Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: you are not excused

Mr. Rational complained about his disappearing comments:

“Censoring again?  Shame on you.”

To which I replied:

“I’m not
censoring anything, you moron. If you hadn’t tried to comment
anonymously here at some point, your comments wouldn’t get spam-trapped
from time to time. As was the case here. Learn to ask questions before making an ass of yourself with false assumptions.”

Prompting this response:

“Well, excuse me for thinking that when a comment

(a) is posted without any links or other spammish content,
(b) appears on the post page as I reload it, and then
(c) disappears some time later while subsequent comments appear down-thread,

“it is through the intervention of someone after the fact. Because that is exactly what I have observed on multiple occasions, and absent any other information it is the logical conclusion.”

The point isn’t whether Mr. Rational had some justification for suspecting I was censoring his comments or not, but rather, instead of asking, he immediately leaped to a false conclusion and made an accusation on that basis. As it happens, the comment behavior he observed is EXACTLY what happens when Blogger spam-traps a comment.

Which is in fact, happened to his comments, which I subsequently found in the spam-trap and despammed. I didn’t delete his comments the first time, when he repeatedly posted the same comment about Fukushima again and again and again.  And I didn’t delete his comments this time either.

One can be excused for harboring suspicions. But if you’ve got suspicions of your comments being deleted for one reason or another, just ask me. If I decide delete your comment for one reason or another, I’m entirely willing to tell you why I did so.

As a general rule, before one starts running around and wagging one’s finger at people and crying “shame on you”, it is wise to first confirm that they have, in fact, engaged in the behavior one finds shameful.

Mailvox: a run-in with McRapey

Agathis’s initial experience with John Scalzi’s self-vaunted debate skills was quite similar to my own back in 2005:

Way back when, I had a blog and posted about Scalzi. He had made some
ridiculous argument about those that were all “het up” about
homosexuality–that they were, probably, homosexuals themselves. I asked
a rhetorical question–“Is Scalzi a bigot?” I answered no, then,
because I didn’t know him well. Anyway, he came by the blog and argued
with me. Now, at the time, I had quite a bit of respect for him. I liked
Old Man’s War, as a fan of Heinlein, and though it didn’t reach that
level of quality, it was entertaining.

What resulted was a long
conversation where he insulted me over and over again, never read a
single post I’d made, argued against strawmen, and showed a disturbing
ignorance of what people actually believe. And yes, I do believe he
threw around his education credentials. I didn’t bother telling him
that I have an MA in a philosophical field as well, because it wouldn’t
have mattered to him.

He tried to argue that it wasn’t insulting
to call people gay because he didn’t think there was anything wrong
with being gay. So I say, what if I went around saying that all Jews
were greedy money-grubbers. He got really offended by that and started
insulting me again. I said, hey, I don’t think there’s anything wrong
with being a greedy money-grubber. I’m a capitalist. I think that’s when
he gave up and went away.

But after that exchange, I never bought another of his books. I’ve read a few, but I’m not giving this guy money. He’s an idiot.

He’s
got an ego that’s a few times too large for his actual talent. Like
those A students who get to college and realize they aren’t actually as
good as everyone says, or those singers who go on American Idol and make
fools of themselves all the while thinking they’re great. It’s a sad,
sad, thing. But after my exchange with him, nothing that’s happened in
SFWA since he became president as been any surprise to me.

Agathis picked up on something that a surprising number of people don’t realize about McRapey.  The man is less intelligent than most people assume.  He is considerably less intelligent than most of the people with whom I habitually engage.  He’s not as smart as PZ Myers, Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, and you are all familiar with how easily I have dismantled their arguments.  The difficulty in dealing with McRapey is that he seldom presents any actual arguments, he usually just presents assertions sans any logical or evidential support.  Then, when pressed, he makes a credentialist appeal to his college degree.  Not even a PhD or a Masters, just a simple liberal arts BA, as if that’s supposed to impress people who have more advanced or more difficult degrees. And then he flees from public debate while openly banning dissent and criticism from his blog, all to the thunderous foot-thumping approval of his fellow rabbits.

For those who find it hard to believe that Scalzi isn’t highly intelligent, I suggest asking him for evidence of his National Merit scholarship or his qualification for Mensa.  It seems a little odd that someone who doesn’t hesitate to trumpet his credentials would fail to mention such achievements, and surely someone who asserts a “Scalzi family tradition of blowing the doors off standardized tests” would have qualified for both, right?

McRapey’s heavy reliance on his minor academic credential tells us another important thing about him: he is from an environment where going to university was not considered par for the course, so he places a ludicrous amount of importance on it. Once I finish On Sophistical Refutations, I will show that to the extent McRapey learned anything while majoring in philosophy, it was to resort to sophistry rather than genuinely refuting an argument.

His behavior is fairly typical of men who are raised by women. If such men don’t turn entirely feral, they are taught to believe that the winner of a dispute is the one who comes off as looking better to the crowd rather than the one whose arguments are more closely in line with facts, logic, and reality. 

Also, since he appears to have run out of ideas, I’ve created a template that should save Phoenician a little time in commenting on these regularly scheduled McRapey posts.


“______ mancrush ______ obsession _______ laughing at _______ Dipshit ______ your father_______ jealous ________ self-made ______ lawn ______”

Speaking of which, does anyone have a reference count?  Have we hit 200 yet?

Mailvox: the changing writer’s market

NA writes about his perception of the current hole in the fantasy market:

Part of the reason I bought your books, along with Stephen King’s Dark
Tower series, was that I got burned by the last two fantasy series I
bought.  By which I mean Raymond Feist and George R. R. Martin.  I’ve
been looking for a good fantasy series to read and so far yours does not
disappoint. Another reason is that I want to write my own.  I figured I should get acquainted with others’ work before I get started.

Since I’ve last been a part of this hobby, there was no such thing as
e-books.  I’m way out of touch with the market and where it’s headed, as
far as it would concern a writer.  I’m also not aiming to become the
Next Big Thing in fantasy, but I’d still like to get published. I know it’s kind of an open ended question, but is
there anything I can do to help myself before I start putting words on
the screen?  

A lot of people like Martin’s
work, though I can barely understand why, so I know there’s a market out
there for fantasy.  In fact, if A Game of Thrones is considered some of
the best right now, then that market still has a gaping hole in it.
 People are hungry for fantasy fiction, but as far as I can tell they’re
willing to settle for McDonald’s because there’s no Cheesecake Factory
in sight. 

If you have a minute, I appreciate your insight.

My primary feeling is that the SF/F market is at a fascinating technologically imposed crossroads.  On the one hand, we have a narrow spectrum professionally published market that is shrinking, where the average advances are considerably smaller than they were, where the stakes are increasingly winner-takes-all, and books such as Redshirts and A Dance with Dragons represent the very best it has to offer.

And on the other, we have the rise of a broad spectrum independent digital scene where books are of wildly varying quality, the prices are better and many of them are free, there are no gatekeepers, distribution is limited, and it is very difficult for the average author to even let the average reader know his book exists.

Let’s put some basic facts before the reader. John Scalzi reported that Redshirts, the eventual Hugo Award winner written by the industry’s foremost self-promoter and pushed heavily by the biggest publisher in SF/F, sold 35,667 ebooks in its first eight months of release.  That represented 45 percent of the 79,279 sales-to-that-date; the rest were hardcover (34 percent) and audiobook (21 percent).  That’s pretty much the high water mark these days for anyone whose name does not begin with JK, EL, or GRR.  McRapey’s post is uncharacteristically understated, as that is not the state of A genre title, but in terms of 2013, THE genre title.

A Throne of Bones and its satellites, on the other hand, sold 3,865 ebooks in their first eight months of release.  Not bad for a book that has never seen the inside of a bookstore, on the other hand, at barely more than 10 percent of Redshirts ebook sales, it is a comparatively minor blip that is of no possible concern to the mainstream publishers, right?  Well, here is the problem for the publishers.  On a grand total of 13 free Kindle Select days, another 20,274 copies were downloaded from Amazon.

Now, there isn’t a lot of overlap between the SF reader interested in Redshirts and the EF reader interested in A Throne of Bones.  They are two fairly different markets. But there are probably 10 independent books that are to Redshirts what ATOB is to A Dance with Dragons.  The problem isn’t that the independents are necessarily a threat to the established bestsellers, but that they are standing in the way of the midlist writers as well as the mainstream writers of tomorrow.  And, of course, they are absolutely devastating the average margins.

If you simply run the numbers, it becomes apparent that the only thing keeping the mainstream publishers alive these days is the fact that Amazon now voluntarily limits its Kindle Select program to five free days per quarter. Readers are readers, after all, their ability to consume books is not infinite, and due to the relative price-elasticity of books, ATOB and its satellites are now reaching one-third as many readers as Redshirts without any marketing, without any press, and without any bookstore distribution.  In fact, were it not for Amazon’s Kindle Select limits, Selenoth could quite reasonably have reached 378,154 readers in the first eight months, nearly five times MORE than Redshirts did.

This is a game-changer.

Now, you can certainly point out that I have made considerably less money on my 24,139 copies sold/downloaded than McRapey did on his 79,279 copies sold in the first eight months. But that’s irrelevant and those are just today’s profits anyhow; as Facebook and Twitter have shown, there is considerable value in free users.  The point is that if you’re just getting into the writing game, there is virtually no reason in trying to work within the mainstream publishing model.

Consider: I did literally nothing to market my book except for publishing the Selenoth satellites. No ads. No billboards. No push from Audible. You can’t buy them anywhere but Amazon. The audiobook doesn’t even exist yet and there will never be a paperback. And yet, all it would take is an easily changed policy on the part of Amazon to permit me to reach more readers than the most relentlessly marketed writer in SF/F today. To cite a concept from Nassim Taleb’s excellent Antifragile, the mainstream publishing industry is EXCEEDINGLY fragile and is totally dependent upon the willingness of Amazon to avoid inadvertently wiping them out. Unless one is already tied to the world of professional publishing for contractual reasons, I see no reason whatsoever to waste any time or effort attempting to enter it.  For all practical intents and purposes, it may not even be there in a few years, so don’t be caught up in thought processes that were last valid three years ago.

As for the hole in the fantasy market, don’t be misled.  That is an artificial one caused primarily by the ideological biases of the professional publishing gatekeepers and it is being rapidly filled by the independents. In my opinion, NA’s best strategy is to publish as an independent and become a part of that process.  Remember, this is the situation today and future changes look to favor the independents, not the mainstream publishers.

Mailvox: answering a simple question

Will Shetterly poses questions for me and for NK Jemisin. I don’t know if she will see fit to answer him, but I certainly don’t mind doing so:

What do you want, besides book sales? You both have strongly-held beliefs, Critical Race Theory and Human Biodiversity, but you’re both silent about the practical application of those beliefs.

Vox Day, you say:

“I have repeatedly pointed out that the existence of different human
sub-species and/or races does not make those different sub-species
and/or races any less validly human. A dog is a dog whether it is a
Bichon Frise or a Great Dane. A man is a man whether he is Yoruba or
Prussian. My basic argument on race and civilization can be most
accurately summarized as the observation that if you wish to pull a
sled, you would be well advised to select Siberian huskies rather than
chihuahuas or pit bulls.”

If people with your beliefs were in power, what changes would there be?
Legal segregation of the races as you understand them? A ban on
miscegenation? Breeding programs to increase the virtues you see in the
different human races, stronger blacks and smarter Asians to serve the
more “alpha” whites?

Let me first point out something that many people fail to keep in mind when they are occupied with being offended at something I have said. I am a libertarian, so it should always be kept in mind that I am intrinsically skeptical of the idea that government can be effectively utilized to solve most societal problems, or even avoid making them worse, regardless of how serious we all agree those problems happen to be.  The fact that I point to something as being a problem should NEVER be taken as an implicit suggestion that the solution can be found in government action.

With regards to race, I would be more than content to see the U.S. federal government and other governments across the West firmly respect the right to self-determination, the right to free speech, and the right to freedom of economic association on the part of individual, as well as the political sovereignty of the several States.

This would likely lead to legal segregation in some states, most likely beginning, ironically enough, with the States where Hispanics are expected to soon be the majority. In most of the rest, I expect a return to Constitutional federalism and the concept of democratic laboratories would merely lead to bans on enforced desegregation and government violations of the freedom of association; history indicates that people have a tendency to naturally segregate as that is how most of the various population groups were formed in the first place.

I do not support bans on miscegenation nor do I believe they would be required in any environment that permitted genuine freedom of speech and association. Despite being inundated with heavy doses of pro-miscegenation and pro-equalitarian propaganda in the media, relatively few women of any race have shown themselves to be open to sexual involvement with men of other races.

Being an anti-eugenicist, I do not support breeding programs of any kind, especially not government-sponsored programs.

As for the idea of stronger blacks and smarter Asians serving whites, that could not be further from my own position on ideal interracial relations. My belief is that every population group, every human sub-species, every nation, is better served by furthering a homogeneous group interest.  To put it crudely, whites would do well to pick their own cotton and count their own money, blacks would do well to build their own power stations and grow their own crops, and yellows would do well to develop their own technologies and establish their own university systems. Let Israel be Israel and let Myanmar be Myanmar.

Inter-societal communication and assistance is a good thing, so long as it is the sort that involves teaching men to fish and not fishing for them… and if the fishermen are left alone to deal with the consequences of their catch. Trade is generally good. Information exchange is generally good. Even immigration can beneficial in small and limited doses. But the benefits of moderation does not extend to the extremes. For example, trade can benefit both sides, but truly free trade will inevitably destroy the more prosperous side.

It should be noted that the consequences of mass migration are all but indistinguishable from the effects of invasion and occupation, and multi-ethnic societies have shown a strong historical tendency to collapse amidst vicious ethnic violence. No one who recalls the intra-black violence in Rwanda, the intra-white violence in Yugoslavia, or the intra-yellow violence in Vietnam should be misled into thinking that expanding the range of population heterogeneousity is going to alleviate, rather than exacerbate, the eventual inter-ethnic violence.  Ms Jemisin may be more right than she knows about how everyone will eventually be forced to take a side, whether they want to or not.

I understand that three generations of Americans who have been raised to venerate the Civil Rights movement will find it hard, if not impossible, to grasp that history may ultimately prove to be firmly on the side of those they have always believed to be monsters of bigotry. But if what logic suggests is the most probable outcome indeed comes to pass, I suspect that forced segregation and non-violent ethnic cleansing will be the best case scenario in consequence of the damnable social engineering of the grand multicultural experiment that began in 1965.

It may already be too late for a peaceful return to historical segregation patterns. But if history is an even remotely reliable guide, the West will return to them one way or another. And keep in mind that my expectations of the future have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal preferences, any more than I wanted to see the global financial system seize up when I predicted the 2008 economic crisis six years before it happened.

There is a flaw in someone’s assumptions. The error may be on my part. But based on the known historical patterns as well as the way in which increased integration throughout the West has observably increased racial tensions rather than eliminating them as the multiculturalists so confidently asserted, I very much doubt it.

So, to answer the original question, what do I want? I want to preserve the greatest, most advanced, and most humane civilization the human race has ever known. I want the West to avoid descending into violence and chaos on a scale that will threaten to end our advanced civilization as we know it. And I believe continued mass migration, forced desegregation, reconciliation, government intervention, and racial integration only serve to increase the likelihood of a nightmarish scenario taking place.

Mailvox: What color? Amused

Dominic detects scientific falsification:

Last year, you made a post entitled Evolution and a potential rabbit
where you showed some in the scientific community had established that
DNA could last no longer than between 1.5 to 6.8 million years, even
under ideal conditions, where the linked article stated: “This confirms
the widely held suspicion that claims of DNA from dinosaurs and ancient
insects trapped in amber are incorrect”

Well, in 2009 Wired magazine posted a story of a man who extracted live bacteria and yeast samples from preserved Amber well
beyond the 1.5-6.8 million year threshold. The plot twist being that
his only successful attempt at capitalizing on the discovery was that a
particular strain of yeast made good beer. But that’s it, nothing else
he extracted was different enough from modern microorganisms to yield
anything new or of value, in spite of the supposed tens of millions of
years difference in time and environment.

I know its not cloning, per se, but
this does seem, at least superficially, to meet your criteria of either
debunking the evolutionary timeline as it currently stands, given a man
has made a career out of resurrecting live organisms that should have no
DNA left, or further discrediting the peer-review process which allowed
a paper claiming a 521 year DNA half-life to get published..

Color me amused.

That is two more strikes against Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. I think it would be overly aggressive to conclude that the evolutionary timeline has been comprehensively debunked, but this is, at the very least, yet another crack in the crumbling wall of the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.

Mailvox: superior atheist intelligence

A psychologist writes from Finland:

I enjoyed greatly your book Irrational Atheist and used it in my two books about atheism published here in Finland. Have you noticed the new study the summary of which is below? I have not read the full article, yet, but will do it. This must be great news for those “bright” atheists.

The Finnish PhD is referring to this metastudy, which noted: “A new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades has concluded that religious people are less intelligent than non-believers.”

Setting aside my intrinsic skepticism concerning the reliability of metastudies, this finding is nothing new and I have readily conceded that religious individuals are less intelligent than non-believers in general and atheists in particular on average for years.  However, what the midwits who get very excited about this statistical fact never seem to keep in mind is that because there are so many more religious people, there are considerably more highly intelligent religious people than there are highly intelligent non-believers.

In fact, the ratio of theists to atheists with Mensa+ level IQs is more than 10 to one.

Logic dictates that because the vast majority of people are religious, the average religious IQ is right around 100.  This is, in fact, what most of the religion and IQ studies have determined.  The average atheist IQ advantage appears on the order of about 5 points. That is less than one-third the 16 point difference in average IQs observed between blacks and whites.

So, a substantial portion of the observed difference between average religious and irreligious IQs can be attributed to the fact that atheists tend to be a) male, and, b) European or Jewish.  Now isn’t that awkward….

More importantly, the fact that people who believe X happen to be modestly more intelligent than people who believe Y does not indicate that the first group is correct. I suspect that the average IQ of the economists who believed massive quantitative easing would produce economic growth in Japan is considerably higher than that of the average atheist, and yet the recent GDP report shows it would have been hard for them to have been more wrong.

The SFWA Board decides

Well, so long as the consideration of the evidence was careful….

After careful consideration of the evidence gathered by the Board-appointed investigator and your response, and in compliance with the existing Massachusetts By-Laws, the approved operations and procedures, and legal counsel, the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization, effective immediately. This has been a difficult decision, but thorough examination of the evidence and the situation makes it clear that this action is necessary to best serve the interests of the organization and its members.

According to our records, you paid for your Lifetime Membership in October of 2002. As this period of time exceeds 10 years, you are not eligible for any pro-rata refund of your dues.

Sincerely,

Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

Fascinating. Notice that Steven Gould informs me “the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization”, but he did not inform me that I was actually been expelled, nor did SFWA subsequently announce my expulsion, presumably because Gould knows “the existing Massachusetts By-Laws” state that as per Title XXII, Chapter 180, Section 18: No member of such corporation shall be expelled by vote of
less than a majority of all the members thereof, nor by vote of less
than three quarters of the members present and voting upon such
expulsion.

In any event, if you’d like to see the evidence that was so carefully considered by the SFWA Board yourself, you can download the two relevant documents:

And if you’re looking for my immediate response to what appears to be an elaborate charade on the part of the SFWA Board, all I can really say is this: rabbits gonna rabbit.

UPDATE: I was initially been under the impression that SFWA had expelled me from the organization. But after legal review, it was determined that the Board merely took the first step in the process since they have not yet held the full membership vote to confirm their decision that is required by the existing Massachusetts By-Laws.

    Mailvox: four erroneous arguments

    Ann Morgan appears to have no idea that she’s in completely over her head here. Her anti-Christian reasoning is specious and rests on a foundation of ignorance and error.

    Christianity generally fails when one or more of a few things happen:

    1.
    Those who claim something is ‘sinful’ cannot give any reason why it is,
    other than ‘Because God says so’. In the absence of actual proof of
    God, functionally, that statement is no different than ‘Because I say
    so’.

    2. A person is promised various rewards during their life
    for being ‘good’, only to have the promise broken, and the rewards
    either not given out at all, or given to those who were not good. Sooner
    or later, they will conclude that the promise of an afterlife is just
    one more promise that is going to be broken.

    3. The wealth earned
    by a person believing in Christian ethics ends up in the hands of those
    promoting the Christian ethics. At some point they are going to
    conclude that the entire business of Christianity is a con, to trick
    them out of their wealth.

    4. The promise of ‘forgiveness’ sounds
    nice, but the way it functions is that people who harm others and their
    society their whole lives, get to repent at the end of their lives and
    go to heaven. This will end up in some sort of ‘tragedy of the commons’.
    If you don’t want the commons overgrazed, you need to be vigilant about
    those who are overgrazing it; allowing them to overgraze it for years,
    ruin the commons for everyone else while getting fat cattle for
    themselves, then tell them everything will be fine because they ‘repent’
    is a recipe for disaster.

    Even her introduction is false.  Christianity does not, and cannot, fail on the basis of any of these points.

    1. There is no other reason than “God says so”.  In the absence of God, sin does not exist.  This is hardly philosophical or theological news.  However, makes the basic error of confusing an objective statement with a subjective one.  For example, it makes no difference whether the Magna Carta exists or not, the statement that “the Magna Carta says you must do X” is materially different than “I say you must do X”.  This should be completely obvious, since when the Christian says “God says Y is a sin” and cites a document that existed before he was born, that statement cannot possibly be considered equal to “because I say so” whether God exists or not.
    2. This is irrelevant.  The Bible says that all are fallen and no one is good, save God.  Her argument is based on a false premise and indicates her ignorance concerning Christian theology.  Luke 18:19: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.”
    3. This is observably false, as evidenced by the fact of billions of Christians who have not, in fact, concluded that the entire business of Christianity is a con.  It would be a poor con that settles for ten percent when the federal government takes, on average, twice that.
    4. This is logically fallacious because it rests on a false assumption.  The fact is that there are relatively few deathbed conversions and there are billions of Christians who do not wait to repent of their sins.  Ergo, no tragedy of the commons. Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.

    Mailvox: the null hypothesis

    CKK has a few questions about God:

    I
    read your blog and find that you make interesting points. I have a few
    questions for you which revolve around the Null Hypothesis as it relates
    to the evidence and knowledge of God.

    First, do you
    ground your faith in God based upon an evidentiary standpoint? I know
    the trend (and often impasse) in discourse between atheists/agnostics
    and Christians revolves around which side has the burden of proof and I
    am wondering how God has satisfied any logical hiccups you may have come
    across in your life.

    Second, in regards to other
    people who lack faith, how can God ask people to perform a logical leap
    to believe in Him which they don’t do in every other part of their
    lives? For example, a basic precept of just criminal courts is the idea
    of being innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is always on
    the accuser (in the form of the State) as they are the ones making the
    claim of guilt. This is the same with every other arena of life and even
    forms the basis of the scientific method. Yet this isn’t done for God.
    We are given antidotes based on argument but not necessarily based on
    evidence.

    Third, and this relates to the first, is who
    does the burden of proof regarding the evidence of God falls upon? Those
    who claim His existence or those who deny Him?

    I
    would say my faith is more grounded in a logical standpoint than in one
    based purely on evidence, although I am entirely content with the
    evidence for God as it exists to date.  The inability of secular and
    pagan philosophers to produce coherent moral systems, combined with the
    logical absurdity of most non-Christian moral systems, leaves me
    entirely satisfied with the Christian moral structure, even if I find
    occasionally find the application of that structure to social policy to
    be difficult, if not impossible.  Since a Creator God is a necessary
    anchor for that moral structure, I conclude that not only must He exist,
    but that it is necessary for Man to postulate His existence even if
    there were no evidence for that existence to be found.

    I
    find it remarkable, and rather stupid, that individuals who don’t
    hesitate to accept mathematical postulates in order to permit a
    considerable quantity of mathematical equations to function effectively
    are so terrified of accepting the existence of God as a moral
    postulate.  It strikes me as even less intelligent than rejecting basic
    math postulates and thereby refusing to utilize any of the math that
    follows from them.

    How can God ask people to perform a
    leap of faith rather than logic?  Very easily, since obedience is
    clearly more important to God than understanding.  I neither ask nor
    care if my dog, my children, or my teammates understand my orders, I
    simply want them to follow them.  If I yell “square” to a teammate with
    the ball, it is of no concern to me whether he grasps all the relative
    positions of the various players on the field, I just want him to react
    by immediately passing the ball 90 degrees to one side.  If I can test
    my teammate’s confidence in me by telling him to pass the ball based on
    faith, God can certainly test our confidence in Him by telling us to
    believe without proof.

    It’s not as if both Jesus Christ
    and Aristotle haven’t independently explained the reason anyhow.  Many
    people saw Jesus perform miracles and didn’t believe. And as Aristotle
    observed centuries before Jesus was performing those miracles, some
    people cannot be instructed by knowledge.  I tend to doubt this
    observation of basic human behavior would have escaped God.

    The
    burden of proof always falls upon the individual asserting something to
    another individual.  If I ask you if you believe God exists and you
    tell me that you do not, you have no burden of proof.  You were simply
    asked about a simple fact and you have no need to justify that fact to
    me or anyone else.  If, on the other hand, you tell me that God does not
    exist, then you have made an assertion and the burden of proving the
    truth of that assertion lies with you.

    A view on black crime and white decline

    In which I ask Huggums for his opinion about the observation that blacks have higher crime rates in a wide sampling of societies:

    What is your currently preferred theory for higher black crime rates? You
    know mine is a combination of genetic and cultural factors leading to
    lower average time preferences, I’m just interested in knowing what
    yours happens to be.

    Pretty much the same, but I don’t think the
    genetic influence is quite as strong as many believe it to be. I think
    that depending on the cultural environment and the existence of positive
    social pressure, just about any human trait can find a positive mode of
    expression.

    The genetic issue can only really be “solved” with
    time. Of course, if white liberals are any indication, even if some
    environmental catastrophe or social upheaval pushed the next generations
    of black people towards civilization, once that civilization reaches
    its apex, it will begin working feverishly to destroy itself. Either
    that or just start massacring its own citizens because of whatever
    thin-as-wet-tissue-paper reason it happens to come up with.

    Huggums raises an important point here, which is the flip side of my controversial observation that the African population, taken in the whole, can only be half-civilized because fully civilizing a people appears to require about 1,000 years of exposure to civilization.  This, I have argued, is the primary reason blacks have repeatedly shown themselves unable to maintain advanced societies everywhere from Detroit to Zimbabwe, and why the more savage portion of the population has demonstrated that it cannot even constructively participate in an advanced society.

    However, whites and other distinct human populations should not be too impressed with the accomplishments of their ancestors simply because they happened to get an earlier start on the process, because if the process of civilization is hard, maintaining it is observably even more difficult.  Indeed, one could even argue that it is impossible and eventual failure is only a matter of time.

    It would be very hard to argue with Huggums’s observation that there are a considerable quantity of whites who have been working feverishly, and in some cases purposefully, to destroy white Christian European civilization.  Indeed, one could observe that their actions are a logical extension of the white European destruction of traditional Chinese civilization, traditional Japanese civilization, traditional Russian half-civilization, and even traditional Aztec/Inca quarter-civilization.

    If I am correct and extended average time preferences is a critical factor in developing and maintaining civilization, then it would appear the white population has taken several significant steps towards savagery, in both intellectual and behavioral terms. The Keynesian concept of economic growth through inflation and debt-spending is literal intellectual savagery, as intrinsically magical and nonsensical as the illiterate Australian aborigines ideas about causation. And it is not hard to determine where “if it feels good, do it” falls on the time preferences spectrum.

    And this highlights the intrinsic danger of inviting the barbarians inside the gates and encouraging them to integrate with the civilized citizenry. It is easier to bring down than to build up. It is much easier to infect the civilized youth with the idea of living for today and letting tomorrow take care of itself than it is to convince the savage youth to restrain their impulses and save for tomorrow what could be be consumed today. 

    Daniel Patrick Moynihan once described the pathologies of black America as a warning of the coming pathologies of white America.  He was more prophetic than he knew; the dire effects of the behavioral problems to which he attempted to draw America’s attention turned out to be even worse than he had feared.  Black hip-hop culture may have been the most noticeable symptom of the cancer of anti-civilizational savagery, but it was the wigger adoption of it that signified the metastasis.

    We are now well past the point of peak American civilization. The only question now is how far into savagery we are going to fall before the process can be reversed.  If it can be reversed.