slots there. The point is that, even if asians have an inherent IQ advantage, it is a small one. But a slight IQ advantage coupled with a lot of hard work can go a long way. I guess the white guys are too busy getting drunk or jerking off to internet porn. One thing is for sure – nobody is encouraging them to go into the hard sciences. And it’s probably smart for them not to. Why put in all that hard work to get a highly specialized education, when the system will inevitably import Chang anyway to work at half the salary?

    You stated that it is irrelevant to consider the IQs of people who live outside of America. I’m not so sure. Some people like to say how great it is that America attracts the “best and brightest” from around the world. But what about the downside? I mean, sure, we can attract the “best” jews and asians (or whoever), jews that are smarter than the average jew or asians that are smarter than the average asian. Some of them will no doubt get top slots at the best universities. But when that process goes far enough, you will essentially have this alien class of people that dominate the country. Will they care about you or me? DO they? I doubt it. More than likely, they hold the broader white or black populations in contempt, or at best indifference. But that is the m.o. of empire – bring in foreign administrators. Make the host population dumbed down and dependent. MTV for your kid, advanced calculus for Chang.

    What is worse is that it destroys the incentive to provide a proper education for children in this country. When Sputnik happened, our educational system responded and turned out scientists by the boatload. The achievments of those scientists (mostly white) are legendary. Now? Screw it, we’ll just import Chang. The white dude can jerk off to internet porn, or maybe become a lawyer or, ahem, investment banker.

    Hence, our schools become little more than daycare and political indoctrination centers. Increasingly, “real” education in the hard sciences is for foreigners. I think that is insane, but it is an inevitable byproduct of a combination of leftist egalitarianism and what passes for conservative “let the chips fall where they may.” Neither side of the current political spectrum has any answers (except more of the same), because political correctness prohibits them from even asking the right questions. I don’t know whether you care or not, or whether you see it as a good or bad thing, but you must at least see the irony of whites being displaced from the very institutions that that they themselves created, and in the very subjects that they themselves developed.

    As to your comments on women, I hear you loud and clear. The female problem goes way beyond affirmative action, of course. It goes to the mentality and motivation of the career chick, a motivation that appears to be completely different than that of the male working stiff, but that’s a whole other story. I’m sure you know exactly what I’m talking about.

    To wrap up: as I said before, I’d like to go a whole lot further than just ending affirmative action. That said, as long as we are stuck with the current system, I think your approach makes a good deal of sense, and that the “white woman” problem is paramount. Thanks for the response.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  106. Good morning Ryder,
    Last time I checked the White population in the Golden State was still clearly in the majority, although future projections, and I mean like in the next couple of decades-well within our lifetime-suggest strongly that Hispanic folk will at the very least, rival White folks for top dog spot. Asians will continue to play a role, but in terms of sheer numbers. They dont make whoopie nearly enough.

    I was responding to your idea that Jews outside the country, ie Israel, have slightly lower IQs. That may indeed be true, but when it comes to Jewish folk, in the man, we’re talking about those who were born and raised in this country rathr abroad. And while it is true that we’ve seen an H1B Invasion in more recent years, from places such as China, Korea, Pakistan and India, they still makeup only a small percentage of the overall population-Hispanic immigration, legal and especially illegal, dwarfs this number many times over.

    But I do see your point and it is a very legitmate one. From my perspective as a Black man, the issue wrt Feminism-which is virtually an all White Female issue-wasn’t the gals bucking for it, it was the White guys buckling under and going along with it. From my view, it is you guys who are most at fault, especially if one considers the views of Roissy here. Women will simply not respect a man who will rollover and accept her demands, period, end of story. And one huge, gaping reason as to why there are so many White guys who are jerking off to internet porn is because the women in their circle does not respect them, and if a woman can’t respect ou, you gets no nookie. Make no mistake about it.

    White men should have put their foot down, hard, when this thing went beyond a few bra burning rallies. Instead, y’all went for the okey doke, and all that you mentioned has been the result. No one wants to admit but Feminism has had much, much more reach and influence than anything the NAACP or for that matter the NOI could ever dream of.

    Who runs the schools, Ryder? From kindergarten to the university level, its hard to get anything done without running into a cadre of women, at every level. And what kind of men are we turning out? Certainly not the kinds of men most women would want to be bothered with, that’s for sure. Sites like this would exist if that were not true.

    The Dept of Education building would be a parking if it were left up to me. It has done NOTHING to advance people, and this is coming from one who’s seen it from the bottom up. Its chockfull of hacks who couldn’t hack it elsewhere, and needs to go. Let them compete on the open market, as it should be. Parents, White and definitely, especially, Black, needs to get off their ass and get concerned about their kids’ education; taking away the Gov’t Big Tit is one way to make that happen. When your money is on the line, you tend to be a bit more serious about Life.

    So yea, anyway, White guys, and I put it that way because for better or for worse, you are the ones who still have the keys to the shop, need to get your heads on straight and get the BS out of the way. We all know where the bulk of the problem comes from. That isn’t the problem-the problem is who’s got the balls to actually say it, let alone actually do something about it?

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  107. Joe T 103,

    No need for apologies. I didn’t think your original comment was out of hand at all. As for my being a Dem, I’m Canadian, so I’m neither donk nor phant. I’m voting NDP in our election up here, and they’re our social dem party, probably to left of most of your Dems, except maybe Bernie Sanders. I’m voting for the candidate though, not the party.

    As for Lakoff being discredited, I got my latest (but not only) input on that from Chronicle of Higher Education, in the following essay:

    http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i49/49b00601.htm

    In the essay, one of the names mentioned as doing the most damage to Lakoff in Dem circles was Rahm Emmanuel. I think you’d agree that he’s hardly a minor-league player in the Dems.

    But, I’m no authority on the subject, so maybe Lakoff is still important, even if he’s not necessarily the Latest Hot Thing. You seem much more dialed into the Dems than I am, certainly. So I’ll be glad to take your view as more accurate, Joe.

    I do think your reference to his being on HuffPost doesn’t have the weight you’re assigning. I mean Deepak Chopra (not our own beloved Tupac, but that quack, that charlatan, that huckster Deepak the pseudo-Chopra) posts there. Posting on HuffPost isn’t enough to establish you as a player in the Dems. At least I hope not. 🙂

    Like


  108. Mu’Min,

    I agree with the general sentiment in your post, but to clarify a few points: Google california quickfacts, and that will get you the census bureau information. In 2006, non-hispanic whites were down to 43.1 percent of the California population. That has undoubtedly gone down even further in the last couple of years, and is probably at least a slight overestimate anyway. And then if you remove some of the people the census bureau counts as white, but that we have not been treating as such in this discussion (middle easterners and so forth), it’s going to be even lower. Significantly lower.

    My point was that, while attracting the “best and brightest” from around the world sounds good in theory, in practice it is not working out. It has contributed to a vast dumbing down of our own educational system, and it has skewed the career and educational preferences of our own young people away from the hard sciences. Become a lawyer instead. So, ironically, we have reached a sitution where we don’t really get the “best and brightest,” because we end up underutilizing a tremendous amount of domestic talent. Again, MTV for our kids, hard sciences for the others.

    Also, I’m not talking just about H1Bs here. You mentioned the jews and asians. Well, our immigration policy and commitment to diversity is the reason they are here in the first place. Same result – we don’t bother giving a solid education to the broader population. After all, certain minorities and additional imports can get the job done. The main purpose of school is to teach those white boys to be ashamed of themselves, and to understand that they descend from a long line of racist haters. They can achieve redemption (to a degree, but never complete) by being politically correct. And of course, accept that “the woman always knows best. ” Basically, deracinate him and emasculate him. That’s education for white males in a nutshell.

    As for the rest, I agree that feminism has been an incredibly destructive force. The amount of damage that it has inflicted on the lives of normal people is beyond belief. Feminism is a symptom of a much more fundamental rot. As for white guys having the keys to the shop, certainly normal white guys (using a tighter definition of white than the census bureau) don’t control the key institutions of power – the mass media, academia, and so forth. If you utter politically incorrect statements in this country, your job or career is gone. This is more true the higher up you are. In fact, you can’t even advocate that whites have the right to survive as a people. That’s hateful and nazi. So, in essence, we are “ruled” by an elite that holds us in contempt. Until that stranglehold is broken, feminism and all of the other rot will continue. Feminism is just one face of the hydra.

    At the end of the day I would agree with you that the fault rests largely with white men, and what they have been willing to put up with. Very lesser beta. It amazes me that with all of the crap that has gone down in recent decades, so many white guys are willing to be passive and accomodating. Some are so far gone that they are enthusiastic, actually applauding their own dispossession. Really sick puppies. They don’t inspire respect because they don’t respect themselves. And frankly, why should they? The last couple of generations didn’t earn it. I’ll keep hope alive that we can have a more manly reaction at some point down the line.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  109. Wow. Check this out. More Dear Fuherer cultishness:

    Larry Auster’s commentary:
    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011575.html

    Like


  110. @103
    “PatrickH – sorry for being rude in my last post. On re-reading your post, you look like you might be a Dem, so I’ll explain my position a little bit better.”

    ROFLMAO!!! Translation: Looks like you may be a fellow democrat so I should treat you like a human being.

    Like