George Scialabba's Stupid Review of Jonathan Haidt's Stupid Book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

If you want a good laugh, get a load of George Scialabba's review of Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" in the Boston Review. Though no fan of Haidt, I must say Scialabba unwittingly validates Haidt's thesis more than his silly mind can ever fathom.
Early in the review, Scialabba summarizes Haidt's ideas thus: "Experiments repeatedly show—-to oversimplify only a little—-that we all believe what we want, regardless of reasons." In other words, as Haidt succinctly puts it: "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second."

As if to go out of his way to prove this thesis, the liberal Democrat Scialabba writes, rather gratuitously, later in the review: "Republicans cheat a lot. The Nixon campaign attempted to forestall a peace agreement in Vietnam in October 1968 that, had it succeeded, might have won Hubert Humphrey the election. The Reagan campaign allegedly attempted to delay the release of 52 American hostages held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran until Jimmy Carter had left office. A Republican Supreme Court awarded the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. The Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry in 2004, financed by Republican donors, was based on lies, while the CBS 60 Minutes report alleging Bush’s evasion of National Guard duty was substantially true, despite a firestorm of successful Republican denial. The dirty tricks of Republican operatives such as Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are too numerous to catalogue. Currently Republicans across the country are busy with voter-suppression efforts under the deceitful pretense of combating vote fraud. No doubt the Democrats are hardly political innocents, but compared with the Republicans, they are hapless pikers. Yet, oddly, the Republicans’ godly supporters do not object to this ungodly behavior."

"Democrats are hardly political innocents, but compared with the Republicans, they are hapless pikers."
Rotfl. My beef is not with the assertion that Republicans cheat a lot. Rather, the notion that Democrats are 'hapless pikers' when it comes to political dirty tricks makes me wonder what planet has Scilabba been on for the last 70 yrs? It's a clear case of using 'strategic reasoning' to buttress one's own political biases.
Democrats 'hapless pikers'? Does Scialabba know about how Kennedy won in 1960? Maybe he never heard about the Daley political machine in Chicago. Does he know anything about the political history of Lyndon B. Johnson? How he got where he got and how? Does he know about all the dirty tricks pulled by FDR during his 12 yrs of presidency? Or the Gulf on Tonkin Incident?
Surely, Scilabba knows that most big city politics--where the power and wealth are concentrated--have been dominated by Democrats. Does Scialabba really believe that the Democrats who've run places like Chicago, NY, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and etc are 'hapless pikers' when it comes to politics compared to Republican politicians of the suburbs and small towns? Is he really this naive about the role of Irish in big city politics? Or the collusion between liberal Jews of Wall Street and New York city politics? Were Daley and Koch able to run Chicago and NY for so long because they were 'hapless pikers'? What about Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois? Just another hapless piker, I guess. How about Clinton's sleazy career? The endless lies, selling of influence to Chinese, backroom dealing with Wall Street's globlalist Jews, and his pardon of Marc Rich? Reagan got in hot water in the late 80s for accepting 2 million from the Japanese, but liberal Democrats seemed to be impressed by Clinton racking up over 100 million since he left office. And how about Al Gore who reaped billions by having Obama's administration feed tons of cash into his 'green' ventures?

I do not defend the Republicans and their dirty tricks though, to be clear, the GOP has been dominated by Zionist neocons since the early 90s, i.e. the both parties are essentially run by globalist Jews who are the real masters of cheating.
Consider how Jews 'serving under'--more like 'lording over'--Clinton and Bush II rigged the system to allow Wall Street Jews to rake in huge fortunes. But when it went bust in 2007-2008, Wall Street Jews(socially liberal and economically 'conservative') got 'bail outs' from both Bush II and from Obama. And where were the media, the so-called Fourth Estate, on all this? Well, the media are also owned by globalist Zionists. And did Hollywood make truly critical movies about Jewish power in Wall Street? All we got were tepid movies that tended to HUMANIZE all those anxiety-ridden Wall Streeters.
Hollywood is more worried about North Koreans invading America(in RED DAWN remake) or Muslims abducting American women(TAKEN and TAKEN 2) than with the real power in America that happens to be globalist-Jewish. Did the government go after Wall Street crooks? Why would it when both parties depend so much on Wall Street for campaign donations. Obama, the 'hapless piker', filled his economic team with Wall Street insiders to be in good graces with the Jewish elites.

Yet, Scilabba the gutless liberal says nothing about Jewish power but bitches and whines about Rove and Atwater. Yes, Rove is a low-down dirty pig, and Atwater was a shark--though his Willie Horton ad was correct, factual, and justified; the real shame when it comes to black crime is the liberal media establishment has done everything to bury it; instead of calling black crime by its name, blacks are referred to as 'teens' and 'youths'. If white youths went around beating up blacks, the liberal-dominated media would be calling out race. Even when the Hispanic Zimmerman defended himself from a black thug, the media spun it was 'evil white guy attacks innocent black kid'. The weasels and liars in the media--of which Scialabba is a part--are certainly no hapless pikers when it comes to cheating, deception, and mendacity. Willie Horton ad was to the point because it was about a black guy overpowering a white guy and raping a white woman. It is a racial FACT that blacks are tougher, stronger, and more aggressive than whites, and therefore whites do have much to fear from black aggression. And this can be seen in blue states where most white liberals try to live apart from most blacks. Not many wonderful white liberals taking advantage of cheap rents and housing costs in Detroit. Gee, I wonder why. Most white liberals may denounce Atwater, but deep in their hearts, they act with Atwaterian instincts about race.

Michelle Malkin is a total partisan when it comes to politics, but she hits the bull's eye on this one:


And Ramzpaul makes much the same point in this video:


Even if we assume that the GOP cheats MORE than the Democrats, why would this be? Maybe they need to cheat more since most of the major institutions cheat on the side of Democrats? After all, much of politics is driven by the media, and something like 95% of journalists are liberals or leftists. 90% of the media are owned by Jews, and most Jews are liberal. And even most neocons are essentially Jewish social liberals who use the GOP for Zionist and Wall Street interests.
Let us assume Kennedy was cleaner than Nixon. But Kennedy had the media on his side. The media covered up for Kennedy no matter what he did. But the media were out to get Nixon from day one. Nixon was 'paranoid' about the media, but the media were 'paranoid' about Nixon. More recently, the media have served as Obama's propaganda wing, portraying him as the neo-messiah and then the gay messiah. In the 2008 election, the liberal media knew all about John Edward's affairs but kept it secret so as to make him steal white votes from Hillary, thereby helping Obama. As for Obama's links to the Far Left and lunatic Jeremiah Wright, MSM initially buried that story, and when it finally leaked out, covered it 'objectively' without any sensationalist rhetoric, thereby preventing it from 'gaining traction'. But imagine if the GOP candidate had Far Right ties. MSM would have foamed at the mouth, like they did over Buchanan's convention speech in 1992.

According to liberal MSM, if one goes after the Far Left, one's being 'McCarthyite'. But if one goes after the Far Right, one's being 'courageous'. So, liberals get to attack any conservative for far right ties, but conservatives are not allowed to go after liberals with far left ties. This is how the game is rigged. Many more people's lives and careers have been ruined by witch-hunts for 'racists', 'sexists', and 'homophobes' than have been ruined in the so-called 'witch-hunts' for communists. While McCarthy did abuse his power, liberals seem to forget that the more grievous abuse of power happened under FDR and Truman when many Soviet spies were allowed to gain access to all levels of the US government, culminating in the passage of atomic secrets--the most carefully guarded secrets in America--to mass murderer Stalin.
But somehow, that is considered a less evil than HUAC's search for communist subversives. Why is our understanding of history so twisted and corrupt? Because history departments are dominated by liberals and Jews. Since many of the suspected communists of the 40s and 50s were Jewish, Jews have rewritten history so as to make it seem as though it'd been a case of 'innocent' liberals--oh those hapless pikers--set upon by monstrous 'red-baiters'. In the liberal mind, passing atomic secrets to a communist tyrant who killed 15 million is less grievous than blacklisting some Hollywood writers for a few yrs.
Of course, the very liberals who were for 'free speech' back then are now pushing for 'hate speech' legislation since they have all the power. What need for free speech protections when Jews own government, Wall Street, media, law firms, courts, etc? Now they want to shut down free speech of people who are critical of Jewish power.

The real dichotomy when it comes to dirty politics is not Republicans vs Democrats but Jews vs gentiles. We gentiles are hapless pikers compared to Jews. Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews colluded to give us the Iraq War. The Jewish dominated media spread the lie that the Iranian president wants to wipe Israel off the map when he never said any such. Jews preach about equality to the rest of us when, in fact, they are the most powerful and privileged people in America. Under both Democrats and Republicans, American history of the past 30 yrs can be summarized as "Jews get richer, goyim get poorer." Jews denounce racial stereotyping, but Jewish Hollywood fills the screens with Zionist war porn that dehumanizes all Muslims as terrorist subhuman. Though black crime is a daily reality in America, most criminals and thugs on the big screen are 'angry white males'. Jewish Hollywood make movies like RISING SUN and the coming remake of RED DAWN to spread yellow peril paranoia in order to distract us from Jewish power.
And Scialabba, the lying liberal, lacks the guts to speak truth to Jewish power. Jews have, of course, rigged the game so that anyone who speaks critically of Israel or Jewish power shall be blacklisted or destroyed, like Rick Sanchez or Helen Thomas. It's okay for Jews to scream about THOSE Russians, THOSE Muslims, THOSE angry white wasp males, THOSE yellows, THOSE Mormons, and etc, but we cannot say THOSE Jews. Why, that would be 'antisemitic' and you'd be a 'Nazi'. Jews in the media bitch about 'white privilege' when, in fact, the real power and privilege in this nation are concentrated among Jews, followed by gays. It's okay for Jews to shout 'white privilege'--connotation being US is ruled by wasps--, but imagine what would happen to a white gentile if he or she yelled 'Jewish privilege'. He or she would be cast out of positions of power forever.

The proof that white gentiles are hapless pikers compared to Jews can be seen in white conservatives. Most Jews are liberal, Democratic, and anti-conservative, but white conservatives are the biggest fans of Jews, Jewish power, and Israel. Jews spit on white conservatives, but white conservatives want to worship and serve Jews. Indeed, if one really wants to understand Jonathan Haidt, one needs to consider his Jewishness. His lukewarm endorsement of conservatism has really nothing to do with philosophical thesis. It's really about Zionist interests. Haidt is worried that the rising numbers of global leftists, blacks, and browns in the Democratic Party may not be amenable to Zionism and Israeli interests. After all, what if blacks and browns identify more with oppressed non-white Palestinians than with European-Jews who rule Israel? And among Mainline Protestant churches and some members of the academia--and even in the pop culture world--, there's been increasing comparisons between Israel and South Africa under apartheid.
Then, it's not surprising that Haidt would have warm feelings for someone like Sarah Palin, the pro-Zionist political porn star. A man as intelligent as Haidt cannot possibly respect a dodo like Palin for her intellect or ideas. What he likes is her blind commitment to Israel, her insane worship of Jews. In this respect, Haidt's partial turn to the 'right' is much like David Mamet's, whose turn toward 'conservatism' is also largely fueled by his Zionist interests.

Another reason Haidt has made himself prominent as a 'liberal Jew with friendly feelings toward conservatives'--and indeed has been promoted as such by the Jewish-controlled MSM--is because Haidt, along with many Jews, are worried that white conservatives may be waking up to the fact that Jews really hate them. Since Jews are behind Obama, illegal immigration(to increase non-white numbers so as to play 'divide and rule' among various goyim), the ridiculous 'gay marriage'(if 'same sex marriage', why not 'same family marriage' or 'incest marriage'?), political correctness, and etc. Also, Jews run the foreign wars but all the dying are done by gentiles, most of them white gentiles. If white conservatives wake up to the real nature of Jewish power, they'll stop rooting for Israel and start taking a critical look at Jewish power. So, Haidt puts himself forward as the liberal JEW who has learned to LOVE conservatives. And some conservatives are dumb enough to fall for this con game worthy of David Mamet movies.
Haidt plays the rational philosopher/psychologist of morality, but his real motives are tribal-Zionist.

-------------------

"Experiments repeatedly show—to oversimplify only a little—that we all believe what we want, regardless of reasons. Changing one’s views in response to an opponent’s arguments is about as rare as an honest member of Congress. (Cases of both are known, but only a few.) Arguments are largely instrumental; they are meant for attack or defense. Most of the time, we argue like lawyers rather than philosophers."

This is only true on a short-term basis. If you sit down with someone and try to change his/her mind with reasoned argument, it's not going to be easy, even if you're right. Part of the reason is the matter of Ego. Oftentimes, the person is not so much resisting the argument as resisting the domination of one's ego by another person. Children don't like to admit they're wrong even when they're wrong.

But there are many instances where people's views can change very fast. Especially in cultures known for authoritarianism, people are more likely trust what is told them by the authorities. How else does one make sense as to why so many Germans turned to Nazism so quickly? How did so many Russians and Chinese swallow communism(an alien/radical idea) almost overnight? In some cultures, there is a kind of master/student structure to relationships so that even if the student may disagree with the master, he will feel great pressure(both inner-psychological and outer-social)to change his own views to conform to that of the dominant authority.
Such is less likely in the US where individualism is a core facet of life. But then, America isn't just about individualism but popularism, which isn't the same thing as populism. Popularism is the desire to be popular and be liked, to feel a part of whatever happens to be cool and trendy. Thus, mass culture can change people's views and values very quickly. 20 yrs ago, most Americans would have said NO to 'gay marriage'. But ever since the airwaves have been filled with 'gay is cool', 'gay is beautiful', 'gay is saintly', 'gay is hip', and 'gay is the new straight' celebrations and propaganda, a whole lot of Americans are now for 'gay marriage'. So, it's not necessarily a case of "we all believe what we want" but more a case of "we all believe what THEY--the controllers of mass media--want us to believe."

Or consider the mentality of team sports. In highschool, suppose students are divided into several teams. Members of one team will form a bond very quickly and feel as a close-knit group. Each tries to play well to be liked by other team players. If the team members are switched around, kids will feel disoriented for a day or two. But a new powerful bond will form very quickly among the new groupings. So, the mortal enemy can suddenly be your best friend. Europeans who hated one another in Europe quickly became one people in America. Ancient hatred vanished almost overnight because everyone watched John Wayne movies together and rooted for the same Team America. Red China was the worst nation on Earth as far as Americans were concerned in the 50s and 60s. But when Nixon met Mao--and with US media portraying a happy and healthy China under communism--, American view of China changed almost overnight. They were our 'friends' against those evil Rooskies.

If reasoned conversions can sometimes be difficult, emotional conversions can be instant. Many non-believers have instantly become Muslims or Christians. Why? They were feeling down in their lives and the sudden acceptance by a community of religious people made them feel at home. If you're an agnostic or secular Arab immigrant in America and feel alienated from everything, imagine coming upon a Muslim community that embraces you. Instantly, you feel 'at home' even if you're in America. You may instantly wanna be part of that faith. A lot of hippies who burned out from too much drugs became born again Christians almost overnight.

There is also the power of sensual conversion. Take Rock n Roll music. Many white conservatives hated it, and some even called it 'nigger music' and denounced Elvis as a 'white nigger'. But it wasn't long before Elvis was embraced by white conservatives as a good southern boy with charisma and talent. And white leftists generally disdained popular music as 'capitalist'. White leftists jeered at Dylan for going electric or 'commercial'. In their eyes, he went from a loyal Jewish leftist to a Jewish capitalist. But Dylan's electric music was so good that even most leftists began to embrace him again. And Muhammad Ali, the 'nigger troublemaker' of the 60s--the man who opposed the war in Vietnam--became the icon of American patriotism in the 70s, traveling around the world as the goodwill ambassador of America, even shaking hands and taking photos with dictators and tyrants chummy with America. Leftists who praised him for his anti-Americanism were praising him for his pro-Americanism.

There are two kinds of values. Values in sync with human nature, values in opposition to human nature. This was the flaw of communism. Despite its having created generations of people sincerely indoctrinated in communism, people wanted to feel free as individuals. So, when the time came, it crumbled overnight; even diehard communists seem to morph overnight into liberal democrat capitalists.
Communism came to power by tapping into certain aspects of human nature. Humans are naturally envious and want what others have; and people love easy scapegoats. Communism offered land and bread and scapegoated capitalists and the old elites. So, communists rode the waves of human nature to victory. But once in power, communists banished all freedoms, and it wasn't long before communism was in opposition to human nature--there may be only one human nature but it has many facets, e.g. human nature is for both love and hatred, for both individuality and community, for both power and servility, etc.

Rock n Roll and its related values/attitudes conquered America(and much of the world)because it was so much in sync with human nature turned on by sex, thrills, youth, narcissism, will to power, and excitement. Since culture carries values, embracing rock n roll also meant one embraced values/views/attitudes one may have disdained earlier. And this can happen quickly, almost dramatically. Such is the power of seduction. Why was it that Germans and Japanese who'd committed their lives to fighting to the last man in WWII almost overnight became pro-American democrats? It wasn't just the defeat and agony. It was American chocolate bars, American pop culture, and American culture of freedom. Japanese who'd been bowing down before the Emperor were bowing down before MacArthur and Marilyn Monroe. Germans who not long ago worshiped Hitler as the greatest man of all time were rocking to Elvis in the 50s.

Sometimes, it may seem as though people's minds don't change much because the labels remain. For instance, take the Chinese Communist Party. It still goes by its old name, still commemorates the founding of the People's Republic, still uses Mao iconography, stills plays the Internationale, and etc. But today, what is it really? It's a nationalist party that has made peace with capitalism and capitalist giants all over the world. So, everything changed, but the fiction remains that China is still ruled by 'communists', and since most Chinese are obedient to the party, we can maintain the fiction that China is still 'communist'.

Same can be said for the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' in America. Liberals of yesteryear would not recognize today's liberals. Same with old conservatives and new conservatives. The GOP used to be the party of Lincoln. Today, it's more the party of Neo-Confederacy and Neocon Zionists, or Neocon-federacy. Conservatives used to be anti-big-government, but Nixon greatly expanded welfare and Bush II did nothing to make government smaller; if anything he made it bigger. (An average conservative would rather side with a Republican politician pushing a liberal agenda than with a Democratic politician pushing a conservative agenda. Same goes for liberals. Clinton did a lot of 'conservative' things, but he was still hated as 'that dirty liberal'. Bush II did a lot of liberal things, but he was still hated as 'that dirty conservative'. Nixon is remembered for his Southern Strategy, but he also attempted the Liberal Strategy. By expanding welfare, government, and affirmative action, he hoped to win over liberals and non-whites. But they still saw him as the 'arch conservative'. Labels matter.)

Democratic Party used to be the party of white ethnics, working class, southern farmers, and etc. Today, Democratic Party is essentially the Jewish-and-Gay party, what with nearly 80% of Democratic party funds coming from those two groups who make up maybe 4% of the population. Since 2/3 of the superrich are Democratic and since Democratic Party relies on Wall Street as much as GOP, Democrats have been major pushers of globalist free trade, especially when New Democrat Clinton signed NAFTA.
And the idea of 'gay marriage' would have been laughable to most Democrats even 20 yrs ago. Indeed, leftism used to see homosexuality as a decadent 'bourgeois' disease, not least because so many gays were into fancy and privileged things. If anything, fascism was chummier with homosexuality than communism was, that is until Hitler and Himmler made their move against Ernst Rohm and his gay-led S.A. If Rohm had prevailed over Hitler, Nazism would have been a full-blown gay-led movement. Leftists often used to attack Hitler as a closet-gay, mocking his 'gay' gestures and manners. So, just how did leftism and liberalism become synonymous with the gay agenda? Today's liberalism and leftism aren't yesterday's liberalism and leftism.
But the label remains. And as long as labels remain, there's the fiction that the 'right' and 'left' dichotomy cannot be changed since most people are so locked/trapped in their ideological fixations and certitudes. But in fact, conservatives changed so much over the years that they are no longer like conservatives even 20 yrs ago. And liberals changed so much that they are no longer like liberals even 20 yrs ago. Even many Republicans are clamoring for 'gay marriage' and saying it's 'conservative' to have gays marry since marriage is conservative. And liberals now love billionaires as long as they fund causes like 'gay marriage'.

At one time, the hallmark of liberalism was a total commitment to free speech. Today, liberalism is defined by political correctness and 'hate speech' legislation.
At one time, conservatives used to argue for censorship against communists, subversives, and perverts. Today, feeling the pressure of the liberal-dominated media, academia, courts, and government, conservatives are calling for total freedom of speech. So, what is 'liberal' and what is 'conservative'? During the Bush II presidency, liberals marched endlessly and tirelessly against war. Under Obama, liberals are suddenly no longer anti-war, even as Obama rained down bombs on Pakistan and Yemen; even as he expanded the 'War on Terror' to Libya.

So, even as people cling to labels, they often change profoundly and quickly when it comes to values, attitudes, and views. They just don't know it because they are so enamored of their label. So, it doesn't matter if you're for Wall Street and 'gay marriage'. If you still go by the label of 'liberal', you are on THIS side as opposed to THAT evil side.

When Nice Isn't So Nice.

It's nice to be nice. We prefer nice people to rude people, and whatever personal feelings we may have about some people, we try to be nice with/about them  in public and expect others to be likewise. Of course, this is somewhat complicated by the fact that public life tends to bring out the opposite extremes of human behavior. While we are generally nicer in public, public life can also bring out the exhibitionist in us. People want attention, and saying crazy things or acting lewd is one way to get it--and lots of wealth as the cases of Don Rickles, Howard Stern, Sarah Silverman, George Carlin, and Eddie Murphy amply prove.

Our attitude about public life/behavior operate by a certain dualism. Public life is, on the one hand, the opposite of personal/private life, but it can also be the exaggeration of personal/private life. We know Howard Stern turns the 'facts' of his personal/private life into something more outrageous than they really are. In a way, the appeal of demagogues is their saying things that many people privately feel but dare not say. Thus, part of Hitler's appeal was the ugliness of his emotions. Many Germans harbored the same feelings but were too afraid to air them publicly as such was deemed lowly and vulgar. Hitler, on the other hand, dropped his inhibitions and aired his personal grievances. He may have fouled up the air, but there was a feeling of liberation in breaking wind that needed to be broken.

And this can also be said for Jewish personalities. Philip Roth's novel PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT is an ugly book, but it may have had therapeutic value as a public(or semi-public as novels are read individually) burst of Jewish hangups, obsessions, and grievances.

Same could be said of the works of Robert Crumb. They are ugly and foul but also 'liberating' in their public airing of pent-up private neurosis--which only seems fair since so much human complexes arise from social/public pressures.  One part of us wants to conform to the public demand of niceness, but another part of us rebels against this rule of niceness, if only indirectly, through art or entertainment. So, even though many people will not admit to certain neuroses or complexes publicly as individuals, they will laugh and agree along with a standup comic who spills the beans about their anxieties about race, sex, obesity, and other problems in a group setting. People do things on the Jerry Springer Show that they wouldn't do even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

And of course, on certain special occasions, the public pressure inspires unruliness and craziness, especially after sports games in certain cities. Canada has erupted in violence after hockey games, with even nice kids suddenly participating in barbaric behavior. And when blacks riots in American cities, even blacks who generally would not act in such manner act in such manner.

Anyway, the point of this piece is niceness used as a weapon, often deviously but sometimes sincerely/subconsciously. While being nice for niceness sake is nice, many people use the 'nice' to break the ice--and then to use the ice pick for the kill.
This is most obvious in salesmen, especially used car salesmen. They act nice like they've known you since childhood. They act so friendly that you might think it'd be rude if you didn't buy the car. They might even talk about their own family and sneak in some bits of bio, as if to make you feel guilty if you didn't trust them.

But not all uses of niceness as a strategy is so blatantly obvious. Consider Jehovah's Witness people who come to your door and act as though they wanna save your soul. Most of them are no doubt sincere in their spiritual compassion, but their use of niceness is to win you over.
In some ways, this use of niceness has been an evolutionary strategy, at least beginning with mammals--and perhaps even with birds. A newborn mammal whimpers and mews ever so cutely and 'nicely'. The mother's heart goes out to it, and so an attachment grows between the mother and its offspring. Even before humans conceptualized the meaning of 'guilt', mammals--especially mothers--felt a crude form of it emotionally. A lion mother would feel 'remiss in her duties' if she neglected her cubs. This bond is instinctive, but instincts are emotional, and emotions later birthed morality by mating with reason and logic.
This cute 'niceness' of mammal offspring can affect even other mammals that aren't its mother. Our hearts go out to a homeless dog or cat. When a stray dog follows you, you might feel guilty to shoe it away. After all, it's following you with such niceness. You feel heartless and rotten 'not to care'.  Some cultures not only suppress such feelings but reverse them. If Russians generally don't do much about their stray dog problem, East Asians will raise, torture, kill, and eat dogs out of  a dogged sadism--though there may be an element of masochism as well. All humans have some soft compassionate spot. When East Asians suppress and shame such feelings of compassion and treat dogs and cats horribly, they are doing violence to their good side of their nature.

When people act nice to you just to be nice, that's all very nice. Being nice is nice. But when they act nice really to push another agenda, you have to keep up your guard. And this goes for the niceology of both fanatical Christians and radical leftists & radical deviants(such as members of the homo community). Their niceness is often an act, the buttering of the bread before eating it.
It's not niceness as niceness but ASSOCIATIVE niceness. It's to fool you that 'since the person pushing the agenda is nice, the agenda too must be nice, and it must be un-nice on your part to reject the agenda since doing so will be rejecting the nice person.'

Associative niceness can be more dangerous than aggressive pushiness. If you push and threaten others, they will feel emboldened and justified in pushing you back. But if you act so nice, they might feel disarmed by your niceness and not fight back(even if they should). So, when Mexican illegals first marched with Mexican flags, it was not nice, and many Americans were angry and fuming with rage. Not surprisingly, the illegal lobby then instructed the illegals to march with American flags as if illegal immigration was as American as Apple Pie. It was the Saul Alinsky trick, whose Rules for Radicals was essentially to use Middle American niceness to undermine Middle American values. Since Middle America is nice, it won't do to act like 60s radicals giving middle finger to cops and acting like street thugs. Much better to put on suit and tie, smile a lot, and act more normal than normal(on the surface) in order to slip in the radical agenda.

Homos achieved more through niceness than through confrontationalism of the 60s and 70s. Of course, it helped that the AIDS epidemic wiped out many of the more aggressive homos, leaving the leadership to more sober and 'conservative mannered' types. Though wild gay style is still quite prevalent, the face of the gay community has been normalized and nicized. Thus, the Democratic Party has become the haven for homos, the group whose power is second only to that of Jews.
And even many conservatives have been won over by homos. Prominent homos with bright smiles, clean suits, and good manners go to conservatives with such niceness that many conservatives feel won over. They are apt to think, "That gay guy is so nice, he can marry my daughter", though, of course, the homo would rather bugger the conservative guy's son.

But then, niceness alone won't go so far. Niceness by itself can come across as weak and wimpy, and weak-and-wimpy gets no respect. So, the trick is to use sticks and carrots.  Some people with lots of power use only the stick and rule by fear, but fear leads to hatred and resistance.
So, smart power first uses niceness and tries to win by persuasion, all the while reminding the intended target that it's "an offer he can't refuse."  In THE GODFATHER II, the young Vito Corleone uses both the carrot of niceness and the stick of power on the landlord who evicted a woman because she secretly kept a dog. Vito smiles a lot and speaks softly. But the landlord realizes Vito is an important man in the neighborhood, and it won't do to cross him. Vito has the power but acts nice. Thus, he gets what he wants from the landlord, and the landlord is allowed the face-saving fiction that he changed his mind about the woman and her dog out of the goodness of his own heart.

The Gay Lobby and Jewish Lobby act the same way. They come to us with niceness, pleading with us to support 'marriage equality' or to 'save Israel from the crazy Iranians', but the real effectiveness comes from the unspoken but palpable threat that if we don't comply with their demands, they will ruthlessly destroy us. So, homos will come to you as  'victims' of 'social injustice' and ask for support. But if you don't support their agenda, you might not be able to do business in Jewish-and-gay-dominated cities like Chicago. Never mind the Constitutional guarantee that a man shall not be discriminated by 'race, color, or creed'. Your creed, ideological or spiritual, better comply with homo and/or Jewish demands because Jews who control the media, law firms, and courts will destroy you otherwise.

Or, a homo will nicely ask a beauty pageant contestant if she supports 'gay marriage', but if she says no, the full force of the Jewish-and-gay-controlled media will dig up all the dirt it can find to destroy the woman's career and reputation. Jews will act so powerless and ask for sympathy for Jews and Israel, but if you criticize Jewish power and Israel, Jews will use their power to have you blacklisted from all institutions of power. Not long ago, William Kristol bragged how all the Paleocon 'Arabists' have been purged from the GOP. Imagine that, most Jews are Democrats, but they get to decide who can and can't serve in the GOP.

And it is for this reason that we need to be wary of associative niceness. It is too often 'an offer you can't refuse'.

Richard Posner on LUCK or Posner Is a Dirty Liar.

Just a get a load of the specious straw man arguments in Richard Posner's blog post on Wealth and Luck.

Liberals and conservatives tend to disagree about the role of luck in financial success, the
former thinking it plays a very big role, the latter thinking it plays a small
role: that instead financial success is largely attributable to talent and hard
work. Taken to its extreme, the second position is the one that was espoused by
the radical libertarian Ayn Rand.

This is not the core of the debate at all. Lots of liberals believe that hard work is at the basis of success, and lots of conservatives know all about the role of luck. If some kid is born to a billionaire, what conservative isn't going to say the kid isn't lucky? And conservatives are the first to say, "Life is unfair", meaning some people are naturally smarter, more creative, more athletic, better looking, and etc. than other people. And liberals know all about the role of effort in shaping one's position in life. Why else would affluent liberal parents invest so much time and money into raising their children? They know that their children must be drummed with the lesson that the game of success is intensely competitive.
Where liberals and conservatives differ is on the issue of how much the state should intervene to redistribute wealth and to fix social problems. So, even conservatives who believe that luck is important will say, 'tough luck' to those who aren't so lucky. And even liberals who believe in the primacy of effort will say the government should do more to take care of those 'left behind'.

Also, Ayn Rand was a big believer in luck. She never for a second believed that everyone was born equal and had equal chance at success through hard work. She believed that some people had inborn talent for art, making money, or what have you. In other words, life is unfair. Her contention was that since it's the rare individual genius who creates something new in science, art, and business, such people should be allowed maximum freedom to pursue their visions. She was not some Horatio Alger rags-to-riches peddler to the masses. She thought only very few individuals were born with the talent to become something great. But if they create something great, it will be good for mankind as a whole since we'll all have more jobs--though expanding business--, more great art, more great books, more great architecture, more better medicine, more etc, etc.

I don’t find any merit to the celebration of the tycoon by Ayn Rand and her followers.

Though I'm not a Randian, it's ridiculously simplistic to say she celebrated tycoons. She celebrated the visionary, and the visionary could be a starving artist or a rich businessman. She didn't admire people simply because they were rich. She didn't care for those who inherited wealth, and she didn't like people who got rich by colluding with big government. She wouldn't have cared for Wall Street sharks who've raked in billions by gaming the system.

She was for the visionary tycoon who builds a new business model or a great new product. She didn't so much admire the tycoon per se but the leap of imagination that could earn a man a great fortune. Some men simply have more drive, more imagination, more spirit, more will and determination, more ideas. And it is because America gave free rein to such men that it developed the greatest wealth on Earth. Russia has been comparable to the US in population and raw materials, but Russians remained backward because individuals didn't have the same freedom. And even though Stalin did develop Russia, he created a vast slave state.
At any rate, Rand thought even the Tycoon should bow down to the pure artist-visionary who compromises nothing, not even for a great fortune. In FOUNTAINHEAD, the rich tycoon admits defeat-of-will with the artist-visionary and surrenders his woman and fortune to the artist's greater vision.
I'm not a Randian because her views were too romantic. The world is a lot more complex than Rand made out; even so, Rand was a lot more complex than Posner makes out.

I think that ultimately everything is attributable to luck, good or bad. Not just the
obvious things, like IQ, genes that predipose to health or sickliness, the historical
era and the country in which one is born, the wealth of one’s parents, whom one
happens to meet at critical stages of one’s life and career, one’s height and
looks and temperament, to the extent genetic, and one’s innate propensity to
risk or caution (that is an exceptionally important factor); but also the
characteristics that cause a person to make critical decisions that may turn
out well or badly, characteristics that really are derivative from some of the
previously noted “luck” characteristics. The decision-determining
characteristics include intelligence, imagination, attitude toward risk, and
personality characteristics such as aggressiveness, maladjustment, indolence,
and having a low or high personal discount rate (how future-regarding one is or
is not). Talent is luck but so is the propensity for working hard (often the
consequence of a compulsive personality) or not working hard.

Posner is willfully being childish. He is confusing LUCK with ADVANTAGES. If someone is born smart, that is an advantage, not a luck. Luck would be if I was walking along and came upon a suitcase with a million dollars. But being intelligent means you may have the chance to make a million dollars, not that you will. Posner says being born smart is 'luck' and so is the propensity for being working hard. While it's true that some people are born with more advantageous traits, there is no guarantee that he will follow through with their advantages. After all, there are many people who go to good colleges but ruin their lives. And there are people who aren't born too bright nor with 'hard work' genes but they get their act together and make something of their lives. While genes determine a lot, there is no guarantee of anything in life. Not everyone born with athletic talent become great athletes.

Also, people born with certain advantages may become obsessed with something they are no good at. A person who could have been a great doctor may fall in love with theater and follow a hopeless career in Theater. What Posner is pushing is a kind of social predestination. He's not only saying that genetic and socio-economic forces greatly shape our lives but determine our lives right down the last nitty gritty detail.
It is a dangerous idea that reduces humanity to lab rats. Posner, like so many Jewish intellectuals, suffers from a hubris whereby he looks upon all of us as guinea pigs to observe, study, and control. Thus, we are not free, we have no free will, we are not owed our success(nor responsible for our failure), we don't deserve what we earn, and etc. Why? It's all LUCK according to his Theory of Everything. What arrogance!
If Posner really believes this, why is he a judge? Who is HE to pass judgment on anyone? Is he for the existence of the Supreme Court? Why should a 'lucky' few determine the laws of the land for everyone? I'll bet he's for the Supreme Court out of professional courtesy and because he wants to control our lives as much as possible. He is the one free human and we are all lab rats.
Following his logic, no one is guilty of anything since everyone's actions were just the product of genetic and social forces. Hitler was no evildoer. He was just a 'victim' of the forces that made him what he is. He didn't choose to invade Russia. He was 'pushed' by genetic and socio-economic forces. While I agree that Hitler cannot be understood outside his personality and historical forces, he did have a conscious mind. So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the rest.

I do not believe in free will. I think that everything that a person does is
caused by something. It is true, and is the basis of belief in free will, that
often we are conscious of considering pros and cons in deciding on a course of
action; “we” are deciding, rather than having the decision made by something
outside “us.” But calculation and decisionmaking are different. Deciding may
just mean calculating the balance of utility and disutility; the result of the
balance determines the decision. No doubt when a cat pounces on a mouse, it has
decided to do so; but the decision was compelled by circumstances—the feline
diet, the presence of the mouse, etc. A complete description of the incident
would not require positing free will.

Why does Posner think only in either/or terms as if the whole world is made up of simple binaries?
The idea of 'free will' doesn't mean we freely make all our decisions in every aspect. Of course, there are always circumstances, needs, natures, drives, and pressures we all have to deal with.
But why are US and Japan such different nations? While everyone had to deal with social forces and social pressures, isn't it true that some societies have allowed greater individual leeway in choosing one's profession,  hobbies and interests, love life, political views, economic decisions, and etc? Even if there is no such thing as absolute or radical 'free will', there is a lot more 'free will' under a democratic capitalist system than under a Stalinist-Maoist system.

In America, one may chosen to read this book this week, watch that movie the next week, go the museum the following week, and etc. In Maoist China, you had to attend political meetings because otherwise, you might end up in the gulag. And you had no choice but to watch propaganda films and only propaganda films. Even if there is no absolute 'free will', the role of 'freedom' works differently in different societies. In a free society, we may not be totally free, but we are more free in our 'free will'.
True, we can play a Kafkaesque game where it turns out that we are not really free, and there are all sorts of barriers between us and the Castle, and all sorts of forces that 'accuse' us of whatever. Ironically, Posner the Jew, as one of the guards of the Castle(he's one of the most powerful judges in America) is passing judgment on all of us, and accusing us that all our wealth and freedom don't really belong to us. Now, we goyim are like Joseph K.'s who must rely on the authority of the great Posner to find out if we are really free or unfree, if we really deserve what we earn or not. Even freedom is not free in the Posneresque world since everything that makes up our lives was due to some cosmic Luck.

Free will is especially important for men of great talent. There was no certainty that Orson Welles would direct CITIZEN KANE. At many points in his life, he had many offers to direct this movie, act in that movie, or direct this stage production, and etc. But he freely made certain choices. His choices took place with a certain socio-economic context, but he had more free will than someone in Mao's China or Stalin's Russia.
Posner compares a man with a cat, but a man is many times more complex than a cat. A man is self-conscious, which a cat is not. Man, in becoming aware of his conscious will, is 'condemned to be free'. And even if most people are part of the herd, some people break out of the mold for some reason, and an element of free will is involved.
Free will or no free will, there is no doubt that a society that allows freedom and a society that does not will end up with very different results, and those results will become part of the new social system of pressures. Consider how people in Eastern Europe had been drummed with communist ideology for decades but when they were allowed freedom of choice, they said NO to communism. I'm not saying each individual made a 'free will' decision, but the reason why the people rejected communism was it didn't allow the freedom of decision for individuals. Free people want the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.

If this is right, a brilliant wealthy person like Bill Gates is not “entitled” to his
wealth in some moral, Ayn Randian sense. But it would be ridiculous to infer
from this that the government should take his wealth away from him and scatter
it among the poor, on the theory that the only difference between Gates and a
poor person is that one is lucky and the other is not. But the reason that it
would be ridiculous is that it would have terrible incentive effects, not that
it would violate some deep sense of human freedom.

Posner's arrogance knows no bounds. He basically says we are not entitled to what we earn. We have no moral or ethical right to keep it, and the ONLY reason we should be allowed to keep it is because it will have negative 'incentive' effects; in other words, the ONLY legitimate reason is pragmatic.
Simply put, Posner sees us as dogs or horses. It's like saying a dog or horse should be given special snacks because the rewards will have incentive effect to keep them working for us.

So, if you start a business, work 12 hrs a day, and save up a small fortune, you are not really entitled to it. You should be allowed to keep your earnings ONLY BECAUSE it serves as an incentive to keep earning more SO THAT YOU WILL PAY MORE TAXES to support people who work in government like Posner. What an arrogant ass.
So, if you design a new computer and make millions, you don't deserve your wealth. YOU didn't do that. Your success was predestined or preordained by genetic and socio-economic forces. And so, the ONLY justification for letting you keep your wealth is because it serves as an incentive so that you will earn more in order to be TAXED MORE by the government that Posner works for.

Posner is really channeling the Old Hebraic ideal. Jews came in two forms: Prophets and Men of Profits. The old Jewish idea was that men of profit should work hard, earn wealth, and then pass over a chunk of their cash to the Prophets. Since Prophets were men of God and full of wisdom, it was only right that the crass men of profit should work hard and hand over their cash to the Wise Men. But hey, since men of profit won't work as hard if all their earnings were taken by the Prophets, they should be allowed to keep a tidy sum.. just as an incentive to keep working harder in order to earn more so as to pass over more cash to the Prophets.
What an arrogant ass. It's no different from Marx believing that he, as the prophet, should be funded by progressive men of profit such as Engels. Marx, like Posner, never worked at a real job in his life.
Posner sees us a hunting dogs. We hunt and bring him the prey, and he gives us a portion, and why? Because we suckers will keep hunting for more so he gets to eat while not working(at a real job) at all.
(Posner says he doesn't get paid much, but his greed is of another sort. Power. He wants to control our minds and our lives.)

To the likes of Posner, I say my earning is mine and I'm entitled to it cuz I freely busted my butt for it. I don't exist and work just to pay taxes to support your arrogant ass. And I will defend what I got with my gun. Live free or die.

P.S. All this discussion of Left vs Right or Liberal vs Conservative is just a red herring, and I suspect Posner knows it. The real problem of America isn't ideological divisions(as most conservatives are not Randians and most liberals are not radical socialists). What really ails out society is the ethnic power of Jews. Why were Jews on Wall Street able to get away with all sorts of high crimes? Why didn't the media go after them? Most of the media are owned by the same tribe. Six Jewish-dominated conglomerates control almost all of the media. And even American conservatism is owned by neocon Zionists. America's top law firms and elite judges are also disproportionately Jewish, and they also cover up for their own kind. Supreme Court has three Jews out of nine judges, and even Sotomayor is just a shill for liberal Zionists(as are most other judges). And the American government is heavily financed and controlled by Jews. What did Bush II and Obama do? They 'bailed out ' Wall Street. Both handed over economic policy to Jewish Wall Street insiders. Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin, and others are not Randians, but all they all colluded to cover up for Wall Street Jews because they too are insiders of the same tribe. And even though Posner acts like an independent mind, he too is of the Jewish tribal persuasion. And instead of discussing the REAL power in this country, he talks about abstractions about taxes and 'free will'.  Since elite academia are also controlled by Jews, and since most Jews, liberal or conservative, are for Jewish power and unity, there won't be any real changes in America(unless it's good for Jews). Jews are 2% of the population but 65% of Democratic Party funds come from Jews. 40% of GOP funds come from Jews. Though Israel has over 200 illegal nukes, we send it $3 billion in aid every year while a nation like Iran, with no illegal nukes, is economically strangulated like Stalin and Kaganovich strangulated and starved Ukraine to break its will and spine. But what did it matter? Ukrainians had no 'free will', and so nothing was really taken from them.

Is the Advance in Science & Technology Undermining the Egalitarian Ideal?

There are generally two schools of thought on the issue of social inequality. One group(mostly on the secular right) attributes it mainly to biological/genetic factors while another group(mostly on the secular left) blames it on socio-politico-economic factors. But most people, regardless of their political affiliations, are not purists on the matter. Even most leftists will agree that there are genetic differences among individuals--and some will grudgingly admit there may also be group differences, even if they reject the conventional concept of race. And even the so-called 'race realists' will admit history, environment, and culture must be taken into account.

Even so, what accounts for the rising 'problem'--if indeed it is a problem--of inequality in the world, not least in the modern West(and most notably in the U.S.)?  How did the egalitarian dreams of the early 20th century  become essentially hopeless by the beginning of the 21st century(if not earlier)? What happened to the vision of an American future where all races would finally be equal under just laws and remedial social policies?
There are many places to look for the answers, and the rise of advanced science & technology is one of them.

Social equality/inequality isn't only a measure of ability but of availability. Regardless of one's ability, one can only work within what is availed to him. So, if Sergey Brin had been born into a primitive society, he could have, at most, used his brilliance to fashion better weapons for hunting or digging for water. He might have won special rewards for his efforts, but his wealth wouldn't have been much greater than those of his tribesmen. He might have 100 clam shells while others on average have 50. He might have a better hut, but it would still be made of straw and mut. Even in the Middle Ages, special smarts would have taken a man so far. Before the late modern era, one's high status, power, and privilege in society had more to do with parentage than individual ability. If you were born to noblemen, you were a noblemen. If you were born to peasants, you were almost certain to live your entire life as a peasant. And this could be said of much of even the West even in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Because one's elevated status in society had depended on ancestry than ability for as long as anyone could remember, some Enlightenment intellectuals thought the problem of inequality was simply one of aristocratic privilege. If the children of all classes were given equal opportunity to learn and earn with knowledge and reason, they too would be able to rise higher in society. In time, the oppressed poor would rise and the undeserving rich(born into privilege)would fall; eventually, the two groups would meet somewhere in the middle.

But, this view was, at best, only half-true for it was based on a fallacy: since ancestral privileges had been the main agent of inequality for centuries(or as long as men could remember), removing those privileges would lead to equality. Of course, not every Enlightenment thinker fell for this fallacy. If one group, who would later turn to socialism and then communism, believed virtual equality would be possible for all men, another group, the Classical Liberals, understood that a new natural aristocracy would rise in the place of an old one. One variant of this view was called Social Darwinism.

But in an increasingly mass-oriented society, Social Darwinism couldn't appeal to most people; it sounded too grim, like the genetic version of the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination. In the 19th century,  it mainly appealed to the super-rich as it justified their newly attained wealth. The theory suggested the New Rich won the game of wealth and power on the basis of scientific principles that favored the intelligent and energetic over the dumb and/or lazy. But in time, even the super-rich grew less enamored of the idea in a world where mass opinions became increasingly important. Why arouse mass resentment by openly saying, "We are so smart and you're so dumb." And Social Darwinism couldn't have been very appealing to the traditional aristocracy in Europe that increasingly felt threatened by the rise of the bourgeoisie. Besides, in the fast-changing economy, one could as easily lose as win the game. So, if a rich man became a poor man, what did it mean? He went from superior to inferior overnight? Besides, if Social Darwinism was true, the superior super-rich should be having superior children, but many of the children of the super-rich turned out to be nothing special and unable/unwilling to be ruthless and driven as their parents.

So, regardless of whether a society was socialist/communist or capitalist/democratic, the ideal espoused by most people--elites and masses--was one of greater equality. Socialists/communists believed the state should  guarantee, even enforce, equality among the people. They didn't see themselves as working against human nature since they were convinced of the 'scientific fact' that most people are, more or less, equal. So, if there's great social inequality, it is the product of injustice, criminal activity, cheating, connections, corruption,  greed, and lack of scruples--and much less with differences in natural ability. (Later, when it became obvious  to people in communist nations some people are naturally a lot smarter than others, the new rationale for maintaining the communist system was that naturally superior people should work for the good of the whole than for 'greed' of the self. Similarly, even if the American Left were to admit group differences exist in IQ, it will likely come up with new rationales to push for equality: "Individuals/groups born with special gifts must work for good for the whole than for the self out of moral obligation. Since a gifted person didn't earn his natural gift but was 'unfairly' born with it, the fruits of the gift must be shared with those who were 'unfairly' not born with it. And in a way, this is already operative in today's society in a hushed manner. Obama and Sotomayor don't want communism--even if they had the means to turn America communist--because they would merely be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Instead, their real purpose is to keep whites, Jews, gays, and Asians working harder to produce more wealth to 'spread around', mainly to mulattos like himself. And the super-rich support Big Government because spreading some of their wealth around has the effect of buying off what might boil into social rage and resentment: the semi-educated are bought off with government jobs and the lazy dumb poor are bought off with free TVs and TV-dinners. Wall Street, by supporting Obama, kills two birds with one stone. They make the masses believe that a 'socialist' who cares about equality is in power. Thus calmed and dazed by Obama, the people overlook Obama'a massive bailout of Wall Street banksters. But there is a third bird killed with this stone. Though Wall Street supported Obama to hide its massive bailouts--since 'progressives' were far less likely to blow the whistle on Obama 's servility to Wall Street--, conservatives stood up for Wall Street as being 'unfairly' attacked by Obama. How Wall Street toyed with conservative minds--especially of the Tea Party--was no different from what the Zionists did. Jews made Obama president but also convinced conservatives that Obama is a 'stealth Muslim' out to hurt Israel. So, dumb conservatives stand up for Jews in the name of protecting them from Obama, the man who became president with the support of Jews.)  As for the capitalist/democratic West, especially in America, the prevailing idea was that everyone could 'make it' if he tried hard enough. Even if most people couldn't be the next Carnegie or Rockefeller, he could do well for himself if he got an education and worked hard. And in the post-war years, it seemed like most Americans would become part of the vast middle class, with only a few people being poor(but not too poor) or rich(but not too rich).
With more people attending colleges and with job markets opening up everywhere, it looked as though America was headed toward greater equality. And in Europe, with the total demolition of the Old Order(that had only been half-destroyed in WWI) in WWII, there was hope for a new and better Europe, and the vast expansion of the middle class all across Europe seemed to validate this. And despite the horrors of Stalinism,   USSR and Iron Curtain nations by the Sixties had stabilized into societies where most people were provided with the basic necessities of life. The world seemed to be middle-classing under both capitalism and socialism. It didn't matter if it was the US, Sweden, or the Soviet Union. It seemed like the future belonged to the expanding middle, and some even said US would become more like the USSR and USSR would become more like the US.

So, why did this ideal and trend fail? Among the many reasons, we need to look at science and technology. Consider science and technology in the late 19th century. Despite the proliferation of complex theories, formulas, and machines, most of them weren't so difficult that a reasonably bright person with education couldn't understand and even master them. It didn't take a genius to understand steam engine, basic laws of electricity, and steel-making. It wasn't easy but far from impossible. Through the dint of hard work and dedication, most men could master the latest knowledge and hope to become somebody. And throughout much of the 20th century, it was this fact and factor that made it possible for Japan and Soviet Union to catch up with the West so quickly. Laying down railroads, building steel factories, and making basic machine parts didn't require genius. Though innovators in the West made great fortunes, there were lots of competitors since ingenuity could make up for lack of genius. One is or isn't a genius, but even an average person can, though hard work and inspiration, chance upon ingenuity. Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers, while highly intelligent, were not geniuses on the order of Sergey Brin or Albert Einstein. They were hardworking, dedicated, and clever. Though few inventors could hope to be as successful as Edison or Wright Brothers, many bright people lacking in genius could stumble upon an inspiration and hit the jackpot. And so, it was natural to believe that if more people had access to basic education, they too could be the Edisons or the Wrights of the future. It seemed doable if not easy.

But the whole ballgame changed with the rise of high-technology, and this was one of the reasons why the USSR could not keep up with the US. Though US built better machines than the USSR, USSR could always compensate by building more. So, if the American tank was better than the Soviet tank, Soviets could build 5 tanks for every American tank. If American jets were better than Soviet jets, Soviets could build 3 jets for every American jet. When the competition was about quantity over quality, the Soviets could stay in the game. Even if their weapons were shoddy, more could be made in what was essentially a war economy. Thus, a society that enforced middling equality for all and restricted the freedoms/successes of individual entrepreneurs could still remain a superpower. But once it turned into a high-stakes game of advanced science and technology, Soviets sensed that the game was up. Soviets mastered the atomic bomb, but it didn't much practical use and hardly added to national wealth. Soviets were also good at space technology, but its uses too were more symbolic than practical(at least through much of the 20th century). Also, if the Soviet state controlled all aspects of science and technology, individual scientists and innovators had far greaer freedom, leeway, and incentives in the West, especially the United States. While institutional command structures are necessary, many new ideas come from unforeseen places. And generally, individuals want to have control over their inventions and reap rewards by selling it whomever--other individuals or institutions--that want them.

There was a time when Reason seemed the best friend of equality. It mean universal education and the hope of people mastering the basics of knowledge--and using the knowledge to succeed in life.
And prior to the rise of high-tech, students, experimenters, and researchers could hope to master a scientific field or gain considerable technological know-how to make their fortune in life. This was the age of Edisons and Wrights who were not only admired as great inventors but celebrated as folk heroes. There was a 'one of us' aura about them. Their inventions were ingenious, but people could comprehend how the devices worked in a single day or even instantly. Though it was no easy task to perfect the light bulb, anyone could immediately grasp why and how it worked. And anyone could understand why the airplane worked the way it did. But what can one say about Einstein's theories? Most people won't understand the theory even after a year-long course on the subject.

When Einstein was alive, high-science hadn't yet translated into high-tech(except in government through massive funding like the Manhattan project; this was a time when wars were still mostly won through technological quantity than quality; Soviets and Americans just built more planes, tanks, and ships), and computer technology was still in its infancy. What was called high-tech in those days, while complex, could still be understood and even mastered by many educated people. It's like most people can learn to shoot  free throws in basketball.

Since high-tech lagged behind high-sci, geniuses like Einstein stuck mainly to theory than seek ways to use their geniuses to make lots of money. While the resources of the state could make the atomic bomb, most of the economy depended on technology that didn't require special genius. Any reasonably smart person could learn how to make a better radio, TV, refrigerator, record player, automobile, and etc. Science had become Einsteinian but the technology still played by the rules of Edisonism. Thus, techno-economic success was open to many more people than it is now. And it was during this period(which lasted up to the mid-80s, the time when the computer really started to take off) when Japan reached new heights with better cars and consumer good like the walkman, a device that, while cleverly put together, was no product of genius.  Japanese too learned how to shoot free throws.

But with the rise of personal computers, especially with the rise of the internet--and vast financial rewards associated with them--, advanced science and high-tech have finally become one and the same; and high-tech have become the staple of the new economy, which is why Apple and Google are among the biggest companies in the world. If Einstein were alive today, he wouldn't merely have to work in the world of theory. He could use his ideas to come up with gadgets and technology of almost science-fiction complexity and rake in billions of dollars.

The game is no longer about who can learn to shoot free-throws but who can hit the hole-in-one. We went from a basketball economy to a golf economy. Golf is a deceptive game. Despite the sloping fields, players more or less hit balls and stroll across a seemingly flat and uniformly green fields. And since there's no showy athletics, it seems like the most egalitarian game where anyone can play. But, hitting a hole in one is something most people cannot do. It's extremely difficult even for pros. So, golf has the look of equality but hides extreme hierarchy. The current socio-economic reality is like that. There is so much talk of equality, especially as the super-rich often dress like we do and talk about 'social justice'. But if most Americans long ago looked at men like Thomas Edison and thought, "I can do that!", how many can look at Zuckerberg and Brin and feel the same way? Perhaps the popularity of Steve Jobs was that he gave us that hope. He was not a computer genius--perhaps not a genius at all--, but he had the will, tenacity, and personality to take control and became one of the most successful people in the world. No one would mistake Gates or Brin as a folk hero, but there is a folk hero aura around Jobs.

What Is the True Lesson of Antisemitism?

Most Americans(and Europeans as well) seem to think the main evil of 'antisemitism' is the dislike, distrust, and/or hatred of Jews--or the hostility toward Jews. Therefore, the logical conclusion drawn by many people is that they must be nice to Jews at all times, try to love Jew as much as possible, blame themselves for harboring queasiness about certain aspects of Jewish culture and politics, and remind themselves constantly than any critical or hostile feelings regarding Jews must be evil and their own fault--and never that of Jews. This, of course, is crazy.

The true danger of Antisemitism was the scapegoating and dehumanization of Jews. Scapegoating is a dangerous form of blaming or accusation for it can falsely blame an innocent person or group for a crime committed by others OR disproportionately blame a single group for the problems of the world. Scapegoating can also be a form of projection, i.e. dumping one's transgressions, sins, and ill-feelings onto another person or group, thus absolving oneself of vices and negative characteristics by conveniently seeing them in the scapegoat.

So, the real lesson of Antisemitism is that we must be careful about being critical of a person or group, and we mustn't be too quick to leap to conclusions. It also means we must be honest with ourselves, face up to our own flaws, problems, and sins instead of projecting all our faults onto another people.
The lesson of Antisemitism is NOT that we should love Jews unconditionally, praise Jews(at all times), suppress all critical thoughts regarding Jews, and/or deny every hostile feeling we might feel toward Jews. Rather, we need to assess rationally and factually what it is about Jews and Jewish power that may do good or harm to us and why.

For if Antisemitism can be mindless, so can Semitism. We now live in the Semitist age in the West. The misguided lesson we took from Antisemitism is not the need to be careful in our criticism of Jews but that we shouldn't be critical at all. Ironically, Jews, the most secular and intellectual people on Earth(who take pride in their commitment to Reason), don't want us to think about them rationally, empirically, or critically. Even the most liberal Jewish publications will seethe and foam at the mouth if anyone talks about Jews in the 'wrong way'. There is no paucity of discussion of Jewish matters in the media and academia. If anything, the subject of Jewishness is even more disproportionately discussed than the subject of homosexuality. (Though gays are Jews' closest allies, Jews wanna be #1.) What is not permitted is any genuine critical view of Jews, Jewishness, and Jewish history. So, we can discuss Jewish history, Jewish achievements, Jewish influences(at least those deemed to have been positive), Jewish humor, Jewish suffering, Jewish brilliance(but not quite Jewish intelligence, with its connotations of genetic origins), and a host of other Jewish matters, BUT we cannot discuss Jewish POWER. Mark Sanchez found out the hard way.  Schmcarthyism is many times more pervasive, destructive, and repressive than McCarthyism.

The main problem today isn't Antisemitism but Semitism. We are all blindly Semitist, and if you have any doubt, just consider the content of American conservatism. No people are as 'liberal' and anti-conservative(and anti-white-gentile and anti-Christians)as the Jews are. So, one would think the natural tendency of American conservatism would be a critical stance toward Jewish power. Of course, conservatives should be careful not to dehumanize Jews or blame Jews for everything, but Jewish power is a reality; it is immense, especially in finance, high-tech, law, academia, media, entertainment, government, and so on. If most of Jewish power regularly attacks and criticizes--and even scapegoats and dehumanizes the American right--, then it would only be natural for American conservatives to challenge and counter Jewish power.
But instead, American mainstream conservatism is even more slavish toward Jewish power than most liberals in the Democratic Party are. American conservatives will rail against liberals but never mention Jewish power, as if Turkish-Americans and American-Indians are as powerful within the Democratic Party and in the MSM. Throughout the 20th century, Jews didn't just criticize American conservatism in general. They called out the Wasps, and they continue to do so to this day. Jews know very well that not everyone in the GOP has equal amount of power. Jews have always characterized the GOP as the party of Wasp power or 'angry WHITE MALES', as if liberal Jews are without anger and always full of brotherly love. If Jews have fixated on Wasp power because Wasps were indeed more powerful than other groups in America(especially in the GOP), wouldn't it make sense for American conservatives to fixate on Jewish power since Jews have long dominated American liberalism? Yet, the iron law of Semitism says American conservatism should never speak truth to Jewish power, as if any discussion + Jews + Power = Antisemitism.

Being critical of power is necessary and being critical of absolute power is absolutely necessary. This isn't to say Jews have total and absolute power in America. They don't. But in one way, they do, and it is due to the  wrong lesson we took from Antisemitism. After all, power isn't just a matter of money and influence but of taboos. Even if someone doesn't own all the wealth and influence in the world, he can possess power beyond his means if taboos forbid anyone from criticizing, challenging, or countering him. After all, why did God or gods grow so immensely powerful even though they were but figments of man's imagination? Because taboos protected them from 'sacrilege' and 'blasphemy'.  So, if a fantasy can amass that kind of power via the power of taboos, imagine the kind of power a people can have if they are protected from criticism by taboos.
This false lesson of Antisemitism--that we must never criticize Jews, we must love Jews  at all times, and we must never confront Jewish power--has shielded Jews from any kind of criticism, no matter how necessary and justified. So, even though Jews don't have absolute power, we are absolutely powerless to criticize Jews, and that means Jews might as well be absolutely powerful. Anyone who dares to link 'Jewish' with 'Power' in a negative way is excommunicated from the institutional community. While individual Americans can still discuss Jewish power privately and on the internet, individual power is nothing compared to institutional power. At any given time, only those with the levers of power really make a difference, especially in our age of conglomeration where a few tycoons and oligarchs own and control vast networks of information, news, and entertainment(which may be as or even more effective as mind-control tools. After all, would so many foolish Americans have been weaned and leaned toward 'gay marriage' if it weren't for celebrity endorsement, TV talk shows and sitcoms, and etc.?)  And in time, institutional power will control individual freedom, what with the likes of Elena Kagan and Elena Sotomayor itching to end the Constitutional  guarantees of the First Amendment in the name of protecting minorities from 'hate speech', when the real reason for 'hate speech' laws is to protect powerful and privileged Jews from necessary criticism. Already in California, laws have been passed to condemn and ban speech critical of Zionism, its oppression of Palestinians, and its perversion of American foreign policy that have led to Wars of Israel where thousands of  mostly white gentiles have been killed or crippled for life(and never mind the 100,000s of dead 'Muzzies').

The wrong lesson of Antisemitism has made us blind to the insane American foreign policy in the Muslim and Arab world. Again, the true lesson of Antisemitism shouldn't be Semitism--mindless worship of Jews and everything Jewish--but the danger of dehumanizing and scapegoating Jews OR ANY OTHER PEOPLE. If it was wrong to do it to Jews, then it is equally wrong to do it other peoples. Dehumanization is something other than being critical of a people. It is the denial of their humanity. But lack of criticism(and necessary condemnation at times) doesn't humanize a people either. It deifies them, and this is equally dangerous, for people, even ones as intelligent as Jews, are not gods and shouldn't be worshiped as such. Indeed, the deification of a people is related to the dehumanization of a people. It was because the Nazis deified the 'Aryans' as a sacred race that some non-'Aryan' races, such as Jews, had to be dehumanized. If the 'Aryans' are the perfect race--the fountain of everything beautiful, noble, creative, and brilliant--, then it follows that people presumed to the enemies of 'Aryans' must be the evil race.

Having deified Jews, we find it easy to dehumanize people whom Jews don't like and people perceived to the 'enemies' of Jews or Zionism. So, we turn a blind eye to the terrible suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Why should we acknowledge their humanity when they are less-than-human in contrast to the god-like Jews? And what did it matter that America's Zionist-driven policy starved 100,000s of women and children to death in Iraq in the 90s? And what does it matter that the Iraqi Christian community suffered greatly ever since the American invasion? They too are Arab, right? And since our main perception of Arabs is as 'enemies' of Jews and Zionism, who cares if they suffer as the result of America's Semitist foreign policy? Who cares if those Iraqis were Christian since, of course, we know all Arabs are subhuman 'Muzzies'. Besides, since Jews, by and large, are no great fans of Christianity, it might be 'antisemitic' for American Christians to be concerned about fellow Christians in other parts of the world. Since Jews are the deified race, the main purpose of American Christians is to serve Jews and worry about Jews, not about other Christians, especially if they are subhuman 'raghead' Arabs.

Because humans are not perfect, all people need to be criticized as well as praised. The lesson of Antisemitism is to criticize Jews reasonably based on the facts and realities of their power and agenda. It is NOT to suppress all criticism of Jews and elevate Jews to flawless god-like superior race who are beyond criticism. Turning Jews into god-men is to repeat the mistake of Antisemitism, for it makes Jews the new Nazis and reduces all non-Jews into less-than-human servants of Jews who must constantly prove their worth to their Jewish masters as running dogs.

The lesson of Antisemitism is then not only to reject something like 'Aryanism' but to reject Semitism. Aryan supremacism deemed the Germanic-Nordic races to be more human than others, and therefore, those people could be allowed anything under the sun. What did it matter if they invaded nations and caused the suffering and deaths of millions of people? They were more human than other peoples, and so they had the right to do as they saw fit.
The logic of Semitist supremacism is no different. Since Jews are god-men, they can do as they please with Wall Street, Hollywood, American law, American education, American foreign policy, and etc. And if it leads to fall of the European peoples and untold suffering of Arabs and Muslims, what does it matter? Just as Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother, we've learned to love Big Jew.
This is all, of course, very ironic.

Is the GOP the Party of Mediocrity?

Not long ago, Mitt Romney said something about 47% of Americans being predisposed to voting for Obama since the Democratic Party is the party of big government and dependency. The assumption is most of the 47% are people of low talent, low intelligent, and low energy who simply cannot do much on their own; there are many such people in the U.S. and little can be done about them.

If this were true, then the counter-assumption would be that the GOP is the party of success and excellence. Thus, if many low-IQ blacks, incompetent non-white Hispanics, and members of the 'white trash' are naturally inclined to go with the Democratic Party, then it should be safe to assume, at least according to Romneyism, that groups known for their success, excellence, and talent will go with the GOP. But consider the five most successful groups in America: Jews, elite Wasps, East Asians, Asian-Indians, and gays. Are they going with the Democrats or with the Republicans?  85% to 90% of Jews are liberals; though 20% voted for McCain and 25% vow to vote for Romney, many so-called 'neocons' are really liberal moderates who support the GOP only for Zionist and pro-Wall-Street reasons. Asian numbers are increasing fast, and Asians are vastly over-represented in elite colleges and generally out-earn most other ethnic/racial groups, but 60% voted for Obama--the percentage is surely higher among young well-educated Asians--and possibly more will vote for Obama in 2012.  And 75% of gays are Democratic.

So, Romney's point about the 47% is only half right. Yes, it's true that a lot of incompetents and dependents vote Democratic. But it's also true that the most successful and more energized groups in America are also heavily Democratic. And since Jews pretty much control the academia and media--that shape the views and values of most white Americans--, many successful whites have also come to identify with the Democratic Party. (Democratic-ization of educated whites may also be the product of the New Media. In Old Media that favored 'objectivity', news personalities on TV mostly kept their liberalism under wraps and tried to treat all sides fairly. Ted Koppel was a perfect example. Even when people he vehemently disagreed with appeared on Nightline, he treated them fairly and with respect--at least to the best of his ability. Thus, news media in the past had been less judgmental, sending a message that you could be conservative and still be respectable figure in the mainstream spotlight. But with the rise of open politicking in the news--Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and with shows like Jon Stewart--, people with 'wrong views' are openly vilified and constantly tarred-and-feathered on the air as 'racists' or 'homophobes'. While conservatives may have Fox--the least respected news channel in the eyes of educated people--, most news channels and just about all else on TV is liberal or pro-Democratic. With all those liberals openly and brazenly shaming conservatives who, for example, oppose 'gay marriage', it's tougher to be a conservative and remain respectable. Since people are social creatures and want to be liked--the rule of behaviorism--, most educated people will cower to the powers that be that decide what is 'nice'.But since no one wants to feel like a coward, those who go along with political correctness are praised by the powers-that-be as having 'made a courageous choice'. In other words, the trick is to bully people into conforming and then hype the conforming as a show of individual courage. Liberals probably learned this trick from Christians who shunned and persecuted those who didn't accept Jesus but then profusely praised the bullied convert as having made the right choice--as if he really had a choice.)
So, the problem of the GOP isn't merely quantity--the rising numbers of blacks and browns that make up the American electorate--but quality, i.e. the most successful, intelligent, and talented people(s) in America are going with the Democrats. So, GOP is being squeezed from top and bottom. It's not 53% of winners vs 47% of losers, but 40% of dwindling number of white conservatives being squeezed by successful Democrats from the top and by unsuccessful Democrats from the bottom.

Now, libertarian Republicans might blame the GOP's failure in capturing the successful--the Jews, gays, Asians, etc.--due to GOP's fatal alliance with Southern Redneck dummies who cling to their guns and Bibles. After all, what smart person would want to belong to a Party of George W. Bush and Bob Jones University that preaches Creationism? But are libertarians correct in their political assessment? If the GOP were to go fully materialist and libertarian, would it attract a whole lot of smart people? Would the promise of lower taxes and more 'free markets' attract the successful educated classes?
Not so fast. Man doesn't live on bread alone. Kids headed to elite colleges wanna be (or see themselves as) not only materially successful but morally/intellectually advanced. It just so happens that libertarianism sounds too selfish, crass, and vain to a lot of educated people. Successful people may be vain and crass, but they prefer to see themselves as something other.
Even educated secular people need to be won over by 'spiritualist' means, and libertarianism--either in the Paulian or Randian form--doesn't appeal to most highly educated people.
One of the things they don't like about libertarianism is its brazen honesty of power and success. While most successful people do primarily care about power and success(and privilege), they want to believe that they're living for 'higher values' such as 'social progress' or 'social justice'.
Also, though libertarianism argues that free markets and individual liberties will take care of social problems(at least with greater efficiency than other -isms), most 'good people' want to believe in having an ACTIVE role in improving the world. Libertarianism says, 'If you take care of yourself, then society will take care of itself.' Such indirect solving of problems may work or may not work, but 'good people' want to believe that they are actively and consciously engaged in bettering the world.

So, what is the future of the GOP when it has lost not only most of the lower 47% but most of the elite 15%? Does that mean the GOP will be a party of mediocrity?
One thing though... the alliance of the well-educated elites and unwell-educated lower classes is possibly only because of the wide buffer provided by the white middle class and working class. If that buffer didn't exist and if America were made up only of elite liberals(of Jews, Asians, upper wasps, gays, etc) and the unwashed masses who want free everything as 'rights' and entitlements' from the government, the whole system would collapse overnight. So, ironically, it's the GOP white middle that unwittingly enables the alliance of the top and bottom of society. But it gets squeezed just the same.

Was Tippi Hedren a Misterogynist and Fatophobe?

The Revenge of Alfred Hitchcock’s Muse. Tippi Hedren Interviewed By ANDREW GOLDMAN

"He was a misogynist. That man was physically so unattractive. I think to have a mind that thought of himself as an attractive, romantic man and then to wake up in the morning and look at that face and that body was tough. I think he had a whole lot of problems."

How terrible. Tippie was a misterogynist, an uglophobe, fatophobe, and baldophobe who judged men on the basis of their looks. She wouldn't have denied Hitchcock love if he was a slim and good-looking. She is still a romantic elitist who thinks good looking women should deserve good looking men. It's like smart men at Harvard wanna marry smart women and vice versa. Despite their so-called egalitarianism, they don't wanna marry low-IQ maids or janitors. Just like Nazis saw Jews as subhuman because they found Jews to be ugly, Hedren denied her love to Hitch because she found him fat and ugly.
This interview is posthumous bullying. Recently, a TV reporter named Jennifer Livingston was bullied by an email suggesting she lose weight. Today, NY Times offers an interview to a misterogynist fatophobe and uglophobe who posthumously bullies HItchcock for his ugliness and fatness.

HItchock fought back and tried to 'ruin' Hedren's career in the name of egalitarian love. She, with her romantic elitism, thought he was not good enough for her. So, he fought back the only way he knew how.

In this age of "marriage equality", what we really need is love equality. Love everyone and don't deny them love just because they are ugly.