Here’s an HBD blogger at Harvard Law, good stuff so far.
Here’s a Moldbuggian analysis of Juggalos.
Bruce Charlton on anti-slavery.
Tribalism is interested in you. "It is patently unreasonable to expect that a group that has a significant—even, say a 1/2 sigma—disadvantage in a major metric of success in your country will not seek to use the political process to overturn said disadvantage." This is – after all – the whole point of democracy.
Mr. Roach on government and marriage: "Government involvement in marriage is more like government’s involvement in property and less like, say, drug laws." I’m not sure I agree with this argument, but it’s worth reading in full.
Isegoria digs up more on dysgenics.
Jim thinks we need a dictator.
Kalim Kassam links to this helpful Wikipedia page on Soviet spies.
Diversity is not peace.
Here are three sentences from Matthew Yglesias, see if you can spot the contradiction:
The only crime she’s committed [i.e. illegally immigrating to the US] occurred when she was 12, happened at the behest of her parents, and had no discernible victims. And she’s been educated at taxpayer expense.
The spies for the USSR – there seems to be a lack of ghetto names. Didn’t people believe in diversity back then?
Yglesias is exhibit A in immigration being a theological issue for liberals now.
Thanks for the mention. New post with shocking statistics (at least to me) just up:
http://harvardlawcaveman.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/how-did-the-other-381-black-attendees-at-the-conference-do-in-law-school
“educated at taxpayer expense” vs. “no discernable victims”, or just plain old “immigrating to the US” vs. “no discernable victims”?