Translate

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Three maps


1. Range of Homo neanderthalensis. Peoples of non-African descent have from one to five percent Neanderthal DNA in their genetic makeup.











2. Rates of interbreeding. From high degrees of consanguinity (light) to low degrees of consanguinity (dark).















Christian canon law followed Roman civil law, which forbade marriage within four degrees of consanguinity. This mandate has persisted among Christians of the Middle East.




















3. Civilizational accomplishment. The shaded areas indicate the incidence of people whom Charles Murray terms "significant individuals," who discovered or invented 98% of the artifacts and processes of modern civilization. They were all men, by the way. However, the map also includes the Hajnal lines, which demarcate the area of lower nuptiality centered in Europe (lower total fertility rates and higher minorities of women who marry later or remain single).



Thursday, September 26, 2013

Legitimate rape


Polanski Rape Case: 'I Don't Feel I Was a Victim'

Back in 1977 when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, a 44-year old film director named Roman Polanski gave a 13-year old girl named Samantha Geimer some champagne and a Quaalude. Then he proceeded to sodomize her.

Samantha is my age, married and the mother of three sons. Here she is putting her best foot forward:


This is how she looked when Polanski sodomized her:



She doesn't think she was raped, even though she was thirteen and a man 31 years her senior drugged and sodomized her.

Gennifer Flowers, now age 63, was a twenty-year old nobody employed by Arkansas state government who sexually serviced her boss, then-Governor Bill Clinton. She's still in love with him.

In 2011, Sinead O'Connor offered the following, in an all-out bid to get men to put their hands on her:
"I've been repeatedly asked will I 'do anal sex'. Let me make it very clear ... Any man I contemplate has to be into anal sex ... yes I 'do anal' and in fact I would be deeply unhappy if 'doing anal' wasn't on the menu, amongst everything else$$ So if u don't like 'the difficult brown' ... Don't apply."

The Cathedral likes to sling around the word "rape," as in the Der Spiegel article, but it's pretty clear that women have an inherently submissive streak, which means the bar for a criminal charge of rape can be more easily set too low than too high.

The Polanski-Geimer case doesn't even appear to be one of time healing all wounds. Mrs. Geimer seems pretty insistent that she regarded the occurrence as "sex" rather than "rape." (She was having regular sex with a peer at the time.)

Geimer: I didn't think so. I definitely wasn't the only one at the time. Roman was constantly asking me whether I liked it. I didn't reply. He was the movie director, so he could write his own dialogue. He asked me when I had had my last period. But I was too confused and too high to remember. Then he asked me: "Would you want me to go through your back?" I had no idea what he was talking about, but to be on the safe side, I said "no." When it did happen, I thought to myself: "Wait a minute, was that my butt?"

SPIEGEL: It sounds horrible. It's hard to listen to.

Geimer: It horrifies everyone. At the time, it wasn't clear to me that what was called sodomy was such a big deal. It wasn't as bad as everyone thought. It didn't hurt. I was high. All I cared about was that he would get it over with quickly so I could go home. I know that that too sounds odd today.

SPIEGEL: It sounds succinct.

Geimer: I didn't feel good just after that. But I know people who have had worse things done to them.

SPIEGEL: There are people whose lives are destroyed after an experience like that.

Geimer: I wasn't like that. I wasn't raised with that strange sense of shame. Sex wasn't evil. I knew what sex was. No one had ever drummed it into my head that sex was dirty or shameful. Besides, I wasn't afraid for my life. I wasn't afraid that he would hurt me.

Once, a female colleague in her 40's complained to me about after-hours meetings with a client who would down a couple of glasses of wine and then put his arm around her. I came close to telling her to be patient, and in a few more years he'd be avoiding eye contact.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Myth America


Gavin McInnes, at Taki's.

I actually expected a different column. That a high caste Dravidian is now Miss America underscores 'Myth America' indeed. America is not a distinctive people and, with much of her military overseas guarding other people's borders, not even a distinctive land. How long will people with no common history, no common culture and no common ancestry stick it out through thick and thin?

The majority of Americans apparently sided with their growing Levantine minority in opposing war in the Levant. What happens next time? I still hear the "immigrants will pay our pensions" argument. Are immigrants really coming here to pitch in with the transfer payments, or get while the gettin's good?

America was carved out of wilderness by Anglos and Celts and their slaves. Historically, her people prefer limited government and notwithstanding everybody else's bitching and moaning, are willing to tolerate all manner of different lifestyles. America, as Gavin points out, is in fact uniquely tolerant. No other country in the world has flattened hereditary, caste-based and sectarian barriers to entry to the extent of America.

Open borders and globalism require a highly centralized managerial State to keep a multi-cultural society from doing what such societies historically do, which is explode into bloodshed. Or collapse into permanent dysfunction, like the India that high caste Indians are fleeing. Managerialism means a very different country than the one founded by men who read Hume and Locke. This is the ultimate irony: the creedal nation known as America must perforce lose its creed.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Somebody get these people a clue


via ISteve.
"Tennis is hugely popular in South America and Spain, Rafa [Nadal] is an international star, and yet, Spanish-speaking kids here are not choosing our sport. We should have huge numbers of Hispanic kids playing tennis in places like Miami, Southern California, New York and Chicago, and we don’t.”—Patrick McEnroe, head of USTA Player Development [and brother of John McEnroe], quoted by Michelle Kaufman of the Miami Herald.

I’m a little reluctant to call this a “problem,” because as much as I like tennis, I’m not sure the biggest issue facing Hispanics in the U.S. is a lack of homegrown ATP or WTA cannon fodder. But it is certainly interesting that, as McEnroe notes, even with tennis’ vast popularity in nations with large Hispanic populations and a deep pool of well-loved Hispanic players, few American Hispanics are on the USTA radar, no matter how far you go down the scale in sanctioned competitions.

McEnroe went on to speculate: “My guess is it’s an economic issue, and a cultural issue. We are doing much better with African-Americans and Asian-Americans. I see lots of those kids playing at our regional centers, but very few Hispanics.”
(From Tennis.com)
I've noticed this hilarious Pavlovian response by liberals, that when you say "Hispanic immigration," they think "Antonio Banderas" or "Salma Hayek" or "Placido Domingo." It never occurs to anybody that Iberian athletes like the 73" tall Rafael Nadal have even less in genetic common with Meso-Americans than West African-slave-descended American athletes like Sean Witherspoon have with Capoid bushmen.






I wonder if people realize that Augusto Pinochet was "Hispanic?"


Once you're beyond "white," it's pretty much all the same generic "diversity" to liberals.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Why the Syrian rebels aren't winning




I'm going to convert this to a Power Point and start a think tank. I figure I can do at least as good a job as these folks.

Friday, September 13, 2013

It's good to be wrong


Contra my previous post, I don't think we're going to be bombing Syria.

The Elusive Wapiti makes a good point. Why is a murky, unattributed chemical attack so particularly egregious? Which is worse, gassing rebels or sawing off the heads of POWs with a dull bayonet?

From the comments:
There are no international norms for how to fight non-nation state forces. You literally can shoot them for sport.

Also, the whole point of establishing those norms was to encourage similar treatment for your own soldiers when they are captured. Since the rebels show no restraint, the gloves come off. THAT is the international norm for all of recorded history.

Does anybody seriously doubt that the US military would vaporize the entire neighborhoods of any organized group trying to secede, much less trying to overthrow the government? Men, women, children and their parakeets would all go up in a pink mist.

War has become a bizarre thing these days. The US and other powerful nation-states have wisely stepped down from war with each other, but since we still have this Second Generation military lying around, we occupy ourselves with wars against other countries' executive branch members who happen to rub our executive branch members the wrong way.

The commenter above, Iraq war vet and Pentagon bureaucrat Professor Hale has a cogent summary, for anybody who thought we were still talking about upholding "international law" or "norms" or "standards" at this point:
1. Syria is a sovereign nation. That means they don’t answer to any higher authority. They can do whatever they want to their own people.

2. The UN is not a higher authority. Syria doesn’t need their permission to gas their own people. We don’t need the UN to approve us bombing them anyway. The UN has no authority over anyone.

3. The Geneva and Hague Conventions are “agreements”, not LAWS. They cannot be enforced because there is no higher authority that can enforce them. Thus, any nation is free to violate them anytime it wishes, any way it wishes and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it other than using force to make them stop. And we could have done that anyway. So, there is no “law” against using chemical weapons. Just an agreement to not use them in war. Despite having that agreement, most of the civilized nations of the world maintained their own stockpiles of them. We certainly did. We finally got rid of them because they stopped being useful to US.

4. We don’t know with certainty that chemical weapons were used, or if they were, who did the using. It is very common for Islamic forces to murder their own people to gain a political advantage...

There is no legal basis for war against Syria. If President Cornball nevertheless insists that blowing up Syrians is still on the table, then he needs to show how this would advance the interests of the American people. Of course, for the Left this is the very thing that augurs in favor--a truly just war, justified by its very selflessness! It won't advance a single American interest!

On that last note, Steve Sailer has a wonderful essay at Taki's on the curse of American exceptionalism*:
I’ve found most talk about “American exceptionalism” pernicious because it tends to imply that America needs to be exceptional to deserve what other countries rightfully take for granted.

America is definitely exceptional in our recommended daily intake of flapdoodle. To Finns or Japanese or other sensible folk, their countries don’t have to be special proposition nations, nor cities upon a hill redeeming the world, nor the rightful destinations of other countries’ huddled masses, nor the scourges of wrongdoing in the Levant. Instead, they are the past, present, and future homes of their own people. So their responsibility is to be good stewards for their heirs.

In contrast, the vague grandiosity of the ideology of American exceptionalism makes Americans easier to manipulate with contrived narratives.

(* - If you've blurred all the way through this post without bothering, please click that link, and read the last paragraph.)

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Well that didn't take long

I thought we were actually going to debate before deciding whether to blow up Syria.

Obama gets top Republican support on Syria strike.

It seems the only thing left to decide is not 'whether' but 'how.'

Dennis Mangan has started a thread on, "Why war?" This really could spark a regional even hemispheric conflict, though I doubt things get that out of hand (I hope and pray).

Why are bankrupt Western nations rushing headlong into a Muslim family feud? My unschooled opinion is first, as Dennis mentions, because they can. The US governing elite are bored, hubristic ideologues. Second, Israel wants the region outside its borders transformed into backwards, feuding hellholes. Their greatest existential threat is to be surrounded by technologically advancing Arab polities. Third, Mohammedan conquest, as Gulf Arabs work to smash the hated Shia and their Iranian allies. (Can anyone educate me on the roots of the Persian-Arab conflict?)

None of which, obviously, implicates any actual American interest. Of course, I'm presuming an actual American nation with its own interests. Here's how one purportedly American legislator justifies this commitment of US blood and treasure:
For me as a mother, to see that searing image of babies lined up, murdered by their own government, innocent children,” she continued. “I mean, as a Jew, Wolf, I have to tell you, as a member of Congress who represents one of the largest Holocaust survivor populations in the country, to me, the concept of never again, has to mean something. And the United States, morally, cannot turn the other cheek. Too many leaders of ours have regretted that decision.

As an American and a father, I think the Jews and the Sunni Arabs can bloody well fight this one themselves.