Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era

June 23, 2013
They resent this country and resent the people who demand their own way rather than allow the “experts” and the ruling class dominion. So they want to import an alien people to reduce the stubbornness and independence that have traditionally characterized Americans. And it makes so much of the liberal agenda understandable: abortion, contraception, feminism, gay marriage, euthanasia, managed health care with death panels. All are aimed at reducing the number of old-time Americans. Reducing our usable land through government takeover helps, as do reductions in America’s energy usage via “green” energy schemes. This agenda goes back to Paul Ehrlich and before him to Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, and ultimately to

Thomas Malthus. But a large part of why they are doing it is to breed Americans for submissiveness. (Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era.)

Unlimited Power for the Chicken Littles of the game… the sky is not falling!

The neoconservatives were impressed by Israel’s modernism, but they assumed that it could be copied over to their neighbors and came to resent Israel as an obstacle for not playing a more meaningful role in their grand theory of history.

February 18, 2012

Computer generated “nanobot”

(…While outwardly the progressives see Israel as very modern, they reject it for not possessing the most vital element of modernism. Transnationalism.)

Shimon Peres, was quickly voted out despite wearing the cloak of martyrdom and has been relegated to a ceremonial office which allows him to explain his vision of the New Middle East dominated by Nanotechnology and free trade zones to foreign visitors who are impressed by this visionary.


Reform Judaism Convention Passes a Progressive "Manifesto"

December 18, 2011
Media_httppeopleucalg_tmbhf
Last week Judaism’s Reform Movement passed an economic platform that would make the most hardcore progressive proud.

The platform called Proposed Resolution on Principles of Economic Justice in a Time of Fiscal Crisis Sponsored by the Biennial Resolutions Committee   called for the government to increase taxes and add to entitlements. For example it calls upon its members to
  • Affirm the indispensable role of the government in ensuring economic justice and therefore call on  our Religious Action Center, synagogues, rabbis, and social action committees, to advocate at the national, state, provincial and local levels for the preservation and strengthening of the social safety net to uphold those in need and sustain those who are struggling 
  •  Call on the U.S.to rededicate itself to a society based on economic justice, including: a. Preserving vital social safety net programs including, but not limited to: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, while recognizing that money savings may be necessary to reach budget goals and maintain long term viability – so long as they are done in a manner that minimizes harm to recipients.
I just reread the Constitution and Declaration of Independence they say our society was based on personal freedom neither document speaks about “economic justice.”
  •  Supporting expanded public and private investment in job creation.
The only way the “public sector” creates jobs is to “get off the backs” of the private sector, but I dont believe that’s what the Reform Movement means.
This one is easier to understand,  when they say “revenue enhancements” they are talking about higher taxes.
  • Addressing, in long-term efforts, the growing debt and deficits (before those deficits create a more serious long-term economic crisis) through comprehensive approaches involving expenditure cuts, program efficiencies, and revenue enhancements, while eschewing deficit reduction efforts that increase poverty or that significantly reduce funding for critical programs serving the needs of vulnerable populations 
This next one could have come directly from one of Obama’s campaign speeches, the Reform Movement calls for taxing the rich:
  • Ensuring that tax policy distributes the tax burden equitably in accordance with individuals’ and corporations’ ability to pay and provides a just and fair method of  producing the revenues necessary for the well-being of our country. This may include measures such as higher taxes for well-to-do individuals, more equitable taxes on corporations and targeted tax cuts aimed at job creation and at providing a stimulus (e.g. the proposed continuation of the payroll tax reductions); and Aiding those struggling to find work, through retraining programs and through the provision of unemployment insurance of adequate duration. 

I wonder what they believe is adequate duration…99 weeks isn’t enough?  And as far as the tax rates go  According to an AP report, this year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.


Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

But fairness and equality is not what the Reform Movement is looking for—redistribution of income is and just like the President they support, Reform Judaism believes if it takes class warfare to make it possible, that is OK also.

  • Support timely, targeted and effective government action aimed at job creation and, to the degree feasible, paid for through expenditure savings and equitable tax enhancements.
The Reform Movement is calling for even heavier reliance on big government, something that goes against traditional Jewish thought.
We are given “free will” by God, and free will is the divine version of limited government. God picks the winning direction, but does not pick winners and losers.

“Created in God’s image” is supposed to teach us that just as God acts as a free being, without prior restraint to do right and wrong, so does man. God does good deeds as a matter of his own free choice, and because we are created in his image so can man. Only through free choice, can man truly be, in the image of God. It is further understood that for Man to have true free choice, he must not only have inner free will, but an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely; this is what the Rabbis mean when they said, “All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven” (Talmud, Berachot 33b).

Jewish tradition takes a positive view of both the institution of ownership and the accumulation of wealth. It respects economic success, so long, that is, as it is obtained honestly, and proper respect is shown for the social responsibility that comes with it. That social responsibility is an individual duty and a job for the community led by its religious leaders, but not for the government.
The book of Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:23 says:

“If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him proselyte or resident so that he can live with you”

Notice it says live with you, it does not say live in a government facility, because the obligation is on the individual, the family or the tribe. The Hebrew word for charity, tzedaka, has in it root the word tzedek which means righteous, because we are taught that giving charity one of an individual’s keys to righteousness.
This Reform “progressive manifesto” will result in their followers moving away from their faith. It teaches their congregants that the government should always bear the responsibility of protecting the individual; there is no individual responsibility, just the collective bailout.
A Rabbi once taught me that when God created the world, sparks of his holiness were spread across the earth. Every time that a person makes the choice of performing a righteous act such as charity or helping someone find a job,  one of those sparks is purified and sent back to heaven. Through that process we become closer to God.
This Reform Judaism Progressive group teaches that their is no personal responsibility, just the government. Instead using our good deeds to gain closeness to God, we are to rely on the government to take that responsibility thus spoiling one way we get close to our maker,
Not surprisingly, when the President spoke to the conference the day after their manifesto was passed he praised the groups courage, and gave the document his hecksher (approval as being kosher):

And just last night, you took another step towards the change we need and voted for a set of principles of economic justice in a time of fiscal crisis.  And I want to thank you for your courage. That statement could not have come at a more important time. For as you put it, we’re at a crossroads in American history. Last Tuesday, I gave a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, where I described that crossroads. And I laid out a vision of our country where everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules.  And these are not Democratic values or Republican values; they’re not Christian values or Jewish values or Hindu or Muslim values — they’re shared values, and we have to reclaim them. We have to restore them to a central place in America’s political life.

 The President is wrong (as usual). It does not take courage to abdicate personal responsibility given to you by God, by shifting it to a government that punishes success, you do not create fairness by lying about the “fairness” of rules.
The Torah Says more than once not to use a persons economic status to pervert justice

Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of thy poor in his causes; neither shalt thou favor a poor man in his cause. Sh’mot (Exodus) 23: 3-6

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:15

The Reform movement’s conception of “economic/social justice” is like the judge who uses economic status to subvert the truth. Jewish law is clear, no man, rich or poor, is favored in this regard. Judges are directed to think clearly and objectively. When you add the fact that their manifesto urges Jews to move away from their personal responsibility (and God) and relying on the government proves the leaders of Reform movement have a bigger interest in promoting progressive politics than they do promoting their faith.

yikes


Garofalo, clinging to hope that Anthony Weiner will still be mayor someday

June 11, 2011
why would anyone believe that giving people like Weiner more power is a good idea? because they believe in a huge nanny state. Don’t let the Cigie full you. Garafalo’s tush is owned by the powers that be. The big money is the state, not the rich. Billionaires like Bloomberg know this. That is why moving up is out of the free market and into government. Bloomberg would never have the power he has if he were just using his own money.
…meanwhile… never mind the Weiner….

in Spain the ruling Socialist party faces prospect of “humiliating”, “crushing” defeat… because taking money from individuals for a government that is in debt about twenty times all the rich people in the U.S. combined is not a good idea.  You take away from the few to kill the engine of development.  It’s proven.

General view of the Puerta del Sol square in Madrid on May 21, 2011 during a protest against Spain’s economic crisis and its sky-high jobless rate. Spanish youths furious over soaring unemployment kept up their week-long protest movement on the eve of local elections expected to deal the ruling Socialists a crushing defeat. (Getty Images)

Real Time, June 10, 2011
( Janeane Garofalo, Joshua Green, Sharon Waxman )
http://xrl.us/WeinersWeiner

UPDATES PENIS STORIES!
Nazi Porn! and ‘Foreskin Man’


Liberals are arrogant! : Gene Expression

March 2, 2010

This new article by psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa concludes that more intelligent people are more likely to be politically liberal [HT: Ronald Bailey]. It has gotten a great deal of media attention, for example from CNN and Time. In reality, the article doesn’t actually prove any such thing. It has several significant methodological flaws. via volokh.com

The origin of values and preferences is an unresolved theoretical question in behavioral and social sciences. The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, family, and friends). The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men’s (but not women’s) value on sexual exclusivity.


What’s got people talking is the correlation between atheism and intelligence, although that isn’t what the paper is actually about. It’s already pretty well established that atheists tend, on average, to be more intelligent. This paper firms that finding up a bit more, but makes a bigger claim than that.

it isn’t intelligent to do a post on intelligence and tie it to an assumption of bias.

I would not of survived my life if I had not been a liberal. If anything the animalistic element that attempts to survive and does not articulate it’s goals or desires is likely to be liberal. Conservatism or self interest only comes out in educated forums that protect us from the pitch fork mob… that is unless you speak of other forums that merely focus on ritual and tradition which in essence runs contrary to self interest again.

Volkh Conspiracy answered the question “intelligently”

I suspect that much of the public interest in Kanazawa’s study is driven by a perception that political views endorsed by more intelligent people are more likely to be true. This, however, is a dubious inference. Even intelligent people have incentives to be rationally ignorant about politics and to do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. I do think that, other things equal, a political view is more likely to be correct if it is more likely to be endorsed by people with greater knowledge of the issue (controlling for other factors that may affect their answers). While knowledge and intelligence are likely to be correlated, they are not the same thing. Ultimately, the fact that a political ideology is more likely to be endorsed by more intelligent people is only a weak indicator of its validity.

decades of research show that large percentages of the population have a poor understanding of political ideology and have a poor grasp of the meaning of terms like “liberal” and “conservative”

Kanazawa uses a highly idisoyncratic definition of liberalism: “genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.” This definition doesn’t distinguish liberalism from conservatism or libertarianism. It distinguishes universalism from particularism. For example, a libertarian who believes that free market policies best promote the welfare of “genetically unrelated others” and contributes a great deal of his money to charities promoting libertarian causes counts as a liberal under this definition. The same goes for a Religious Right conservative who believes that everyone will be better off under socially conservative policies and contributes lots of money to church charities. In fact, recent research by Arthur Brooks shows that conservatives and other opponents of government redistribution give more, on average, to charity than other members of the population.

When Kanazawa actually correlates measures of intelligence with views of particular issues, he finds that, controlling for various other variables, more intelligent General Social Survey (GSS) respondents are less likely to support government-mandated efforts to ” reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes.” This is hardly consistent with claims that the more intelligent are more politically liberal in the conventional sense of the term.


High IQ = Liberal, Atheist, Monogamous

Liberals Atheists More Intelligent IQYet another academic study finds correlation between IQ and political and religious beliefs. This one throws in sexual practice, too.


Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.


Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.


The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.


The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them. “The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward,” said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. “It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people — people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower — are likely to be the ones to do that.” Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.


The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health [Add Health], which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.


[…]


Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion,” Bailey said. “Historically, anything that’s new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence,” he noted.


The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights. “Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.


Without access to the study itself, it’s difficult to know what to make of it. Most obviously, if it didn’t control for education, the findings are meaningless. For a variety of reasons, education leads people to be more scientifically oriented, materialistic, skeptical, and tolerant of differences. Further, success in the educational arena is an indicator of being able to conform to social expectations — showing up on time, not disrupting others, and so forth — so it’s not surprising that there would be an uptick in the ability to maintain a monogamous relationship. And, of course, religiosity and political conservatism tend to go hand-in-hand, further confusing the relationships.


[UPDATE: A commenter at Ron Chusid‘s discussion of the piece points to an online PDF of the study, titled “Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent.” There is indeed a control for years of education. Parental education isn’t factored in, except to the extent it correlates with earnings. With all the controls factored in, the author finds “adolescent intelligence has a larger effect on adult political ideology than any other

variable in the model except for religion.”]


The causality issue aside, the correlation seems to remain. But let’s not get terribly excited about what all this means. The vast majority of Americans — including high IQ Americans and well educated Americans — are religious. For that matter, the vast majority of Americans — including those of below average intelligence — are in monogamous relationships or strive to be. We’re talking about small differences in aberrant behavior, not a chasm.


It’s also noteworthy that the correlation is between intelligence measured at adolescence and ideology, religiosity, and monogamy as young adults. It would be interesting to see if the correlation strengthens or fades with time. This particular cohort is being studied on through 2002; I don’t know if they’ll continue to be tracked.


Elsewhere:



  • Tom Maguire makes the interesting point that the liberals who hated the very notion of IQ in the context of The Bell Curve some years back seem to love it when studies coming out showing that they’re smarter. But that’s not surprising.



  • Don Sensing, who is both conservative and not only religious but a minister, notes that species don’t “move forward,” they merely adapt to changing conditions, and argues that Zanazawa’s definition of “liberal” — support for private charity to help others — is quite dubious.



  • Ilya Somin argues that there are numerous methodological flaws in the study: conflating liberalism with universalism, relying on self-identification of ideology, and a seeming assumption that being endorsed by intelligent people makes an ideology “correct.” The second point is especially interesting: “For example, more African-Americans describe themselves as ‘conservative’ than ‘liberal,’ even though this description fits neither their issue positions nor their voting patterns. In recent decades, the term ‘liberal’ has acquired a negative connotation, so much so that many liberals have taken to calling themselves ‘progressives.’ This makes it likely that some liberal survey respondents won’t identify with the term, especially among the less-educated and less politically knowledgeable.”

convictions of altruism

February 28, 2010
I would not of survived my life if I had not been a liberal. If anything the animalistic element that attempts to survive and does not articulate it’s goals or desires is likely to be liberal. Conservatism or self interest only comes out in educated forums that protect us from the pitch fork mob… that is unless you speak of other forums that merely focus on ritual and tradition which in essence runs contrary to self interest again.



When Kanazawa actually correlates measures of intelligence with views of particular issues, he finds that, controlling for various other variables, more intelligent General Social Survey (GSS) respondents are less likely to support government-mandated efforts to ” reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes.” This is hardly consistent with claims that the more intelligent are more politically liberal in the conventional sense of the term.

I suspect that much of the public interest in Kanazawa’s study is driven by a perception that political views endorsed by more intelligent people are more likely to be true. This, however, is a dubious inference. Even intelligent people have incentives to be rationally ignorant about politics and to do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. I do think that, other things equal, a political view is more likely to be correct if it is more likely to be endorsed by people with greater knowledge of the issue (controlling for other factors that may affect their answers). While knowledge and intelligence are likely to be correlated, they are not the same thing. Ultimately, the fact that a political ideology is more likely to be endorsed by more intelligent people is only a weak indicator of its validity.

III. Are Ideologies Endorsed by More Intelligent People More Likely to Be Correct?

I suspect that much of the public interest in Kanazawa’s study is driven by a perception that political views endorsed by more intelligent people are more likely to be true. This, however, is a dubious inference. Even intelligent people have incentives to be rationally ignorant about politics and to do a poor job of evaluating the information they do know. I do think that, other things equal, a political view is more likely to be correct if it is more likely to be endorsed by people with greater knowledge of the issue (controlling for other factors that may affect their answers). While knowledge and intelligence are likely to be correlated, they are not the same thing. Ultimately, the fact that a political ideology is more likely to be endorsed by more intelligent people is only a weak indicator of its validity.