From an AP article from two hours ago about Obama's short list for the Supreme Court:
Among the others under consideration are federal appeals court judge Ann Williams, former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow.
It's time President Obama makes clear his views on Dean Minow's actions in mischaracterizing and denouncing law student Stephanie Grace's email, which, rumor has it, was six months old and was released by another young lady as part of a dispute over a young man. Why is Dean Minow dragging the President's law school through the mud of a petty catfight? Besides, Mr. Obama has much closer ties to the Minow clan than he did to Henry Louis Gates, and we all remember how much fun that turned out to be.
Posts
76 comments:
I'm assuming Obama saw the titles of some of the stuff she's published and fell in love.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/dean/dean-bio.html
It does not hurt Martha Minow's Supreme Court prospects with Obama that her father is Newton Minow, a Chicago (and national) political power broker and a very earlier supporter of Obama for President. Steve, as someone who used to live in Chicago, you probably are aware of this.
Obama: Cambridge Cops Acted Stupidly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LucTPdK8VTc
Yes, someone please ask him.
She's being rewarded as a member-in-good-standing of the cabal, just as Timothy Geithner [son of Peter Geithner, an intimate associate of Stanley Ann Dunham] was rewarded before her.
The roots of this cabal extend VERY DEEPLY into the upper echelons of our society.
it's mind boggling that granholm and napolitano are on the list. you couldn't pick less qualified people. the average guy off the street would do a better job. i'm not exaggerating. the average guy off the street knows when something is patently stupid or when it contradicts all common sense. granholm and napolitano don't.
granholm is a simple failure, a liberal idiot governor who has left michigan worse off than when she started and tries to lie about it. "I made everything bettar!" hardly somebody to be loathed.
but napolitano, she is a piece of work. napolitano is the world class moron who ruled over the state of arizona while it racked up the highest kidnapping rate in america, then was promoted to secretary of homeland (in)security.
how's that DHS case against the militia going anyway, napolitano? even the justice department thinks they have a weak case. napolitano just went after white scapegoats, exactly like we all knew she would. she wouldn't touch a non-white criminal unless it was to shake their hand and hug them for a job well done.
it's yet more "failing upward", affirmative action bullshit for proven incompetent losers like granholm and napolitano.
it's actually starting to become some truly terrifying shit the way every critical job in the united states federal government is being assigned to proven affirmative action hires.
"The roots of this cabal extend VERY DEEPLY into the upper echelons of our society."
Your mind extends VERY DEEPLY into the upper echelons of paranoid schizophrenia.
steve, please post on the developing situation in arizona today.
illegal aliens shot and attempted to kill a police officer who pulled them over on I-8. the police officer lost contact with the force, and a police helicopter had to find him.
police helicopters then went looking for the suspects, and when they were found, the began firing at the police helicopter from their vehicle.
barack obama, of course, said a few days ago that the new arizona law was "misguided". then BOOM, his words blow up right in his stupid face. illegal aliens trying to kill police officers, showing that the politicians in arizona know exactly what they are talking about, and barack obama is a know-nothing moron.
this should be another "the police acted stupidly" fiasco for obama - at least if the television media wants it to be.
As Mark Steyn puts it, the smart guys in limos can speed away from the world they created.
If the border were closed tomorrow, Arizona would be a majority Hispanic State the way California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and many other states are or will be. Heck, Georgia is going to be majority Hispanic. With a done deal for Puerto Rican Statehood.
This is the whole point. To make Whites a minority in the nation. Why?
Because the Gordon Browns and such want it. They want it because their voters want it. Who are their voters? Women, particularly single women. Who have as their organizing principle disgust for Beta Males, and desire to make them a minority.
After all, part of the woman's "heretical nature" was discussing things that women are not supposed to discuss. A man could have gotten away with it because no one expects Joe Average to parrot PC dogma. While women are supposed to say it.
>Your mind extends VERY DEEPLY into the upper echelons of paranoid schizophrenia.<
Your mother wears combat boots.
If he's going to go with someone from Harvard Law, the best name I've heard is Elizabeth Warren. This will never happen though, because she is clearly empathetic toward middle America, and not just the sushi-eaters.
So Williams and Sears are black, Minow and Napolitano are Jewish, and Granholm is incompetent?
Great.
Will Harvard Prof. Steven Pinker inform Dean Minow that this student is correct about the science?
Steve Sailer said: "It's time to demand President Obama state his views on Dean Minow's actions in mischaracterizing and denouncing law student Stephanie Grace's email."
I suspect his first response would be to remind us that he's the President so while he may comply with requests, he doesn't have to accede to demands. His second response would probably be a variation of his response to the arrest of his good friend, "Skip" Gates, last summer.
So I took the liberty of reworking his response then to suit this occasion now:
"Well, I should say at the outset that Martha Minow is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is a third year law student at Harvard sent out an email about black folks having lower IQs and this upset some folks. So far so good. Right? The subject came up at a dinner and this student suggested in an email later there was a genetic basis for blacks being less intelligent. My understanding is at that point someone who received this email forwarded it to Harvard's Black Law Student Association and from there it was forwarded across the nation and at some point became publicly known, at which time Dean Minow responded to the situation. Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the law student acted stupidly in suggesting that there's a genetic basis for black folks being less intelligent when there's already proof that they are just as intelligent and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans being accused of being less intelligent. And that's just a fact."
Martha Minow’s role in Obama’s launch in politics:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-12-12/news/0812110155_1_barack-obama-bettylu-saltzman-jewish-vote
http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?sid=1&id=252218
He owes her, big time.
It was my original view that the academic authorities would do everything they could to put the kabosh on any fuss being raised over this email, because the email itself and its context would be very embarrassing to those authorities.
Clearly, Dean Minow has decided instead to egg on the outrage, and the attacks on this student. (On the other hand, I haven't seen a statement from any other academic authority taking such a stand.)
But my basic prior point remains: this is a very embarrassing episode for the dogmatists in academe. That Minow has decided to aggravate the situation will only make it worse for them.
Let these academic authorities find a way to defend Minow's statements, which certainly at minimum border on libelous. It is a disgrace that Minow, in the role of a Dean, would choose to engage in this sort of public humiliation of one of the students under her responsibility.
As others in academe read the generally quite careful statements in this student's email, it will become obvious enough that what Minow is seeking to do precisely is to stop any contemplation of certain impermissible ideas, however respectable they may be scientifically and rationally. There are many academics who may mostly accept politically correct ideology who will nonetheless experience some real anguish over punishing a student, of all people, over the private expression of such deliberate views.
My guess is that Dean Minow herself will soon be forced to back away from her own ugly smearing of this quite defenseless student.
In any case, this case, and Minow's handling of it, will certainly become a cause celebre for those of us who care about open expression of scientific ideas. It could hardly demonstrate more clearly the viciousness of the PC cult in academe, and the utter contempt held by the worst of the dogmatists toward ideas, however plausible, which they deem immoral even to entertain.
"It's time to demand President Obama state his views on Dean Minow's actions in mischaracterizing and denouncing law student Stephanie Grace's email."
I'm sure that one's high on everyone's list, Steve-O:
"Hey Barry, would you put those two wars, and that whole economy thing on the back burner for a second and tell us what you thought about that broad's thesis!"
"This is the whole point. To make Whites a minority in the nation. Why?
Because the Gordon Browns and such want it."
You mean your fellow Scots?
"If he's going to go with someone from Harvard Law, the best name I've heard is Elizabeth Warren."
Elizabeth Warren isn't that bright.
Overall, I think it's a mixed bag for HBD. Here you have a very damn intelligent girl, who studied sociology who is "not convinced", maybe that gets a few people to wonder a little. On the other hand, the gestopo treatment she's received is nerve wracking and will surely keep more people from voicing their opinion, even with friends.
Broken record here, but I really think that every time something like this happens, Eric Holder needs to be called upon to come in and say it's ok to talk about race.
""Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.
Holder urged Americans of all races to use Black History Month as a time to have a forthright national conversation between blacks and whites to discuss aspects of race which are ignored because they are uncomfortable."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/holder.race.relations/index.html
Or is the only uncomfortable part of the conversation white people's role in keeping black people oppressed?
"Because the Gordon Browns and such want it. They want it because their voters want it. Who are their voters? Women, particularly single women. Who have as their organizing principle disgust for Beta Males, and desire to make them a minority. "
Paranoid much? You can't simplify every single political trend into a plot against "beta males." There aren't even that many single Caucasian women in the country over the age of 30, so it's impossible that they are somehow the puppet-masters secretly controlling society. Over half these women probably don't even vote.
"It's time to demand President Obama state his views on Dean Minow's actions in mischaracterizing and denouncing law student Stephanie Grace's email."
It doesn't matter. The Dean libeled an "outright racist", thus the rules don't apply.
I am curious though to see Obama comment on this issue. If it continues to fester, he just might.
But we needn't cogitate on his response. Here's an old Obama interview on the Bell Curve (where he's described as a "civil rights lawyer"):
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/09/barack-obama-on-bell-curve.php
No, Elizabeth Warren is really, really bright.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
obama affair tape according to national enquirer:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589
Not much there yet.
But the National Enquirer folks are pit bulls, so who knows what they might turn up.
I wonder what they would demand in trade for spiking that kind of story the way they spiked their 2007 story about Tiger Woods in the parking lot with a waitress in return for Tiger letting them interview for their Men's Fitness magazine his musclehead personal trainer who made Tiger sound like a juicer.
I guess if we see Obama flexing on the cover of Men's Fitness, we'll know.
I'm sure it pisses us all off that the girl apologized but I'm not in her shoes so I can't speak to it. Generally it seems to us all that standing firm is better but I'm not entirely certain.
For one, in my own life I've seen that when accused falsely of something and you stand firm you need to do it for A VERY LONG TIME. If you get tired of the stolid demeanor and ready-for-battle mindset you're through. And the establishment has more people to share the burden of attacking you than you have of people fighting them back.
Secondly, we've all seen many occasions where people apologize and things more or less go back to normal. We tend to notice the stalwarts who beat the machine because they're trumping our expectations. Senator Vitter may or may not f*ck prostitutes in diapers but he's said he's sorry and he's still a senator. Mel Gibson may call a woman "sugar tits", rage about Jews in a way that makes his father seem like a philosemite and tell a police officer that he'll use his wealth to destroy the guy's life but he still finds plenty of people in Hollywood who will work with him and doesn't have any targets painted on his back in the eyes of the masses. After all, he said he was sorry.
Thirdly, when it comes to matters of race, and of blacks in particular, it's possible that you and I simply don't know the pressures that are brought to bear. Dunno if anyone else read Watson's book about balls - well, about living a fun life and having the balls to say as you please, anyway - but he goes off on how pissed he was that Larry Summers capitulated. Lord does he go off! And then... huh?
Anyhow, I personally don't give a f*ck about the troubles of some Harvard law student and, frankly, can't say her unhappiness has caused me any. Furthermore, like Steve once humorously said about Pinker and race - it's nice to have this niche open to ourselves without too much competition from everyone. Personally i enjoy the feeling of superiority that I get from knowing that I'm more intellectually honest than the masses. The hegemony of the God Fearing is wearing away and we rationalists are now swamped with Valley Girl "atheists" impinging upon our sense of superiority. It's nice that we still have liberal creationists to lord it over. If only in our own minds.
Oh, and speaking of Pinker this is quite astounding. http://www.helmuthnyborg.dk/support2/PinkerLetter.pdf
I was wholly unaware of this until Le Inductivist showed it to me (well, to all of us who read him) and it's quite heartening (yeah, I guess I'm ambivalent about overturning the reigning Thought Crime Statutes) and... doesn't Mr. Pinker teach at Harvard?
As much fun as it would be to see him jump in to the fray in defense of this student, I doubt he'd do it unless he has some personal motivation to do so. The girl apologized and said she was wrong wrong WRONG! All any respected academic would be doing now if he were to step in to defend her would be to offer himself as the Bad Cop to the repentantee's Good Cop. Being more Catholic than the Pope when the powers that be are crucifying Catholics hardly seems like a wise career move.
Nevertheless, it WOULD be fun to see some well-known impeccably credentialed academic step in and publicly speak Truth to Power giving every indication that he would never back down.
Until that happens though I'll remain unbothered by the woes of Ms.Harvard Law Student and retain my secret delight at the evidence that I'm more honestly rational than the majority of my peers.
mnuez
Oh and here are the other letters of support for Nyborg: http://www.helmuthnyborg.dk/support1/support1.html . None of them have the cache of Pinker (I mean in the public mind, not academic worth of course) but they're all very enjoyable to read. Oh and more Harpending please. Steve's excerpts from the missing pieces of C&H's book about Henry's time with the Bushmen were...well, sublime.
we just bailed out puerto rico for over $5 bil:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/202118-bank-failure-friday-five-banks-down-with-big-loss-in-puerto-rico
Senator Vitter may or may not f*ck prostitutes in diapers but he's said he's sorry and he's still a senator
Are the prostitutes in diapers, or is Sen. Vitter?
Off topic tangent. Here's a hot story:
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/04/obama-enquirer-uncorks-presidential-cheating-scandal/
ben tillman said...
So Williams and Sears are black, Minow and Napolitano are Jewish, and Granholm is incompetent?
Sounds like a James Watt punchline.
"Grace's email, which, rumor has it, was six months old and was released by another young lady as part of a dispute over a young man."
What are friends for? The purpose of being someone's friend is to gather damaging information on them, then use it to one's own, petty advantage.
Ha ha. Here you go, Steve. Your hero, right? Ingrate immigrant from Canada writes vicious anti-white op-ed for CNN. Thanks, dude! Welcome to our country!
Can you imagine immigrating to a country and then writing a screed like this defaming its people? Yes, all whites alive today in America need to hang their heads in shame for the crime of small pox blankets.
Lets all remember that the "Native Americans" were all saints blissfully dancing through the Garden of Eden until whitey showed up. The Indian tribes didn't practice slavery as an institution, right? They didn't wage genocidal warfare against each other, right? They didn't practice human sacrifice and ritual slaughter of their fellow humans.
How we became white people
By Christian Lander, Special to CNNApril 30, 2010 10:44 a.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Christian Lander checked the "white" box on the 2010 census form, but says it's complicated
He's an immigrant (Canada), but has access to historical advantages of "white" box
Popular myth of U.S. immigration doesn't include discrimination against non-whites, he says
Lander: Census should remind us that America is moving away from a "white" box majority
Hmmm
No mention of the border patrol agent shooting on the CNN web page.
So I guess it didn't really happen after all. Take that you paranoid tea baggers.
[just because a story shows up on drudge and fox news doesn't mean it actually happened]
Dude, with your rep, your not really helping this kid.
Though you look to be right. She is in fact responding to a discussion in which someone has taken a much stronger position on "genetic inferiority." Too bad.
Lists, shmists. What counts is the final choice. Obama is no fool, I don't think.
An almost perfect way to the presidency ...
Get a certain class of people with lots of money (on Wall Street) to bankroll you because of your historic significance as the Messiah of a racially divided peopled.
When you are in power, use the latest financial scandal to turn on the powerful on Wall Street and prove to the general public that you are one of them.
What's not to like about it.
OT: Here's the first report I've seen of a possible Obama sexual interest outside of Michelle.
mnuez said: "Personally i[sic] enjoy the feeling of superiority that I get from knowing that I'm more intellectually honest than the masses...."
That's just how the left feels about anyone to the right of it. Read the comment section of any article on HuffPo. In fact, their pervasive sense of superiority and their certainty that they alone are occupying the moral high ground of two of their most salient and least attractive features. Are you sure you're playing for our side?
Intellectual honesty is great--so great that I wish more, not fewer people, would strive toward it. That they don't bodes ill for my side and that can't be a good thing.
And: "...The hegemony of the God Fearing is wearing away and we rationalists are now swamped with Valley Girl 'atheists' impinging upon our sense of superiority..."
That makes no sense, O Intellectually Superior One. The more dummies you're swamped with, the smarter you look so the more superior you can feel. Well, maybe not you but isn't that how it's supposed to work? Stark contrasts highlight differences. Or are you afraid you'll get lost in the shuffle?
And: "...It's nice that we still have liberal creationists to lord it over. If only in our own minds."
Are you kidding no question mark!! They very likely will be the ruination of my country, which I love, or did. That's like saying it was nice having the Nazis around because their gaudy architecture* made our architecture look better.
Far from wanting them around so I can indulge in some weird sense of superiority, I'd like to see them all gone, ASAP. Lately, the lefties have targeted "whitetopias", too-white states like Wyoming and Idaho. If they're so keen on introducing them to the joys of diversity, I say we bring back the oubliette in a big way and populate those Great Plains states with the lefties and their followers/beneficiaries.
*Not to be confused with Gaudi architecture, OISO, but then you already knew that, didn't you?
my email to Minow:
MINOW THE LIBELIST
Only mediocrities accuse talented citizens of racism. Blacks are at the bottom of the biodiversity pyramid--so what? What you want is academic welfare for blacks in perpetuity--why not announce it you feckless "educator"?
The Harvard flap is useful as a clarification of the limits of the (non) debate on HBD/racial difference – & especially instructive for individuals like myself, who are about to be Ph.D.ed by an Ivy League university.
In fact, it seems pretty clear that this exercise in Stalinist personal assassination is designed to terrifying budding HBDers like myself into silence for fear of never becoming comfortably ensconced in elite academia (oh well, I've been freelancing in Europe successfully for years, so if I'm never inducted into the charmed circle that's probably OK too)
And what an entertainingly lopsided (pseudo) debate it is!
One side gets to say anything it wants, to the fulsome acclaim of the mainstream, the other side risks legal sanctions and job loss for stating unassailable facts about human intelligence/psychology/physionogmy/physiology as.
Given the fact that the censorship debate is preempting the HBD debate altogether, it is extraordinarily important to separate these two questions:
question 1:
should it be legal to state publicly that, for example, blacks are less intelligent on average than whites, and that the reasons are very probably at least partly genetic?
question 2:
is the above claim true or false??
It would be perfectly possible to say yes to number 1 and no to number 2 (to take a position that blacks are less intelligent, but that stating this truth publicly should be proscribed by law)
it would also be vertically possible to say no to number 1 and yes to number 2 (blacks are equally intelligent, but everyone has the right of the state the reverse publicly without fear of sanction: this is an issue of free speech)
it would also be possible to say to both, or no to both.
At this point, the debate is being held hostage to a censorship regime, and that is the issue that must be addressed FIRST!!!! before the issue of racial difference can be handled effectively (except in private, on a very low profile basis in research institutes, & of course on partially anonymous fora like this one).
The fact I’m posting this anonymously means that we are dealing with a kind of (not really SO very soft when you consider that your career and life can be crushed to dust in a single moment for transgressing) totalitarianism, and speaking as a lifelong progressive, I sadly part company with my former like-minded friends, because the freedom to express one’s ideas openly is paramount in an open society.
The line has been drawn a few miles too far in the direction of curtailing free speech.
I have no problem with making it illegal to proclaim that we should send all the blacks back to Africa/reenslave them, gas the Jews, burn the fags, etc. etc.. This is an incitement to violence, no has ever claimed that the First Amendment protected screaming fire in a crowded theater, or issuing death threats.
In any society that describes itself as open, democratic, or free, open and unrestricted discussions about the sources of the undeniable and apparently ineradicable cognitive deficits of individuals who are descended from the members of preliterate societies should be several miles within the permissible range.
I suspect that Harvard is teeming with closet race realists – who knows, maybe I'll end up teaching there someday and joining their ranks (secret tea parties on Brattle Street?? Gosh, what fun!!)
the ke q. remains:
how to break the censorship regime??????
If the dean of the law school you attend persecutes you for something you wrote in a private E-mail, is that not actionable? She should sue Minow and Harvard for every last dime she can get, finish her law degree and then get a job as a news analyst at FOX. FOX wouldn't hire her, of course - not now, but in a few years they might.
If this affair goes wider in the public consciousness, will it escape a large number of people that this:
http://www.bc.edu/centers/boisi/publicevents/browse_events_by_date/s08/minow/minowalbum.html
is harrassing this:
http://jezebel.com/5528235/the-racist-breeding-grounds-of-harvard-law-school?skyline=true&s=i
Put that in the who/whom file.
“Larry Summers’ brain lies a-mouldering in the EOB
Larry Summers’ brain lies a-mouldering in the EOB
Larry Summers’ brain lies a-mouldering in the EOB
His mouth goes marching on”
White women under age 55 make the critical voting bloc that generates the "gender gap" that votes Democratic.
Its not a conspiracy. It is the natural confluence of events with technology, anonymous urban living, improved earnings, and so on allowing Middle/Upper class women to support a nearly all female-oriented consumer society that in turn drives deep social assumptions.
Look at TV, particularly broadcast TV, and LOOK! Observe. You will see almost all characters/actors are ... Black. And the few White guys are doofus idiots. Almost all the ads are aimed at women. For example, the Swiffer ads advise women to "dump their mop/broom" like a relationship advice from Oprah.
Blacks are 12.5% of the population, and only 5% are middle class and Black, with the products advertised not having much appeal to the Urban Core Black (often cars, expensive consumer items, etc.) Yet commercials are filled with Black nuclear families. Itself rare given 70%+ Black illegitimacy rate nationwide. Single women voted Obama 70-29. On approximately the same ratio as American Jews, but the former are a far larger group than the latter.
Middle Class White women are hurt by higher taxes, more crime, and more immigrants which create both, yet affluent Middle/Upper Class White women constantly seek urban areas that are filled with non-Whites and with high crime, though in "safer" White areas. Just as American Jews voted for the least pro-Israel and most anti-Semitic candidate in the election.
My conclusion is that other factors were at work, emotional, and other needs outweighing the negatives around immigration (driving pols like Brown and others world-wide) or negatives around Obama's attitudes towards Israel.
That the emails were released over an argument about a guy ought to tell you something -- that the supply of Alpha men is so limited that women fight over him with the release of un-PC emails.
Mr. Anon said...
If the dean of the law school you attend persecutes you for something you wrote in a private E-mail, is that not actionable? She should sue Minow and Harvard for every last dime she can get
Folks who question PC orthodoxy are not entitled to privacy.
The same Anonymous who declares himself a lifelong progressive as much as admits that progressives are vicious totalitarians who have no compunction about annihilating those who oppose or even differ with them. He also will have to live his entire life in a state of self-censorship or suffer career death. But that's alright, given how much there is to be gained by stifling himself and how much would be lost should he speak his mind.
What this tells me is that until Americans experience severe economic hardship the grip of progressive thugs will hold. Only when there is much less to lose than is presently the case will the comfortable, enough of them anyway, having lost their comfort regain their balls.
"MINOW THE LIBELIST
"Only mediocrities accuse talented citizens of racism. Blacks are at the bottom of the biodiversity pyramid--so what? What you want is academic welfare for blacks in perpetuity--why not announce it you feckless 'educator'?"
You sent this? What an idiot you are. Try doing something that HELPS the side?
police helicopters then went looking for the suspects, and when they were found, the began firing at the police helicopter from their vehicle.
Two words: helicopter gunship.
Mr Anon, your Boston College link isnt happening for me.
However, via the Jezebel one I learn that Stephanie Grace is a beautiful....redhead!
Was Steve softening us up for this story with the redhead thing?
"Because the Gordon Browns and such want it. They want it because their voters want it. Who are their voters? Women, particularly single women. Who have as their organizing principle disgust for Beta Males, and desire to make them a minority"
Why are you always going on about women Stan?
"Here you have a very damn intelligent girl, who studied sociology"
Does...Not...Compute!!!
http://gawker.com/5527355/meet-stephanie-grace-the-harvard-law-student-who-started-a-racist-email-war
This is the kind of dumb SWPL bullshit we are up against. The blame is entirely on Grace for the 'racist' email and for trusting the goodwill of her peers. In other words, she was too good, too decent, too honest, too trusting. It's HER FAULT.
No moral condemnation of the leaking rat, the bitchy Dean, and the bullying Black Organization.
How the hell are we gonna have an honest discussion of race?
And just read some of the comments below the article such as:
"If there is nothing wrong in what Stephanie said, then why must she go into hiding? Please stand by your obviously non-racist, scientifically proven statements Stephanie."
Well, the whole controversy answers that dumb question, doesn't it? She went into hiding because our shit nation cannot handle the truth or honest discussion; instead, it goes for hightech lynching.
Shame on mainstream conservatives for not coming to her rescue. Conservatives have been complaining of PC over the yrs, and here's a clear case of it, and we hear NOTHING from big name conservatives. This is why we are losing the cultur and intellectual war. Chickenshit cowardice.
The US is the most powerful nation in the world. Why can't they defend their own borders? I guess there is just not the will.
The Hispanics who are outraged by the new law in Arizona seem to think they have a right to break the law. They take it as a given that they should be allowed to come to America just because they want to, and those who oppose them are racist. What would happen if a bunch of people from Canada or Sweden decided to up and move to Arizona without a by your leave, and thousands of them staged aggressive demonstrations asserting their right to become Americans. Or how about a huge influx of illegals from Africa or Pakistan? Would La Raza support them ? Why do the Hispanics think they have more right to become Americans than, say, Australians or Icelanders?
Does anyone really want the US to just open its borders to all?
OT. Review of "History of White People" in National Interest magazine(neocon).
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22934
It's a gushing and positive review whose conclusion is too PC and bullshit for us, but there are lots of intersting details concerning not only the theory of race but of theories of races within the white race that had once been in vogue prior to WWII.
We are quick to attack guys like Franz Boas, but it's not difficult to understand why he came to be considered as the sane voice on matters of race(at least within the context of his times). TOO MANY racial or racist theories ranged from ludicrous to demented. Though Boas was ultimately wrong about the biological equality of races, many of the once-respected racial theories in the Western World were blind, bigoted, delusioinal, or self-serving. Indeed, the most poisonous impact of race theories in the 20th century was in justifying and promoting INTRA-RACIAL violence among so-called SUPERIOR whites and so-called INFERIOR whites. And we know all about the Nazis and their dementedness.
Well, with the horrible fate of South Africa and big cities in the US, we are now seeing the evils of radical anti-racism; but there is no denying the horrible influence of radical(imbecile)racism detailed in this review.
Though this review is PC and grating at times, it is more thought provoking and illuminating than the review on Alternative Right... which goes to show you that neocon intellectualism--even when it isn't being honest--is generally of higher caliber than the paleocon kind.
"The US is the most powerful nation in the world. Why can't they defend their own borders? I guess there is just not the will."
On the local news this evening, a marcher in the Fresno Immigration Reform (HA, don't you just love that name) Parade told the interviewer who asked why he was demonstrating, "We want our rights--we have the right to be citizens."
So, yeah, I guess this guy, who was about 42 years old, just feels a person can walk across a border (or hide in a trunk) and demand citizenship and it should be granted. So, when things progress to the intolerable here in CA, (they are already barely tolerable), my plan is to cross the border into British Columbia (beautiful but awfully wet for my taste) and demand to be made a citizen. Of course, I will also demand a job.... or if I don't feel like working, I will demand welfare assistance.
The only thing is, I've recently found out that Canada is very strict about immigration so I am a bit worried about my plan. Do you think I should try another country? Maybe the Fresno guy can give me some tips since politicians seem more bent on listening to him than to the rest of us.
What sheer lunancy!
ricpic:
Ivy League anonymous is a progressive because European social democracy (and I've lived here for well over a decade) is by a gigantically huge margin the best (or least objectionable) form of government that is ever existed anywhere on earth.
The fact that I am thoroughly disgusted with the grotesque and criminal deceit and censorship of the mainstream (i.e., not just progresses, but in fact almost everyone these days, ranging from the far left to the almost far right, and including virtually all Republicans) on HBD has not changed my views on a number of other issues:
Full equality for women, full equality for homosexuals, uniform laws for all races, ethnicities, and classes, strict environmental protections, strong partnerships between labor and industry, and the state, robust social welfare programs, no involvement of religion in government, as little interference as possible by government in religion, highly regulated or public health-care systems, strong public education, guarantees of the autonomy and integrity of scholarship and scientific research, multiparty democracy with fair elections, maximal government transparency, an uncensored media, a robust civil society, levels of corruption and criminality so low that they are the envy of the world over.
European civilization is pretty good just the way it is – MINUS mass immigration – especially of people who have absolute no desire or capacity to adapt themselves to the norms of modern civilization, and a crazy, quasi totalitarian jumble of laws designed to censor people who are uncomfortable with the Islamicization of Europe.
In Europe's favor is that unlike the United States, it has not (yet!!) profoundly restructured all of its laws and absolutely every institution from elementary school to the highest rungs of government and even supreme courts in order to enforce race quotas.
The main lesson of the bizarre social experiment with immigration which has taken place in Europe over the past 20 years is that European-style social democracy works beautifully for EUROPEANS (Steve Sailer has made this point, anyone who has lived in Europe as long as I have will probably confirm it), and disintegrates into chaos and rubble when you introduce too many non-Europeans into the mix.
European-style social democracy is the most sophisticated and functional social form Europeans have ever evolved, and I like everything about it except the part where Europeans commit autogenocide by failing to reproduce, by importing millions of people who can only degrade and destroy their way of life, and by completely ignoring the terrifyingly dysgenic implications of certain welfare policies which subsidize births among less cognitively endowed Europeans while the cognitive elite focuses on careers, serial love affairs, cultural pursuits, and elite consumerism.
European-style social democracy is the most sophisticated and functional social form Europeans have ever evolved, and I like everything about it except the part where Europeans commit autogenocide by failing to reproduce, by importing millions of people who can only degrade and destroy their way of life, and by completely ignoring the terrifyingly dysgenic implications of certain welfare policies which subsidize births among less cognitively endowed Europeans while the cognitive elite focuses on careers, serial love affairs, cultural pursuits, and elite consumerism.
Yeah, it would be fine except it doesn't work! ( the above paragraph only makes sense as a form of sarcasm)
to bruce banned:
No sarcasm intended:
European social democracy provides the greatest degree of prosperity, personal and social security, educational attainment, and democracy of any system that's ever been tried.
There is nothing about European-style social democracy that makes mass immigration from the Third World in any way necessary or desirable, and until recently, immigration levels were manageable.
The contradiction is very easy to identify:
an affluent, self contented, open-minded, tolerant, relaxed, self-confident society tends to assume the best about the people who want to immigrate here, and to assume they all want to become European once they get here, and are capable of doing so.
This kind generosity may be mistaken, and may even be taken to extremes (which it now has), but this does not cancel every other positive quality of European social democracy
The dysgenic effects of generous social welfare can be offset by incentives to the cognitive elite to reproduce, and by cutting back on social welfare – something which is come about on a drastic scale throughout Western Europe as a result of economic changes anyway.
Everyone is always saying how radical Western Europe is, but once I’d lived here for awhile, I realized that while United States has turned itself upside down and inside out for the past 50 years in order to equalize the outcomes of different racial groups, nothing like that is conceivable here.
AA is an incredibly radical idea by Western European standards – I've never met anyone here who is in favor of such an approach, while everyone I know in the United States thinks affirmative action is a part of the natural order of things.
Got any smart aleck comebacks for that??
"Everyone is always saying how radical Western Europe is, but once I’d lived here for awhile, I realized that while United States has turned itself upside down and inside out for the past 50 years in order to equalize the outcomes of different racial groups, nothing like that is conceivable here."
Keep deluding yourself if it gets you through the day, I guess. I don't know where you're living but all of those countries are on the same path, and some of them are further along than we are. And if you're in one of the EU countries that's lagging behind, rest assured that Brussels will make ABSOLUTELY sure that you catch up ASAP.
OT: Here's the first report I've seen of a possible Obama sexual interest outside of Michelle.
Dude - you need to frequent the seamier side of the intertubes.
What you want is academic welfare for blacks in perpetuity--why not announce it you feckless "educator"?
Dude: Educatrix.
This is Harvard, after all.
The only thing is, I've recently found out that Canada is very strict about immigration...
Unless you're a Muslim.
Your kids don't need to go to an Ivy League school to marry a high-IQ female. There are plenty of high-IQ females who are still single after college. You just have to convince your kids that it's better to marry a plain-looking genius than the best looking woman he can attract and have a reasonable conversation with. Good luck with that.
Re European social democracy: the anonymous commenter is right. It works well for all but the most ambitious and successful people out there. Basically, if you are going to be in the bottom 99% of income, you would be better off living in France or The Netherlands than here. Though the Europeans can't afford to keep up benefits at this level much longer.
Anonymous does bring up another point that's interesting. The Europeans are less philosophically wedded to diversity and mass immigration than we are, so maybe it's possible for them to reverse it. Though if this leads to a rise of nationalism, it will be interesting to see the consequences of that, long term.
Europeans have a high (if latent) talent for making war. They chewed themselves to pieces in two world wars in the previous century. The EU and the euro were supposed to make a future war intra-European war impossible, but the economic union is starting to fall apart, with Portugal, Spain and Greece headed for default, and the political union isn't too popular today either.
OT:
Another liberal do-goody bust.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shah-20100502,0,85181.story
Africans won't use mosquito nets.
"The main lesson of the bizarre social experiment with immigration which has taken place in Europe over the past 20 years is that European-style social democracy works beautifully for EUROPEANS (Steve Sailer has made this point, anyone who has lived in Europe as long as I have will probably confirm it), and disintegrates into chaos and rubble when you introduce too many non-Europeans into the mix."
It doesn't work beautifully but well enough for SOME Europeans. It all depends on the national character of a people. If they are culturally instilled with values of trust, work ethic, and mutual responsibility, social-democracy works well enough. Also, it helps if the people tend to be temperamentally bland and square(stable, empathetic,rational), as Northern Europeans tend to be. Social-democracy works less well for hot-tempered people of Southern Italy and Greece who are quick to bitch and whine about 'where is mine?' and can't really feel nor think outside me, me, me and my family and blood kin.
It also doesn't work well in Eastern Europe where work ethic and common trust haven't been the major virtues. Social-democracy needs people who are willing to pay INTO the system as well as take from it. In a place like Greece and Italy, everyone tries to evade taxes but demands everything from the gubment.
Even so, even in Northern European countries, social-democracy has had a detrimental effect for many. Many Germans grew lazier than their forbearers in the 80s since an unemployed person could ear 80% of normal wage for yrs after he lost his job. Socialism removes moral hazard, and so unless it is conditional--as in Singapore--, it gradually makes people take things for granted. It makes them feel lax. This laxity of thinking bleeds into other areas--like protecting borders. If one has become lax in defending his wealth from government taxation, he will also likely be lax in demanding border security. In both cases, the NWO government browbeats him with the politics of guilt. If you don't pay higher taxes, you must be a greedy dirty capitalist bastard who doesn't wanna share his wealth. If you don't allow in immigrants, you must be a dirty racist bastard who doesn't wanna share the national wealth with other races.
Socialism, if unconditional, can sap the spirit. Also, since YOU got something for free under socialism, you have less of a moral argument for denying free stuff to OTHER people and races.
Also, when we look at what Labor policies have done to Britain from end of WWII to 1970s, it is depressing!!
And social democracy have also led to bloated government and bureaucracy, and we all know government officials and workers have to justify their jobs and fat salaries somehow... and that means they look for more and more ways to control your life--what you eat, what you say, what you read, and even what you think!! Social-democracy is leading to soft Orwellianism.
There is also the impact of (black)American underclass culture on Europe, which has been corrosive, but where did rap come from? It came from the black community when it fell under welfare dependency, a form of social-democracy.
AA is an incredibly radical idea by Western European standards – I've never met anyone here who is in favor of such an approach, while everyone I know in the United States thinks affirmative action is a part of the natural order of things.
Got any smart aleck comebacks for that??
You know some lamebrained Americans. Drop them and get new friends. (I did.)
So the Dean opens with: "Dear members of the Harvard Law School community:
I am writing this morning to address an email message in which one of our students suggested that black people are genetically inferior to white people.
This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice. .”
Surely these two comments here should be enough to scupper anyone's chance of sitting on your Supreme Court? Freedom of speech fettered by 'responsibility', intellectual pursuit limited by social justice theories. Basically in the highest seats of learning in your country intellectual discussion must give way to ideology. How can anyone argue that in the exploration/pursuit of truth it should play second fiddle to ideology and then be considered for a position in your supreme court, utter insanity no?
European social democracy provides the greatest degree of prosperity, personal and social security, educational attainment, and democracy of any system that's ever been tried.
Except for that pesky, pesky failure to replicate itself.
Anon:
Got any smart aleck comebacks for that??
I was trying to say that those evils of social-democracy (hedonism, low fertility, unfettered immigration, etc) aren't bugs, but features of the system.
So I don't agree with your assertion that: "European-style social democracy is the most sophisticated and functional social form Europeans have ever evolved". I'll re-phrase your sentence so you can understand my position:
European civilization is the most sophisticated and functional social form humans have ever evolved
Which is why social democracy looks so good to you; I wager if you'd known any other European regimes, you'd have fallen in love with them as well. Europe is such a nice place to live in, that it remains lovely under any regime, circumstance or economic system; even the most backward European countries are more livable than 99 % of the planet, including most parts of the USA. Heck, even Europe under communism was compatively nice: safe, clean, orderly.
You're merely under the spell of old Europe, which you confuse with social democracy. Social democracy will be the end of Europe. Hopefully the coming economic disaster takes care of social democracy before.
"European civilization is the most sophisticated and functional social form humans have ever evolved"
Q: "What is your opinion of Christian Civilization?"
A: I'm in favor of it!
-Mahatmas Ghandi
Anonymous wrote:
"...my plan is to cross the border into British Columbia (beautiful but awfully wet for my taste) and demand to be made a citizen. Of course, I will also demand a job.... or if I don't feel like working, I will demand welfare assistance."
=============================
Well Canada is only strict about immigration for non-criminal white people. If you pose as a Tamil Tiger and arrive on the west coast illegally in a rusty freighter, they will roll out the red carpet for you. You will be all set up on welfare with free medical care in no time. Or you could join a Russian gang in Vancouver if you are Caucasian. Those guys are NEVER deported.
If you run into any problems, start dealing drugs and commit some violent crimes. Then the immigration board will feel sorry for you and give you another chance. Don't worry about going to jail--almost no one goes to jail in Canada for more than a few hours--especially illegal immigrants and refugees.
If you really play your cards right, you can claim that the Canadian government was mean to you and sue them. You will probably get millions. It has worked for many!
Sadly, I'm not making any of this up.
Truth, send me a postcard when you finally settle down in civilized Liberia. I'd love to pay you a visit with the family.
Can I call you sport?
"Can I call you sport?"
You'll have to call me on my cell, the landline tower got knocked down in the war.
There is nothing about European-style social democracy that makes mass immigration from the Third World in any way necessary or desirable, and until recently, immigration levels were manageable.
But European-style social democracy is centralized, which means the bureaucracy is not accountable to the people, which means that the bureacracy can be hijacked (as it has been) and turned against the people. The result: genocidal immigration, forced integration, and the criminalization of dissent.
Mahatmas Ghandi ??
That's the only time I've heard of a portmanteau of a person's first name (Mohandas) and his honorific (Mahatma).
Looks like 85 might be smarter than we thought....
"Q: "What is your opinion of Christian Civilization?"
A: I'm in favor of it!
-Mahatmas Ghandi
Truth, you totally f'd up that quip (in addition to messing up his name).
Q: "What do you think about Western Civilization"?
A: "I think it would be a good idea"
I'm a progressive who, while disagreeing with the young lady's views, finds it appalling that she is being castigated for what amounted to speculation in a private email.
Actually, here's something even more appalling. One of the writers at "Above the Law" who went out of his way to condemn her (see: http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/harvard-blsa-racism-banality-evil/ ) just made this comment regarding Lawrence Taylor:
"If the allegations are true, one can only hope that LT experiences the business end of a true giant in the penitentiary."
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/rape-potpourri/#more-16180
One poster wrote:
"So the same person who has written probably 100,000 words on an offensive private email, and who used the phrase the "banality of evil" to describe the email and a law student group's failure to issue a strong response to the email, also thinks making rape jokes on a public blog is appropriate? Is this for real?"
Must be read to be believed.
Post a Comment