Friday, May 28, 2010

My First Banning!

I got banned from a political website for the first time thanks to my political views as posted here on this blog. The blog in question, Alas, a Blog, belongs to the cartoonist Barry Deutsch aka Ampersand, the fine gentleman pictured below. It's the typical liberal blog, albeit much more radically feminist, ironic since Barry is apparently a man.

It started on a thread regarding libertarianism and gay marriage, which I responded:

The problem with Rand Paul is that he is not very good at explaining his views, which is lethal to any libertarian politician. Also, he tries to pander to everyone.

If you want to read a coherent libertarian view of same-sex marriage, I would suggest reading this article by Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

Another poster on the blog responded with:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?


However, the "omg ur a racist" comments soon started coming at me. A pleasant fellow named joe wrote:

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

Try as a ‘good’ representation of libertarianism.

At least he plugged Radley Balko. Then a gentleman named Chris responded:

I would agree with Joe. Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities. The first kind of libertarian can be debated against, the second kind is only worthy or scorn and mockery.

To which I replied:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

Perhaps. I’m far more politically incorrect than most libertarians. Also, I’m not a corporation-worshiper like the Beltway libertarians, since I recognize that most corporate power comes from government-granted privileges, pro-corporate laws (i.e. DMCA), and corporate welfare.

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

I’m hold views that most would consider to be “sexist,” yes, but that’s not the same as misogyny.

Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities.

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

Also, I’ve been a libertarian for several years and I did adopt my opposition to civil rights laws because they infringed on property rights. My views on race didn’t evolve until much a few years later.

Chris responded, complete with a request for my banning. Liberals realize they can't win against HBDers - the statistical evidence is just too strongly against them - so they seek to silence us"

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

TAS, some of the post titles on your blog are “Screw Single Mothers,” “Obama Nominates Jewish Dyke to Supreme Court,” and “Blacks Ruin Everything.”

That is called hate.

This bigot should not even be allowed to post here.

I cordially invited him to comment on my blog if he felt offended:
If you have a problem with something I wrote on my blog, then feel free to comment on the relevant posts there. I have a very open moderation policy - the only comments I generally delete are spam.
He declined and decided to stop talking to me. Liberals are basically overgrown children. Also, he claims to have commented on my blog. I think he's Souza, the bastard son of a single mom, who enjoys calling me a racistsexistclassisthomophobe on various posts of mine. Both Chris and Souza seem to have very similar political positions, are quick to anger, and are highly childish.

I have commented on your blog, TAS. I find engaging with you a fruitless exercise, so this will be the last time I respond to you directly.

Then mythago joined in:

Rand Paul’s website says that he has been married for 19 years. If he believes government should be out of marriage, why didn’t he and his “loving wife” go for private contracts rather than state-sponsored marriage? Or, if that were not possible 19 years ago, why don’t they now legally divorce and use private contracts to arrange their affairs?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course.

TAS, “politically incorrect” is the PC, euphemistic term for what, in pre-PC days, used to be called “loudmouthed bigot”. I don’t understand the current fashion for tiptoeing around calling something what it really is.

Finally, the big man (in multiple ways) himself, Ampersand joined in, issuing his banning edict

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

Notice how he doesn't even bother to respond to anything I posted on my blog or commented on his. He saw my HBD/racialist views and decided not to talk to me. Liberals fear people who recognize racial and gender differences. They realize that no amount of social engineering and brainwashing can change the fact that blacks and whites are not equal and that men and women are different. Thus they to avoid conversations about such topics entirely and silence those who believe that racial and gender differences exist.

The irony is that I wasn't even disagreeing with anything in the original post. I didn't attack gay marriage, I in fact criticized Rand Paul's flip-floppy, pandering view on the subject.

I posted a response to Ampersand, though I doubt it will make it through moderation which was deleted from the moderation queue:

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

I figured this would happen. Liberals generally do not like debating people who understand human biodiversity.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

No problem, although it’s worth noting that I allow pretty much anyone to comment on my blog, including feminists, socialists, and other leftists.

If any liberals from Alas are reading this, I'd like to reiterate once again that unlike Barry, I do not fear people who hold different political opinions. I do not ban people or delete comments unless they are spam. It doesn't matter if you are a libertarian, neocon, Christian conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, anarchist, or Black nationalist; I welcome people who wish to debate or argue with my about my posts.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Liberal Free-dumb

In the Bush II years, liberals often claimed to be defenders of the Constitution and supporters of freedom and liberty. Their actions during the Obama era have shown that they don't care about the Constitution, just certain parts of its penumbras.

In fact, liberal freedom (which I refer to as "free-dumb") is generally limited to the following freedoms, some of which conflict with others' rights to life and property:

1. The freedom to get an abortion and access to contraception (with taxpayer funding!).
2. The freedom to have anal sex.
3. The freedom to tresspass (see anti-discrimination laws).
4. The freedom to enter this county illegally.
5. The freedom to commit crimes more easily.
6. The freedom to use drugs (except nicotine).

Essentially, the only freedoms liberalism supports are those that attack the established, and now collapsing, social order.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Net Neutrality: A Noxious Combination of Liberal Ignorance and Radical Egalitarianism

About once a week, Alternet, Mother Jones, Feministing, and other major liberal websites publish an article or blog post promoting "net neutrality." The idea behind net neutrality is that it is unfair for Internet service providers to treat different uses for Internet access differently. This seemingly-benign concept has pushed by liberals for close to five years.

With net neutrality, liberals take egalitarianism to an extreme. Now, not only are all human beings equal, but all forms of Internet data transfer are as well. Advocates for net neutrality are ignorant of one of the modern principles of electronic communications: quality of service (QoS). This is essentially an idea that acknowledges that the various means of Internet communication have different needs and resources should be allocated accordingly.

There are several components to QoS, with these being among the most common:

Bandwidth: Essentially how much data and how fast it can be sent, often measured in bits per second (bps) or bytes per second (Bps; equal to bps/8).

Jitter: Over the Internet, large chunks of data are broken up into smaller blocks of data called packets and sent. Sometimes packets may arrive out of order, this is called jitter.

How long it takes for a packet to be delivered.

Reliability/Loss: How many packets are lost during transit.

Different applications have different QoS requirements. E-mail deals with relatively small amounts of data, so it does not need much bandwidth. But if a frame is lost, then part of the message is gone so it must be very reliable. Voice over IP needs more bandwidth than e-mail, but if a few packets are lost, it does not prevent the receivers from understanding what is being said, so its reliability requirement is low. Anything involving video would need more bandwidth than audio, and much more than e-mail. However, real-time communication such as video and audio would require low delay, as if it takes packets too long to reach their destination, it leads to lag and words might be difficult or impossible to understand. But when it comes to e-mail, a high delay is acceptable because if it takes an e-mail a few extra seconds to be delivered, it usually does not matter.

But according to liberals, this just isn't fair! Just as we have to pretend that blacks and whites commit the same amount of crime, we have to pretend like the 14-year old boy Torrenting porn and pirated games is entitled to the same amount of bandwidth as a corporate executive using VoIP. Network resources are not unlimited. Private companies who operate networks must efficiently manage all of the requests for their resources. If that means a Torrenter has to wait an extra half hour before he gets his pirated game so someone using VoIP can carry on an intelligible conversation, then so be it. If they have a problem with current networking principles, they should start their own telecommunications company with an entirely QoS-free network and see how many days it lasts before going bankrupt.

Naturally, most of the liberals who discuss net neutrality know absolutely nothing about computer networking. See, liberals love to think that they are experts in everything, which is why we get to read articles by sociology majors who don't know the difference between packet- and circuit-switching explaining why it's necessary to treat every packet the same.

Liberals do not understand scarcity. They think that everything is free. If they need money for a social program, they just tax the "wealthy" and don't think any further. They want to move from coal and nuclear power plants to solar power, because they view it as "free" (though I doubt any of the liberal arts graduates who call for the government to spend gigadollars on "green energy" could even describe how the photoelectric effect works). Likewise, when it comes to bandwidth, they don't understand that bandwidth is limited.

Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore the constraints of reality. Net neutrality is just another example of this.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Spot the Difference, Part 2

American woman, 1910s:

Balinese woman, 1910s:

American women, 2000s:

Balinese women, 2000s:

I find it ironic that when Westerners colonized tropical and subtropical parts of the world in the 1700-1900s and encountered women sensibly dressed topless due to the climate, they forced the women to put on tops and those women's descendants dress modestly now even after the end of colonialism, while modern Western women have no idea what the word "modesty" means.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Repost: Anti-Unionism

I'm too tired to write much tonight, so I've decided to repost something that I posted several months ago when I first started the blog (and had fewer readers).

Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.

As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).

Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).

The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.

However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.

Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.

Originally posted here on February 10.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Flip-Flops and Young Women's Inability to Dress Nicely

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I attended a graduation at a large university last Sunday. Aside from the male women's study major, another thing that surprised me was how many female graduates were wearing flip-flops with their cap and gown.

I'm accustomed to seeing people, especially women, dressing shoddily to events that only a decade ago required a certain formality in dress, but it's pretty ridiculous that women are wearing Asian peasant footwear to such events. Even after a decade of business casual, men (including young men) are still capable of dressing somewhat nicely when the situation requires - I saw plenty of male graduates in ties and most were wearing at least button-down shirts, slacks, and dress shoes - yet young women do not seem to be capable of doing so.

I guess that there are two reasons behind this: the first is the "decline of the matriarch" that Welmer of The Spearhead has written about. The second is that in this era of pussywhipped men, feminism, "strong and independent women," and sexual harassment laws, men are afraid of criticizing women's appearances - including how they dress for events that should require formality from them - for fear of being attacked by a feminist harpy mob.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Rand Paul Surrenders

I had never completely liked Rand Paul. The fact that he advertised himself to libertarians while at the same time holding certain neocon views such as keeping Gitmo open suggested to me that he was a panderer. However, a couple days ago when I heard about his criticism, albeit mild, of the Civil Rights Act and his defense of private property, I changed my mind. Despite his flaws, very few public figures have the courage to criticize the Civil Rights Act.

Now I have to change my opinion of Rand Paul yet again. Instead of defending his views, he is now saying he does not support repealing the Civil Rights Act. Not only that, but he now claims to support using the federal government to force desegregation:
There was a need for federal intervention to say that you can't have segregation, that we shouldn't be doing that.

He should have held his ground. Yes, if he did not support the Freedom of Association Destruction Act, he would have been attacked mercilessly by liberals. But he's a libertarian who wants to abolish most of the imperial government: liberals will attack him mercilessly anyways. Likewise, he has no need to pander to blacks. No matter how much he grovels before them, they won't vote for a libertarian Republican who wants to take away their free stuff.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Sword and Sandal at the White House

This is the dress that Michelle Obama wore to a yesterday's state dinner with Felipe Calderon. Larry Auster wrote about it here - be sure to read all of the comments, they are amusing.

From the dress' "fabric" (I put fabric in quotes because it looks like it's made out of plastic), the single strap (the dress probably would have looked less ugly with no straps), its sword and sandal B-movie look, and her black ghetto bitch scowl, to the fact that her cleavage appears to start at her collarbone, her entire appearance is repulsive.

I don't have a problem with women wearing cleavage-revealing dresses to formal events. Women have been wearing cleavage- or bosom-baring dresses for centuries, but in the past, they looked nice while doing so. Modern American women seem to be incapable of making such a dress look elegant, a word which few American women seem to know the meaning of. Younger women end up looking like sluts and middle-aged women end up looking ridiculous. Michelle Obama looks like the Nubian Queen in a direct-to-DVD sequel to Clash of the Titans.

Since the elite loves Michelle Obama, more women will probably attempt to copy her "fashion."

Blood Alcohol Content Limits and Gender Discrimination

It takes women fewer alcoholic drinks to get drunk than it does men. This is because of a number of reasons, such as the fact that the average woman weighs less than the average man and the fact that women have more body fat than men.

I'm surprised that the ACLU or other feminist litigators have not sued to have DUI laws struck down under the 14th Amendment. Since DUI laws prohibit driving while having a blood alcohol content above a certain level and it takes women fewer drinks to reach that level, the government is discriminating against women by requiring them to drink fewer alcoholic drinks than men in order to be able to drive without (possibly) being arrested.

Sure, the idea that BAC limits constitute gender discrimination may sound ludicrous. But consider that the branches of the United States military have more lenient physical standards for women than men. In similar fields, such as police, firefighting, and corrections departments, height standards have been eliminated due to their discriminatory nature. In many cases, especially police departments, physical standards have been made "gender neutral" - meaning in order to allow for an acceptable number of women to pass their physical tests without resorting to different physical standards by gender, the tests have been made so easy that any man in better shape than a WoW player is capable of passing.

Now, I am not a true believer in the typical conservative mantras that the military "protects our freedom" and the police are always looking out for us, but physical performance is essential to jobs in such organizations, those organizations are a necessary part of any safe and functional society, and watering down standards for women in such organizations is dangerous. If it is okay for the military to hold women to lesser physical standards and for police to water down their tests in the name of Equality, then surely it would be okay for states to allow women to drive with a higher blood alcohol content then men so they can have the same number of beers as men, because it is clear that Equality trumps society's safety.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Video Games and Intelligence

It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between intelligence and preferences for certain video game genres, as well as between intelligence and preference for console vs. computer gaming.

It would make sense that on average, computer gamers are more intelligent than console gamers. Being a PC gamer requires knowledge of video cards, RAM, hard disks, and computer maintenence, plus an intermediate or higher level of experience with computers. Console gamers just need to plug an audio/video cable into their TV, a power cable into an outlet, and press the power button. If something fails, they don't have to figure out which component of their computer is malfunctioning, they just call the Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony tech support number.

As for genres and intelligence, my guess is that first-person shooters, sports games, and racing games would tend to attract people with lower IQs. Strategy games and role-playing games seem to attract smarter players. You don't find very many blacks or low-class whites playing World of Warcraft, for example, but instead it is played by hordes of intelligent whites and Asians.

I've been looking for detailed statistics regarding video game player demographics, but most of the studies I've found do not say much about race, just age and gender (usually with the intent of promoting the female gamer myth, something I will address in a future post), and I haven't been able to find anything on the demographics of players by genre.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Wherein I Lay Bare My Prejudices

Whenever a liberal discovers this blog, they inevitably leave a comment calling me a racist, sexist, etc. and whenever I comment about HBD on non-HBD blogs, the same happens. I have found that being called a racist, sexist, etc. does not bother me, because I basically am a racist, sexist, etc.

I decided that, unlike most people who hold such views, I would openly admit to being a racist, sexist, etc. and would openly write about the prejudicial views I have towards certain ethnic, racial, sexual, and social groups.

Blacks: I've written my thoughts about blacks many times before. I freely admit that I hold racist views with regards to them and rarely associate with them. The fact is, blacks commit crime at very disproportionate rates, possess an average IQ of 85, speak proper English worse than most Mexican immigrants, have turned spawning bastards into a form of art, have a culture that would make Idiocracy look like ancient Athens, and are basically a drain on America. And thanks to the liberal elites, black culture and its vices have been enthusiastically accepted by self-hating, young white lemmings.

Women: I admit I hold some sexist and maybe even misogynistic views. I detest feminism and the prominent role it has played in the destruction of America. I dislike young American women - and foreign women who have assimilated into American culture - since they are sluts. Does anyone even bother to disagree about that point anymore? Even young "conservative" women are slutty.

Mexicans: I have a more positive view of Mexicans than I do blacks. I've worked with and managed both and if I had the choice of eight blacks or four Mexicans, I would go with the Mexicans. They are indeed hard-working, but I don't want to live in an area that is mostly Mexican. Also, I like Mexican immigrants better than I do American-born Hispanics, since large portions of the younger population of the latter tend to basically be brown niggers.

White trash: I dislike them, but so does the liberal elite, whereas it celebrates equivalently trashy black culture.

Guidos: A blight on humanity.

Mudsharks: They disgust me.

East Asians: With the exception of chiggers, they are a benefit to America.

Indians (Asian): American-born ones have all the vices and virtues of white Americans. Ones actually from India tend to smell badly. If you don't believe me, go into a computer lab in an engineering building on a college campus.

Indians (American): Native Americans were savages until little more than a hundred years ago. Of course, so were my Celto-Germanic ancestors.

LGBT: Gays and bisexuals I do not have a problem with. Transsexuals are freaks and disgust me. Some lesbians are okay, but a lot of them are man-hating feminists.

Low-class people: Whenever I have the misfortune of entering a Wal-Mart, as a thought experiment I often ponder the benefits and drawbacks of various methods of rendering most of the individuals I encounter incapable of spreading their noxious genes. I am highly classist. I loathe the poor-worshipping that liberals and many conservatives possess. The fact is, despite the myth of poor people who spend all their time working just to make ends meet, most poor people are lazy, stupid, and spend their time smoking marijuana, smoking cigarettes, drinking, and engaging in dysgenics. Pretty much every self-described poor person I have ever met spends copious amounts of money on marijuana and alcohol.

Fat people: I abhor the concept of "fat acceptance." Fat women repulse me and fat men usually possess a stench.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

"Male" Women's Studies Majors

I went to a graduation today and afterward flipped through the program. I took a look at the list of women's studies graduates and I noticed that there was an individual with male first and middle names.

A man has to be very self-hating and emasculated to choose a major that involves him sitting through a number of classes in which he gets to listen to a bunch of feminists talk about how evil men are and how horrible the "patriarchy" is. Alternatively, he could have just been trying to meet and hook up with women by attending classes that are almost all female, but there are cheaper ways to do so than by spending $40,000 on a degree.

I'm actually surprised there aren't more male women's studies majors. Considering that boys are indoctrinated with feminist propaganda for 13 years, it seems like there should be more liberal men out there who possess enough self-hatred to pursue such a major.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Knowing Your Audience

Earlier today, in addition to having ads for various liberal causes and organizations, Feministing had ads for Weight Watchers. I wonder, where are the ads for adoptable cats and laser hair removal?

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Grrrl Power in Disney's Prince of Persia

Later this month, Disney is releasing the film Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, based on the similarly named adventure video game series. When I saw the trailer, I noticed that it looks as if the main female character, Princess Tamina, has been turned into an action girl. She can be seen wielding a sword and fighting with it. It's interesting to contrast her role with those of women in the Prince of Persia video games.

In the game in which the movie appears to have been based, the eponymous Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, there was a female protagonist (Farah) who followed the Prince, but she was an archer. Also, in the 2008 reboot, simply titled Prince of Persia, there was a woman (Elika) who accompanied the Prince, but she was a magic-user, not a warrior. Both of them essentially ended up as damsels in distress, though not in the traditional manner.

Evidentally, Disney decided that female archers and mages don't have enough "grrrl power" so they turned her into a warrior. I'm not really surprised, since Disney has made a habit out of making anachronistic "empowered woman" characters, such as in Pirates of the Carribean and Alice and Wonderland. And in modern film and TV, writers are not creative enough to demonstrate a woman's empowerment besides having them kill one or more men in physical combat.

Also, in the video game and its sequels, there were female villains and generic enemies - corrupted harem concubines and sorceresses, among others. Somehow, I doubt that there will be any female enemies in the film. Female enemies are ubiquitous in video games, but are nonexistent in action and adventure movies.

Remember, according to Hollywood, even though female-on-male violence is "empowering" and "kick-ass," male-on-female violence is "abusive" and "misgynistic." And in Hollywood, if one woman dies it's a tragedy (unless an Action Girl kills her), but if a dozen men die it's entertainment. Disney in particular has been promoting both of those (look at Pirates of the Carribean for plenty of examples).

On the good side, it looks as if Disney is depicting the Persians as white, unlike in other films such as Alexander where the Iranian wife of Alexander the Great was played by a mulatto and in 300 where they were a motley assortment of dark-skinned peoples.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Arizona Continues to Infuriate Liberals

In recent weeks, Arizona has allowed the carry of concealed weapons without a permit and cracked down on illegal immigrants. Now, they've banned "ethnic studies" classes. So now, Arizona taxpayers (read: white people) won't have to pay for classes in which mestizo, black, and self-hating white communists tell students about how evil white people are.

Jan Brewer also signed a law allowing the sale of certain fireworks, such as sparklers. I'm sure we will soon hear liberals whining about how "unsafe" this is because children might be able to hold sparklers.

Whenever liberals in the Left Coast or New England dislike a law that some state in Middle America passes, they inevitably attempt to have a judicial activist strike it down. I wonder how many of these new Arizona laws will end up repealed by a judge.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Screw Single Mothers

It's time for another post in which I bash a feminist who whines about the plight of "poor" single women who spawn bastard children and then expect society to pick up the tab. I found this article, "Single mothers need pathway out of poverty," via Feministing. It was published on Mother's Day by Majorie R. Sims on The Grio, a black website apparently affiliated with MSNBC.

As we celebrate mothers across the nation this week, I'm reminded of a segment of mothers who likely will face more challenges than cheers this Mother's Day.

In the U.S., the number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically over the past four decades, with nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of the 75 million children under age 18 living in a single-mother family. Race also plays a defining role in the poverty rate, with two-thirds (66 percent) of low-income African American children living in single-mother families, compared to just over a third (35 percent) of low income white children living in single-mother households. This growing number of single-mother families has a significant impact on their children.

The reason why single mother families have been increasing in number is because in the 1960s, feminists and public policy decided that fathers were optional and that one woman could provide for and raise children just as well as a father and mother. And this sure will have a significant impact on their children - they will be more likely to commit crime and have bastards of their own.

According to a recent report issued by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), children of mother-headed families are more likely to live in poverty, with 42 percent of all low-income children living in single-mother families, compared to 32 percent of children in non single-mother families. For children under the age of 8, results are even more striking, with more than three-quarters (77 percent) of young children in single-mother families falling in the poor or low-income range. In addition, children of mother-headed families are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to have health insurance.

If families led by single mothers are so awful, then instead of promoting single motherhood, the government should cut its wealth redistribution programs, thus ending the subsidies for this.

These single mothers face their own challenges, with data showing they tend to be less educated, less likely to have a job or full-time employment and considerably less likely to have a management position or professional occupation. In fact, the largest proportion of working, low-income mothers work in services, with 41 percent of low-income single mothers working in services compared to only 17 percent of higher-income single moms.

A recent report from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that single-parent families believe their economic stability, role as parents and financial providers, and sense of well-being are all negatively impacted by the challenges inherent in single parenthood. At the same time, single parents remain hopeful and express deep commitment to their families and believe in their ability to provide a strong home life and future for their children despite the obstacles.

So in other words, they knew they couldn't support a family by themselves, yet they attempted to do so anyways and are failing. Good. Perhaps if enough of them fail, they young women will realize that trying to raise a family as a single mother is a bad idea.

Ideally, we need to improve the economic conditions of families who live at 200 percent of poverty and below, or with an annual income of $44,100 or less for a family of four. To help these women-headed families establish financial economic security, there are a few components critical to success. Gender-focused strategies can work well to provide skills, careers, financial education and new models of support to create pathways out of poverty. A greater understanding of the relationship between gender and poverty and an investment in projects that take on a gender-specific focus will help us meet the needs of these families.

Why should "we" do anything? It is not "our" (read: taxpayers') job to improve the conditions of these so-called families. And understanding the relationship between gender and poverty is pretty simple: when young, uneducated single women spawn bastards, the family will probably be poor due to the expenses of taking care of children.

Secondly, connecting vulnerable families to existing services and benefits - like financial education and high-quality, affordable early learning and childcare options--can help propel them forward on the path.

Third, single mothers need career ladders and quality job opportunities. We can make this happen by connecting them with community colleges, increasing the number of quality family-supporting jobs in lower-income communities and ensuring they have access to education and training that will lead to career advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities.

In the first part of the article, Sims writes about the problems with single motherhood. Now, she writes about how "we" (read: middle and upper-class white people who pay taxes) can improve the status of these single mothers' families. If we improve the status of single mothers' families to that of two-parent families, then there will be little incentive for many women to get married, which would increase single motherhood and lead to even more of the problems Sims described earlier, particularly the propensity for single mothers' bastards to commit crime and spawn more bastards (hooray for positive feedback loops!).

Also, the fact is that many single mothers simply would not benefit from more education. The fact is, higher education, even after decades of dumbing-down, still requires an above average IQ. Single mothers tend to come from populations with low average IQs, such as blacks, mestizos, and white trash, so forcing them through school would not allow them to climb the career ladder. Not to mention the fact that the dumb sluts got pregnant while they were young and poor in the first place is evidence that they are not very smart, so it makes no sense to waste money on morons to go to school when are smart people who could use money for college (funded through private scholarships, rather than government grants, of course).

We cannot merely focus on moving women-headed families above the poverty line. Rather we should consider ways to help them transform their lives from just surviving to actually thriving, with an increase in the number of women holding quality jobs; more low-income families with bank accounts, savings and increased financial knowledge; and ultimately, significantly fewer single-mother families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Let's honor these mothers with fresh thinking, innovative models and policy decisions that will actually change the trajectory of their lives and those of their children.
In the end it is revealed: this push for helping single mothers is just another way for liberals to expand the welfare state and the reach of government. Pretty much everything liberals advocate ultimately leads to those goals.

Also this week, Melissa McEwan, the disgustingly fat feminist who runs Shakespeare's Sister in between runs to her local all-you-can-eat pizza buffet, wrote an article with a similar theme on Alternet, attacking a conservative who wrote an article attacking single-mother families in the underclass and advocating instead that the government increase social services. Kievsky at Occidental Dissent wrote a decent rebuttal.

Liberals probably really care about single mothers as much as I do (which is not at all), they just use them to expand government by replacing fathers with welfare.

Monday, May 10, 2010

More on Female Violence in the Media

Last Friday I wrote a post about the prevalence of female violence against men in the media and the double standards regarding it versus the portrayal of male violence against women. Then later in the weekend, I saw the first episode of Farscape for the very first time (yes, I realize that it came out eleven years ago). Early on, there's a scene where a human man from Earth is in a cell in an alien ship with a figure in a flight suit and helmet. The person takes off their helmet, revealing a female human face. The man goes over to talk to her and the woman apparently thinks he's a deserter or spy and proceeds to attack him by kneeing him, punching him, knocking him to the ground, and standing over him with her foot on top of him. Naturally, she suffers no consequences for her brutal assault, whereas in TV and film, any man who merely hits a woman will have something bad happen to him, usually at the hands of the woman he hit and probably involving a groin kick.

Now, if the roles were reversed, even today feminist blogs would still be ranting about this as evidence of the "prevalence" of "violence against women" in movies and TV. Instead, this kind of assault is viewed as empowering grrl power, even though the man basically did nothing wrong. Indeed, it seems to be a requirement that if a woman is to be shown as a "strong, empowered woman" she has to beat up one or more men. The only exception I can think to this trope is in Starship Troopers (the movie, not the book) when Dizzy fights a drill sergeant for the right to join his training unit... and ends up loosing (though the drill sergeant respects her and ends up accepting her into the unit).

I've noticed that a lot of this grrrl power and glamorized female-on-male violence comes from movies and TV directed at nerds, such as sci-fi, fantasy, and comic book films (such as in Iron Man 2 - discussed today by Elusive Wapiti at The Spearhead). For a while I've been thinking that Ferdinand Bardamu was correct when he called gamers and nerds manginas over at The Spearhead and that I was wrong when I defended them.

Obama Nominates "Jewish" Dyke to Supreme Court

Is anyone really surprised? The Obama administration is basically one big "Fuck you!" to the old, pre-Obama white America.

Also, I put Jewish in quotation marks because if Elena Kagan had lived during the time in which Judaism developed, the other Jews probably would have stoned her to death for being a lesbian.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Movies' Female Violence Double Standard

In modern American media, with the exception of video games (which are unsurprisingly hated by the establishment) the standard relationship between violence and gender looks something like this:

Male on male: entertaining, amusing
Male on female: abusive, sexist
Female on female: hot (especially if they are scantily clad)
Female on male: empowering, humorous

Despite the feminist whining about "violence against women" in the media, male on female violence much rarer than female on male violence in modern movies. If it is present, it is usually either used to show how evil a villain is or is used in a fight scene that the female character wins (usually unscathed). As TV Tropes notes, it is possible to discern the villain and hero in most fight scenes based on gender alone. Note that there are some exceptions to this model, such as Inglorious Bastards, but that isn't exactly an average movie.

The white knights of both the liberal mangina and chivalrous conservative variety out there will probably argue that "violence against women is always wrong" and spout out something about not hitting women and respecting them. But it's interesting to note that the people who essentially laid the foundations for our society, the ancient Greeks, did not have this taboo in their myths. Greek mythology was full of antagonistic goddesses, evil queens, and even had an entire nation of villainous women. Pretty much every Greek hero ends up fighting and killing a female villain at some point. Contrary to their portrayal in feminized popular culture, the Amazons were not heroes in Greek mythology, but were villains and several of the Greek heroes (Achilles, Heracles, and Theseus come to mind) fought them. Somehow I doubt we will see any movies involving Heracles killing Amazons and "stealing the girdle" of their queen.

Anyways, what got me thinking about this topic was watching the Iron Man 2 trailer, which towards the end shows Scarlett Johansson's character beating up a bunch of male security guards. Naturally, most members of the current generation of young men, after thirteen to seventeen years of feminist indoctrination, probably thought that scene was "badass." Somehow I doubt modern American women would consider Heracles killing Amazons to be "badass." They'd probably complain to their congresswoman.

I've noticed in the past couple months that female violence against men is common in movie trailers. Hot Tub Time Machine's trailer showed a woman slapping a man in a bar, Kick Ass's showed a young girl killing a dozen men, and Death at a Funeral's showed a black woman punching a white man. Naturally, in any cases, the reverse would never be shown in a trailer. I'm sure feminists and "family values" conservatives would unite to condemn it. They did last year over the fact that a mere 11% of the violent acts on TV are committed against women.

Also, it's worth noting that those trailers are available for viewing on MTV's website. This is the same MTV that, when a woman got punched in the face in a bar during an episode of the reality show Jersey Shore, blacked out the punch and ran a public-service announcement saying "Violence against women in any form is a crime" and giving the number to an abuse hotline.

That there is a double standard regarding to portrayal of male-on-female and female-on-male violence in movies and TV is unsurprising. We live in an era of double standards.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Neocons and Feminists Unite Against Iran

Iran was recently elected to the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, the feminist wing of the UN's bureaucracy. Rather than criticize the commission's very existence, as anyone who actually supports liberty would, female "conservatives" have joined forces with feminists to criticize the election. I try to avoid reading the blogs of female conservatives, mostly because they tend to be a bunch of hypocrites who veil their feminism in the cloak of pseudo-conservatism. Older female conservatives like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have the personalities of a wood chipper, while the younger ones act (and look) even sluttier than liberal women, while at the same time laughingly complaining about how corrupted our culture is and whining because young men won't take them out to dinner before sex.

Now, I think that Iran's treatment of women leaves a lot to be desired. The requirement that Iranian women cover their heads is abominable in my opinion, considering how beautiful Persian women are. But I also have no problem with a country that wishes to curtail the spread of feminism, which ultimately destroys the civilizations it infests. America lasted for only 190 years before feminism (and Michael King) began to destroy it. It's understandable that an ancient civilization stretching back 5000 years would seek to protect itself from feminism.

Ironically, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the feminists' own (bogus) domestic violence statistics against them by using them to show that women were "safer" in Iran than in Europe. It's amusing to see their lies come back to bite them.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Futility of Arguing Race and Intelligence With Liberals

Since liberals started making a national controversy of involving the e-mail Harvard law student Stephanie Grace wrote (which was forwarded to a black group by Yelena Shagall six months later) in which she stated their was a possibility of blacks having a lower average intelligence than whites, I've attempted to argue on various liberal websites about this topic, with no success at all. Instead, I discovered that liberals do not even want to touch this topic. On pretty much every issue from healthcare to abortion, liberals relish a debate with right-wingers. But when it comes to racial differences in intelligence, liberals' only goal is to shut their opponents up.

A lot of the comments I made arguing point that racial differences in intelligence were simply deleted from various blogs and websites. Those that were not were usually met with comments simply calling me (and others who attempted to debate the issue) a "racist." Indeed, one liberal commenter at Above the Law responded to a multi-paragrah comment I made by writing that most of what I wrote was worthy of argument due to fact it was "racist." Unlike when they discuss black crime, they don't even bother with their standard explanations for black deficiency - slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, institutionalized racism, etc. They just say that the idea of racial differences in intelligence is just so racist that it's not even worth debating.

Another common response from liberals to people who discuss race and intelligence is that if you're not a scientist, you can't say anything on race and intelligence (another liberal at Above the Law responded to my comment this way). The requirement to be a scientist to discuss science, naturally does not apply to liberals. Otherwise, we couldn't have the joy of reading journalism majors inform us of how global warming will destroy the planet if we don't give the government more power. Likewise, this does not stop sociology students who do not know the difference between circuit-switching and packet-switching from calling for "net neutrality," nor does it prevent liberal arts majors who don't know what the "broadband" in "broadband Internet" means from criticizing the recent court case limiting the FCC's regulation of broadband Internet companies.

The reason for the liberals' absolute refusal to even debate this topic is obvious: they've seen the statistics and understand that it's pretty much impossible to refute the results of pretty much every test that measures intelligence or a function of it. If they had to acknowledge that there were racial differences in intelligence, then that means egalitarianism is founded on a lie, which means their entire worldview is essentially incorrect. Thus, it's easier for them just to call their opponents racists and move on. Ignorance is bliss.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

In Defense of Stephanie Grace (Or Business As Usual in the Modern University) - UPDATED

Pictured: Stephanie Grace

Yelena Shagall has been revealed as the leak source. She appears to be a conservative or Beltway libertarian. For much more information on her, please see the end of the post.

When I first read about the Stephanie Grace controversy a few days ago, I didn't bother to write about it because there didn't seem to be any point. White people get attacked for being "racist" all the time. The only difference was that this person was a young female student rather than an older white man with a PhD. I figured that someone in the HBDer/paleocon/alt right blogosphere more eloquent than myself would write everything there is to say about it. Surprisingly, no one has, so combined with the fact that the liberal attack on Grace has taken on an enormous intensity, I figured I would give the story a shot.

Upon Googling "stephanie grace harvard," I was greeted with headlines screaming about how this young college student had sent a racist e-mail. This sounds serious. Did she advocate lynching? Did she recruit people to join the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement? Did she refer to blacks as "cockroaches" and advocate killing them all? Did she advocate the forced repatriation of blacks back to Africa?

Well, no. It turns out she broke the Commandment of Liberalism: Thou shalt not dishonor a Negro. Six months ago this Harvard law student had engaged in a conversation about race at a private dinner party. Following the party she sent an e-mail to participants clarifying her views in which she stated "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent."

Eventually, she got into a fight with a person she had sent it to, a certain Yelena Shagall, who then leaked it to the Black Affirmative Action Recipients Association Law Students Association. From there it got spread accross the Internet, apparently first to Above the Law.

Let me reiterate. A student attending a PRIVATE dinner is being crucified over a single PRIVATE e-mail she sent SIX MONTHS AGO in which she described the POSSIBILITY of racial differences in intelligence. Yet, liberal blogs responded to the e-mail with a fury matched only by that of a crowd of blacks who have just learned that KFC has just run out of chicken in the middle of the lunch rush.

The first blog I read about this story on was Feministe, where Jill Filipovic (a female attorney who writes about how evil the rich are on her blog, while at the same time posts literally thousands of pictures on her Flickr account of her travels all over the world, meaning she is either very upper-middle class or rich herself) noted that the racism was "self-evident" and proceeded to write about how law schools are basically racist themselves and they should focus more on "social justice" and "racism." Apparently, in her view universities don't waste enough hours and gigadollars to propogandize multiculturalism. It's obvious Jill has never taken a sociology, history, or English class at a modern American university.

She updated her post and laughably attempted to tackle the subject of race and intelligence. This gem is an example of her thoughts on the topic: "Intelligence, too, is impossible to separate from environment and socialization, again making it impossible for anyone to say with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no biological or genetic difference at all ever between racial and ethnic groups." Well, the fact is, even when blacks grow up away from the ghetto, they still have low IQs relative to whites of their social class. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and plenty of other studies have demonstrated this.

The next paragraph down, she claims "I take people who argue that maybe there are race-based genetic differences that determine intelligence about as seriously as I take people who argue that maybe God did create the earth in 7 days with all humans and animals in the exact same form as we find them today." HBDers will of course see the irony in that statement. Liberals claim to support evolution, but they really do not. They believe that it ended the moment the first human crossed the Sinai. They are the ones who are like creationists, not the people who believe evolution continues to this day.

Various other liberal websites picked up on the story. Gawker reported in its typical method of gossipy, contentless-writing. The harpies of Jezebel published their own smear piece. Note that neither of them bothered to refute her statement regarding the possibility of black intellectual inferiority. Maybe they did some research in order to disprove her views and they discovered that research on race and intelligence has proven her to be correct, so instead, they just smeared her as a racist. The reaction from these two websites is understandable. Jezebel and Gawker have always struck me as the type of websites frequented by people residing on the left half of the bell curve who only care about gossip and headlines rather than substance.

Eventually, the Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow, learned of it and naturally condemned it and gave the typical liberal discourse on diversity and equality, once again without actually bothering to refute anything Grace wrote. It seems to me that the dean of a major university should have better ways to spend her time than by making statements regarding private e-mails of students, but enforcing liberalism is far more important than education in modern American universities.

A couple mainstream conservative blogs covered this story, too. Ann Althouse, a law professor and antagonist of Feministe and Feministing, didn't even bother to defend her views. Instead she attacked Minow for her hypocrisy regarding the diversity of ideas, being too cowardly to actually discuss the possibility that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

Unfortunately, like James Watson and most other people who bring up the idea of HBD in public, she ended up revealing herself to be a coward by grovelling before political correctness. According to the Boston Globe, she sent the Black Law Students Association an apology containing the following: “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my e-mail. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.’’ Then Grace distanced herself from her previous comments by writing "I emphatically do not believe that African-Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive."

Despite her pathetic, sniveling apology, liberals want her to loose her clerkship with a United States Circuit Court Judge. Liberals always demand apologies from the politically incorrect, but they never end there. As the sagas of Trent Lott, Don Imus, Larry Summers, and James Watson attest, whenever liberals receive an apology from someone who offends Negroes, they then seek to destroy that person. In her original e-mail's conclusion, she asked its recipients to not "pull a Larry Summers on [her]," so it is obvious she knows how the liberal smear machine works. Instead of giving them what they wanted, she should have stood her ground and defended her views. She wouldn't have been any worse off. Maybe she even would have provoked one of those "dialogues about race" liberals are always clamoring for.

Since she won't defend her own views, I will. The fact is, Stephanie Grace was right.

It is "self-evident," as Jill of Feministe would say, that blacks are intellectually inferior to virtually every other race (save Australoids). Virtually every measurement of intelligence, from the various IQ tests, to SATs, to simple high school graduation rates has demonstrated that there is an intellectual gap between whites (and Asians) and blacks. Since the 1960s, billions of dollars have been spent to close this "achievement gap," with very little change in black performance compared to that of whites. The chasm is still gaping.

Even disregarding all of the statistics from decades of testing, historical and contemporary events demonstrate that is undeniable that any country or region inhabited primarily by blacks is a cesspool of violence, crime, poverty, corruption, and virtually every other ailment of humanity. Even when blacks inherit a prosperous land, they ruin it. Zimbabwe, the Breadbasket of Africa when it was called Rhodesia, abandoned its currency last year due to hyperinflation. South Africa developed nuclear weapons under Afrikaner rule, but now they have trouble merely keeping the power on. Detroit was a prosperous city in the 1950s, but forty years after white flight the wilderness is reclaiming much of it. If blacks were, as liberals claim, intellectually equal to whites, then they should have had no problem maintaining these white civilizations. Instead, they trashed them.

Compare Europe's black colonies with its Asian ones. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau were European-ruled for a long time. The modern cities were essentially built by the Europeans. Yet, when they were decolonized, instead of running them into the ground, the Asians who took over maintained them as modern cities. Coincidentally, East Asians have a higher average IQ than blacks (and whites, for that matter).

Additionally, its worth noting that Grace doesn't fully endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence. She just thinks that it is possible. I wonder how liberals and blacks would respond if a true believer in human biodiversity such as Richard Lynn or Jared Taylor were to speak at Harvard Law?

This whole story is utterly ridiculous. The fact that this received national attention demonstrates yet again how pathetic and delicate liberals and blacks are. A student at a private university sent one private e-mail six months ago. Big. Fucking. Deal. These liberal crybabies need to grow the fuck up and stop turning every slight against blacks into a national controversy.

I think the reason why they did so in this case has to do with the fact that it was young woman at Harvard who wrote this. Note that Feministe, Gawker, and Jezebel were basically the ones who covered the story first. All three are havens for educated, liberal feminists. And the only thing educated, liberal feminists hate more than white men are conservative women.

Regardless of the reason for the controversy, the lunacy of the modern university has been revealed once again, just as it was in 2005 with Larry Summers and again in 2009 with Henry Gates. Had Grace defended herself, we might have had a minor improvement in its situation. Instead, she struck the colors, as most whites do against blacks, granting liberals and blacks yet another victory in their war against White America.

The full text of her e-mail follows:

.. . .. I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don't think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn't mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

I also don't think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to "explain" away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me.''


I managed to find the name of the leaker via a comment on a posting of OneSTDV and confirmed it with other sources. Her name is Yelena Shagall. She is a Belarusian-born Jew from Skokie, IL.

Her Facebook page indicates she is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago (class of 2006), where she majored in political science and mathematics (winning an award in that department), and is a Harvard graduate student in the class of 2010 currently living in Cambridge, MA. Her Facebook profile pic (above) is the typical slutty picture that a lot of college girls seem to put up on Facebook, replete with pseudo-gang signs.

She is a right-leaning individual having ties to numerous conservative organizations. She has ties to various Beltway libertarian groups, too. At UIC she dabbled in Objectivism, was involved with the College Republicans (she was UIC's CR vice president in 2003), and attended Cato University in summer 2004. She had a column in the Chicago Flame through which she expressed viewpoints that were a mixture of snarky collegiate neoconservatism and economic libertarianism (the combination of viewpoints that get libertarians seen as just Republicans who like to party), including the typical female conservative criticism of feminism (where they bash feminism while reaping all of its benefits to women). She wrote at least two articles regarding race, though neither of them express support for HBD. Her libertarian views are pretty much a joke, though, as she supported the war in Iraq and when Bush won in 2004, remarked that "it's going to be OK."

At Harvard Law, she was an officer of its Federalist Society in 2008. More interesting is the fact that she worked with the Institute for Justice, a Beltway "libertarian" law firm, as a "summer clerk or intern" in 2008. She is the woman in the green suit jacket in the picture below. (As an aside, why is it that young women are incapable of dressing professionally? The men in the picture are wearing full suits, but the women are wearing short sleeved shirts and one has a skirt with bare legs. They look pretty unprofessional contrasted with the men.)

She appears to be a Zionist, having led a counter-protest at UIC against a pro-Palestinian protest.

Her e-mail address is

Yelena, welcome to the Internet.