At it again

Here's an HBDer, OneSTDV, showing off his racism...

"For those who don't speak nigga-ese, that means Trayvon punched a (school?) bus driver, a line of authority crossed by only the most unhinged of adolescents."
 

Again, More on the HBDer

Race is Fundamental
As I stated in an earlier post according to HBDers the notion of race is of vital importance to their world-view. Just in case you aren't clear on what the acronym HBD stands for it's Human Biodiversity. So race is fundamental in how they would develop their political system and culture. Some HBDers in the beginning tried to paint the HBD community as detached "scientists" that put out results and then let people decide on the right policy or cultural prescriptions. However, that faded quickly and one HBDer, Onestdv, sums up what the HBD community is composed of now.

"I've fully admitted that my disseminating knowledge of HBD is for political purposes. HBD is probably a misnomer, but it's caught on. What most people mean when they say HBD is really bioconservatism.

But we can't really go back and change the name. It's already entrenched. The fact that you believe anyone has even implied that "HBD" is an unbiased examination of scientific evidence shows you either don't read any of the blogs or you enjoy attributing statements to people that have never made them."

So what does the HBDer Onestdv mean by "bioconservatism," well he means...

"It would probably be more appropriate to deem the cohort of HBD blogs as "bioconservative" as many champion the notion that knowledge of racial differences will engender a conservative renaissance."

That still isn't really that clear, but the main notion is that they want to use biology to justify their version of conservatism. This is problematic for a couple reasons, but since it's not the main point of this post I'm not going to discuss it.

Statistics
Most HBDers love to throw out statistics and proclaim, imagine a whiny voice, "You leftists just don't understand statistics." Actually, no, that is not it. Instead it is the HBDers that are jumping the gun. Showing someone statistics of behavior really doesn't mean anything. What they are really trying to say is that these statistics are capturing the innate behavior and tendencies of people. That's really the questionable part. It's understandable though. Why? Because people have tendency to think that using mathematics tends to make their argument more "real."

It's almost like on some internet forums where you have people saying, "I'm using logic for my argument and you are using emotions." Of course, the implication is that the fact they are using logic makes their argument correct. What they really mean is that they are constructing an argument that is logically valid so it must be sound. Anyone who knows logic knows while validity is important it's only half of the equation.

Here's a perfectly valid argument using a hypothetical syllogism

If you are drunk, then you are flying.
If you are flying, then you are God.
Therefore, if you are drunk, then you are God.

lulz. While some drunk people might feel like God. No one who has any ounce of rationality would consider this a sound argument.

The Appeal to Secret Commonality
What's the appeal to secret commonality? It's this belief that a vast majority of people are secretly HBDers and the only reason they are not chatting about "the brutality of the negro" in coffee shops is because of liberalism and political correctness.

The first problem with this is that there is no data corroborating this. Or in other words, what's the justification for this? You could easily replace "the secret belief of HBD" with any other belief like people secretly want the Catholic Church to overthrown the United States government. Then proclaim, "But they are just denying it because it's too unPC!!"

The second problem is that let's suppose that there are some people that do have these HBD beliefs and don't know it. After all, some people will legitimately have positions that are consistent, or seem consistent, with a belief in X but deny it. Or in other words, a case of cognitive dissonance. So when this contradiction is exposed there are really only two options the first is to reject the belief in X or acknowledge X.  Of course, the inevitable response from the HBDer when the person says, "Whoa, I didn't realize it, but I reject those beliefs.", will be, "But they are just denying it because it's too unPC!!"

So as you can see according to the HBDer there is no way that anyone cannot believe in HBD. I would also like to add that some HBDers also paint this secret belief as some kind of folk knowledge. Of course, the funny thing about this is that historically folk knowledge has an abysmal record. Does anyone still believe in folk physics? No.

I don't know why HBDers use the appeal to secret commonality. I think it's less of a position they find to be true and more of a psychological pick me up.

Goodbye Forever...Hopefully

So when making the usual browse through the HBD blogosphere I came across OneSTDV's blog and how he is quitting blogging. The very first sentence immediately popped out at me.

"I started this blog almost exactly two years ago because I was sickened by the mainstream PC-addled discourse."

Yes, two years ago and if you look at his archives you'll notice, more or less, he's had a post every day for the last two years. So why would anyone so committed to blogging on HBD issues suddenly give it up? The two most prominent reasons that I can think of are, 1) can no longer blog (due to lack of access), or 2) Realized the futility of what he is doing. I think the second is precisely reason.

Most people that are extremely committed to something do not all the sudden give it up. In reality, I think he realized how much a waste of time HBD blogging was and realized there are better things to do.

To help illustrate my point,

"But it can't give you meaning in life. Writing a blog or justifiably grousing about the latest liberal inanity does not satiate one's soul. It doesn't make you excited to get up in the morning. It doesn't make you feel alive. It can't compare to meeting a pretty girl, upping your max bench press after months of training, or having your father genuinely tell you he's proud of you."

Sounds like there is a little bit of existential angst in there too. I take this section of his paragraph as more or less admitting HBD blogging was rather useless in the grand scheme of things.

The next paragraph he also realizes something else,...

"In the past few months, I've lamented the growing pessimism of the Alt-Right, especially the fags in the Manosphere who wax hysterical about marriage..."

I think this is the realization that these two spheres are more connected than they are separate and the reactionary pessimism and in some cases straight up hostile bitterness grew too much for him.

"I've completely failed in doing anything that would bring something besides standard, but ultimately vapid success. If we find happiness not in the cubicle, but in our homes, amongst friends, then I'm not on the right path."

Perhaps this is an admission of a deficient social and maybe romantic life. It's also a realization that working and HBD blogging aren't cutting it.

"Basically, I'm just worn out, in part due to blogging itself and in part due to some things that have happened in my real life recently. This has nothing to do with getting caught (I've never told anyone about this blog)..."

I would assume if he got caught he would never admit this was what happened. After all, I think to admit that he got caught and must now stop blogging is saying that he's embarrassed about his views. 

"And finally I really have no clue why I've attracted even one hater. I guess if you countenance a traditional America dictated by the founding principles and people, then you're an incorrigible and reprehensible racist. ... So I never cared about the dumbasses, and really, besides maybe two liberal interlopers, every single hater has been literally stupid or mentally disturbed. The Internet is full of idiots who like to puff out their chests. Of course, I understood why I'd attract some of these individuals, but it still perplexes me a little."

He has no clue why he has attracted one hater? I don't know what he means by hater though. In his view a hater might equal a critic. I mean, let's do a little review...we'll call it OneSTDV's greatest hits.

"Thus, infant formula allows liberals to once again subvert the natural order (though, as always, there are negative consequences) and the family which underpins our societal stability."

Every time a mother or father uses baby formula they are promoting the collapse of western civilization. Of course, formula has been used for over 50 years so I guess this "prediction" is a 500 year one.

Another good one,

"Turns out a girl who makes a show of being a role model for young girls is already riding the carousel barely out of 10th grade.

That would be the birth control Seasonique."

Ah, yes, the great reasoning of it necessarily follows that if she's on birth control then she's promiscuous.

"We're [America] not the recipients of a Manifest Destiny or the singular arbiters of the good; we're [America] merely a base and selfish brand name unworthy of its exalted status."

Again the classic, "It's manifest destiny we are God's Warriors." As I wrote in the post when I originally addressed it, America is a country, or nation state, and similarly it has interests and goals, like others, that are sometimes questionable morally. To think we are some blessed nation that's been ordained by God to be the "singular arbiters of good" is rather bizarre.

These are just some of the "lol wut" material of OneSTDV if you want more just read any blog post of his.

So now the question is, will this leave of absence be permanent or not?

As I stated earlier, if this is a realization of how much a waste of time HBD blogging is, then yes, it will be permanent or semi-permanent. Semi-permanent means he'll eventually come back but only blog very infrequently. Maybe one a month, or once every two months...something like that.

Either way, I say good riddance.

EDIT: Wow, a long 'I Quit' post only to be back four days later. At least this reaffirms the kid is a joke. I'll admit though, he trolled me good though.

Ron Paul

An HBDer wrote this about Ron Paul,

"Ron Paul announced that he is running for president. He has no chance of winning even the Republican nomination because he lacks gravitas. One blogger wrote yesterday that he sounds like an “angry constipated chicken.” That’s not the image of someone who can win a national election."

I don't think it is necessarily his lack of 'gravitas' that dooms him as a candidate. Instead it's the fact that he's a libertarian, even though he's a cultural conservative, and most republicans are not libertarians. Similarly most people in the country are not libertarians either.

Edit: After looking more at Ron Paul's positions on issues I've realized that he's not really a libertarian. His rhetoric and talking points come off as libertarian, but his writings and what not do not seem consistent with libertarian principles. A better description of Paul is a constitutionalist conservative. 

More on the HBDer

Take a look at some of the stuff you'll find on HBD blogs, for example....

"(I exclude far-leftists because they really only discuss why America is horrible and why it should end.)"

"The left has been on a 50 year crusade against the natural family."

"Thus, infant formula allows liberals to once again subvert the natural order (though, as always, there are negative consequences) and the family which underpins our societal stability."

Now that's funny. Infant formula is liberal plot to undermine the family and consequently collapse western civilization. lulz.

"Yet the organized atheist community has a palpable leftism that parallels the religious edifices of modern liberalism."

"Basically, by rejecting traditional religion and then blaming religion for all the world's ills, atheist have no choice but to be leftists."

"The Liberal has the actual, and I might add divisive, position that people of European descent needs must be discriminated against."

"For example, the Liberals have the position that men should be discriminated against,..."

"Liberalism is not based in reason, but in selfish emotion."

"The formulation of America as a shining beacon doesn't sit well with the relativistic left who not only see America as a toxic force, but also avoid denigrating failed nation-states common in the (eternally) developing world."

Some of these statements you have to wonder if these people are intentionally being inflammatory or if they are actually thinking like this 24/7. I think it's more of a psychotic break from reality.

I mean if some HBDers want to behave like a pundit fine, but don't consider yourself serious then.

Here's another that's amusing...

"Turns out a girl who makes a show of being a role model for young girls is already riding the carousel barely out of 10th grade.

That would be the birth control Seasonique."

Yes, because everyone knows that it necessarily follows that if she's on birth control then she's promiscuous.

Another one that caught my eye, not necessarily a fallacy...

"While I've praised Miss Swift as a wholesome individual, it is not her personal actions that define my characterization."

lulz wut? Yeah, so it's not the individual behavior or characteristics of Swift, but instead her public persona that he praises. So I would say in this case it's incorrect to talk of her being a "wholesome individual" but instead it should be about her wholesome public persona.

facepalmintoOblivion.jpg

Dat Dere God

"Does America still have an identity - a narrative defining its inherent character?"

Does America still have an identity? Yeah, it's a country. Hmm..."a narrative defining its inherent character?". I think that depends who you ask. Some will say American is a WASP country and deviation from that is bad and others will say America is a mish-mash of people and cultures. Others will simply state that it's a constitutional republic or representative democracy.

"With the extant culture war picking up steam, one wonders about the importance of nationalism in maintaining America predominance. Admittedly, from a logical standpoint, nationalism represents a vapid ideology generally embraced by those eager to coopt others' achievements. But the pragmatic needn't always conform to the logical and in this instance, one could argue cogently that nationalistic memes sustain civilization."

Nationalism is more so about having a national identity and promoting that national identity. One could also argue cogently that nationalistic memes destroy civilizations. Also the use of pragmatic is questionable and essentially saying, who cares if it's true, who cares if it makes no sense, all I know is that I like it and it can serve a purpose towards some goal, so why not?

"In general, any palpable narrative consumed by the masses must involve some concept of divine providence. It is this moral supremacy that foments loyalty to the cause and dispels skepticism amongst potential dissenters. Given this often successful sociological strategy, the military has unsurprisingly been at the forefront of such transparent displays of religiosity. If we send these men to die, we better inculcate them with the idea that their sacrifice is worthwhile, that they're fighting on the right side, that they hold the moral high ground. By punishing those that did not attend the concert, these military officers protect the groupthink mentality that underpins presumed American virtuousness."

Divine Providence? Really? It's the old "We are doing God's Work" justification. Yes, it "dispels" skepticism because as we know no one ever questions how do we know this is actually what God wanted and how do we know there is any God to begin with? Plus the assumption of dogmatism within faith is questionable too. I think more people would question then merely accept it as just so. The next couple sentences are just an application of his pragmatic principles.

 "A Republican candidate weighs in on how this relates to the larger culture war:"

Of course, he quotes some republican who essentially creates a false dichotomy of atheist or christianity. The republican is essentially repeating the false dichotomy of the cold war of "godless commies" or "christian capitalists."

"Of course, the left eagerly repudiates American morality. Their opposition to this transparent display of Christianity in the military derives from the idea that America rarely takes the position of moral good. To deconstruct a national narrative, one starts by destroying the mythic folklore of the nation. We're not the recipients of a Manifest Destiny or the singular arbiters of the good; we're merely a base and selfish brand name unworthy of its exalted status. Based on this mendacious premise, the left argues for extirpating this supposedly morally empty nation."

LOL. American morality? What exactly is this? Is there a French Morality? America rarely takes the moral good? Depends who you ask and on what context. For instance, a non-interventionist libertarian would have opposed the intervention of America in WWII and similarly a liberal would have supported it, granted these aren't for all x statements. Of course, we aren't the recipients of manifest destiny nor are we the "singular arbiters of good" which is pretty laughable. America is a country, or nation state, and similarly it has interests and goals, like others, that are sometimes questionable morally. To think we are some blessed nation that's been ordained by God to be the "singular arbiters of good" is rather bizarre. However, considering his fondness for the practical it's no wonder he believes it and uses it.

Again this kid, Onestdv, is being nutty.

Cultural Center near Ground Zero, pt. 2

I shouldn't waste my time with this, but oh well...

"My original intention was mere to defend, on moral grounds, the now fully born opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. The Left has framed any forthright censure of the project as xenophobic and unjustified; I was primarily concerned with offering a counter argument based on the practical effectiveness of nationalism and patriotic symbolism:"

It was a meager attempt. Many would also doubt the "practical effectiveness of nationalism" and cite WWI and WWII as instances of nationalism and if they wanted they could throw in the conflicts in Former Yugoslavia too, just to name a few. The patriotic symbolism is empty too.

"Further, leftists purvey the specious claim that any opposition tacitly castigates all Muslims. This romantic statement ignores the inherent ethos of Islam, a religion premised on military conquest and a Holy book rife with diktats to that end and lacking in allegorical sentiments that now underpin Christian liberalism. But ignoring the sickening argument of America's culpability in the attacks, Muslims undeniably did it. Opposition to the mosque doesn't impugn all Muslims, but simply notes the correspondence between the attacks and the religion that supported their actions."

The last sentence is pretty funny.

Notice he states, "…and the religion that supported their actions." So, Islam supports terrorist actions. Then it should follow that all muslims support terrorist actions.

P1) All Islamic people support terrorist actions
P2) All muslims are islamic
Cn) Therefore all muslims support terrorist actions

Aside from that many would claim the first premise (P1) is false and the conclusion (Cn) would be too.

This ties in with his second sentence which he claims he knows the "true" nature of islam, or in his words, "This romantic statement ignores the inherent ethos of Islam,...". How he comes to know this"inherent ethos" is beyond me, but I would assume it would probably be based on a literalistic and fundamentalist viewing of islam. If that's the case then I really don't see why other religions would be exempt from a literalistic and fundamentalist approach. Plus I also think any sort of justification for this would probably end up being ultimately question begging.

"Basically, mosque opponents view this as an unnecessary symbolic gesture. Perhaps the mosque's backers repudiate this extreme ideology, but nonetheless, you can't fault people for making the trivial jump given such an emotion charged situation. Is it logical? Maybe not. But again, reductionist and naively philosophical thinking ignores the primacy of emotion in our personal and national lives."

Uh...yes we can fault them. I also lulz at the, "Is it logical? Maybe not." comment. Of course, it isn't logical it's like saying Some X believe Y therefore All X believe Y. I assume we are suppose to ignore that so he can make his "point." However, going back to my previous paragraph, he already believes that all muslims support terrorists. His last sentence is a straw man.

"A nation must maintain a cohesive narrative and spirit to prosper. It must imbue its citizens with an unshakable patriotism and a collective loyalty, pragmatic values that admittedly don't always vibe with rigid logic. Allowing a foreign entity to erect such a structure implies we no longer have that backbone. It showcases the complete enervation of our national solidarity. It illustrates how we've lost the ability to differentiate between ourselves and our nation and that of another peoples."

"Cohesive Narrative"? I assume this probably means ethnic identity. Also again with the spirits? Really? "Unshakable Patriotism" sounds downright dogmatic. "Collective loyalty" isn't anything unusual under a nationalist framework. The rest is kind of blah blah, but the "foreign entity" comment is weak. What exactly makes muslims or islam a "foreign entity"? However, since he's a nationalist I assume he has his own vision of the national identity, more likely based on an ethnic identity, of America and islam or muslims don't belong so they would be rejected as inherently un-american. His last sentence helps support that view point.

"The mosque fits squarely in with this gradual decay of American sovereignty, commenced with the degradation of private rights and now continuing with the stigmatization of any conservative view as well as the political and popular glorification of foreign peoples. The elite have perverted the American narrative, once a celebration of our singular success, morality, and daring, into a globalist doctrine that consciously denigrates the Republic's creators and fully lacks a cultural tradition. This paradigm demands we ignore our own emotional desires because a foreign entity intends to insensitively trample on them. And a nation that sees itself merely as a vehicle for others, a nation that has no loyalty to its own peoples or traditional institutions, is doomed to fail due to its own divisiveness and delusional Marxism."

Blah blah blah. This whole paragraph pretty much reinforces my earlier points. I got a good chuckle with the throw in of "Marxism" which seems to be a standard cry anymore.

"The solution is rather simple. Protest this until they can't handle it and then outlaw Muslim immigration."

Well at least it's clear where Onestdv is coming from and that is ethnocentric nationalism.