Briggs beat me to the punch with this one. Guinness, Heineken, and Sam Adams Brewing pulled their sponsorship from the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade for the Ancient Order of Hibernians’ refusal to allow sexual preferences to be worn on the marchers’ shirt sleeves. And here you thought those companies just sold beer. What they mean to sell is cultural change. I prefer my beer straight, thank you very much. Boycott Sam Adams, Heineken, and Guinness… and any other company that isn’t greedy enough to just sell us their damn products!
Also, it’s not easy designing a test that is at once capable of discriminating between the smart and smarter as well as the dumb and dumber. That’s what the SAT does. That’s all it does. If SAT-makers have to modify it to maintain a preordained level of discrimination, then that’s their business. If you need your pants let out because you’re getting too fat, please don’t shoot your tailor.
In other SAT-related news, if you are going to be poor, do have the good sense not to be white.
Jim pretty much puts Global Warmism to bed—the religion, not the science. Not that there was ever much science there. Sure, in theory there could be a climate science, but not while it remains subservient to a religion that insists upon orthodox answers via “peer review”.
SoBL has a 6700 word history of northwestern European outbreeding. It’s about a lot more than outbreeding: not least the role of the Church in European history in bestowing legitimacy to secular rulers and thereby relative peace to their domains. Secular enforcement of the Church’s ban on cousin marriage appears likely to have contributed to national, vis-a-vis tribe or clan, feeling and loyalty on a scale unprecedented in Western history.
Paul Gottfried casts light on The Decline® with The Academy Then and Now. A taste:
A widely held view in the national press and certainly among academics is that we’ve come a long way in overcoming prejudice. Presumably we’re now more open to a wider variety of opinions than ever before.
According to this narrative, all social institutions, including universities, once writhed under the weight of accumulated bigotry. Students and professors felt muzzled and were unable to express unconventional insights that clashed with the sentiments of the master class. Now, however we live in an age of greater openness and candor.
…
As a professor of forty years, however, I never perceived this progress in the way instruction was given and received. Indeed, my impressions are exactly the opposite.
What I noticed by the end of my career were students reeling off politically correct (PC) slogans they picked up in other classes instead of responding to my questions. They were not more intellectually curious and receptive to controversial ideas than in the past, but markedly less so. There was no longer any need for students to think critically, as opposed to feeding back to the instructor what were the prescribed, memorized positions.
Regarding the faculty, scholarly discussions have mostly been replaced by absorption in procedural minutiae and over-the-top statements about sensitivity. Many younger professors exhibit indifference toward even minimally original research. By the time I went to my last faculty position over twenty years ago, I found some of my most intellectually stimulating encounters were over lunch with the grounds crew, talking about college football.
The present is an increasingly dull province of the past.
Empathologist is great here:
She [the daily “How was your day?” factfinder] explains that she was compelled to find issues with her husband, that she was compelled to reinforce her spiritual superiority and his fallibleness compared to hers. She was compelled to condemn and to nag… ultimately to fix him.
A quick poll of friends open enough to share confirmed for her that this demon seems to be camped out in married women. Keep that in mind when you read about this craving for open communication…
Related: What she doesn’t know probably won’t hurt her. Oh man have I had that conversation.
Feminism is Empathological is hereby added to the blogroll. (Ta Da!)
More anti-Cartesion deliciousness from The Social Pathologist:
Now, masculinity and femininity need to be seen to be seen as akin to “house plans” the proper expression of the plan may be frustrated by disease, mutilation or neglect. Shoddy workmanship or material may impinge upon the expression of gender and therefore gender deficiency needs to be seen as a privation of instantiated form. The interesting thing here is that this privation of gender assumes a moral dimension when it is deliberately chosen. In other words, deliberately making yourself less masculine or feminine, either through neglect or by choice, is an evil. Caritas imposes a moral duty to stay true to our gender type.
Mangan punches back against HBD extremists who don’t seem to realize that heritability in Big Five personality traits doesn’t amount to destiny in 18 year-old pornstars. Parents do matter. If they didn’t, why would nature (and culture) have worked so hard to try and keep them around? They are, of course, not everything.
John Glanton has a fine piece up at Theden, in which he does not deny white male cis privilege, but defend it. Also some mediations on his blog on positive civilizational psychological adaptations can too easily prove maladaptive in the current disorder:
What were they doing over there in the first place? What finer point of shady international geopolitics did they go to war in the desert for? This is what I mean by exploitation. And the generally honest, dulce et decorum desire of young Southerners to be useful to their country, to be brave and honorable men renders them particularly vulnerable to that exploitation. They march willingly into the meat grinder for a capitol that despises them.
Briefly and extremely well put: Fuck GDP.
Gromar reviews National Review… so you don’t have to. He also ponders why clever people argue dishonestly for their side. Sound like anyone you know?
The link to The Hestia Society for Social Studies (HS3) is up over on the right side. Bryce tried to explain to me what it was about, but he uses awfully big words. I hope it will be a sort of primordial Neoreactionary institution. It is, at minimum, an attempt to consolidate the brand by bringing leading advocates together in pursuing long term research efforts. Is the Antiversity? It could be. I am a “Writing Fellow” there, which is quite flattering. When I find out what that means, I will explain further.
OK. That’s all I got time fer… Keep reading Theden and oh… go over and checkout the Hestia Society. And Keep on Reactin’. Til next week… TRP over and out.
Thanks Nick
LikeLike
Class status explains the Duke girl and her regrettable decisions. It is not “parenting” per se, but a failure of said parents to understand their actual class status vs. what they believed themselves to be.
More traditional adherence to hierarchy in her parents would likely have still left the world with a clever but neurotic girl, but one that likely would have done something more ordinary like have a baby (or marry, or even both, honestly) young. Not all of those choices are a good idea, but not even being a teenaged single mother would have been as bad as her current regrettable circumstances. As it is, she is moderately unlikely to complete her education at Duke and has a non-trivial chance of still ending up an unwed mother before thirty.
Parenting for those who are serious about tradition is also about understanding, knowing and accepting one’s proper place. They could have parented more effectively along secular dimensions had they not been deluded about their class status.
LikeLike
Thank you for your nice words and I’ll likewise add your link to my roll. Since this is my first visit here,beyond my 10 minutes of due diligence I do not know if you will soon be dumping state secrets across some intranet or maybe wearing white shoes after Labor Day, so we’ll see how it goes. Similarly If I do any of those things, cyber dump me.
LikeLike
@SoBL: Not at all. You’re doing great work over there and at Theden.
@empathologism: Our secrets are of the anti-state variety, and we’re not stupid enough to transmit them over teh interwebz…
@UW: I doubt that any one thing explains how things go this wrong. We’re dealing with thin (but growing) tails of distributions. Neurosis is obvious. Not all neurotics cut. Not all cutters cut “FAT” on their thighs. Not all who cut “FAT” on their thighs decide to do hard-core abuse porn at 18. She claims to have stopped cutting for 5 years ago. That puts her last cut at 13. She says she carved fat on her thigh because her “boyfriend dumped” her and said she was fat. Parents can stop 13 year olds from having “boyfriends”. I know. I have. She first watched porn at 12. Parents can control that and other social media, by draconian means if necessary. I know. I have. And when at age 18 she does hardcore facial abuse porn in her “debut”, she “acting” with a man whose “size” is at least 1 sigma above mean, and takes it without gagging significantly. IOW like a pro. A bit of speculation (until her book comes out), but I suspect she was blowing boys by no later than 14, and got popped no later than 16. Parents can prevent most of that. I know. I have.
Sorry for the NSFW.
LikeLike