How to Proselytize

http://www.halfsigma.com/2010/11/how-to-spread-the-truth-of-hbd.html

HBD means human biological diversity, that is, different races are...uh...different, including genetically.

 

Basically, to achieve persuasion, he's saying Don't Be An Autist: people respond to emotional manipulation, not logical manipulation. He is right. Political Correctness is a religion. Religions are built on faith. And faith founds itself on emotion. Transform their emotional relation to the topic and they become converts. Expose them to logical fallacies and they retreat into emotional denial. The fact that logic and science happen to be on our side ought not to be a disadvantage--though, in the wonderful world of propaganda it's often irrelevant.

En Bref

http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/10/homosexual-propaganda-campaign-working.html

Look at how young women have bought into this idea. Consent manufactured. Conformists par excellence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Squeezing the Free Market Out

If you add up the cost of government, the cost of health care not paid by the government, and the cost of higher education not paid by the government--you come up with 50% of GDP. What these costs have in common is that they're unavoidable. By comparison, in countries like France and Germany, all these expenses are covered by the government--and most of them have tax levels lower than 50%. If you added the costs of regulations in America, the number would be pushing 55% of GDP. In 1960, that number was more like 35%, and it would have been 30% if we were spending as little on the military then as we are now. At this rate, the involuntary percentage of our GDP will reach 70% by 2040. Can an economy that is 30% free and 70% socialist avoid stagnation? Can it even avoid decline?

Some Poor Realities

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/02/business/how-health-care-affects-income.html

The income estimates do not include unreported income, prevalent at the low and high ends of the scale. It also skips the value of services provided to our 2 million prisoners. By the way, the CBO is now basing its income estimates on the methodology exemplified in the graph. But, by including Medicare and Medicaid benefits as income, it completely alters the picture of inequality--and pushes the real working class to the bottom of the income pyramid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/opinion/americas-ineffective-antipoverty-effort.html

A Republican doing what Republicans do not like to do: thinking seriously about reform of the welfare state, rather than wallowing in the idealistic rhetoric of abolition. The crux of his argument: "We can start by measuring outcomes (results) rather than inputs (how much money can we throw at the problem). Our effectiveness should be assessed, in part, by the per-person cost of moving individuals from dependency to self-sufficiency."

Fun with Religion

Herewith Bertrand Russell's Parable of the Celestial Teapot:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of
skeptics to disprove received dogma rather than of dogmatists
to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to
suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china
teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody
would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were
careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed
even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on
to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is
intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt
it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If,
however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in
ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday,
hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of
eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the
psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an
earlier time."

Fun with Graphs

I think we can add another form of analysis (graphs) to the ever lengthening list of those proscribed by the priests of political correctness.

From The Economist magazine, High IQ development vs Low IQ development: