Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Science and Mathematics; Philosophy; History; Politics;

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Recent Profile Visitors

1,306 profile views
  1. A good point. We are broke. That's why we have to borrow money to finance everything we spend it on. If it turns out that Mr Obama was right, then hats off to him. It's part of being a truly intelligent person to be able to change your views, learn from others, etc. So, a discussion/debate about the advisability, or otherwise, of yet more government spending, has to include a more-encompassing debate about what we're spending it on now, and how it might be financed without bankrupting our grandchildren. For instance, it might turn out that spending money on a real jobs program for the unskilled layers of society, actually saves us money in the future, because we will not have to spend money on welfare, drug rehabilitation, prison, etc. Or it might not -- there is always the possibility that such a program could just turn into a jobs-for-the-boys boondoggle. But I'd like to see some debate about it. It might turn out that we can save money elsewhere: do we really need to pay literally trillions of dollars to 'stabilize' the whole world -- spending two or three times as much, per capita, as all the other advanced countries? Do we really need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an 'Africa Command' (based in Germany, of course, not in Africa, where our soldiers help sustain the German economy every time they buy some wiener schnitzel.) As for Mr Trump. He will eventually be gone, one way or the other, just as Mr Eisenhower, Mr Kennedy, Mr Johnson, Mr Nixon, Mr Ford, Mr Carter, Mr Reagan, the first Mr Bush, Mr Clinton, the second Mr Bush, Mr Obama, were here, agitated or delighted people for a few years, and then were gone. But society and the state remain, and, unless we fix them, the problems we face remain. I have no interest in exchanging insults with people with whom I don't agree. If I wanted to make conservatives feel unhappy, I have more than enough ammunition. If I wanted to make liberals angry, that's no problem. But what's the point? Doing that is sort of like playing a shoot-em-up video game but without sound or images. Perhaps fun for a few days, but eventually it becomes boring, and you never 'win' because there is an endless supply of conservatives and liberals, and, being human, they will commit follies to be laughed at. In the meantime, the US is set to become, for the first time in many generations, the world's SECOND-largest economy, the world's FIRST largest being a Communist dictatorship, which is quite comfortable with government intervention in its economy (and others). In the meantime, those young men, white and Black, who fifty years ago would have gotten jobs as steel workers, rubber workers, auto workers, etc etc are now told they need to learn PHP and CSS ... which they cannot do. Maybe they can become long-distance truck drivers or delivery van drivers, or taxi drivers, but ... oops, a robot will soon be doing those jobs. So maybe they can join the 'service sector' as nursing-home care assistants and waitresses. As this happens, expect more disruptive, violent behavior from this layer of society, of which mass killings Nicholas Cruz-style are only the most dramatic manifestation. Anyway, I think this is a problem worth discussing.
  2. Note also: the traditional family is fading away among whites, especially in the lower classes. This phenomenon has been the subject of several books, in particular Hillbilly Elegy, by the conservative writer J.D. Vance. It's a book well worth reading, if you want to get an idea of what's happening to the family and some hints as to why it's happening. For the symmetrical Black phenomenon, which occurred a generation earlier, look at When Work Disappears, By William Julius Williams. I do not say that the loss of good blue-collar jobs is the only determinant here. No doubt the 'sexual revolution' of the 60s played its role, by eliminating social disapproval of sex and childbearing outside wedlock. [And how we young men of that time appreciated this change!!!] (The academic theorizing of lunatic ultra-feminists was more an effect than a cause of this ... just as young men became unconnected to steady, financially-rewarding work, so a major part of the academy became unconnected from reality.) The only question of interest, as usual, is 'What Is To Be Done?'. Conservatives, of which I am one, need to look again at the role of the state here. Reflex responses to the idea of 'government-provided jobs' -- i.e. that they are always a dreadful interference with the free market -- may not be the right one, in this situation. It's always dangerous to go directly from general abstract principles, to immediate tactical decisions. The United States has had, since the end of WWII, a Keynsian permanent government-stimulus to its economy, in the form of massive defense spending. Might it be in our interests now, to undertake something similar, but in the civilian sector?
  3. Let's say that the 'traditional' nuclear family (which supplanted the really traditional extended family) is found the least, where it is needed the most: among lower-class Blacks. (And I don't think feminist indoctrination had much to do with it These changes, which are occurring very widely, are in response to something happening much deeper and more fundamental than scolding by academic ideologues -- the latter are more an effect of these deep changes than they are a cause, although there is no doubt a dialectical relationship.) We're not going to change that, and we're probably not going to change the drift of young people towards not getting married. In the middle-on-up layers, this is not so terrible ... going the other way, it is. So we are either going to have to live with it, or try to come up with ways of replacing the functions of the traditional family. I have no idea how to do that. If the US had infinite money, I would experiment with making the local school more of a total Community Centre, with free 24 hour a day quality childcare, well-stocked libraries, computer rooms (censored), etc. But I know we need to spend our money on more aircraft carriers, airplanes than can fly backwards, not to mention little expenditures like the few million dollars a year it takes to pay the salaries of the 200 soldiers in Germany working for 'Africa Command'. [I mean, imagine what a mess Africa would be in if the US military didn't have an 'Africa Command'. Absolutely vital, I'm sure.] So ... we live with it. This means trying to help everyone possible to attain the living style of the intelligent young people taking up their well-paid jobs with Google and similar big corporations. Don't pay any attention to their scolding lectures about how the rest of us are all racists, homophobes, etc ... just watch how and where they actually live, and try to emulate that. You can be sure they live as far away from urban ghettoes as they can, and in 'gated communities' or the equivalent, if possible. Their workplaces and probably their private schools will be protected by armed men. They're much more intelligent than their white racist Republican-voting social inferiors, and we would all do well to pay them the compliment of imitation.
  4. And I suspect there is a serious overlap between 'mental illness' and 'upbringing, influences, etc', i.e. 'the environment'. I wouldn't argue with the proposition that 'character can often be adjusted through changing the environment'. In fact, I'd leave out the qualifying 'often'. And we have to be careful about that term 'mental illness', by which I take it you mean 'internal' biological factors that are not the fault of the individual. I'm sure these are real, but we are at present so deeply ignorant of how the brain/nervous system works, that we can mainly just speculate. [In 1965, a mass shooter went up into the University of Texas tower and killed 13 people, including a casual acquaintance of mine, firing over open sights (and NOT using a scary-looking assault rifle). (He was a former Marine and knew his business, and would no doubt have passed any conceivable background check.) An autopsy revealed a small brain tumor, but no one has been able to show that this was the cause of his behavior, which, as I recall, remains unexplained. In any case, we could no doubt eliminate a lot of criminal and sub-criminal behavior, if we could provide the right environment: two loving parents who apply the right mixture of unconditional love plus discipline, no serious financial worries for them, ie. stable employment at a decent wage, no surrounding bad examples to model on [read Judith Rich Harris's The Nurture Assumption for an eye-opening review of how important the peer group is in shaping behavior], a school that doesn't tolerate bad behavior and teaches real knowledge [for those interested, have a look at a unique educational experiment going on in the UK, among children mainly from deprived backgrounds: http://mcsbrent.co.uk/ ] I recently read a paper supposedly demonstrating that 'impulsiveness' has a genetic link, but that impulsive behavior can be overcome if you're raised in the right environment. So the question is, how to provide the 'right environment'? We know that the effects of the admirably-motivated 'Head Start' program fade out after a few years, unless the program is continued. If you are the child of a single mother who is a drug addict, living in a neighborhood surrounded by similar people ... what program can we imagine that can overcome that? Children raised in such a toxic environment are going to have a massive cultural deficit, and it's ridiculous to blame schools for not overcoming it. And this is just the 'easy' cases: I think that most of the mass shooters came from rather more complex backgrounds. So, yes, not easily addressed. (Just like the problem of dealing with, if you wanted to, all the literally several hundred million firearms in the US.)
  5. And what do you think about Question 2?
  6. Here'are two questions for both sides to answer, which, I hope, gets at the bottom of this debate: 1. Should young men who make threats of lethal violence, or who commit non-felonious crimes, or who threaten or assault other students in school, or who threaten their teachers ... should they receive punishment, or counselling, or what? Let's agree that there are degrees of all of these, that whether it's a first-time offense vs a repeated one, that other aspects of the situation have to be taken into account [did his mother just die? did his teacher tell him he was incorrigibly stupid and ugly? did the fellow he punched steal his girlfriend the day before?] ... but having agreed that, what should happen to someone who falls outside the first-time, mitigating circumstances, etc area? Is the school obligated to keep him on? Should the police overlook it when he's caught with a knife? To put it concretely: does there come a point when the person involved has to face serious unpleasant consequences for his behavior? 2. Whatever regimen you propose in answer to (1), should it apply equally to everyone, regardless of their race?
  7. One other point about Left and Right and intelligence. 'Liberals' vs 'Conservatives' as a useful analytical category is a very time- and country-specific one. It is most applicable to the US, in the post-war period. As very general terms -- meaning 'eager to make big changes to the status quo' and 'not eager to make such changes' they can be applied to other countries and periods, but with very different political implications: thus 'conservatives' in post-Soviet Russia yearn for the return of Communism, or at least an equivalent strongly authoritarian/nationalist sysgem, and 'conservatives' in Iran, for the retention of the Islamic Theocracy [cheered into power by the Left at the time on the grounds of its 'anti-imperialism'], whereas 'liberals' in both countries want them to become liberal democracies similar to Europe and the US -- the notional goal of mainstream American foreign policy for the last 30 years, most vigorously carried out by neo-conservatives. [The stated goal of most conservatives, and certainly of the 'neo-' variety, is the spreading of 'liberal democracy', not 'conservative republicanism'. Interesting.] But in general, societies divide along tribal lines (in a word, race, sub-race or religion). If a country is unfortunate enough to have serious diversity, with no single tribe having overwhelming power -- usually held in proportion to its proportion of the population, except where there is a large cultural difference between tribes, which allows a numerically-small tribe to dominate a larger, more backward, one -- such countries tend to be very tense places, with especially nasty civil wars in their pasts and futures, or even going on at the present. Where this is not the case, or not strongly the case, societies divide along classical Right and Left lines: the Successful vs the Unsuccessful. And in general, the Successful are more intelligent than the Unsuccessful. Thus, if, in Germany in1925, you had sampled the IQ of the Socialist- and Communist=supporting miners, dockers, steelworkers, etc., and matched it against the landowners, businessmen, professionals, white-collar workers [the mainstay of Nazism a few years later] ... you would have concluded that Conservatives are more intelligent than Leftists. (Despite the fact that the intelligentsia, not tied to a superior place in the economic system, often tends towards radical utopianism, which is usually a project of the Left.) But their Conservatism didn't come from their superior intelligence, it came from their estimation of their material interests, and whether these were best served by non-socialist parties or socialist ones. American politics is a bit crazy, because we have in the US neither straightforward tribal divisions, nor straightforward economic ones, but a mixture of these, with the added issue of 'culture' ... the latter is ultimately a question of material interests but not directly. However, I suspect this is a historically passing phase, a kind of 'luxury' allowed by America's swiftly-declining position as world Top Dog. If the Left's insistence on 'identity politics' continues, we may see the white population matching the ethnic minorities in beginning to think openly in terms of their own racial interests. The needs of the Cold War, and the horrible example of what happened to the Germans when they did this, has meant that a large effort has gone into educating Americans that their multi-racial country has transcended tribal politics, and that thinking in terms of "my people" where "my people" are whites, was absolutely taboo. (No other ethnic group adopted this, of course.) If this changes, it will not be pleasant. The future is going to be VERY interesting. (Get your AR15 and plenty of ammo while you can.) A footnote: if we manage to seriously wreck the advanced countries of the world in this century, it will be a tragedy beyond all the lost lives. We are right on the verge of becoming the subjects, not the objects of history. Let the scientists continue their work for a few more decades, and, for example, the issue of 'intelligence' and what groups have more of it than what others, will be moot: all our children will be given the 'genes for intelligence', as well as the genes which control other desirable human behaviors, such as non-impulsiveness. Just avoid a big war.
  8. Intelligence is a valuable thing, no question. It's unevenly distributed among social classes and tribal groups around the world, but how much of that is due to 'evolutionary' (ie genetic) causes, and how much is due to a myriad of social influences, is an open question. (Not an open question for most liberals and the Left, however: there, it is a matter of passionate purely religious faith that all peoples have equal potential intelligence, and any manifest differences in intelligence are due to racism or sexism or capitalism or .... something, anything but nature.) However, intelligence is not the same thing as wisdom. Nor is there one wisdom for everyone. For example, some of the very most intelligent people in Europe (and, to an extent, the US), believed strongly, in the 1930s, that a wonderful new society of social progress and equality was being built in Stalin's Russia. A pro-Soviet attitude was more or less the default among European intellectuals. Were they stupid? Couldn't they read? They were not stupid, and they could read, probably in several languages ... but raw intelligence by itself is not enough to come to an understanding of reality. (Not to mention that in pre-Hitler Germany, the Nazis were popular on college campuses, where the upper-middle class students felt threatened by Germany's Socialist and Communist working class, but, like all young people, were open to radical ideas.) And ... it may have been the case that for some people, a Communist transformation of their country would have benefitted them personally. It's probably pretty galling for someone with a PhD in literature to have to teach high school, while his classmate who went into business becomes wealthy. Under Communism, the resentful teacher could expect to the see the tables turned. And today, if you're a well-educated young person headed for a cushy job with a big corporation, who can afford to buy a nice house or rent a posh flat in a gated community or an exclusive area of town, the social realities of living next door to immigrants from the Third World won't affect you, unless you hire them to be nannies or to clean your toilets. It's a different thing for your social inferiors further down the economic scale. You benefit from globalization, but they may not. For you, playing around with drugs and a liberal attitude to sex is harmless -- some psychedelics, some casual hook-ups -- further down the social ladder, drugs mean crystal meths and ruined lives, and a relaxed attitude to sex means single mothers with no support form their long-gone impregnator. This is the real reason for the popularity of fundamentalist Christian churches out there in 'fly-over' country: they provide solid anchors for people who want to lead normal lives. So all of you very intelligent liberals ... try, for a few minutes, to put yourself in the place of the conservative lower classes you despise. They're not really conservative because they're too stupid to parse the late John Rawls' Theory of Justice, but because they judge that the things the intellectual class believe in (or pretend to believe in) threaten their well-being. And they probably also how many people with a degree in Feminist Anthropology could install fibre-optic cable or fix an air-conditioner or deliver a lamb at 2 am. Or ask yourself this: would the world have been better off if the desire of the French intellectuals to see France go Communist had been realized, or was the real intelligence located among the French peasantry?
  9. Doug1943

    For any old Hippies here

    When you're young, you're idealistic and naive. Today I can't believe how naive I was when I was in my teens and 20s. Even fairly extensive experience of the real world and real people, in the Army and in military prison, didn't pull many scales from my eyes. With respect to the Doors, and music in general: I find the music of that period absolutely wonderful, magical ... but ... I wonder if it was because I was young. I still today feel very nostalgic when travelling in the countryside of California, Oregon, and the West in general ... very powerful emotions which I cannot explain to friends who were not there. 'Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven.' But then ... America was King of the World, and despite not being able to impose its will in Vietnam, it was a country most of whose inhabitants had little to worry about. Things have changed radically since then, and seeing the internal moral decay, the downward economic spiral, coupled with the rise of China, which will inevitably push the US into second place (at best), not just economically but militarily .... I wonder if future generations will view post-war America as a lost Golden Age.
  10. Australia has compulsory voting. Don't vote, you get fined. Australia has a conservative government, and conservatives have ruled Australia more often (in terms of days in office) than the socialists have. (Although the Australian Labor Party has been neo-liberal for decades. Genuine socialism is as dead as the dodo.)
  11. Doug1943

    LBJ killed JFK

    Oswald was almost certainly mentally ill. He was also a Marxist who had defected to the Soviet Union, and a member of the Young Peoples Socialist League and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (neither of which supported individual terrorism). He joined the YPSL in 1959 (the same year I did, in fact), before Kennedy was elected. John F Kennedy won the election (leave aside ballot box stuffing in Texas and Chicago) in part because he accused the Republicans, who had held the Presidency for eight years, of allowing a 'missile gap' to open up between us and the Soviets. From the Wiki article on the subject: The Wiki authors are being polite towards Kennedy here. Kennedy was an unalloyed Cold Warrior. He brought us to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 (and we would probably have had one, except for the sanity of a Soviet submarine officer); he approved the Bay of Pigs invasion; and supported a campaign of terror against the Cuban regime. (It's more rational, although almost certainlywrong, to put his assassination down to angry Cuban exiles, or the Cuban regime itself). From the Wiki article on Operation Mongoose (the terror campaign against Cuba). I'm saying these things were good or bad, but they blow to smithereens the idiotic view that Kennedy was some sort of premature Bernie Sanders. I won't go into his economic policies, which were basically Keynsian -- moderate deficit spending, which means borrowing not taxing. In fact, Kennedy was in favor of Tax Cuts -- in 1963 he proposed to slash income taxes from the Eisenhower range of 20-91%, to 14 to 65%. He also proposed cutting corporate taxes by 5%. In fact, I've more than once read nostalgic conservatives writing that JFK was really a conservative.
  12. Doug1943

    A Well Regulated Militia...

    I went to a firing shooting range in Los Angeles (near Pasadena) a few years ago -- I was surprised to find that about half, perhaps more, of the people there were Asians. Were they just following a hobby, or were they planning for an American future in which they would need to defend their property from redistributionists? I didn't ask.
  13. Doug1943


    Oh yes, one more really important point, for the person who started this post: it's extremely irresponsible to use the equation "abortion = murder". It's this type of thinking that sends religious loons out to kill abortion clinic medical personnel. After all, if I knew of some place where children were being taken and murdered, then I would feel a strong compulsion to destroy that place, and if necessary, kill the murderers of children working there. But we all know that fetuses are not children. But if you actually believe that "abortion = murder" with no qualifications whatsoever ... then why aren't you killing the murderers? It's exactly the same argument that applies to the idiots who blabber that "Republicans are Nazis" ... well, if we are, then they should join anti-Fa and attack and even kill us. But of course they don't ... they just don't care what they say, since they don't value clear thinking, not being able to sustain it themselves. But conservatives should not follow them in this.
  14. Doug1943


    That's right. It's a "category mistake" to talk in an unproblematic way about "humans" here, because there is a smooth, seamless transition from sperm-attached-to-egg, all the way to, say, you and me. At one point along this transition, we start using the word "person". As a kind of courtesy, we extend it to newborns, but in reality they are far from being full-fledged "persons". This is why we are generally quite lenient with young mothers with post-partum depression who kill their infants. If they killed their ten-year-olds, we wouldn't be so lenient. The ten year old is really a "person", a "human", and the speechless helpless infant ... not so much. Choosing when we think it's okay to kill the creature that is growing along this continuum is to some extent arbitrary. We'll soon [decades not years] have the technology to allow the blastosphere to live and grow into a fully-fledged human being, completely outside the womb. So the criterion "ability to survive outside the womb" will have to be scrapped, to allow us to kill experimental embryos, as we do now. The real criterion is this: how much do we identify with the thing we're thinking about killing? The more it looks like us, the more squeamish we are about killing it. So we certainly don't want to deliberately kill a one week old baby (except as a necessity of war, of course), but we're lenient with the depressed mom who does so. But once it begins to walk and talk .... that is, once it begins to really be something we can identify with ... then it finally gets the extension of our protection. This same reasoning also applies to our different attitudes towards killing chimpanzees, our genetic cousins, vs killing, say, rabbits. By the way, I think that because I'm a conservative, you think I am anti-abortion. An easy mistake to make, but , I'm not. In fact, I'd like to see a government policy that paid low-IQ and other genetically-deficient women serious money to have abortions (and of course pay them not to have offspring in the first place), just as I think we should pay high-IQ women to have as many children as possible.
  15. Doug1943

    A Well Regulated Militia...

    The Rifleman information is interesting. Thank you for posting it. But one thought: if you're giving people information on the use of weapons in case of civil disorder, you need to include stuff on actual combat shooting, which is likely to include many more scenarios than hitting a stationary target at a known distance. Stuff like walking your rounds up into a target (for those who are not really good 'one shot-one hit' people), not staying in one fixed firing position for too long, pre-figuring good firing positions with both concealment and cover, having all avenues of enemy approach covered (with each squad member assigned an overlapping arc to cover), etc. Another point: guys who like guns will spend many hours and thousands of dollars perfecting their skills. But in an 'armed citizenry' scenario, you want people who aren't going to do this, still to be able to handle weapons competently. So you'd want your wife or girlfriend, or work mate who's not really into guns, to be able to become reasonably proficient in loading a magazine, inserting it, cocking the weapon, and getting rounds off in generally the right direction. It only requires a few hours practice doing this, but there is a big difference between someone who has never done it, and someone who has. And -- in my opinion -- you start them off with a little .22 with no recoil and not much sound ... and cheap ammo so they can shoot all afternoon at a range without busting their budget ... then work up to something more serious. And I wouldn't bother with handguns -- not much use in real combat -- until they were comfortable with long arms. And above all ... safety, safety, safety. It's the unloaded gun that kills. However, the real difficult thing ... and the thing that is most uncertain ... is, what kind of scenarios are you preparing for? If it's just the periodic Watts riot by drugged-up lumpens, over in three days, then the Koreans on the roof of their grocery store thing doesn't require much preparation. Civil society is still functioning in the white and Asian areas, you probably have enough food to last thru the riot, the toilet works, and so on. Probably the most-overlooked thing here is the legal side: being prepared for lawsuits from the relatives of the would be looters and rapists who happen to catch a bullet. Knowing what counts as self-defense, what evidence is admissible in court, etc. will be important. (Drag the bodies indoors, give them a weapon or something that looks like one -- a toy rifle -- if they don't have one, etc... and don't be filmed doing it if you can help it.) But for something approaching the Mad Max Apocalypse, then the important thing is to going to be your social organization, supplies and stores, backup, medical, comms, and above all multiple plans.... an order of magnitude, or two, more difficult to organize because there is no parallel 'civilian' arrangement which can just be converted to a semi-military situation. Which is, I suppose, why it's mainly religious cults which are best prepared for this. And on the other hand, I think "preppers" have a fantasy vision in which they are alone (with a beautiful woman , of course) in their well-stocked isolated cabin up in the Sierras when five or so M13 bad boys walk up the road and get knocked over by the lone prepper. In reality, it will be the well-organized, the people who can mobilize, in an organized fashion, dozens, or hundreds, of fighters who would survive. BUT ... NONE OF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN!!! THIS IS JUST AN EXCUSE FOR EVIL REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE/NAZI/RACIST-FASCISTS TO OWN GUNS. GOOD LIBERALS WILL DEFINITELY NOT OWN EVEN A SINGLE GUN. NOR WILL THEY LET THEIR CHILDREN PLAY WITH GUNS. FOR A WHITE PERSON TO OWN A GUN IS IPSO FACTO PROOF OF RACISM!!!! IT'S A DOG WHISTLE!