YOU CAN’T FIX “INBRED”
“In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were “consanguineously” married. “
Cousin Marriage is the primary reason for the low trust society.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 04:01:00 UTC
I DIDN’T REALIZE I’D PAY FOR IT!
“Of course, I want people to have health care,” [Cindy] Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.” – San Jose Mercury-News. Via Michael Lee “Ask A Rational Conservative”
Well you know, first you run out of other people’s money. Then you run out of other people’s credit.
I guess I’m ok with the Keynesian Progressive fantasy of infinite consumption. I mean. I have guns.
I hope you like Soylent Green.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 09:59:00 UTC
SCIENCE MEETS ACTION
“I .. would not defend [the] statement that we should prefer for the basis of action the best-tested theory. What we should prefer rather is the best-tested proposal for action.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf
Another fortune cookie from Ken Hopf.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 07:34:00 UTC
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=allGREAT ARTICLE: DOGS SHARE OUR EMOTIONS
Which is pretty obvious really. They’re more like us than most primates.
Now, the author makes the assertion that personhood, and rights are properties of sentience. And I am not sure that I agree with that. Rights are a property of cooperation, not emotional or intellectual presence.
We show compassion to other creatures. We show compassion to children. But we do not give children ‘rights’. They can’t make use of them. Nor can they understand them. Likewise, any human that would demonstrate a lack of compassion to a child, a dog, or a goat for that matter, is a threat to the rest of us either materially or normatively. Our ‘do not unto others’, rule (the silver rule) cannot be broken with any sentient creature, because it cannot be a choice. This is a normative, moral, requirement. Not a legal one. So it is not that animals have rights. It is that humans have duties of care. We regulate humans, because we can. And we punish humans because we can.
We cannot go around throwing the term ‘right’ around as comfortably as liberals tend to. A right is a contractual property of voluntary exchange. An obligation is a property of a contract of voluntary exchange. A duty is an obligation that is part of the human contract for acceptance into any society. It is a tax. A fee. An insurance policy. Your personal commitment that you are safe to have and hold for the rest of us, and capable of having ‘rights’ by voluntary exchange.
If you cannot hold your duties of care, then you are a threat not only to children and animals, but to the rest of us as well.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 16:17:00 UTC
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/one.pdfLIBERALISM, LIBERAL PSYCHOLOGY, AND BIOLOGY
Interesting book. I like my less emotionally loaded description of the male and female reproductive strategies better. Although we end up at the same point: which bias produces the best society? Or less pragmatically, which do you and I want to tolerate?
[Quote]
“As an r-type psychology, Liberalism is not some super-intellectual, ultra-compassionate psychology designed to produce a perfect utopia in which no one ever suffers. Indeed quite the opposite. It is a simple, biologically imbued psychology, designed to exploit conditions of free resources by fostering the reproduction of specimens which most aggressively satiate their basest urges, without contributing to the success of their society. Promiscuity, single parenting, early onset of first intercourse, and conflict and risk avoidance through cowardice. This is the society which Liberalism seeks to foster. Worse, it does it not for intellectual reasons, but out of a desire to satiate a simple, base, r-type biological urge.”
[/Quote]
But other people are coming at the problem similarly. I don’t think anyone other than myself has expressed this commensurably as property rights. But at least the revolution is slowly happening.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 14:16:00 UTC
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/the-silence-of-our-friends-the-extinction-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east/THE EXTERMINATION OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Coming as the extinction of secular democracy to a city near you!
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 11:35:00 UTC
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/09/pre-farming-population-expansions-aime.htmlWHY WE FLOURISHED
Population “…expansions likely predated the emergence of agriculture and herding. So either agriculture/herding happened earlier than we think, or the observed population expansions were more about climate change than the neolithic.”
Pretty simple. We have largely benefitted from the ice age receding. That benefit gave us agriculture and domestication, which eventually gave us trade and eventually, industrialization.
Now what happens if it gets cold again (soon) ?
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 11:33:00 UTC
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/10/neolithic-boom-followed-by-later.html?spref=fbBOOM AND BUST ADOPTION OF AGRARIAN TECHNOLOGY
“in contrast to the steady population growth usually assumed, the introduction of agriculture into Europe was followed by a boom-and-bust pattern in the density of regional populations.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 11:30:00 UTC
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-did-british-left-reject.htmlBY 1950 THE LEFT’S OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED. SO THEY RESORTED TO LYING.
“My own favoured explanation is that the Left realized that its traditional appeal – focused on the abolition of serious material poverty (starvation, homelessness, exposure to life-threatening cold etc.) and equal opportunity according to merit rather than birth.
“By the 1950s it was apparent that these had already happened – so the Left needed a new agenda, and started systematically lying about reality.
“This was the ‘turn’ from Old Left to New Left – old Left being about prosperity and opportunity – New Left (which became Political Correctness) about favourable outcomes for designated victim groups, and about ‘oppression’ of these groups conceptualized as psychological suffering rather than life-threatening deprivation. “
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:51:00 UTC
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/why-swedenizing-the-us-will-never-work/WHY WE CAN’T GET TO DENMARK REASON #1,475,908
If you want redistribution just break the USA up in to sixty 5M person countries. Over two generations they will all move to be with ‘they and theirs’, and competition will control what legislation cannot.
Democracy is for extended families and the nordics are all blood relatives.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:46:00 UTC